United States Solid Waste and EPA530-F-97-007 Agency …This collection of testimonials presents first-hand stories from communities that faced significant municipal solid waste (MSW)

United States Solid Waste and EPA530-F-97-007Environmental Protection Emergency Response April 1997Agency (5305W)

1EPA Pay-As-You-ThrowSuccess Stories

I N A G R O W I N G N U M B E R

of communities across the nation, pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) programs are working.This collection of testimonials presentsfirst-hand stories from communities thatfaced significant municipal solid waste(MSW) challenges—issues like increasingamounts of waste, rising disposal costs, anduncertain MSW budgets—and were able touse PAYT to put their solid waste manage-ment back on track.

While the specific issues varied, the lead-ers of these communities recognized thattheir old MSW programs needed tochange. More reliable funding sourceswere needed, recycling programs had tobe expanded, and, most importantly, theyhad to begin getting their residents to gen-erate less waste in the first place. PAYTturned out to be the answer.

Real-World Results

The PAYT concept is simple—rather thanpaying for trash collection and disposalindirectly (often through property taxes),residents under this program are asked to

pay for each container of waste they generate. It gives them an incentive toreduce waste, and it can be very effective:after implementing PAYT, communitiestypically report reductions in wasteamounts of 25 to 35 percent, including significant increases in recycling. To date,nearly 2,000 communities across the coun-try have successfully implemented PAYT.

Learn From Successful Communities

For communities considering PAYT, making the switch may seem intimidating.MSW planners may be concerned, forexample, that their elected officials willnot support the effort. Other plannersmay feel that the design process is toocomplicated or that local residents mightresist the new program.

Fortunately, decision-makers consideringPAYT have an important resource theycan turn to: the experience of the manycommunities that have preceded them.When it comes to questions about how toevaluate, design, and implement PAYT, it’sthe communities that have successfullyadopted a program of their own that canbest provide the answers.

Some of the communities featured here had to developimpressive solutions to daunting challenges before theirprogram could become a reality. In most cases, how-ever, these planners simply saw an opportunity in PAYT.They researched the issue carefully and developed a program that, it turned out, met or exceeded theirexpectations. However they came about, the programsdescribed in this collection are filled with importantlessons for interested community planners.

The Bottom Line

Perhaps the single biggest lesson illustrated by these stories is that there is no one “right” way to implementPAYT—just as there is no single compelling reason forcommunities to adopt this type of program. Every com-munity has a different story to tell and a different lessonto teach. Nonetheless, nearly all the communitiesdetailed here have experienced three specific types ofbenefits as a result of adopting PAYT:

It’s economically sustainable. PAYT is an effectivetool for communities struggling to cope with soaringMSW management costs. Well-designed programsenable communities to generate the revenues they needto cover all MSW program costs, including the costs ofcomplementary programs such as recycling and compost-ing. Residents benefit, too, since they finally have theopportunity to take control of their trash bills.

It’s environmentally sustainable. Because of theincentive it provides residents to put less waste at thecurb, communities with programs in place have reportedsignificant increases in recycling and reductions in waste.Less waste and more recycling mean that fewer naturalresources need to be extracted.

It’s fair. One of the most important advantages may bethe fairness PAYT offers to community residents. Whenthe cost of managing trash is hidden in taxes, or chargedat a flat rate, residents who recycle and prevent wasteend up subsidizing their neighbors’ wastefulness. Underthis kind of program, residents pay only for what theythrow away.

For More Information

This collection highlights successful strategies for imple-menting all types of PAYT programs in all kinds of communities. EPA has developed additional materials foranyone interested in learning more. For individuals look-ing for general information about how these programswork, EPA is making available fact sheets, a completePAYT guidebook, and other materials. For local solidwaste planners interested in specific ideas about how tobring PAYT to their community, EPA has developed acomprehensive set of tools—based on lessons from pio-neering communities like the ones described here—tohelp them design and implement a successful program.

All of these products are based on real-world informa-tion that can help planners and others as they search foreconomically and environmentally sustainable solutions totoday’s solid waste management challenges. To find outmore about EPA’s collection of products, call the Pay-as-you-throw Helpline toll free at 888-EPA-PAYT.

2 Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percentpostconsumer fiber.

United States Solid Waste and EPA530-F-97-007Environmental Protection Emergency Response April 1997Agency (5305W)

1EPA Pay-As-You-ThrowSuccess Stories

I N A G R O W I N G N U M B E R

of communities across the nation, pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) programs are working.This collection of testimonials presentsfirst-hand stories from communities thatfaced significant municipal solid waste(MSW) challenges—issues like increasingamounts of waste, rising disposal costs, anduncertain MSW budgets—and were able touse PAYT to put their solid waste manage-ment back on track.

While the specific issues varied, the lead-ers of these communities recognized thattheir old MSW programs needed tochange. More reliable funding sourceswere needed, recycling programs had tobe expanded, and, most importantly, theyhad to begin getting their residents to gen-erate less waste in the first place. PAYTturned out to be the answer.

Real-World Results

The PAYT concept is simple—rather thanpaying for trash collection and disposalindirectly (often through property taxes),residents under this program are asked to

pay for each container of waste they generate. It gives them an incentive toreduce waste, and it can be very effective:after implementing PAYT, communitiestypically report reductions in wasteamounts of 25 to 35 percent, including significant increases in recycling. To date,nearly 2,000 communities across the coun-try have successfully implemented PAYT.

