City of San Marcos Comprehensive Solid Plan

(March 2012) Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summary of Projections ...... 1 Summary of Goals and Recommendations ...... 3 Definitions ...... 4

2. INTRODUCTION Purpose and Formation of Task Force by San Marcos City Council ...... 9

3. EXISTING SYSTEMS AND GENERATION Current Statistics and Waste Generation Statistics ...... 11 San Marcos Solid Waste/Recycle Services ...... 14 Map of City of San Marcos ...... 16 Projected MSW Generation and to 2020 ...... 17 2010-2011 Recycling Totals (Residential and Multi-Family) ...... 18 2011 Trash and Recycling Collection Zones ...... 19 Solid Waste & Recycling Monthly Report 2010-2011 ...... 20 Additional Solid Waste & Recycling Statistics ...... 20 Green Guy Recycle Amounts ...... 22

4. RESEARCH DATA GATHERING Comparative Community Waste Management Systems ...... 23 Summary of Public Input and Focus Groups ...... 28 Focus Group Questions and Responses ...... 32

5. GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Detailed Goals and Recommendations ...... 39

6. APPENDIX City of San Marcos Population and Growth Patterns ...... 44 City of San Marcos Population Growth & Housing Statistics ...... 45 Detailed Breakdown of Waste Types Landfilled in Texas, 2009 ...... 46 Monthly Requests from Citizens ...... 47 Data ...... 48 Trash and Recycling Collection Zones ...... 49 Comparative Community Baseline Summarization ...... 50 Executive Summary

Summary of Projections

The City of San (MSW) in all Marcos experiences a economic sectors of the city. Currently, higher than average 9,480 tons of residentially generated growth rate due to waste/year is collected from MSW serviced several factors which accounts. Based on conservative include: 1) home of a projections, it is estimated 11,103 tons/year major State of MSW could be generated in 2015 and university, 2) 12,738 tons/year by 2020. The percentage attractive geographic of residents participating in recycling is and environmental currently 58%, with a diversion rate features, 3) above (amount of MSW being recycled) is 14.17%. average standard of living, 4) and interstate These waste generation statistics and transportation system with connections to projections do not include Texas State major commerce centers in Texas (Austin, University. San Antonio, Houston). 5) and economic Currently, there are no centralized solid factors that produce a favorable investment waste management programs that recycle climate and serve as an engine for growth. the commercial and business waste, and Demographic data compiled by the City of demolition and San Marcos Planning and Development segments of the waste stream in San Dept. shows a current population of 53,910 Marcos. Conservative estimates for the people with total households of 19,981(i). amount of commercial/business waste, Projections estimate the population will demolition and construction waste, and increase by 34.4% to 72,455 by 2020 and other waste (grease trap waste, septage, households will increase by 25.7% to asbestos, and other special non-industrial 26,906(ii). Owner occupied housing ) currently generated total 16,941 accounts for only 25% of total households. tons per year. Projected estimates for The student population (est. 32,572) these segments of the waste stream total accounts for 37.6% of the San Marcos 19,843 tons in 2015 and 22,763 tons in population. Texas State University is a 2020. primary employer and is the foundation for economic activity in San Marcos. Prior to the commencement of the MSW assessment and plan process, city The projected population growth sponsored municipal solid waste services within the city limits and extra-territorial were, essentially, provided to only jurisdiction of San Marcos will generate a residential and municipal facilities, serving significant increase in the quantity of only 6,500 residential accounts. Multi-

Page 1 Executive Summary (Continued) family recycling was commenced in Based on current and objective February, 2010, thereby increasing the diversion rates, these increases in the number of subscriber accounts to 17,364. quantity of MSW point to the definite need Current data for the recycling diversion rate to strategically plan and implement solid (tons recycled per month) has increased by waste collection and disposal services (or approximately 22% since the inception of systems) to effectively and cost efficiently multi-family recycling. Implementing multi- manage the waste stream both in the short- family recycling did achieve a per household term and the long-term. reduction in the cost of curbside recycling The goals and recommendations by $.50/household. identified through this planning process Information gathered from were arrived at using criterion that included presentations by select communities in operational efficiencies, increased Texas and research of systems in other participation and diversion rates, increased cities outside the state revealed services while controlling costs. None-the- management concepts, that if implemented less, the recommended actions must be strategically in San Marcos, can increase measurable with targets that are realistic, logistical and service efficiencies, and but at the same time, challenging. provide needed services, whether ______generated by public demand or increases in i See Appendix, Population and Growth Patterns waste volume due to growth in population ii See Section 3, Waste Generation Projections and/or subscription rates.

