1

City of Sedona Sustainability Commission Discussion Paper: Residential Waste Disposal and Recycling April 24, 2013 Introduction Over the past several decades, the concept of residential waste recycling has spread throughout the world. Typically managed, either directly or indirectly, by municipal level governments, recycling is practiced on every continent. It is estimated by the EPA that curbside recycling services are available to approximately half of the U.S. population in some 9,000 communities nationwide and that recycling volume has increased by some 100% in the past decade. The reasons behind such a broad adoption are numerous and range from the simple economics of containing costs associated with waste collection and landfill capacity to environmental reasons such as preservation of non-renewable resources and global warming concerns. Recycling has environmental benefits at every stage in the life cycle of a consumer product–from the raw material with which it’s made to its final method of disposal. Aside from reducing green house gas emissions, which contribute to global warming, recycling also reduces air and water pollution associated with making new products from raw materials. Recommended City Goal As noted elsewhere in this document, Sedona does not have any accurate data on existing recovery rates or recycling participation rates. Anecdotal evidence would indicate that such rates are at modest levels. Without a baseline to use as a starting point, it is difficult to recommend a specific goal. However, in studying the various trash hauling models, it is clear that the multi stream MRF approach is far superior to either dirty MRF or single stream MRF (see overview of trash hauling models below). It is clear that the city can achieve a recovery rate in the 98% range, which would be best in class among Arizona cities. In light of both the city’s stated commitment to sustainability and the evident public support for this issue, it would be appropriate for the city to implement a recycling alternative that will produce the highest recovery rate of recycled materials (See Alternative 7). Scope of Report This report is focused on the issue of single-family residential waste disposal. We have not addressed commercial and multi-family buildings. Nor have we addressed any of the

2

following issues other than referencing them as possible inclusions in various alternatives:

- Bulk waste such as mattresses, furniture, etc. - Yard waste and other compostable materials - Hazardous waste - The need for a local transfer station - The disposal of dried solids produced at the City waste water treatment plant

Each of these topics is worthy of attention and should be considered as future work program items once the issue of residential recycling has been addressed. Sedona Commitment to sustainability For a number of years, the City has adopted a vision statement that, in part, reads as follows: “To be a city that lives up to the challenge of proper stewardship of one of the earth's great treasures.” In support of that vision, the City Council created a Sustainability Commission and provided the Commission with the following Mission Statement: “The Sustainability Commission shall advise the City Council regarding policies, programs, regulations and strategies that will increase public awareness, knowledge and action through best practices in sustainability with measurable outcomes to enhance and enrich our community.” It is in the context of these commitments that the Sustainability Commission is submitting this discussion paper and recommendation on residential waste recycling. The following chart has been provided by the Community Plan Steering Committee and reflects the summation of over 750 comments provided by citizens as part of their public outreach program. Comments were classified into one or more of 15 subject areas. As can be seen from the "Dominant Themes" chart below, Sustainability was one of the top four themes that arose from the individual comments. In fact, Sustainability ranked as a virtual

3

equal to Community, Circulation and the Economy as a topic of citizen concern.

Definitions Recovery Rate Per the EPA, the sum of materials recycled and composted divided by the recycled waste generated. It refers to the volume of waste diverted from the landfill by means of waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting and is often referenced in the context of the method of waste collection and disposal. Recycling Rate The percentage of residents participating in a recycling program as compared to those not participating i.e. those paying for a service or utilizing a free drop off site. Recycled Waste Discarded products and packaging materials recovered for use in new products.

4

Overview of trash hauling models There are three types of recycling centers, known as material recovery facilities (MRF): Dirty MRF, Single-stream MRF, and Dual- or Multi-stream MRF. The method of disposal of waste typically defines the business model of the haulers. It should be noted that the issue of materials contamination is becoming a serious problem in the recycling industry. Mills that are the ultimate purchaser of recycled materials are becoming increasingly focused on purchasing clean materials and rejecting contaminated bales. Compounding this problem is the fact that, approximately 25% of recycled materials are sold to China, which adds additional pressure to provide clean materials prior to shipment abroad. Dirty MRF A Dirty MRF accepts trash and recyclables mixed together in one can. Recyclables are then sorted out of the trash both manually and mechanically. A Dirty MRF may be able to recover more recyclables from the waste stream than if it is left to the public to sort their own recycling, but the recovered materials are often heavily contaminated and cannot be recycled. Those that can be recycled often become items of lower quality. There are very few Dirty MRF plants in the U.S., so national data on actual recovery rates is not yet available. However, some reports indicate that recovery rates of recyclable materials are in the 20-30% range. Single-stream MRF A Single-stream MRF accepts all types of recyclables together in one container. Recyclables are sorted in a similar manner to a Dirty MRF, with both machines and people separating recyclable materials. Single-stream facilities are often very expensive to start and operate because of the high-tech equipment that is typically used in the sorting process. Recovery rates of recyclable materials are typically in the 70-75% range. Adoption of single-stream curbside recycling collection generally increases recycling participation and the amount of recyclable materials collected, but this does not necessarily translate to more material actually being recycled. A study conducted in Minnesota in 2002 found that single-stream MRFs loses an average of 27.2% of recyclables due to contamination. Compared to Dual- and Multi-stream MRFs, Single-stream MRFs showed a net decrease of 12.2% in overall tons recycled, even though they collected 20.8% more tons of recyclables at the curb. Dual-stream MRF A Dual-stream MRF collects recyclables in two “streams:” paper/cardboard and everything else. The separation of paper products from other materials helps keep paper dry and clean and prevents contamination by broken glass. Dual-stream MRFs lose an average of 11% of collected recyclables to contamination and, hence have a recovery rate of around 89%.