Learn From Successful Communities

For communities considering PAYT, making the switch may seem intimidating.MSW planners may be concerned, forexample, that their elected officials willnot support the effort. Other plannersmay feel that the design process is toocomplicated or that local residents mightresist the new program.

Fortunately, decision-makers consideringPAYT have an important resource theycan turn to: the experience of the manycommunities that have preceded them.When it comes to questions about how toevaluate, design, and implement PAYT, it’sthe communities that have successfullyadopted a program of their own that canbest provide the answers.

Some of the communities featured here had to developimpressive solutions to daunting challenges before theirprogram could become a reality. In most cases, how-ever, these planners simply saw an opportunity in PAYT.They researched the issue carefully and developed a program that, it turned out, met or exceeded theirexpectations. However they came about, the programsdescribed in this collection are filled with importantlessons for interested community planners.

The Bottom Line

Perhaps the single biggest lesson illustrated by these stories is that there is no one “right” way to implementPAYT—just as there is no single compelling reason forcommunities to adopt this type of program. Every com-munity has a different story to tell and a different lessonto teach. Nonetheless, nearly all the communitiesdetailed here have experienced three specific types ofbenefits as a result of adopting PAYT:

It’s economically sustainable. PAYT is an effectivetool for communities struggling to cope with soaringMSW management costs. Well-designed programsenable communities to generate the revenues they needto cover all MSW program costs, including the costs ofcomplementary programs such as recycling and compost-ing. Residents benefit, too, since they finally have theopportunity to take control of their trash bills.

It’s environmentally sustainable. Because of theincentive it provides residents to put less waste at thecurb, communities with programs in place have reportedsignificant increases in recycling and reductions in waste.Less waste and more recycling mean that fewer naturalresources need to be extracted.

It’s fair. One of the most important advantages may bethe fairness PAYT offers to community residents. Whenthe cost of managing trash is hidden in taxes, or chargedat a flat rate, residents who recycle and prevent wasteend up subsidizing their neighbors’ wastefulness. Underthis kind of program, residents pay only for what theythrow away.

For More Information

This collection highlights successful strategies for imple-menting all types of PAYT programs in all kinds of communities. EPA has developed additional materials foranyone interested in learning more. For individuals look-ing for general information about how these programswork, EPA is making available fact sheets, a completePAYT guidebook, and other materials. For local solidwaste planners interested in specific ideas about how tobring PAYT to their community, EPA has developed acomprehensive set of tools—based on lessons from pio-neering communities like the ones described here—tohelp them design and implement a successful program.

All of these products are based on real-world informa-tion that can help planners and others as they search foreconomically and environmentally sustainable solutions totoday’s solid waste management challenges. To find outmore about EPA’s collection of products, call the Pay-as-you-throw Helpline toll free at 888-EPA-PAYT.

2 Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percentpostconsumer fiber.

P AY- A S - Y O U - T H R O W S U C C E S S S T O R I E S

Dover, New Hampshire

The City of Dover is a community ofapproximately 26,000 people on NewHampshire’s seacoast. Our municipal landfillwas closed in 1979, and at that time the cityentered into a relationship with a privatehauler for collection and disposal at a pri-vately owned and operated landfill. The citycollected approximately 24,000 tons of trasheach year, of which approximately 11,000tons were residential refuse.

Before 1989, Dover had no recycling pro-gram. Any and all trash residents wishedto discard was left at the curb, and 3½truck routes were needed to collect therefuse daily. The cost of refuse collectionand disposal was escalating rapidly.Responding to citizen pressure, theDover city councilcreated an adhoc committeeon recycling inthe fall of 1989.The committee,chaired by GaryGilmore, city coun-cilor, consisted ofeight interested res-idents and a councilrepresentative. Thecommittee reported

back to the council 4 months later with 10recommendations.

The committee urged the immediate estab-lishment of a drop-off recycling centerdesigned to collect a wide range of materials.The recycling center opened in May 1990. Itquickly became very popular and a source ofcivic pride.

The recycling center was run initially as anall-volunteer effort. After a few months, thecity hired a solid waste coordinator, whobegan working in conjunction with the adhoc committee and several city councilorsto urge the establishment of curbside recycling

We argued that thecosts for producing

wastes should beborne by the user

and the costs ofrecycling, because of

its social andenvironmental

benefits, should beborne by the city.

Getting Started: Why Pay-As-You-Throw?

Population: 26,000

Type of Community: Rural

Type of Program: Bag and Tag

Program Start Date: October 1991

EPA530-F-97-007b

Pay-as-you-throw has proven to be a very effective means of managing

Dover’s solid waste.

and the bag and tag program, whichwas then unknown in northern NewEngland.

Overcoming Public Dissent

The three public meetings we heldwere filled with heated vocal dissent.However, we soon convinced the publicto accept these programs with a coupleof basic premises. The first premise wasthat recyclable materials are a commod-ity, and anything that is disposed of inthe landfill is waste. We argued that thecosts for producing wastes should beborne by the user and that the costs ofrecycling, because of its social and envi-ronmental benefits, should be borne bythe city.

In September 1991, the city began curb-side collection of recyclables, and amonth later the bag and tag programwas implemented. In conjunction withthe establishment of these programs,the city council created a Citizen’s SolidWaste Advisory Committee responsiblefor overseeing these programs.

Since the program was initiated wehave had annual public meetings andhave raised the price once. We havenot had any significant public dissent atany meetings since the program’s incep-tion. Overall, the program has beenwell received by the community and hasproven to be a very effective means ofmanaging Dover’s solid waste.

How Does It Work?