Page 2 Executive Summary (Continued)

Summary of Goals and Recommendations

After gathering input from comparable 4. ESTABLISH LAND DEVELOPMENT communities and a public input process of CODES TO ADDRESS MUNICIPAL AND town hall meetings and focus group COMMERCIAL, MULTI-FAMILY, AND discussions, the San Marcos MSW Task DOWNTOWN SOLID WASTE ISSUES Force developed six recommendations to Strategy: As future growth and address short-term, medium-term, and redevelopment progress, incorporating long-term MSW needs and service options. MSW planning into the design and They are: permit phase of developments will enable effective MSW management. 1. INCREASE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND EDUCATION 5. CORRELATE ECONOMIC Strategy: Develop and implement a DEVELOPMENT POLICIES THAT comprehensive MSW Services public ENCOURAGE NEW RECYCLING awareness component. Collaborate with BUSINESSES AND EXPANSION OF Texas State University, local ISD, and EXISTING BUSINESSES other groups. Strategy: Positive economic impacts can be realized through implementation 2. INCREASE WASTE REDUCTION of MSW management systems through /DIVERSION proper strategy and collaboration. Strategy: Increase recycling rates and Implement incentives that maintain and lower the amount of waste requiring create jobs and generate a positive landfilling. Increase economic impact. diversion, variable rate, composting, C&D waste. 6. EXPLORE SERVICE OPTIONS THAT ENABLE SAN MARCOS TO ACHIEVE 3. EVALUATE AND IMPLEMENT COST METRIC GOALS AND EFFECTIVELY EFFICIENT SERVICES MANAGE INCREASED MSW Strategy: Implement “best GENERATION AND SERVICE management practices” that enable San DEMANDS Marcos to provide effective and cost Strategy: Implement service options efficient services. that are specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely = SMART

Page 3 Executive Summary (Continued)

Definitions

Best Management Practices leaves, grass, and food , by microorganisms. The result of this Best Management Practices (BMP’s) in decomposition process is , a municipal solid waste management involves crumbly, earthy- smelling, soil-like material. using an integrated approach. Integrated Yard trimmings and food scraps make up waste management involves what is about 25 percent of the waste U.S. commonly referred to as the “three R’s” households generate, so composting can hierarchy: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. greatly reduce the amount of waste that Reduce the amount of waste that is ends up in or incinerators. In generated, Reuse materials to use them up, Texas, MSW composting requires a permit and/or Recycle the materials by processing from the Texas Commission on them into a new or different product. After Environmental Quality. applying the three R’s, then landfill, Event Composting incinerate, or compost the residual waste remaining. Event Composting is the collection and Bulky Waste segregation of waste materials from events (usually containing a high percentage of Bulky waste are items such as organic matter) and applying the controlled appliances and couches that cannot be biological decomposition process to this picked up with normal residential garbage segregated waste stream. and may require special handling, such as Construction and Freon and compressor oil removal (prior to pickup). Construction and Demolition Waste, Composting Municipal Solid Waste often referred to as, “C&D” waste, is waste materials left over from new Composting is the controlled biological construction, remodeling, building decomposition of organic matter, such as demolition, road construction, consists of food and yard wastes into humus, a soil-like unwanted material produced directly or material. Composting is nature's way of incidentally by the construction or recycling organic waste into new soil, which industries. This includes building materials can be used in vegetable and flower such as insulation, nails, electrical wiring, gardens, landscaping, and many other and rebar, as well as waste originating from applications. Composting is the controlled site preparation such as dredging materials, decomposition of organic materials, such as tree stumps, and rubble. Much building

Page 4 Executive Summary (Continued) waste is made up of materials such as motor oil, antifreeze, fuel, poisons, bricks, concrete, and wood damaged or pesticides, herbicides and rodenticides, unused for various reasons during fluorescent lamps, lamp ballasts, smoke construction. Observational research has detectors, medical waste, some types of shown that this can be as high as 10 to 15% cleaning chemicals, and consumer of the materials that go into a building, a electronics (such as televisions, computers, much higher percentage than the 2.5-5% and cell phones). usually assumed by quantity surveyors and These wastes are municipal solid waste, the construction industry. and almost all can be legally disposed in Green Waste Mulching landfills that can accept regular trash. Under Texas laws and regulations, HHW is In agriculture and gardening, mulch is a limited to those wastes from households protective cover placed over the soil, to that would be if they were retain moisture, reduce erosion, suppress not specifically excluded by the federal weed growth and seed germination, and regulations. However, because of their provide nutrients as they decay. Mulching hazardous characteristics, and potential in gardens and landscapes mimics leaf cover environmental and health impacts, many on forest floors. Local green waste communities offer programs people can mulching is where individuals, through dispose of HHW in a more protective curbside pickup or resident drop-off manner. Such disposals are often done centers, can dispose of the green waste through collection programs. generated through lawn and tree Materials Recovery Facility maintenance, where it will be ground and allowed to self-compost. Green waste A Materials Recovery Facility, also mulching does not include composting of known as a materials recycling facility or municipal solid waste. “MRF” (pronounced "murf"), is a facility Household Hazardous Waste that receives, separates and prepares recyclable materials (typically paper, plastic, Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) is metals, and glass) for marketing to end-user the term for common household chemicals manufacturers. Generally, there are two and substances for which the owner no different types - clean and dirty MRFs. longer has a use. These substances exhibit A “clean” MRF accepts recyclable many of the same dangerous characteristics commingled materials that have already as fully regulated hazardous waste due to been separated at the source from their potential for reactivity, ignitability, municipal solid waste generated by either corrosivity, toxicity, and persistence. residential or commercial sources. Examples include drain cleaners, oil paint,