5

Multi-stream MRF A Multi-stream MRF collects recyclables in multiple “streams:” paper, cardboard, glass, and plastics/metals. Multi-stream MRFs have the highest recovery rates due to low levels of contamination. On average, only 1.6% of recyclables collected using multi-stream methods are lost to contamination and, therefore, have a recovery rate of around 98% of recyclable materials. Current residential waste hauling and disposal practices in Arizona As part of the due diligence undertaken in support of this report, the Commission contacted some twenty-two cities throughout the state (See appendix 2). The cities contacted ranged from the largest state cities such as Phoenix and Tucson through middle sized cities such as Flagstaff, Chandler and Sierra Vista to smaller communities such as Clarkdale, Cottonwood and Bisbee. Of this survey, fourteen (64%) had city mandated residential curbside recycling, either directly provided by a city department or by a city contracted service provider. An additional three communities provided waste hauling services where recycling was either an optional service or available at city provided drop-off sites. Looking at regional cities, Prescott and Flagstaff provide a city run service with curbside recycling on a weekly basis. Clarkdale has taken the route of contracting a citywide franchise to a private company that incorporates recycling into weekly trash pickup. While the survey, of practical necessity did not contact every Arizona community, the results indicate that the substantial majority of communities (64% mandated v. 36% no mandate) have adopted mandatory residential waste recycling. Current residential waste practices and information for Sedona The city of Sedona currently does not have policies or ordinances relating to residential waste recycling. Rather, each individual homeowner or homeowners association contracts directly with private haulers for the provision of waste hauling services. This practice has led to the following:

- Citizens have not been the beneficiaries of large-scale purchasing power. - It appears that the city has a low recycling participation rate. - Multiple haulers often servicing only a few houses on any given street utilize

residential streets. This has led to: o Excess wear and tear on city streets o Noise generated by multiple trucks o Substantial inefficiency in waste collection. o Redundancy in fossil fuel consumed and resultant pollution and

greenhouse gases produced by waste haulers within City.

6

Recovery rates in Sedona Because Sedona has never managed the waste hauling business, there are no reliable statistics on the volumes of waste collected or the volumes of materials recycled. This prevents the City from using existing data as a benchmark against which future performance could be measured. In spite of this, the Commission has tried to collect some information that might provide a bit of insight. Last fall, information was collected on seventeen area homeowner associations with regard to their waste hauling practices. Given that HOA’s often have professional management and the ability to effectively cost manage this service, it was surprising that only 29% of the surveyed HOA’s provided curbside recycling to their residents. Only one of the haulers who provide optional single stream recycling service to Sedona residents was willing to provide any information on customer utilization of this service. That company indicated that approximately only 5% of their Cottonwood customers purchase the optional recycling service. It is unclear how applicable this statistic is to Sedona. INSERT HAULER STATISTICS ON USE OF OPTIONAL RECYCLING SERVICE. The waste hauling industry in Sedona Several private companies provide waste hauling or recycling services in Sedona. As noted below, the companies typically are either national or regional in nature. It should be noted that the hauling industry provides no tax revenue to Sedona and it appears to provide little employment for Sedona residents. Sedona Recycles does not provide hauling services but provides employment at its Sedona location. North American Waste Systems Headquarters – Rimrock Regional office serving Verde Valley – Rimrock Recycling location – N/A Hauling model – Trash collection only Patriot Disposal Headquarters – Prescott Valley Office serving Verde Valley – Prescott Valley Recycling location – Prescott Valley Hauling model – Dirty collection Sedona Recycles Headquarters – Sedona Office serving Verde Valley - Sedona Recycling location – Sedona

7

Hauling Model – Multi stream collection at drop off locations and processing facility Taylor Waste Headquarters – Cottonwood Regional Office serving Verde Valley – Cottonwood Recycling location – Verde Earthworks Hauling model – Single stream collection (excludes glass) Waste Management Headquarters – Houston Office serving Verde Valley– Phoenix Recycling location – Surprise Hauling model – Single stream collection (excludes glass, scrap metal, non-beverage aluminum cans, plastic grades 1-7 that are not jug or bottle shaped) Verde Earthworks (No longer provide residential services) Headquarters – Rimrock Regional office serving Verde Valley – Rimrock Recycling location – Rimrock Hauling model – Have sold their residential recycling service to Taylor Waste and they only provide commercial services Residential waste hauling fees in Sedona Over the past winter, residential rate information for each of the following haulers was obtained. Based on use of a typical 95-gallon trash container, monthly rates range from $16.00 to $32.38, which typically excludes recycling. Fees associated with recycling vary widely. Single-stream haulers charge an additional fee of from $5.30 – $8.00 per month, while the Dirty MRF hauler incorporates recycling into their standard hauling fee. Appendix #2 provides a list of cities throughout Arizona that have a residential recycling requirement. Monthly fees vary widely with a low of Prescott at $14.50 and a high of Mesa at $23.34. Other regional cites include Clarkdale at $18.75, Flagstaff at $16.89 and Show Low at $16.50. Trash Hauler Amount per Month Northern Arizona Waste Systems:

- 95 gallon $16.00 + no fuel surcharge,

8

- 65 gallon Could arrange, for a price of $15.00

This company provides trash hauling services only and does not offer recycling. Patriot Disposal:

- 96 gallon $16.75 + no fuel surcharge,

- 65 gallon $15.00+no fuel surcharge

This company uses a Dirty MRF system of waste collection and, hence, provides a curbside recycling service to all residential customers.

Taylor Waste: - 95 gallon $17.00 (+ 7% fuel surcharge of $1.19) for

total of $18.19, excluding recycling. Single-stream recycling service is offered at an additional charge of $8.00, for a

total monthly charge of $26.19.

- 65 gallon $15.00 (+ 7% fuel surcharge of $1.05) for a total of $16.05, excluding recycling. Single-stream recycling service is offered at an additional charge of $8.00, for a total monthly charge of $23.00.

Sedona Recycles: - Operates primarily as a drop off facility for recycled materials. They have a central facility and a number of regionally located drop off sites. They currently do not offer curbside pick up service. However, as per the discussion in Alternative #7, they have submitted a conceptual plan for the city’s consideration.

Waste Management:

- 96 gallon only (in Sedona) $23.50 (additional fuel, environmental and administration fees approx. $8.78) for a total of $32.28, excluding recycling. Single-stream recycling service is offered at an additional charge of approx. $5.30, for a total monthly charge of $37.58. No 65-gallon container is offered in Sedona.

Does recycling pay for itself? Someday it may be free, but right now recycling only mitigates waste hauling and disposal expenses. As can be seen from the fee analysis, haulers charge for the service. The actual recyclables revenues are only a portion of a hauler’s total budget and expenses. To collect recyclables haulers must still purchase trucks and carts/bins, staff the trucks to collect the materials, purchase fuel, provide maintenance, etc. These costs are nearly the same for recycling as for trash. However recycling, unlike trash, once collected can be sold as a commodity, and haulers must pay to dispose of trash in a landfill.