The city no longer provides for the col-lection and disposal of private dump-sters. Commercial generators pay thefees associated with the collection anddisposal. For the residents, payment ofthe collection and disposal of wastes isaccomplished through the purchase ofbags and/or adhesive tags.

A special revenue fund was establishedto pay for the collection, disposal, andadministrative costs associated with ourresidential solid waste. The fees generat-ed by the sale of the bags and tags gointo this fund as revenue. The goal is tomaintain a neutral fund balance that cansustain the program, but not to build alarge balance.

Success: Saving Money and

Reducing Waste

As mentioned earlier, Dover used toproduce approximately 11,000 tons peryear of residential solid waste. Last year,we produced approximately 3,900 tons.In 1990 our budget for solid waste wasapproximately $1.2 million. Next year’sbudget (including trash and recycling) isapproximately $878,000. Our currentrecycling rate is well over 50 percentfor our residential waste stream—despite it being strictly voluntary.

Dover’s success story was compiled by Gary Gilmore, City Councilor, and Carl Quiram,P.E., Environmental Projects Manager, (603) 743-6094.


Falmouth, Maine

Population: 8,500

Type of Community: Suburban

Type of Program: Bags

Program Start Date: September 1992

In 1991, the Town Council directed theFalmouth Recycling Committee to exploreoptions available for solid waste collection.After reviewing several systems, including traditional municipal collection, franchise contractor, and volume-based systems, thecommittee developed a report recommend-ing a modified pay-per-bag system. In this sys-tem, the collection cost is paid through thetax system and the disposal cost is reflected inthe cost of the special bag used in the town.

The benefits of this system include a fair allocation of disposal and collection costs,tax-deductible collection cost components,lower collection costs than a traditional non-fee system, incentives for recycling and waste

reduction, a favorable cash flow structure(bag revenues are received before disposalexpense is incurred), and elimination of trash“mixing” by unscrupulous haulers. A unani-mous vote of the council in the spring of1992 directed the town to implement theprogram in September 1992.

How Does It Work?

The town buys about 175,000 large bags (33-gallon) and 75,000 small bags (20-gallon)each year. About a dozen local stores,including Shaw’s Supermarkets, retail thebags. Bags cost the town 12 and 9 centsrespectively and the store is allowed a

The success andacceptance of pay-as-you-throw in our

community hasbeen remarkable.

Our recycling rateimmediately

jumped by morethan 50 percent

and trash disposalvolumes decreased

by about 35percent.


EPA530-F-97-007h

By recycling and reducing waste, citizens not only save money, but also

reduce costs for our community.

2-cent per bag markup. The retail pricesof the bags are 91 and 64 cents, respec-tively. In addition, a 91-cent sticker isavailable for bulky items under 35pounds, and a $4.80 tag is used forlarge items such as mattresses and sofas.Stores are invoiced for the bags at thetime of delivery and have 30 days topay. This system works well for the citi-zens, because they buy bags and simplyuse them the way they had before thisprogram was implemented.

By recycling and reducing waste, citizensnot only save money, but also reducecosts for our community. The burdenon the town is minimal because its onlyresponsibilities are bag delivery, billing,and recordkeeping. Also, cash flow ispositive for the town because the bagsare paid for before use. There is noconcern with unpaid and uncollectiblecharges that can occur with post-usebilling.


Reducing Waste

The success and acceptance of the program in the community has beenremarkable. Our recycling rate (alwaysamong the highest in the region) immediately jumped by more than 50percent, and trash disposal volumesdecreased by about 35 percent.Combined, these two statistics resultedin a jump of our recycling rates from 12percent before the program to 21 per-cent currently. The average rate forlocal towns is 7 percent.

These statistics have meant a great dealto the economics of our waste pro-gram: The bid price for collection thefirst year was $116,000, compared to abid of $146,000 for a traditional collec-tion contract. Our current contract isfor $125,500 despite over 10 percentgrowth in the community. At $55 per

ton, a reduction of 900 tons of wastedisposal per year meant a savings ofabout $50,000. The current $98 perton tip fee calculates to $88,000 peryear savings. In addition, during the oldfranchise system, residents paid the col-lection cost directly to the hauler. Nowresidents pay for collection throughtheir taxes, bringing the community over$30,000 per year.

Tips for Other Communities

Some towns have bought large quanti-ties of bags and have been dissatisfiedwith size or quality. It may be prudentto buy a smaller quantity to start withso that changes can be made if desired.When you “force” citizens to buy yourbag, it has to be of acceptable quality.

Educate prior to implementation! Thetown conducted a citizen survey, devel-oped a brochure, published a newslet-ter, and passed out two free bags toeach household prior to implementingthe program. We also conducted a logocontest in the schools that generated agreat deal of interest and media atten-tion. The local Lions Club donatedmoney for the prizes.

Contact other communities and learn!During our review, we read many arti-cles published about other towns’ pro-grams. This is useful, but following upwith phone calls can be even morehelpful. We got copies of several towns’brochures that alerted us to somedetails that otherwise may have beenoverlooked.

Involve the collection team! The con-tractor or municipal crew can help or hurt the program, so they need tobe on board. We developed a small tag for collection workers to leave atthe curb if there was a reason to notpick up trash (i.e., not in proper bag or too heavy).

Falmouth’s success story was compiled by Tony Hayes, (207) 781-3919.