Page 5 Executive Summary (Continued)

A “dirty” MRF accepts a mixed solid Pay-As-You-Throw waste stream and then proceeds to separate out the recyclable materials Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT), also called through a combination of manual and unit pricing, variable rate pricing, or user- mechanical sorting. pay, is a usage-pricing model for disposing of municipal solid waste. Users are charged Municipal Solid Waste a rate based on how much waste they present for collection to the municipality or Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is the local authority. acronym for non-hazardous waste generated by individuals, businesses, A variety of models exist depending on institutions, government facilities, or the the region and municipality. Waste is public at large. MSW includes recyclable measured by weight or size while units are materials, compostable materials, identified using different types of tags or household hazardous waste, food waste, containers. Services for waste diversion, like bulky materials, and what is considered in recycling and composting, are often general as “trash” or “garbage.” provided free of charge where PAYT systems are implemented. MSW Franchise Ordinance There are three main types of PAYT programs: Where a local governmental entity (municipality) passes an ordinance that 1. Full-unit pricing: Users pay for all the authorizes the municipality to manage all garbage they want collected in advance by MSW collection and disposal activities purchasing a tag, custom bag, or selected within the municipal boundaries. This size container. ordinance may include the requirement for municipal authorization of a private 2. Partial-unit pricing: The local company to conduct MSW collection and authority or municipality decides on a disposal activities. maximum number of bags or containers of garbage, with collection paid for taxes. Participation Rate Additional bags or containers are available for purchase should the user exceed the The number of accounts (residential permitted amount. and commercial) of all households and 3. Variable-rate pricing: Users can businesses that subscribe to recycling choose to rent a container of varying sizes services. Usually stated as a percentage (some programs offer up to five), with the and calculated by dividing the number of price corresponding to the amount of waste recycling service accounts by the total generated. number of MSW service accounts.

Page 6 Executive Summary (Continued)

Recycling Center mixed together in a collection truck, instead of being sorted into separate commodities Very similar to a transfer station, but it (newspaper, cardboard, plastic, glass, etc.) does not accept waste for disposal. A by the resident and handled separately recycling center accepts large volumes of throughout the collection process. In single recyclables (paper, plastic, aluminum, stream, both the collection and processing cardboard, yard-waste, etc.) for sorting, systems must be designed to handle this compacting, baling, and mulching. Bales of fully commingled mixture of recyclables. recyclables are transported to a broker or Outcome Metrics end-user that processes the materials and manufactures new products. Established productivity measurements Recycling Diversion Rate to motivate and foster project success. Metrics are benchmarking objectives. The The amount of material that is recommended system for the San Marcos segregated from household garbage, MSW Plan are SMART goals: usually quantified by weight. Usually stated Specific: Provide enough detail so as a percentage and calculated by dividing that there is no question on what is the amount of recyclable material by the being measured and no question how total amount of household garbage the metric is calculated. You should be collected for landfill disposal. specific as to the measurement, goals Recycling Ordinance and responsible people/department. Measurable: Here is where you use A law or decree made by any authority your metric. Make sure you have a or authoritative body that requires the reliable system in place that will separation of recyclable materials from accurately measure your performance. non-recyclable materials. An ordinance Attainable: Will the supply chain may be a goal to achieve a certain recycling projects you have scheduled for the rate, or it may be a requirement for year produce results that will achieve recycling to be offered to a particular sector your goal? The person setting the goal of the community such as residential and the person responsible for dwellings and/or businesses. achieving the goal should agree with the target. If results are unattainable or Single Stream Recycling unrealistic, they will have a de- motivating effect on your employees. Single Stream (also known as “fully commingled”) recycling refers to a system Realistic: Don't plan to do things if in which all paper fibers and containers are you are unlikely to follow through.