9

Discussion of Alternatives

Residential waste hauling and recycling alternatives During the course of its investigations, the Sustainability Commission identified a series of alternatives for consideration. The following provides a discussion for each alternative. Each discussion is not intended to be completely detailed but rather is intended to provide an understanding sufficient to allow the Council to decide on a path of action. It should be noted that, while some alternatives provide for a recycling service to be provided to all residents, we are not recommending any penalties to residents for non-participation. Some cities such as New York and Seattle have elected to levy various non-compliance fees to residents who do not participate. The Commission feels that this is counter productive and not in keeping with the spirit of Sedona. Summary of Alternatives

A) Little or no city involvement in waste hauling and disposal: • Alternative #1 – Maintain existing service model • Alternative #2 – Maintain existing service model but add recycling

education B) City to set hauling and recycling standards only: • Alternative #3 – Mandate that haulers provide recycling service • Alternative #4 – Mandate that haulers provide Pay As You Throw C) City to provide service directly – Alternative #5 D) City to control hauling and recycling via franchise system:

• Alternative #6 – City managed franchise system • Alternative #7 – City managed franchise system with separate contracts

for trash hauling and recycling

Alternative 1: Maintain existing service model by taking no action By taking no action, the city will maintain the existing model of residential service. Individual residents will continue to act independently to contract waste hauling and recycling services. Impact:

• In un-gated neighborhoods, at least 3 redundant waste-hauler trucks continue to ply the community streets.

• No change to neighborhood noise. • No change to carbon fuel use and resulting air pollution. • No change to wear and tear on city streets.

10

• Because most existing curbside recycling is either single-stream MRF or dirty MRF, recovery rates will continue to be far below reasonably achievable levels.

• No increase in recycling rate contemplated.

Sustainability Commission Recommendation - Does not recommend - No positive impact

Alternative 2: Maintain existing service model but encourage recycling by way of educational outreach The idea here is to educate the public as to the benefits of recycling by means of publicly funded outreach programs. In theory, such programs would increase recycling rates by providing residents the information necessary for them to make informed decisions. In reality, such a program would likely have little impact. Recycling has been widely discussed and implemented throughout the world for decades. It would be reasonable to assume that few residents are unaware of the idea. In addition, most cities are not skilled in marketing concepts and such a program would require a significant and persistent commitment with the likelihood of little payback.

Impact: • In un-gated neighborhoods, at least 3 redundant waste-hauler trucks continue

to ply the community streets. • No change to neighborhood noise. • No change to carbon fuel use and resulting air pollution. • No change to wear and tear on city streets. • Because most existing curbside recycling is either single-stream MRF or dirty

MRF, recovery rates will continue to be far below reasonably achievable levels.

• At best, a nominal improvement in recycling rate would be achieved but at a material cost to the city in both money and staff/volunteer resources.

Sustainability Commission Recommendation

- Does not recommend - Very little determinable positive impact

Alternative 3: Mandate that haulers provide recycling services either on a required or optional basis

Because all the haulers, except one, currently provide recycling as a service option, the optional requirement would have no practical impact on recycling rates.

11

Requiring that haulers provide recycling incorporated into every residential contract is an option that would significantly increase recycling. Under this alternative, the existing optional service would simply be made mandatory. There are a number of considerations:

- It is likely that many residential costs would rise by the amount of currently optional fees i.e. $5.30-8.00 per month for single stream haulers.

- Residents would not benefit from any bulk purchasing strength. - Overall recovery rates would depend on whether residents chose a dirty MRF or

single stream MRF provider, both of which are lower than multi stream alternatives.

One variation on this concept would require haulers to provide the city with waste and collection and recycling statistics. While this would firm up our understanding of actual waste data, it would not impact recycling rates. Another variation on this approach would be to mandate that haulers utilize trucks that pick up both regular trash and recycled materials. It is our understanding that in the cities of Everett and Bellevue in Washington State private haulers provide trash and recycling services. These haulers have trucks that pick up both materials at the same time but have segregated sections within the truck that keep the materials separate. Because our existing haulers already have trucks it is likely that such an approach would have to be implemented over time as the trucks are replaced. Impact:

• In un-gated neighborhoods, at least three redundant waste-hauler trucks continue to ply the community streets.

• Increase in neighborhood noise and traffic as more residents use optional recycling service that may be provided by separate trucks..

• Increase in carbon fuel use and resulting air pollution. • Increase in wear and tear on city streets. • Because most existing curbside recycling is either single-stream MRF or dirty

MRF, recovery rates will continue to be far below reasonably achievable levels.

Sustainability Commission Recommendation

- Does not recommend because residents still will not have bulk purchasing power and recovery rates would likely be below achievable levels.

12

Alternative 4: “Pay As You Throw” Program

These programs typically require a municipal authority to institute two mandates:

1. Mandate that waste haulers offer all customers an option of waste can size for non-recyclable trash (typically, 32 gallon, 64 gallon and 96 gallon). Service pricing is required to vary based on the size of container (amount of waste), thus – “Pay As You Throw”.

2. Mandate the inclusion of curbside recycling at no additional invoice cost in all residential waste collection. The cost of the recycle mandate is included in the basic rate charge.

The intent of such a program is to use market-pricing incentives to encourage residents to minimize their standard waste and increase their recyclables, by self-lowering cost and obtaining increased convenience of built-in curbside recycling. (See Appendix #1 for a more detailed description of this plan). Communities have been implementing Pay As You Throw (PAYT) trash rate incentive programs in earnest since the late 1980s – as of today, they are in place in more than 7,000 communities. The programs can provide a cost-effective method of reducing landfill disposal, increasing recycling, and improving equity, among other effects. It should be noted that under these programs, individual property owners maintain the right and obligation to contract independently with waste-haulers. This freedom of choice, together with the ability to control costs by way of reduced can size (i.e. reduced waste stream) are key benefits of the PAYT program. Initially, the Sustainability Commission focused a significant amount of research and enthusiasm for such a program. The “Ecoconservation Institute” significantly assisted us by providing background data. Ecoconservation Institute is a consulting firm engaged by the EPA to provide free support services to cities considering waste reduction and recycling programs. Sedona city staff, including the City Manager’s office, met with many of the waste haulers to determine preliminary reaction and perceived impacts of this plan. A brief summary is included under “Impact” below. Impact:

• In un-gated neighborhoods, at least 3 redundant waste-hauler trucks continue to ply the community streets. Possibility of increase for additional secondary recyclables pick-up.

• Increase in neighborhood noise and traffic as separate recycling trucks service residents.

• Increase in carbon fuel use and resulting air pollution. • Increase in wear and tear on city streets.

13

• Because most existing curbside recycling is either single-stream MRF or dirty MRF, recovery rates will continue to be below reasonably achievable levels.