Fort Collins, Colorado

Fort Collins is located on the Front Range ofthe Rocky Mountains in Colorado. Last yearits population passed the 100,000 mark, butthe community still takes pride in a small-town self-image, and residents are deter-mined to manage growth well. The naturalenvironment is highly valued, and solid wastereduction is a strong environmental programin Fort Collins.

The city conducted outreach and sponsoreda recycling drop-off site for nearly 10 years,but without a municipal trash collection ser-vice, increased participation depended onhaulers' efforts. A 1991 ordinance requiredhaulers to provide curbside recycling, butbecause they included this service as an addi-tional cost, most customers were unwillingto pay for the service. Construction of acounty recycling center in 1992 also had littleeffect on residents’ recycling levels.

The city counciladopted goals in1994 to reduce thetotal waste streamby 20 percent by theyear 2000, despitethe city’s growth, andto reduce landfilledwaste by 20 percent.

A specific target was set for increasing par-ticipation in curbside recycling by 80 to 90percent. Reaching these goals has been challenging, because six private trash haulerswork in Fort Collins, ranging from corporateplayers like BFI and Waste Management tolocally run family operations that have beenin business for 40 years.

Disappointed in a slow rate of progress forrecycling, the city council adopted two ordi-nances in May 1995 that apply to single-familyand duplex residences. The first ordinancecalled for haulers to “bundle” costs for recy-cling and provide curbside recycling to cus-tomers upon request at no extra charge. Itbecame effective in October 1995. The sec-ond ordinance called for volume-based ratesto be charged for solid waste startingin January 1996.

Pay-as-you-throwhas helped us to

reach our recyclinggoals—a real

challenge, sincethere are six private

trash haulers thatwork in Fort Collins.


Population: 100,000

Type of Community: Urban

Type of Program: Varies

Program Start Date: January 1996

EPA530-F-97-007i

Start planning for implementation at leastsix months in advance. This means both

working with your private haulers and educating the public.

Lessons Learned

Start planning for implementation of therate structure change at least sixmonths in advance. We didn’t startworking with the haulers untilSeptember to implement the system inJanuary. Then, after meeting togetherseveral times, the city agreed to amendthe ordinance to respond to haulers’concerns about charging strictly by volume, but this process was time-consuming and difficult.

Make sure to publicize the changes toremind the public and their elected offi-cials about what will occur in the next 2to 3 months. Use news articles, adver-tisements, and haulers’ billings.

Don’t underestimate the difficulty peo-ple will have understanding how newtrash collection rates work, and plan forthe extra work it creates for staff. Beprepared for it to take 3, 6, or even 9months for people to realize that theycan save money by generating less trashwith a PAYT system.

Expect private trash haulers to take theopportunity to increase collection ratesat the same time the volume-basedrates take effect. The public assumedthe hike in collection rates was a resultof the ordinance. Haulers helped spreadthe misunderstanding—it deflected criti-cism from them!

Make sure the transition between billingsystems is smooth. Because we hadsome program overlap, both ourhaulers and the city staff got a newround of calls from angry, confusedpeople who had received two differentbills. However, the city has beenadamant about reimbursing customersfor cans/bags of trash that they didn’t

generate—the most important featureof the system to reward people withcost savings.

Success: Increased Recycling

Participation

As of July 1996, recycling has increasedto 79 percent participation in single-family and duplex households, up from53.5 percent the previous year. Withonly 6 months’ worth of data to analyzetrends, it is hard to specify what is hap-pening with solid waste reduction goals,but we have clearly found a way toaccomplish our goal for 80 to 90 per-cent participation in curbside recycling.

Now that the residents of Fort Collinsare so much more conscious of reducing their waste stream, they havedemanded opportunities to recycle newmaterials, including cardboard, officepaper, and compostable items.

The bundling ordinance and PAYT system have significantly increasedhouseholds’ recycling efforts, so theexperience, although sometimes difficult,was certainly worthwhile. Now thatwe’re 6 months into the new system,the city council is already looking aheadto the feasibility of districting FortCollins into trash collection zones!

We know that Fort Collins is not com-pletely out of the woods yet. We areanticipating, for instance, that this fall’sleaf-raking and bagging will add topeoples’ trash bills—and that they aregoing to demand that the city dosomething about it. Still, we feel conf i-dent that Fort Collins made the rightchoice by adopting the pay-as-you-throw ordinance.

Fort Collins’s success story was compiled by Susie Gordon, Environmental Planner, (970) 221-6265.


Gainesville, Florida

Population: 96,000


Type of Program: Cart-based Cans

Program Start Date: October 1994

Why Pay-As-You-Throw?

Before variable-rate pricing, the cost to indi-viduals for service was hidden. Residentialusers did not have an apparent reason tolimit their disposal habits. Now, Gainesville’svariable-rate pricing generates a visiblemonthly charge that has resulted in a sub-stantial reduction in both solid waste andthe costs associated with its disposal.

How Does It Work?

In July 1994, the city of Gainesville enteredinto a contract with Waste Management ofCentral Florida, Inc., for the collection ofresidential solid waste and commingledrecyclables and into another contract withBoone Waste Industries, Inc., for the collec-tion of yard trash for recycling. The newcontract for solid waste service included avariable rate for residential collections:

Gainesville’s move topay-as-you-throw

did more thanreduce waste and

increase recycling–itcreated a more

equitable system forresidents.

EPA530-F-97-007c

The results of the first year of our program were amazing. After

implementing pay-as-you-throw, wewatched our recycling rates soar!

residents pay $13.50, $15.96, or $19.75per month according to whether theyplace 35, 64, or 96 gallons of solidwaste at the curb for collection.