Page 7 Executive Summary (Continued)

Better to plan only a few things and be Transfer Station successful rather than many things and be unsuccessful. Your supply chain A transfer station is a building or goals should be challenging, but processing site for the temporary realistic in relation to the improvement deposition of waste. Transfer stations are projects you have in place. often used as places where local waste Time frame: Identify when you’re collection vehicles will deposit their waste targeting to hit your goal. Example: cargo prior to loading into larger vehicles. Your current fill rate is 87% and your These larger vehicles will transport the supply chain projects should improve waste to the end point of disposal in an your measure to 93%. But is the 93% incinerator, landfill, or hazardous waste goal for the final month of the year OR facility, or for recycling. is it averaged out over a specific time In the future, transfer stations could be frame? equipped with material recovery facilities Short, Medium, and Long-Term and with localized mechanical biological treatment systems to remove recyclable items from the waste stream. In this report, Short-term is defined as 3-5 years, Medium-term is 5-10 years, and Long-term is 10-20 years.

Page 8 Introduction

Purpose and Formation of Task Force by San Marcos City Council

The San Marcos Matt Lewis, Director of Development City Council approved Services – Planning the formation of the Richard Salmon, Grants Administrator San Marcos Municipal Jo Secrest, Public Services Program Solid Waste Task Coordinator Force to develop a comprehensive solid Rick Skiles, Skiles Real Estate waste management Brad Smith, Texas State University plan, the goal of David Case, Downtown Association which is to design and William Ford, Assistant Director implement an Community Services integrated solid waste system that is responsive to the City’s vision and growth. David Case was appointed by the City The Lower Colorado River Authority’s Council to replace Allen Shy, because Mr. (LCRA) Community and Economic Shy moved from San Marcos to another Development Department was requested to community and could not participate on the facilitate and conduct the planning process. task force. Members of the Task Force were selected The LCRA Facilitators and technical by the San Marcos City Council. The specialists were: following individuals were appointed to the Task Force: Jack Ranney, Economic Development Specialist Sabas Avila, Assistant Director Public Services – Transportation Kirk Scanlon, Economic Development Specialist, AICP Jon Clack, Assistant Director of Public Services – Water/Wastewater The process which produced this plan Daniella DeJongh, Chair of Recycle included gathering complete data on Committee Sustainable San Marcos current MSW services in San Marcos, Kyle Hahn, Owner of Green Guy performing comparative analysis of waste Recycling management systems in other communities, gathering input from the Melani Howard, Watershed Protection public (residents, business owners and Program managers, students, environmental groups, Amy Kirwin, Council of Neighborhoods and other sectors to identify gaps in Ron Leahy, Texas Disposal Systems services, needed improvements and efficiencies, and/or services wanted or

Page 9 Introduction (Continued) needed by those living and working within The scope of the project included the the city limits. following:

The public input process included an Identification of urban growth and solid initial open public meeting to gather input waste trends from San Marcos citizens to learn what Review of existing solid waste services: issues or problems, services, and needs o solid waste and/or wants they think are important. o recycling Then, a series of focus group meetings with different groups that receive MSW services Identification of community vision and through the City of San Marcos contract requests including: and/or that generate MSW and contract o pay as you throw individually for services to gather input to o brushy waste learn what issues, problems, services, and needs they think are important. o hazardous waste o composting Focus Group meetings were held for o solid waste the following service sectors in the city: o recycling Neighborhoods Development of a comprehensive, Downtown Business District strategic plan that maximizes: Texas State University (students)

Apartment Dwellers, Commercial Efficiencies Businesses, Professional Services Affordability Environmental Groups Sustainability Public-private partnerships After the focus group meetings were completed, the Task Force reviewed the information and data collected and developed goals and recommendations to meet short-term (0-5 years), medium term (5-10 years), and long-term (10-20 years) needs and planning. The goals and recommendations presented in this report are the result of this planning process.

Page 10 Existing Waste Management Systems and Generation Current Waste Collection and Generation Statistics

Current MSW services provided by San curbside rate is currently $18.37 per Marcos are provided through contracts with resident per month and is billed through private vendors: Texas the San Marcos utility billing. The monthly Disposal Systems (TDS) curbside rate includes curbside recycling by and Green Guy TDS and a monthly assessment of $.71 to Recycling (Green Guy). provide collection center services through The City of San Marcos Green Guy. Texas Disposal Systems does not provide any provides municipal solid waste services to direct MSW services, City facilities for a monthly fee of $4,583. but through the Green Guy is contracted to provide local contract with TDS, municipal recycling services for special City provides curbside MSW sponsored events, and a drop-off center for collection and $3,090 per month. recycling, yard/brush collection, and bulky Commercial/industrial and business waste collection for all residential areas property owners contract independently within the city limits. As of February, 2011, with solid waste service providers. Texas TDS provides recycling services to State University has its own MSW services subscribed multi-family complexes in the contract for university campus buildings city. Through the contract with Green Guy, and operations. paper, plastics, aluminum, glass, and cardboard are collected for recycling at all At the commencement of the San municipal offices. The contract also Marcos MSW Task Force, there were provides for the operation of a drop-off approximately 6,500 residential accounts center for all San Marcos residents for receiving service through the San Marcos comprehensive recycling services which MSW contracts with TDS. This number of include white goods, all recyclable metals, accounts translate to an estimated 27% of used motor oil and filters, computer the total municipal population. During monitors, TVs, tires, and Freon recovery. calendar year 2010, an average of 790 tons of MSW was collected monthly for landfill San Marcos MSW contracted services disposal, for a total annual volume of 9,483 currently provide collection, disposal and tons. Recycling diverted an average of 111 recycling to 6,500 residential accounts and tons per month for an annual volume of 10,864 multi-family accounts. It is believed 1,331 tons, a recycling rate of 14.17%. development of a sound public awareness Based on data provided by TDS, multi- and education component will increase family recycling has increased the recycling participation city-wide. The residential