• All current waste haulers resist such a program based upon: o Added costs associated with purchasing and stocking multiple cans. o Possible modifications to trucks required to handle different sized cans o Added costs of differentiated billing. o With mandated provision of recycling collection, it was suggested that

all residents, including those with the smallest can size would see their cost increase.

• While attempting an increase in recycling activity, it is possible that the public might react negatively to price increases, thus offsetting the positive impacts of the program.

• With a mandated curbside pick-up that the resident is universally paying for, this program could potentially divert collection from Sedona Recycles (with a 98% recovery rate of a broader range of recycled products) to a single-stream system (limited products and a recovery rate average of only 73%) or to a dirty MRF system with recovery rates in the 20-30% range. This could lower the overall recovery rate for the city.

• A moderate increase in recycling rate is likely, but extremely difficult to determine net measurable impact.

Sustainability Commission Recommendation

- After much study, does not recommend - Some positive impact, but cannot guarantee a strong positive public

acceptance. Alternative 5: City Operated Waste Management Service

As can be seen from the list of service models being used by various other cities in Arizona (see Appendix 2), a significant number of cities directly provide waste services to their citizens. Regional examples of this approach include Flagstaff and Prescott. Under such a program, the city would purchase the trucks and hire the staff to provide the service. The service would be required for all residents and the role of private haulers would be eliminated. Recycling is included as a part of the basic service, with optional extra services such as bulk pickup often available. Based on published rates provided by these cities, the costs to their citizens are competitive with other models. Flagstaff charges $16.89 for a 95 gal. weekly service while Prescott charges $14.50 for a 60 gal. container. Adoption of this approach would be a major undertaking to Sedona, with significant up-front capital outlays, staffing, management and finance/billing/collection impacts.

14

Impact:

• Single truck pick-up city-wide, followed presumably by a single-stream recyclable truck.

• General decrease to neighborhood noise. • General decrease to carbon fuel use and resulting air pollution. • General decrease to wear and tear on city streets. • Curbside recycling is presumed to be all “single-stream”, with moderate

recovery rates and no glass recovered, similar to Flagstaff and Prescott. • Contract hauling required to some “single-stream” recovery operation in a

distant location. • Diversion of recyclable products from 98% recovery at Sedona Recycles to

potentially 73% recovery does not achieve a goal of the Sustainability Commission

Sustainability Commission Recommendation:

- Without specific direction from City Council to seriously consider this alternative, the implications and cost/benefit research is so vast as to be beyond the Commission’s resources to study.

- Therefore we will not provide a recommendation. Many of the same positive impacts are achievable without direct city investment (see Alternative 7).

Alternative 6: City Managed Franchise System (including recycling service)

Under this system, the city would manage the system of waste hauling by replacing the current approach of individual residents contracting with haulers with a city managed single contract to provide service to all residential homes. A set of specifications would be developed by the City that would include frequency of collection, provision for and definition of recycling service, additional services such as bulk pick up, yard waste and hazardous materials, etc. The private hauling industry would be invited to bid and the city would award the contract. Under this approach, while the terms and service levels are set by the city, individual residents would deal directly with the service provider regarding commencement of service, resolution of service issues and monthly billing. The city would not incur responsibilities beyond contract negotiation and mangement. Under this alternative, it is recommended that Pay As You Throw be incorporated into the recycling specifications. As noted in Alternative 4 (PAYT), this would obligate the contracted hauler to offer different sized trash containers, thereby allowing residents to save on trash costs by utilizing a smaller bin and placing more material into recycling

15

bins. This alternative would not necessarily require haulers to change their business model with regard to recycling. The city could select a contractor who provides dirty MRF or single stream MRF. Currently there is no local hauler who uses a multiple stream approach. By way of reference, the following cities in Arizona utilize this approach:

- Chandler contracted a citywide franchise to a private hauler, incorporated single stream recycling into the weekly pick-up service and charges the typical residence $15.07/month.

- Clarkdale contracted with a private hauler who utilizes a Dirty MRF system and the typical residential rate is $18.75/month.

- Globe has a franchise system similar to Chandler with a residential fee of $19.75/month.

- Show Low has a franchise system similar to Chandler with a residential fee of $16.50/month.

It appears that most Arizona cities that have instituted a franchise system have decided to contract with providers who utilize a single stream MRF. This provides a recovery rate in the 70-75% range, which is significantly lower than the 98% range discussed in Alternative #7. Possible benefits of a city-managed system include the following:

- With its bulk purchasing strength, the city may be able to reduce overall citizen hauling trash rates. Such savings could offset some costs associated with a recycling service.

- Recycling rates could be dramatically increased by incorporating it into regular service

- The wear and tear on city streets and related noise and litter pollution caused by multiple haulers would be reduced.

There are many possible variations on this approach such as:

- Breaking the city into two or more zones and awarding multiple contracts - Separating trash hauling service from recycling service (See discussion below)

Impact:

• Single truck pick-up citywide, followed presumably by a recyclable truck. • General decrease to neighborhood noise. • General decrease to carbon fuel use and resulting air pollution. • General decrease to wear and tear on city streets. • Potential decrease in cost to the public. • If the city adopted a single stream recycling model (the best available from

regional haulers) then recycling rates of around 73% can be expected. In addition, significant waste products such as glass, certain metal products will not be recycled

16

Sustainability Commission Recommendation While the Commission feels that this is an attractive approach, it was rejected based on the fact that the expected recovery rate of approximately 73% is not best in class and is substantially exceeded by the business model outlined in Alternative 7.

Alternative 7: City Managed Franchise System with separate contracts for trash hauling and recycling One very interesting variation on the City Managed Franchise approach (Alternative 6) is to split waste management services into two contracts. One contract would be for the collection and disposal of general residential waste. The second contract would be for the collection and recycling of a specified list of household waste products. As part of this approach, the City will need to consider incorporating bulk pickup, yard waste and hazardous materials into any contract specifications. At one of the Commission’s regular monthly meetings, Sedona Recycles made a presentation outlining a business model that the City may wish to consider. In a nutshell, the proposed model was that the City could contract with a multi stream collector of recycled goods that would then be disposed of via a sorting facility here in Sedona. They are confident that such a program would generate a recovery rate of 98% of collected recyclable materials. The following is an outline of such a service:

- Serve all single family residences in Sedona (approximately 6,376 homes) - Weekly service on same day as regular trash collection - Each residence would be provided with two stackable polyethylene containers;

the size will be 21 and 24 Gallons, each will have a lid and wheels for ease of movement. See Appendix 4.