Recycling service is unlimited. Whileresidents have had curbside collectionof recyclables since 1989, the imple-mentation of this program addedbrown paper bags, corrugated card-board, and phone books to the list ofitems recycled.

Planning Ahead

Planning ahead was critical to the suc-cess of Gainesville’s program. It was cru-cial for us to order our carts and publicoutreach publications far in advance ofprogram implementation.


Reducing Waste

The results of the first year of our pro-gram were amazing. The amount ofsolid waste collected decreased 18 percent, and the recyclables recoveredincreased 25 percent! The total dispos-al tonnage decreased from 22,120 to18,116. This resulted in a savings of$186,200 to the residential sector, or$7.95 per home.

Gainesville’s move to a cart-based, vari-able-rate residential collection systemdid more than just increase the rate ofrecovery and minimize disposal needs.The distribution of system costs is moreequitable. Residents make the choice ofservice delivery based on individualwaste-generation habits. This reducesthe level of subsidy that unlimited, flat-rate collection systems encounter.

Gainesville’s success story was compiled by Gina Hawkins, Recycling Coordinator, (352) 334-5040.

Mount Vernon is a small, attractive collegecommunity in eastern Iowa, home to profes-sional commuters as well as college staff.The city’s income level ranks above averagefor the state. In July 1991, the city began tocharge directly for the collection of residen-tial trash, bulky items, grass clippings, and garden waste. At the same time, bins weredistributed to begin curbside collection ofmaterials for recycling. We expected thesetwo steps to work together. Charging foreach container of trash provided the finan-cial incentive to move material from trashcontainers into recycling bins—the citywould then contract to collect this recyclingmaterial free of direct charge.

How Does It Work?

The city’s pay-as-you-throw systemworks quite simply.Households purchase$1.75 tags at city hallor one of severalstores. As a publicservice, stores sell thetags with no markup.The price for collec-tion is one tag foreach container, whichmust be no more than30 gallons or 40

pounds, and multiple tags for bulky items.Homeowners also receive a $7 solid wastebill monthly. The city discounts the monthlyfee for households defined as low incomeunder the school lunch program.

While the revenue from tag sales roughly cov-ers the cost of trash collection and landfill fees,the monthly billing finances the “free ofcharge” collection of recycling material, leaves,and brush. Residents say tags are a fair way topay for trash disposal, and the combination oftags and monthly fees provides a steady rev-enue to the city.

Why Tags?

The city council appointed the Reductionand Recycling Committee to develop a solid

“We have not onlyreduced the amountof trash sent to the

landfill, but alsogenerated an

enormous amount ofcivic pride in our

efforts to dosomething positivefor our community

environment.”

—Rick Elliot, Mayor



Mount Vernon, Iowa

Population: 3,700


Type of Program: Tags

Program Start Date: July 1991

EPA530-F-97-007g

Paying for one’s waste has brought home toeach of us a growing awareness of the full

lifecycle costs of “throwing it out.”

waste program. We spent over a yearresearching the experiences of othercommunities and consulting experts,and eventually recommended tags forwaste collection to accompany curbsiderecycling. Tags cost little to print, permitresidences to continue using their con-tainers within the volume and weightlimits, adhere securely at all tempera-tures, are convenient for participatingmerchants to handle, and can easily beremoved when the trash is collected.Stealing of tags has not been a problemin this residential community.

Success: Increased WasteReduction and Recycling

Pay-as-you-throw played a major role inmotivating waste reduction and nearlydoubling recyling. The city estimates thatthe trash the typical resident sent to thelandfill decreased by nearly 40 percent,from 45 pounds per week in 1990 to 27pounds in 1995. In addition, requiring atag for each container of grass clippingsand garden waste has nearly eliminatedthe collection of these materials. The totalreduction of residential trash and all yardwaste per household exceeds the goal of50 percent waste reduction the state leg-islature has established for the year 2000.Dumping, subject to a $1000 fine inMount Vernon, has not been a problem.

Altogether, by recycling and reducingtrash, and by leaving grass cuttings onthe lawn or composting it, the averagehousehold saved $47 last year in fewertags purchased, a total saving of some$46,000 for our 980 households. At 9pounds per household per week, MountVernon leads all 17 cities in Linn Countyin recycling.

In addition to putting more into recy-cling bins, residents of Mount Vernon

have reduced waste in various ways: 1)recycling appliances; 2) recycling materi-als the city does not accept at drop-offfacilities in Cedar Rapids and places ofemployment that recycle these items; 3)backyard composting of organic wastes;4) purchase of reuseable rather than dis-posable materials; and 5) more yardsales. Much of this additional recyclingand reduction is doubtless motivated bythe tags that residents must purchase tosend trash to the landfill. We believethat such incentives would also workwith less expensive drop-off recyclingprograms in other cities.

As Mount Vernon’s mayor, Rick Elliot,says: “Our program has been very suc-cessful due to the initial involvement ofa large number of citizens, continuedexpansion of recycling opportunities,community education and ownership ofthe program, and a very civic-minded,cooperative recycling and refuse vendor.This program works and it works well.”

How Mount Vernon’s ProgramCould Be Even Better

The major challenge inherent in anyreduction and recycling program isinforming the public. The city needs todo better at keeping households cur-rent on changes in the recycling pro-gram. One successful example is aninformation packet prepared by theRecycling and Reduction Committeethat explained to households how, withreasonably frequent mowing, grass cut-tings left to decompose produce ahealthier lawn. Informing householdsabout alternative ways to deal withwastes goes hand in hand with pay-as-you-throw to maximize the effective-ness of the financial and environmentalincentives.