Page 11 Existing Waste Management Systems and Generation (Continued) diversion rate by 22.4%, from a 2011 pre- assessment and plan process about MSW multi-family rate average of 113 tons per systems in other communities, city-wide month to 139.22 tons per month. codes and/or ordinances and Collection statistics (before implementation codes/ordinances for special districts in the of multi-family recycling) show an average city are tools that can help San Marcos recycling participation rate by the achieve cost and operational efficiencies residential sector (for which recycling while increasing services and participation services are provided) of 58%. rates.

In 2004, the North Texas Council of Household Hazardous Waste Governments (COG) commissioned a study Collection Program to determine the recycling rates in communities throughout the COG region. The collection of Household Hazardous Sixty-two communities in the COG region Waste (HHW) is now a full service program were surveyed. Recycling rates ranged that provides residents with opportunities from .1% to greater than 35%. The study to properly dispose of consumer chemical revealed an average regional recycling rate products commonly used in households. of 12.2%. Combined with recycling by These types of items are numerous and commercial/industrial entities in the region, include products that are classified as toxic, the overall average recycling rate is 15.8%. reactive, ignitable (flammable), and This study provides a comparison by which corrosive. Prior to the existence of HHW to evaluate the San Marcos MSW and programs, these items, when no longer recycling programs. wanted or needed, were disposed of in There are currently no comprehensive household garbage receptacles. Disposing MSW ordinances that address MSW service of HHW in household garbage for collection requirements for vendors or business and land-filling presents three important owners. City of San Marcos has developed concerns: 1) public health and safety, 2) a Master Plan and includes plans for all liability and risk management, and 3) municipal utility services and a Downtown environmental degradation. There are District plan. But, the City has not numerous documented incidents of developed a comprehensive master plan for individuals being contaminated with city-wide solid waste services. The San chemicals in their households and injuries Marcos Code of Ordinances does have the to sanitation workers during the collection Commercial Solid Waste Haulers code process. Incidents like these, when they which establishes minimum standards for happen, incur real costs to the company commercial solid waste collection and and/or municipality. Comprehensive HHW transport activities in the city. Based on programs (programs that have both information gathered during the MSW

Page 12

Existing Waste Management Systems and Generation (Continued) collection and education components) help Texas State has resources that can be to mitigate these risks. utilized constructively to help develop and implement certain components of a The City of San Marcos Household comprehensive MSW program in San Hazardous Waste (HHW) program Marcos (e.g. public awareness component commenced over a decade ago with “one- development, student assistance with day” collection events. Due to demand for component implementations). these disposal options, the program has transitioned to a permanent HHW San Marcos Municipal Solid Waste collection facility providing regularly Generation Statistics and Projections scheduled collection operating hours. The City of San Marcos has sponsored several Utilizing data provided by the City of one-day HHW collection events since 2001 San Marcos Transportation Division, and has operated a permanent HHW facility residential waste generation projections since 2007 and has enabled the city to were calculated and indicate an estimated provide four collection opportunities each 12,738 tons/year of MSW could be year. The program is open to San Marcos generated by 2020. and Hays County residents only.

Texas State University-San Marcos

Texas State University-San Marcos contracts with Texas Disposal Systems to provide MSW collection and disposal services at all university buildings and facilities. Texas State conducts its own recycling program. Texas State has also initiated a pilot composting program that may yield future opportunities on a larger scale (e.g. municipal composting) in the future. Due to Texas State being in the city of San Marcos, there exists real opportunities for collaboration on MSW collection and disposal services. Collaboration between Texas State and San Marcos regarding MSW collection and disposal and recycling may present positive cost/benefits due to waste stream volumes generated by each entity. Additionally, Page 13

Existing Waste Management Systems and Generation (Continued)