- Materials would be sorted by hand at the curbside to minimize contamination - All materials would be processed at their Sedona facility - Would recycle the widest range of goods: paper, cardboard, paperboard, plastics

#1-7, aluminum and steel cans, glass bottles - Cardboard is the most bulky material and residents will be expected to flatten all

boxes and either place smaller ones in the recycling bins or place larger ones beneath the bins on pickup day.

The contractor could act under a contract with the City and be responsible for:

- Purchase all necessary trucks and equipment - Hiring and management of all staff - All administrative services

17

- Sale and recycling of all collected goods - Providing all needed reports and data - Support any educational and outreach efforts to implement the new service

The City would pay the selected contractor a periodic fee for the service. There would not be a direct billing to each resident for this service. Rather, the City would obtain the revenue to cover such costs by implementing a franchise fee on the trash hauling companies. Such a franchise fee would likely be based on gross receipts generated in the City. The idea is for the City to be revenue neutral and collect a sum necessary to support the recycling contract. A preliminary estimate provided by Sedona Recycles indicates that a franchise fee in the range of $3.50 – 4.50 per month may be sufficient to cover the costs associated with this business model. This should be compared to the existing recycling services that range from $5.30 - $8.00 per month. The primary reason for supporting this approach is that the city would experience a higher recovery rate of approximately 98%. No other contractor currently serving Sedona has a recycling facility that both collects the broadest range of materials and handles them in a manner that maximizes recycling rates. The Dirty MRF approach utilized by Clarkdale appears to recycle only 20-30% of recyclable materials collected. One reason for this is contamination resulting from mixing of recycled materials with general trash. The single-stream approach utilized by other cities (and the Verde Valley’s main hauling companies) produces a rate of approximately 73%. Part of the reason for this is that they recycle a somewhat limited range of goods. Depending on the hauler, products such as glass, scrap metal, selected plastics, etc are either not accepted or disposed of in the general waste stream. Regional Comparison While no other cities in the region use exactly the system being discussed, both Flagstaff and Prescott utilize a variation.

- Flagstaff directly provides residential trash collection and contracts with Norton Environmental to provide curbside residential recycling collection. Recycling is single stream with some materials sorted in Norton’s Flagstaff facility. However, due to increasing contamination, Norton is now sending commingled bales to Recology in Phoenix for sorting at their high tech sorting facility.

- Prescott provides both trash and curbside recycling services. The recycled materials are collected single stream and are then taken to Norton’s Flagstaff for

18

processing. Fayetteville, Arkansas Example Since 2008, Fayetteville, Arkansas has operated a program that combines Pay-as-you-Throw for trash pickup and the provision of 18gal. lidded containers for recycled materials. For more details, please see Appendix 3. Under this alternative, it is recommended that Pay As You Throw be incorporated into the specifications. As noted in Alternative 4 (PAYT), this would obligate the contracted hauler to offer different sized trash containers, thereby allowing residents to save on trash costs by utilizing a smaller bin and placing more material into recycling bins. Residential Fee Consideration From a resident’s point of view, if they are purchasing a recycling service from a single-stream provider now, they are paying in the range of $5.30 to $8.00 per month. If they are using a Dirty MRF service, the recycling fee is included in the regular charge. Of course, any resident not purchasing recycling services does not pay any such fees. One matter that can’t be answered at this point is the impact of a franchise fee on residential charges. From a resident cost perspective, the question is whether the franchise fee might be offset by the City’s bulk purchasing leverage. No specific determination could be made on this point unless the City actually solicited bids. Impact

• Would produce the highest recovery rate of recycled materials • Residents would benefit from the city’s bulk purchasing power • Private sector would continue to provide service • Would reduce noise associated with multiple haulers servicing same

neighborhood • Would reduce carbon fuel use and resulting air pollution • Would decrease wear and tear on city streets

Sustainability Commission Recommendation The Commission recommends that the City adopt this business model. It will lead to best in class recovery rates of recycled materials of approximately 98%. This approach preserves the role of the private sector in providing the services but at the same time allows residents to benefit from city bulk purchasing strength and incorporation of such services as yard waste.

19

Comparison of Alternatives 6 and 7 In order to consideration of Alternatives 6 and 7, please see the following table. Description Alternative 6

(note 1) Alternative 7 (note 1)

Contract/Business Model Franchise model Yes Yes Whole city as one contract Possible No (note 2) Divide city into areas (multiple contracts) Possible Possible Combine waste and recycling in waste hauler contract Yes No City contact directly with recycling organization for recycling No Yes Waste hauler subcontracts recycling Possible (note 3) No Waste hauler pricing options Waste – as is now Possible (note 4) No Waste – pay as you throw Possible (note 4) Yes Recycling options Recycling – dirty MRF Possible (note 5) No Recycling – single stream Possible (note 5) No Recycling – multi stream Possible (note 5) Yes Note 1: The term “Yes” means that it is the only possibility. The term “No” means that it is not an option for this alternative and the term “Possible” means that it is one of multiple possible choices. Note 2: for this alternative, there would be a minimum of two city contracts: one for waste hauling and one for recycling Note 3: it would be at the option of the waste hauler(s) to either perform the recycling part of the franchise requirements by themselves, or to subcontract with a recycling organization to provide the services to meet the recycling requirements of the franchise requirements. Note 4: it is possible to continue to allow the existing pricing models in force today to continue into the future, or the city could decide to change the pricing model to move to or immediately change to a pay-as-you-throw pricing model. This would be a decision defined in the specification of the franchise model. At this time, the Sustainability Commission could recommend to limit the possibility to only the pay-as-you-throw alternative.

20

Note 5: it is possible to allow multiple recycling models to co-exist, or not. What recycling models would be allowed to exist would be defined in the Franchise specification. The Franchise specification could be defined to allow for a transition over a period of time.

21

Appendix #1 Pay As You Throw Programs

What is PAYT? Pay as you throw programs (PAYT; also called variable rates, volume-based rates, and other names) provide a different way to bill for garbage service. Instead of paying a fixed bill for unlimited collection, these systems require households to pay more if they put out more garbage – usually measured either by the can or bag of garbage. Paying by volume (like you pay for electricity, water, groceries) provides households with an incentive to recycle more and reduce disposal. There are three main types of PAYT programs:

• Full-unit pricing: Users pay for all the garbage they want collected in advance by purchasing a tag, custom bag, or selected size container.