Mount Vernon’s success story was compiled by Don Cell, Chair of the Reduction andRecycling Committee. For more information on Mount Vernon’s pay-as-you-throw program, call Bluestem Solid Waste Agency at (319) 398-1278.


Poquoson, Virginia

Population: 11,500


Type of Program: Bags


In the fall of 1991, we decided to shut downa very successful drop-off recycling centerand join a regional curbside program thenext spring. Our main reason for going withthe curbside program was that we knew wecould get better citizen participation andfurther increase recycling. Because of thesuccess of the drop-off program, we wereasked by the city council to review the citytrash program and develop a plan toimprove it.

Our group was made up of about a dozeninterested citizens, two city employees, andtwo city councilmen. One of the first thingswe did was to develop the following missionstatement: “To review every aspect of wastemanagement in Poquoson to maximizeREDUCTION, REUSE, and RECYCLING,and to recommend ways to accomplish thiswith the minimum costto the taxpayer.”This statementwas read at thestart of everymeeting to makesure we stayedfocused on ouragreed-upon goal.After discussing all

types of different programs, we decided tofocus on a fairly new system that was volume-based and where people paid for the amountof trash they discarded, rather than a flat-feesystem.

Bringing the Opposition on Board

We called and talked to people involvedwith these different programs and foundout what problems and successes theywere having. We eventually ended up withtwo three-inch binders full of information.

After many meetings and sometimes heateddiscussions, we were ready to submit ourbasic recommendations to the city counciland the public. At the public hearing, sevenpeople talked against the

Two years after theprogram started, a

city councilman whohad voted againstthe new program

came up to me in alocal store with a

smile on his face andsimply said ‘Youknow, you were

right.’ Then I knewthe program was

really working.


EPA530-F-97-007a

With pay-as-you-throw, we’ve had thelargest amount of recyclables collected

in our nine-community regional recycling program for four years.

plan, and the city council seemed spliton the issue. The word “change” is usually not well accepted in Poquoson.We invited the seven speakers againstour plan to join our committee andwork with us to develop a final recom-mendation. In the end, the six thatjoined us supported the final plan.

Bags, Tags, or Cans?

Another big question was: Do we usebags, stickers, or containers? Ourresearch showed that stickers are beingcounterfeited in one city and that thereis no effective way to control bag size.Containers required a large, upfrontcapital cost, and we wanted to developa program that required no additionalcost to the city. Furthermore, we are avery windy city—and typically after atrash pickup empty trash cans roll allover the neighborhoods! Since all ofour trash was being sent to a waste-to-energy (WTE) plant and not a landfill,plastic bags were not a negative as faras disposal was concerned. We decid-ed to use plastic bags.

How Best To Distribute

the Bags?

Although many cities sell their bags fromcity office locations, this puts a big bur-den on city personnel and can be incon-venient for citizens. We talked with all

our grocery, drug, and conveniencestores and set up a program in whichthey would sell the bags and turn overall the proceeds to the city after theywere sold. In other words, they wouldmake no profit on selling the bags, butalso would have no investment in them.It was pointed out to them that thiswould be a community service.

Spreading the Word

The next step was informing the publicof the new program, how it wouldwork, and when it would start. We pre-pared news releases for our localpapers, wrote articles for the citynewsletter, and made a videotape of theprogram using local talent that was thenshown on the city public access channel.We also trained speakers about the subject and made them available toany groups that were interested.

“We’re number one

every time”

We are part of a regional recycling pro-gram with nine other cities and counties.Because of the way our trash programencourages recycling, our city has hadthe largest amount of recyclables collect-ed per house, per month for the entirefour years we have been in the program.We’re not number one most of thetime, we’re number one every time.

Poquoson’s success story was compiled by Bob Kerlinger, Recycling Committee Chair, (804) 868-3779.


San Jose, California

Population: 850,000


Type of Program: Four-sort


San Jose is the nation’s eleventh largest city.Our residents are among the most educatedand affluent in the country and represent adiverse community, with the two largestminority groups being Latino (27 percent)and Asian (14 percent).

Before July 1993, San Jose provided unlimitedweekly garbage collection service at a flatmonthly rate of $12.50 per household.Residents set out an average of three 32-gallon garbage cans per week. The city fullyimplemented its Recycle Plus (RP) residentialintegrated waste management program for186,000 single-family dwellings on July 1, 1993.This program was designed to permit thecity to reach its California Integrated WasteManagement Act goal of 50 percent wastereduction by 2000.

The new RP program result-ed from over 3 years ofplanning that includedextensive research on allmajor policy changes.This program includes afully automated garbagecollection system, anaggressive PAYT ratestructure, a four-sort

recycling system, and a contractor paymentmechanism which provided financial incen-tives that encourage contractors to promoterecycling.

Educating the Public

The public was involved in the design of theRP program through a questionnaire mailedto all 186,000 households; community meet-ings throughout the city; pilot projects in 17neighborhoods for collection of yard trim-mings and mixed papers; and the use of apublic review committee to select the firmsthat would be given 6-year collection contractsfor the collection of garbage and recyclablesand for recyclables processing.

A comprehensive public outreach campaignaimed at single-family households explainedthe new variable rates being introduced, the

new categories of recyclables beingadded to the services

provided,

In the three yearssince our program

began, an average of87 percent of

residents haverequested 32-galloncans—the smallest

size we offer.