San Marcos Solid Waste/Recycle Services

Residential Solid Waste collection 1 x Police Pistol Range: 1 – 8 cubic yard, 1 x per week - Texas Disposal System (TDS) per week provides 96 gallon trash container. Firing Range: 1 – 8 cubic yard, 1 x per week Residential Single Stream recycling Electric Utility: 1 – 8 cubic yard, 1 x per collection every other week – TDS provides week 96 gallon recycle container. Code Enforcement: 2 – 96 gallon, 1 x per week Bulky pick up to include brush 2 x per month – first and third full weeks of the Activity Center: 2 – 10 cubic yard, 3 x per week month. Brush must be cut to 4 foot lengths Animal Shelter: 1 – 4 cubic yard, 5 x per and tied and bundled. Each resident is week limited to 4 bulk/brush pickups per year and Wastewater Treatment Plant: 1 – 8 cubic no more than 3 cubic yards. yard, 1 x per week Residents may take up to 5 cubic yards Containment Area on River Rd: 2 – 40 of yard waste only to the TDS landfill one cubic yard, 1 x per week time per month for free. Annual Parks Multi-Family Single Stream Recycling Softball Fields: 2 – 8 cubic yard, 2 x per provided at all apartments and mobile week home parks. Soccer Fields: 2 – 8 cubic yard, 2 x per week City Services Little League Fields: 2 – 8 cubic yard, 2 x Public Services/Transportation and per week Water/Wastewater: 8 – 8 cubic yard, 1 x per week Special Events Library: 1 – 8 cubic yard, 1 x per week Sights and Sounds of Christmas: 125 – 96 Parks and Recreation: 1 – 8 cubic yard, 1 gallon, 2 – 8 cubic yard, 2 - 14 cubic yard, x per week and 1 – 20 cubic yard Central Fire Station: 1 – 8 cubic yard, 1 x Library Book Sale: 1 – 8 cubic yard per week River Clean Up: 2 x per year, 1 – 30 cubic 3 Fire Substations: 1 – 96 gallon, 1 x per yard week Texas Natural Festival: 50 – 96 gallon, 3 – Fire Station # 5: 1 – 8 cubic yard, 1 x per 8 cubic yard week Police Department: 2 – 8 cubic yard, 1 x per week

Page 14 Existing Waste Management Systems and Generation (Continued)

Neighborhood Cleanup Program Special Events Six Neighborhood Clean Ups: 6 – 40 Sights and Sounds of Christmas: 50 – cubic yard, Additional @ $395 per haul Recycle containers Library Book Sale: Recycle containers Downtown Area River Clean Up: 2 x per year, 1 trailer 32- 40 – Public Trash Cans: 4 x per Texas Natural Festival: Recycle week containers appropriate for the event Summer Festival Recycle: Containers Green Guy Recycle Center Contract appropriate for the event Provisions Household Hazardous Waste Collection of recycling from City facilities: Collection Activity Center Contract with Stericycle for disposal Library Contract with Green Guy Recycling for Police Department two part-time employees Animal Shelter Permanent City owned facility open every Tuesday and Friday 12:00 noon to Municipal Building 3:30 p.m. and 2 Saturdays per year for Public Services Building events Central Fire Station San Marcos Water/Wastewater budgets Parks and Recreation Building $25,000.00 for disposal City Hall Building Hays County Contributes $15,000.00 for Permit Center disposal San Marcos Electric Utility Grant money from CAPCOG $20,000.00 for disposal – one time grant 2011 Neighborhood Cleanup Program City staff use overtime for events on Saturday Six Neighborhood Clean-Ups: Provide trailer for recyclable items

Page 15

Existing Waste Management Systems and Generation (Continued)

Map of City of San Marcos

Page 13 Existing Waste Management Systems and Generation (Continued)

Projected MSW Generation and Recycling to 2020

*Increase Year: 2010 2015 2020 to 2020 Municipal Population1 53,910 63,182 72,455 34.4 # of Households 19,981 23,443 26,906 25.7

Total Estimated Tons MSW Generation³ 26,421 30,945 35,502

Residential MSW2 Average # of MSW Customers 6637 7775 8920 34.4 Average Pounds of MSW per Customers 238 238 238 Average # of Tons MSW Generated per month 790 925.225 1061.48 Equivalent # of Tons MSW Generated per year 9,480 11,103 12,738 34.4

Average Recycling Participation Rate 58% 65% 100% Equivalent Numbers of Customers Recycling 3849 5053.75 8920 Average # of Tons Recycled per Month 111 231 425 Equivalent # of Tons Recycled per Year 1332 2776 5095 282 Percentage of MSW Recycled 14.17% 25% 40%

Total Estimated Tons Commercial/Business Waste³ 7,934 9,293 10,661 34.4

Estimated Tons Construction/Demolition Waste³ 5,467 6,403 7,345 34.4

Estimated Tons Other Waste³ 3,540 4,147 4,757 34.4

Footnotes:

1) Population statistics and projections were provided by San Marcos Development and Planning 2) Current MSW and recycling statistics (number of customers, amounts collected and recycled) were provided by City of San Marcos, Public Services – Transportation Division and do not include multi- family. Projections are based on 2010 data and use metric goals to calculate projected participation and diversion rates. 3) Total estimated, commercial/business MSW, and construction/demolition generations statistics were calculated by using average generation rate statistics from the report, “Municipal Solid Waste in Texas: A year in Review: FY2009 Data Summary and Analysis” - Residential waste is estimated to be 35.88% of total MSW - Commercial/business waste is estimated to be 30.03% of total MSW - Construction/demolition waste is estimated to be 20.69 % of total MSW - All other waste generated is estimated to be 13.4% of total MSW

Page 17 Existing Waste Management Systems and Generation (Continued)

2010-2011 Recycling Totals (Residential and Multi-Family)

2010-11 Curbside Recycling in Tons 180 168 159 155 160 151 149 136 140 127 132 118 120 105 92 93

100 Start of 80 Multi- Tons 60 Family 40 Recycling 20 0

Total Recycling

2009-10 Curbside Recycling in Tons 140 132 122 121 117 115 117 120 105 109 105 111 96 100 100 80 60 40 20 0 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10

Total Recycling

Page 18 Existing Waste Management Systems and Generation (Continued)

2011 Trash and Recycling Collection Zones

Page 19 Existing Waste Management Systems and Generation (Continued)

Solid Waste & Recycling Monthly Report

2010-11 Monthly Garbage & Recycle Accounts Billed Customers 20000 17467 17517 17584 17683 17321 18000 17280 16720 17008 16309 15894 16000 15047 13876 14000 12000 10522 9820 10107 9741 10000 9179 8829 6846 7793 8000 6709 6702 6720 6710 6900 6880 6924 6987 6857 6796 6779 6995 6000 4000 2000 272 279 280 282 295 326 357 368 373 372 376 384 0 0 0 0 0 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11

Garbage customers MF Recycle customers Extra Carts Green Guy Recycle customers

Additional Solid Waste & Recycling Statistics

Curbside Recycling & Solid Waste in Tons 1000 859 853 751 690 720 704 711 690 750 670 638 648 663

500 Tons

250 136 132 151 159 149 168 155 92 93 127 105 118

0

Total Recycling Solid Waste

Page 20 Existing Waste Management Systems and Generation (Continued)

Residential Recycling Participation 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

FY10 FY11

Curbside Recycling Comparison YTD 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 Total Recycling 600 400 200 0 FY10 FY11

Page 21 Existing Waste Management Systems and Generation (Continued)

Green Guy Recycle Amounts

2010-2011 Green guy Drop off Center Recycle Amounts for Paper, Glass, and Plastic 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 10-Oct Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11

Paper - Tons Glass - Tons Plastic - Tons

2010-2011 Green Guy Drop Off Center Metals Recycling 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Metals - Tons

Page 22 Research Data Gathering

Comparative Community Waste Management Systems

To provide the Businesses: By revising supplies and Task Force with purchasing parameters (e.g. sufficient background Environmentally Preferred Purchasing information to enable Policies) business waste generation them to comparatively reduction can be achieved and evaluate San Marcos’ contribute to regional waste reduction MSW services, a series goals and long-term cost containment. of presentations by Cost-Benefit: Implementation of other similar and/or initiative has increased neighboring MSW service costs. Benefit is communities was environmental conservation and scheduled. Presentations were scheduled extending life of landfill. A benefit of with the City of Austin, City of Georgetown, Single Steam Recycling is to reduce City of Frisco, and City of New Braunfels. collection costs. Recycling revenues Presentations by the City of Bryan and fluctuate with the market. College Station were attempted, but could not be scheduled. Below is a synopsis of City of Georgetown: City of these presentations and discussions. Georgetown Solid Waste Services Manager, Rachel Osgood met with the Task Force on City of Austin: City of Austin Solid August 18, 2010. Georgetown’s primary Waste Services Manager, Robert Gedert objective is effective and cost efficient made a presentation about the Zero Waste MSW management. Based on notes and Initiative on June 30, 2010. Zero Waste is comments from the City of Georgetown Austin’s approach and initiative to address presentation, effective and efficient MSW solid waste disposal issues. Zero Waste management is the result of: emphasizes waste reduction and recycling and employs an ordinance to meet their Recycling: Recycling is provided to goals and objectives. Based on notes and residential accounts, but not to comments, City of Austin goals and commercial and multi-family. Recycling objectives include: is optional for commercial businesses. Multi-family property owners/ Environmental: Recycling conserves managers do include/require recycling resources, reuses resources, extends because it adds cost to the cost of landfill life, follows national services. Cost of recycling is market environmental trends. driven-service rates fluctuate with recyclable commodity markets. Many new residents from other states,