• Partial-unit pricing: The hauler decides on a maximum number of bags or containers of garbage, with collection paid for on a fixed basis. Additional bags or containers are available for purchase should the user exceed the permitted amount.

• Variable-rate pricing: Users can choose to rent a container of varying sizes (some programs offer up to five), with the price corresponding to the amount of waste generated. See photo below.

Variable-rate pricing can model In this system, households sign up for a specific number of containers (or size of container) as their usual garbage service, and get a bill that is higher for bigger disposal volumes.

PAYT Advantages and Concerns

PAYT or variable rates programs provide a number of advantages for communities and residents:

• Equity. PAYT programs are fair: customers who use more service pay more.

22

• Economic Signal. Under PAYT, behavior now affects a bill, regardless of what disposal choices a household made. Without PAYT, avid recyclers paid the same as large disposers. PAYT provide a recurring economic signal to modify behavior, and allows small disposers to save money compared to those who use more service (and cost the system more). • Lack of Restrictions. PAYT does not restrict customer choices. Customers are not banned from putting out additional garbage; but those who want to put out more will pay more. • Efficiency. Variable-rate programs are generally inexpensive to implement. They also help prevent overuse of solid-waste services. Rather than fixed buffet-style charges, which encourage overuse of the service, volume-based rates encourage customers to use only the amount of service they need. • Waste Reduction. Unlike recycling programs alone, which only encourage recycling, PAYT reward all behaviors— recycling, composting, and source reduction—that reduce the amount of garbage thrown away. Source reduction is the cheapest waste management strategy and thus of the highest priority—and it is not directly encouraged by recycling and yard waste programs. • Flexibility. “Pay-as-you-throw” programs can be implemented in a variety of sizes and types of communities, with a broad range of collection arrangements. • Environmental Benefits. Because they encourage increased recycling and waste reduction, PAYT programs are broadly beneficial to the environment. How common are PAYT or Variable Rates Programs? According to the latest national data, PAYT is available in more than 7,100 communities. These programs have grown substantially since the 1990’s and are available to about 25% of the population, about 25% of all communities, and about 30% of the largest 100 cities in the US. PAYT programs are in place in 46 states. The states with the most PAYT programs include MN, CA, WI, WA, IA, NY, OR, VT, MI, OH, among others. PAYT programs are in communities with populations ranging from 100 to over a million. The average sizes of communities adopting PAYT can programs is 20,000, and range between 10-15,000 for sticker and tag programs, and larger for can-based programs. It should be noted that there are no true PAYT programs in Arizona. Some cities have access to different can sizes but there are no mandated rate differentials, which is a key component of the PAYT programs implemented throughout the country. For a description of PAYT programs in Colorado, please see Appendix 5: Recycle and Save Examples in Colorado. Why should communities consider implementing PAYT? Do they really reduce disposal? Econservation Institute reviewed reports and data from more than 1,000 communities around the country and analyzed it to identify the impacts of PAYT above and beyond any other recycling or yard waste program differences, demographics, and other factors. The research showed the following impacts on residential solid waste:

23

� Total waste disposal decreases by 16%-17% � Recycling rates increase by about 50%, accounting for a 5-6% decrease in waste sent to the landfill. � Diversion of yard waste reduces total waste sent to the landfill by approximately 4-5%. � Source reduction (purchasing in bulk, producing less waste) reduces total landfill waste by about 6%. Overall, we would expect a town with 100,000 tons of residential disposal to see a reduction to about 84,000 tons. Recycling tonnage would increase by about 5,500 tons, and yard waste programs would see an additional 4,500 tons. About 6,000 tons would be avoided through waste prevention, based on the study’s estimates. The research indicates that adding a PAYT program is the single most effective change a community can make to increase recycling. According to the research, PAYT increases recycling more than many other potential program design or collection changes. The basics of a possible variable rate system for the City of Sedona are displayed in figure 1.1. Figure 1.1. PAYT System Design PAYT Rate Incentives Details Description What Each hauler servicing residential accounts in the city is required by ordinance to

charge customers for trash service based upon the volume of trash disposed. The base unit of trash is 32 gallons and more trash service costs more. The ordinance does not set the trash rates, only the framework for the rates. Rates are set by each hauler to meet their revenue requirements. Additionally, EI recommends that the cost of recycling is ‘embedded’ in the trash rates for all households.

Why Modify rates so residents pay different rates for different amounts of trash service, providing a recycling and source reduction incentive.

Who Single family residents up to 4 units. Multi family residencies often operate using dumpsters and, PAYT would not apply.

Facilities issues None Equipment The City is not responsible for any additional equipment. Each hauler must determine

the best way to charge households. Some haulers may opt to use variable sized carts (those with automated collection) while other may choose to implement a bag program.

Staff Effort / Admin Staff effort is low after initial introduction. The staff must work with City council to draft and pass an ordinance. A low level of enforcement is needed to make sure that each hauler is complying with the ordinance and ensure it is a level playing field for all market actors.

24

What about impacts on costs, customer acceptance, and other changes? � Cost impacts: Based on EPA information, our consultants have advised us that participant communities report that long term system costs are reduced; and the majority of communities in state surveys report short term system costs did not increase either. In two state surveys (WI, IA), about two-thirds of the communities reported that short-term system costs were lower or stayed the same after PAYT was implemented. Only one third reported increases. In our discussions with local haulers, there was some indication that costs might rise but this appears to be at odds with experience on a national basis. Rates and Billing:

• Billing continues to be by the haulers directly to households. • IMPORTANT: The ordinance does not set the rates but instead sets a rate

structure. Rates recommended include an 80% rate differential1 for each 32-gallon unit of trash. Under this type of rate structure the rates would look something like this:

o 32 gallons = $X o 64-gallons = $X+ ($X × 80%) o 96-gallons = $X+ (($X × 80%) + ($X × 80%))

If for instance, if a hauler choose to set the base rate at $10/month for 32-gallons, 64-gallons would cost $18/month and 96-gallons would cost $26/month.