EPA530-F-97-007d

We worked to educate residents awayfrom the concept of unlimited garbagetoward the idea of unlimited recycling.

and the benefits of participating. Allmaterials were produced in three lan-guages (English, Spanish, and Vietnamese).The campaign was guided by the infor-mation received during a series of focusgroups in the three languages, baselineand follow-up telephone surveys, andshopping mall intercept surveys. Morethan 250 community meetings were heldin 1993, and a block leader program andschool education program were organized.

Getting the Prices Right

Staff began researching unit-pricingstructures for the new RP program inthe spring of 1992 through surveys andinterviews with successful PAYT com-munities nationwide. Residents wereoffered 32-, 64-, 96-, and 128-galloncarts with an “aggressive” unit-pricingstructure. This structure provided aslight price break for each additional 32gallons of capacity at the 64- and 96-gal-lon level, which the council consideredimportant to help residents make thetransition from flat rate to unit pricing.

We had to ensure that we had suffi-cient quantities of wheeled-garbagecarts in the sizes the residents wouldrequest. We sent out a return-replycard to all single-family households inJanuary 1993 with our estimated rates,and let residents know that no replywould result in delivery of the default32-gallon cart.

Staff was able to work out a compro-mise with the city council, which included offering one of the most com-prehensive low-income rate assistanceprograms for garbage service in thestate. Criteria were based solely on

household size and income and permit-ted eligible residents to receive a 30percent discount on their bill. About3,400 households currently participatein this program.

Managing the Program Costs

The challenge faced by the program isto both continue and expand its multi-pronged recycling efforts to meet diver-sion goals, while reducing costs to closethe projected $5 million cost-to-revenuegap in five years. The city already hasreduced costs by over $4 million annu-ally through contract renegotiations thatresulted in extending the term of the RPand yard-trimming collection contractsfrom June 1999 to June 2002.

Success: Waste Reduction

and Increased Recycling

Staff did not anticipate how quickly resi-dents would change their recycling par-ticipation to accommodate the 32-gallonsize cart, especially since prior to RP theaverage set-out was three garbage cans.Since RP implementation, an average of87 percent of residents have requestedthe 32-gallon size.

The difference between the “beforeand after” garbage set-out volume couldreadily be found in the quantity of recy-clables collected in the new RP program.The volume of recyclables and yardtrimmings being collected more thandoubled the levels recorded prior to RP.Most importantly, residents reportedwide satisfaction with the program andits results (80 percent in 1993 to 90 per-cent in 1996. Figures are based on a ran-dom sample telephone survey).

San Jose’s success story was compiled by Jo Zientek, Supervising Environmental ServicesSpecialist, (408) 277-5533.


South Kingstown, Rhode Island

Population: 30,000


Type of Program: Drop-off, Tags

Program Start Date: August 1994

Solid waste for South Kingstown and itsregional partner Narragansett is processedat the town’s Rose Hill Regional TransferStation (RHRTS). Given the community’soceanfront shoreline, the approximate year-round population of 22,000 residents swellsto an estimated 30,000 persons in the sum-mer months. Residents of both communitiescan dispose of solid waste by either con-tracting with a private refuse hauler or bydirectly accessing the transfer station.

After facility operations began at RHRTS in1983, the disposal cost to “direct access” resi-dential users continued to escalate. Thisincrease in disposal costs was due in part toincreasing tipping fees, higher processing costs,

and abuse of a flat-rate annual vehicle passprogram, which provided unlimited disposalwith little or no incentive to recycle materials.Because of these concerns, South Kingstownand Narragansett initiated a volume-based tagsolid waste disposal system and a voluntarysource reduction recycling program forRHRTS residential users.

How Does It Work?

Under the tag solid waste disposal system,each residential user directly accessing thetransfer station is required to purchaserefuse tags ($10.00 for10 tags) for solidwaste disposal. Residential RHRTS customersplace a tag on each garbage bag

The success of boththe volume-based

disposal system andthe enhanced

recycling facility hasexceeded all

pre-operationalexpectations.


EPA530-F-97-007e

With pay-as-you-throw, the average family of four has reduced its solid waste stream to one tagged bag of waste and one bag

of recyclables per week.

(35-pound/33-gallon limit) prior to dispos-al. Refuse tags were chosen in lieu of bagsto provide residents free choice withregard to the size and type of refuse bagthey were accustomed to using.

Some residents continue to use trashcans for refuse disposal. The RHRTSoperates as a solid waste enterprisefund, and operational costs are coveredby the cost of the refuse tags.

Utilization of the recycling center byresidential RHRTS users continues toremain a voluntary decision. Residentswho maximize their recycling effortscan minimize tag purchases and reducetheir overall solid waste disposal costs.RHRTS residential users with wastefuldisposal habits who choose not to recycle must consequently purchaseadditional tags.

Complementary Programs

Residential users can dispose of bulkywaste and yard waste at a rate of 5 centsand 3.5 cents per pound, respectively.Residents may also elect to purchase yardwaste bags at a cost of 75 cents each(which includes the disposal fee) for dis-posal of grass clippings and leaves.

In addition, the town constructed newrecycling disposal facilities for directaccess residential users that becameoperational on August 1, 1994. Theenhanced recycling center accepts awide variety of materials that can berecycled by residents at no cost, includ-ing aluminum, steel, plastic, newspaper,

glass, and many others. Yard waste,uncontaminated wood demolition, andferrous and nonferrous scrap metals arealso recycled, but are assessed a tip feedue to associated processing costs.