It should be noted that this structure is for illustration purposes. For example, the Colorado cities noted in Appendix 5 have developed their own pricing structures Buying habits: Reported results of customer survey research indicated 76% have purchasing decision-making affected by PAYT, and that PAYT has a demonstrable effect on waste-generation and buying habits. � Cans set out: Households put out fewer units of garbage for collection after PAYT is implemented – partly because of declines in the weight of total waste produced, and partly because cans are “stuffed” (dubbed the “Seattle Stomp”). A unit of trash is defined as a 30 gallon bag or can. Seattle (WA) cans were reduced from 3.5 30-gallon cans to 1.0 with PAYT and new programs; Hoffman Estates (IL) decreased total trash units by 58% from 3.1 stickered bags to 1.3. Many communities report reductions of 1- 1.5 30-gallon equivalents after a PAYT program is instituted. This statistic is important for setting rate levels. � Customer Satisfaction: Multiple community surveys indicate more than 90% of customers are pleased with systems after they are implemented – and they don’t want to 1 This value – 80% -- is based on statistical studies of data from hundreds of communities that balance two objectives: 1) providing a strong recycling incentive, and this value was found to provide almost the same recycling incentive to households as rates that double for double the service; and 2) backing off from very aggressive rates to recognize the fact that the largest cost in providing trash or recycling service is getting the truck to the door – arguing for flatter rates. This differential tries to provide incentives, but also help decrease the risk of not covering fixed costs of the operations.

25

return to the old system because PAYT is fairer. Aren’t there environmental benefits too? Considerable attention has been paid to this issue. One study estimated the tons of emissions reduced through PAYT programs, and then computed the dollar value of these green house gas (GHG) reductions using valuations from the environmental literature. The study estimated that these environmental benefits were worth an additional $1 to $6 per ton. An especially important point to realize is that solid waste programs can be both cheaper, and quicker to implement than other methods of achieving GHG reduction goals – even though energy and transportation receive the most attention for GHG goals. One community found that fully 40% of the first couple years of progress they had made in reaching sustainability goals had been attributed to their solid waste programs. Can PAYT work in areas with Multiple Haulers? Many communities with multiple haulers have successfully implemented PAYT. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, an EPA consultant, conducted nationwide surveys and found that more than 10% of the surveyed communities with PAYT had multiple haulers operating in the area under the program. They found that if one hauler introduces PAYT, the other haulers end up also offering the program. Haulers in the area know and bill their own customers under the can-based system– no special considerations are needed. In areas that use bag or sticker programs, customers just purchase the color of sticker or bag associated with their particular hauler. Reporting requirement for haulers At the current time, the City does not collect any information on waste or recycling. Should we proceed with a recycling program an appropriate reporting requirement will need to be implemented.

26

Appendix 2 Arizona Cities with residential recycling requirement Local Communities Clarkdale – Citywide franchise contracted to private hauler; curbside recycling incorporated into weekly pick up; $18.75/mo. Flagstaff – City supplied service; curbside recycling provided by contracted hauler (Norton); $16.89/mo. Prescott – City supplied service; curbside recycling incorporated into weekly pick up and recycled materials sent to Flagstaff for processing at Norton facility; $14.50/mo (60 Gal.) Other Communities Avondale – City supplied service; curbside recycling incorporated into weekly pick up; $20.00/mo Chandler - Citywide franchise contracted to private hauler; curbside recycling incorporated into weekly pick up; $15.07/mo. Gilbert – City supplied service; curbside recycling incorporated into weekly service; $16.00/mo. Globe - City franchise contracted to private hauler; curbside recycling incorporated into weekly pickup; $19.75/mo. Mesa – City supplied service; curbside recycling incorporated into weekly pick up; $23.34 Phoenix – City supplied service; curbside recycling incorporated into weekly pick up; $26.85/mo. Scottsdale – City supplied service; curbside recycling incorporated into weekly pick up; $16.00/mo. Show Low – City franchise contracted to private hauler; curbside recycling incorporated into weekly pickup; $16.50/mo. Sierra Vista – City supplied service; curbside recycling incorporated into weekly pick up; $18.45/mo. Tempe – City supplied service; curbside recycling incorporated into weekly pick up; $19.98/mo. Tucson – City supplied service; curbside recycling incorporated into weekly pick up; $16.75/mo.

27

Arizona Cities with no recycling requirement Local Communities Camp Verde– Waste hauling services handled by property owners contracting with private hauler Cottonwood – Waste hauling services handled by property owners contracting with private hauler Prescott Valley– Waste hauling services handled by property owners contracting with private hauler Other Communities Bisbee – City supplied service; $17.08/mo; recycling available for extra fee based on weight or free drop off at city managed locations Kingman – City supplied service; $19.78/mo for twice-weekly pickup; recycling at city drop off locations Payson – Waste hauling services handled by property owners contracting with private hauler Pinetop Lakeside – Waste hauling services handled by property owners contracting with private hauler; recycling at city managed drop off locations Willcox – City supplied service; $23.49/mo; recycling at city managed drop off locations

28

Appendix 3

Fayetteville Arkansas Curbside Recycling Program Example

• There are 18,830 residential accounts.

• All residential accounts received an 18 gallon bin with lid for recycling to be

serviced weekly.

• Program is not mandatory but participation is encouraged through the variable

rate trash program (Pay-as-you-Throw).

• The Pay-as-you-Throw program in Fayetteville offers 32, 64 and 96 gallon trash

bins.

• Each household participating in the curbside recycling programs recycles on

average 587 pounds per household annually.

• Current set out rate (number of households placing bins at the curb) 56%.

• Educational program targets areas with low participation rate.

• Each curbside truck providing curb sort recycling, services 75 homes an hour with

one driver.

• Curb sort recycling time varies between 20 and 90 seconds per stop with a less

than 60 second average sort time.

• Curb sort recycling results in low material contamination which translates to

minimal processing cost.

• Fayetteville’s curbside program provides service 4 days a week with 10 hour

days.

• Drivers are guaranteed pay for a 40 hour week regardless of whether they can do

the job more quickly as an incentive for efficiency.

• Fayetteville has 9 curbside trucks.

• Average route size 523 households.

• Average set outs per route 293 households.

29

Appendix 4

Proposed Recycling Containers under Alternative #7

30

Appendix 5

Recycle and Save Examples in Colorado

Econservation Institute 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior CO 80027 EconservationInstituteProviding Research and Education to Communities DATE: May 2, 2012 TO: Meghan Kincheloe, Sedona Recycles FROM: Juri Freeman and Lisa Skumatz, Econservation Institute SUBJECT: Recycle and Save Examples in Colorado Trash and recycling collection systems in Colorado share a number of similarities with those in Arizona. Like Arizona, Colorado has ample landfill capacity with low tipping fees, reducing some of the economic incentive to recycle. Also, Colorado has a population that is centered around several metropolitan areas with a large portion of the state being classified as rural / low density. Colorado lacks strong direction from the State on diversion and there is very limited regulation of the hauling industry. The most common hauler arrangement in the State is an open market system where any hauler can enter the market, and in many communities haulers are not licensed, required to report tons, or required to offer recycling. Colorado’s diversion rate lags significantly behind the national average. Despite these challenges, several communities in the state have developed successful recycling and diversion programs and pay-as-you-throw plays a significant role in each of the most successful programs. State laws prohibits a county or jurisdiction from setting trash / recycling rates (unless it is a contracted hauler or municipal collection1) but it does allow a jurisdiction to set a rate structure. Under the rate structure a jurisdiction can pass an ordinance requiring all haulers servicing a jurisdiction to use variable rates. The ordinance can set the rate increments, just not the actual dollar amount. Under the ordinance all haulers operate on a level playing field, keep their existing accounts, and any hauler that wants to can still enter the market. There are nearly a dozen examples in the state of communities choosing to use this power. Two examples of communities adopting PAYT ordinances as well as links to the actual ordinance language are included below: City of Fort Collins – Population 140,000 Summary: Fort Collins has always operated under a fully privatized, “open subscription” trash collection system. To address citizen interest in creating recycling opportunities, the City began requiring trash haulers to provide curbside recycling in 1992. The City next amended its trash hauling license in 1995 to require all residential haulers to apply variable, or Pay-as-you-throw, rates. Econservation Institute 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior CO 80027

31

The purpose of the volume-based rates is two-fold: they are more equitable since individual households generate widely varying amounts of weekly wastes; and, volume-based trash rates encourage residents to recycle, conserve resources, and reduce wastes. According to City staff the PAYT ordinance continues to be the City’s most important tool for achieving community goals for recycling and waste diversion, and Fort Collins has passed amendments several more times over the years to close “loop holes” in ordinance.

32

PAYT Ordinance: Fort Collins’ Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Services Ordinance (Article XV, Section 15n of the Municipal Code, which can be found on the City’s website at http://fcgov.com/recycling/ordinances.php) requires all residential trash haulers to: · Charge for trash collection service based upon the weekly trash volumes collected from customers who live in single-family residents or apartment complexes of < 8 units o Each 33-gal. unit of trash must cost the same amount as the rate set (individually by haulers) for the first 33-gal. unit o Homeowner Association contracts must also receive PAYT rates · Offer weekly curbside recycling as part of their basic trash collection service at no additional charge to residential customers o the list of materials that must be collected is updated yearly by the City Manager · Provide biannual reporting to the City on volumes of trash and recycling collected, and number of customers who participate in curbside recycling · Distribute educational information at least yearly to their customers about trash service levels options and recycling services · Provide access to their record-keeping by City auditors to verify compliance · Trash haulers may, but are not required to, establish a flat monthly fee, in addition to the volume charges, to cover fixed operational costs. However, the flat fee may not exceed 50% of the total trash bill, and both the flat fee and the volume-based rate must be shown on customers' bills. Fort Collins haulers employ a variety of volume-based rate systems, including prepaid bags or tags, and a pre-paid cart based subscription system (i.e. up to 30 gallons per week, up to 60 gallons per week, up to 90 gallons per week, etc.) Under the subscription system, if a household exceeds its maximum service level, the hauler must charge for the excess waste volume. Failure to charge for excess waste, or for violating any other element of the PAYT ordinance, could cause a hauling company to lose its municipal hauling license. The City has not needed to exercise this option. Results: Over the past 15 years, the City’s data collection capability has improved and the information reported by the private haulers has been an important source of those data. Early measurements suggested that in the mid-90s, Fort Collins’ waste diversion level was around 17%. After the PAYT ordinance was passed, the diversion rate quickly surpassed original goals of diverting 20% and since then, customers’ participation in curbside recycling has continued to range between 85-95%. In 1999, the City adopted new goals to divert 50% of the entire community’s waste stream (including commercial sources) from landfill disposal by 2010. In 2010 the diversion rate for the City was estimated to be 43%. In 2011 the rate has been estimated to be near 50% (the official diversion rate has not yet been released). Econservation Institute 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior CO 80027

33

City of Boulder– Population 95,000 Summary: In 1976 Boulder became one of the first cities in the country to offer curbside recycling to it’s residents. The original program was run by volunteers, a non-profit, and retro-fitted school buses. In 1989 the City implemented a Trash Tax to pay for recycling efforts and took over the curbside service with a partnership between the city, a hauler, and the non-profit. Eventually, the city found that the costs of providing curbside recycling were surpassing the funds collected by the trash tax and Boulder decided to change the collection system. The city switched to a free market system with multiple regulated haulers. Boulder implemented a PAYT ordinance in 2001 effectively transforming its waste collection while keeping with the goal of turning the city into a “one can town”. The ordinance required haulers to embed recycling and organics costs for all single and multi-family units, set variable rates based on a 32-gallon level of service, and report collection tonnages to the city. PAYT Ordinance: Boulder saw the successes of such large cities as Seattle and San Jose and decided to follow their examples in setting up their PAYT ordinance. The Boulder ordinance requires that: · Haulers provide “unlimited” recycling for all single and multi family residences with costs embedded in the trash rates. · Hauler provide curbside organics collection including food scraps for residential customers in the base fee for trash services · The city does not set the rates, but the maximum minimum size of container offered must be 32-gallons and the rates must use this base level of volume. · Haulers can set whatever rate they want for the base level but must charge the same amount for every additional 32-gallon container. The haulers may also charge a fee to cover their fixed costs but this fee must be less than the base rate for the 32-gallon container. · Haulers are required to submit annual tonnage reports to the city. Results: Boulder currently has a residential diversion rate of over 50%. In 2001, before the PAYT

ordinance, but with embedded recycling Boulder had a city-wide rate of around 16%

diversion. Within the first six months of implementation the city went from only 26%

subscribing to 1 can to over 50% subscribing to the 1 can level of service. The city

worked closely with all of the stakeholders in garbage and recycling collection to come

up with an ordinance that made all of the parties involved happy. Gary Horton, the CEO

of Western Disposal, reported “The ordinance was excellent because it left all the

haulers in place and simply required them to embed recycling in the trash service and

follow the PAYT rate structure”. Additionally, Mr. Horton said, “everyone was in support

of the program; haulers, the city, and environmentalists”. The switched to single stream

collection in 2008 and added yard waste and organics collection at the curb as a way to

reach its goal of zero waste. The ordinance can be seen at:

http://colocode.com/boulder2/chapter6-12.htm