Reducing Waste

The success of both the volume-baseddisposal system and enhanced recyclingfacility has exceeded all pre-operationalexpectations. The capture ratio of recy-clables from direct access residentialusers has consistently reached approxi-mately 40 percent, with levels as high as 51 percent (not including bulky orrecyclable yard waste). Recycling cap-ture ratios approach 60 percent if yardwaste and bulky recycled waste esti-mates are included.

Under the PAYT program, RHRTS resi-dential users discharged approximately2,175 tons during fiscal year 1994-95, ascompared with 7,608 tons in fiscal year1991-92 under the former vehicle stickerprogram. The average family of four hasreduced its solid waste stream to onetagged bag and one bag of recyclablesper week. This equates to a total yearlyrefuse disposal cost of $52 per year,which is a $40 savings from the previousyear’s average cost of $92. Elderly andsingle residents have reported a reduc-tion in solid waste disposal to as low asone refuse bag every two weeks, for atotal yearly refuse disposal cost of $26.

South Kingstown’s success story was compiled by Jon R. Schock, Utilities Director, (401) 789-9331.


Vancouver, Washington

Population: 69,000


Type of Program: Cans

Program Start Date: January 1990

The city of Vancouver is located in ClarkCounty, the southernmost county in thestate of Washington, along the north shoreof the Columbia River. Garbage collectionservice in the city is mandatory and hasbeen a contracted service since 1937. In 1989,the state of Washington passed the WasteNot Washington Act, which required citiesand counties to implement programs aimedat reaching a statewide goal of 50 percentwaste reduction and recycling by 1995. In aneffort to reduce our reliance on landfill dis-posal and to meet local and statewide goals,the city adopted the philosophy, “The moreyou use, the more you pay.”

How Does It Work?

Linear rates were introduced in 1990when the city coun-cil approved a rateincrease that madethe second can rate84 percent greaterthan the first can.After 15 months, ourdata showed a 13 per-cent increase in thenumber of customerschoosing the one-can

basic service and a corresponding decreasein customers choosing the two-can service.

In 1992, the city implemented a weekly mini-can option, and within five months nearly500 residents had switched to the mini-can.By the end of the following year, this numberhad doubled and the city was receiving num-merous customer requests for more servicechoices. Three new residential garbage servicelevel options were implemented: every-other-week 32-gallon can, every-other-weekmini-can, and monthly 32-gallon can service.These options are increasingly being utilizedas customers learn how waste reduction andavid recycling can help them reduce theirmonthly garbage output and bill.

Two years into ourprogram, residents

had significantlyincreased theirrecycling—andmany had also

requested servicesthat could help

them reduce wasteeven more!


EPA530-F-97-007f

An excellent public information andeducation program is imperative.

Complementary Programs

In 1992, in cooperation with ClarkCounty, the city implemented a curb-side recycling program. The program ismandatory for single-family households,and all households are billed $3.10 permonth for weekly recycling as part oftheir garbage service. A similar programis also available to all multifamily com-plexes within the city limits.

The city’s contracted hauler also offersa voluntary yard debris collection pro-gram. For a monthly fee ($5.55), cus-tomers can set out up to 96 gallons ofmaterial. Since the program is voluntary,it does not conflict with citizens whochoose to compost their organic wastesat home or self-haul to local compost-ing facilities.

Meeting the Challenges: Tips

for Other Communities

Vancouver has encountered a variety ofchallenges throughout the past severalyears, and we hope that other jurisdic-tions may benefit from our experiences.A significant concern has been whetherwe are receiving accurate and up-to-date data from our garbage and recy-cling program service providers. It isimportant to select providers who haveexcellent computer tracking and report-ing systems and adequate staffing inplace to accomplish these needs. Allsolid waste programs require the con-tractor to provide monthly reports thatenable the city to track the program’sactivities and monitor progress.

An excellent public information andeducation program is imperative.Although our experiences with newprogram campaigns have been verypositive, it has been a challenge toensure that all citizens are informed

about new and existing programs andthe different service levels available tothem. Our ongoing challenge has beenfinding sufficient time and resources todedicate to frequent, targeted publicrelations campaigns.

When the city first attempted to imple-ment our once-a-month collectionoption, it was not approved. The citycouncil, along with the local health dis-trict, had concerns about its potentialnegative impact on health and safety.Monthly service was eventuallyapproved due to the pressure fromrecently annexed citizens, namely avidrecyclers and senior citizens who wereused to handling recycling and garbageon their own. The variety of serviceoptions, although positive from a wastereduction and customer standpoint,increases the instability of the revenuestream for the service providers andmakes enforcement of mandatory col-lection more difficult.

Program Success

We have found volume-based linearrates to be an effective tool for encour-aging residents and businesses to exam-ine their disposal habits, to recyclemore, and to decrease their garbageservice levels. The city exceeded its 50percent recycling goal by the end of1995. Based on available data sources, itwas determined that 51 percent of thecity’s wastes were recycled and 49 per-cent were disposed of in the landfill thatyear. While some residents are motivat-ed by environmental stewardship, othersare encouraged to change habits basedon their pocketbooks. Although volume-based linear rates pose challenges, webelieve that they are the driving forcebehind our success in meeting our wastereduction and recycling goals.

Vancouver’s success story was compiled by Andrea Friedrichsen and Tamera J. Kihs, SolidWaste Program Manager, (360) 696-8186.

Documents

United States Solid Waste and EPA530-F-97-007 Agency …This collection of testimonials presents first-hand stories from communities that faced significant municipal solid waste (MSW)