Page 23 Research Data Gathering (Continued) moving to Georgetown are accustomed Georgetown MSW rate information is to mandatory recycling programs, provided in the Baseline Community therefore want recycling in Comparison spreadsheet (see Appendix). Georgetown. City of Frisco: City of Frisco Solid Waste Green Waste: Current contract Services Manager Pippa Couvillion met with services provide curbside green waste the Task Force on September 22, 2010. pickup (quantity limited), but contract Frisco’s primary objective is effective and does not insure green waste does not cost efficient MSW management. Based on go to landfill. Georgetown owns local notes and comments from the City of Frisco transfer station/collection center and presentation, effective and cost efficient residents can bring unlimited amounts MSW management is the result of: of green waste to center. Administration: Diligent, dedicated, Ordinance and Franchise: City of and vigilant program administration Georgetown passed an ordinance that has been a key to successful MSW requires all MSW service providers operations management that has providing services within Georgetown achieved cost efficiencies and some of city limits to be approved as a service the lowest monthly billing rates in the provider by City of Georgetown. state. Strong leadership with direct Currently, Georgetown has provided a access to City Manager and ability to franchise to Texas Disposal Systems adapt policies/rates to market (TDS) to provide all services within city conditions, development planning limits. Utility customers living outside input and codes, incorporating of city limits can receive 1/week environmental goals and objectives collection services or select another have been fundamental to achieving service provider. Businesses within cost efficiencies. Georgetown city limits must use franchised service provider (TDS). Enterprise Fund: Frisco created an Enterprise Fund for MSW services. Transfer Station & Citizens Enterprise Funds account for Collection Station: City of Georgetown operations that are financed and owns a facility that is both a registered operated in a manner similar to private transfer station and citizens' collection business – where the intent of the station that is operated by the governing body is that the costs franchise service provider (TDS). (expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis be financed or recovered primarily through user charges. With an

Page 24 Research Data Gathering (Continued) enterprise fund, all costs of service increasing at a rate of approximately 5- delivery (direct, indirect, and capital 6% annually. costs) are identified. This allows the Ordinance and Franchise: Frisco has community to recover total service contracts with three vendors: one for costs through user fees if it chooses. residential, one for commercial, one for Enterprise accounting also enables construction. This helped achieve communities to reserve the "surplus" operational and logistical efficiencies. or retained earnings generated by the Frisco determines the rate and any operation of the enterprise rather than surpluses are maintained by the MSW closing it out to the general fund at Enterprise Fund. Frisco has one vendor year-end. for residential curbside services. Recycling: Frisco views recycling Ordinance requires MSW service from two perspectives: 1) efficiently locations and facilities be included in managed recycling programs can development site plans and capacity produce cost savings which keeps MSW designed to serve needs of rates lower for the rate payers, and 2) development. has environmental benefits by Transfer Station & Drop-Off/ extending landfill life and conserving Collection Center: City of Frisco has a natural resources. Other cities and “drop-off center,” which is a transfer entities say “recycling costs money,” or station (Frisco does not manage the “increases MSW service costs.” Frisco, station). In Frisco there is also a on the other hand, says recycling recyclables collection center, where shouldn’t increase costs, but should recyclables are baled for shipment. create cost efficiencies. Recycling and Frisco does not manage the recyclables diversion of materials from going to the center. landfill generated a cost savings of $1.7 million in 2009. City of New Braunfels: City of New Braunfels Solid Waste Services Manager, – Multi-Family recycling is Michael Mundell met with the Task Force mandatory (by ordinance). on October 13, 2010. City of New Braunfels Green Waste & Composting: Frisco provides curbside MSW collection and green waste and would like recycling, and uses the Waste Management to compost MSW, because landfills landfill, Mesquite Creek near New serving the North Texas area will Braunfels. Based on notes and comments someday need expansion or new from the City of New Braunfels landfill and then costs will go up presentation, effective and cost efficient significantly. Landfill costs are MSW management is their primary goal and is the result of:

Page 25 Research Data Gathering (Continued)

Recycling: Recycling can save – Temporary drop-off locations money-cost-savings from diversion are provided quarterly for from landfill. Sale of commodities can residents for bulky waste items: generate net cost savings, but revenues appliances without Freon, scrap fluctuate with the market. New metal, furniture, up to 10 Braunfels provides curbside single- passenger car tires w/o rims per stream recycling. Currently, instituted resident, and other a pilot program for business recycling. miscellaneous bulky items at most sites. Administration & Operations: NBU administers the accounting and billing Green Waste: Green waste is for garbage and recycle collection. collected curbside along with recyclables. Green waste is collected in – New Braunfels owns collection specific green waste bags or in small truck fleet and provides all bundles and taken to the Comal County collection services for residential Recycling Center where it is chipped and commercial. The main into free mulch. The city provides efficiency from operating their limited green waste paper bags to own fleet is they have control of residents to aide in this collection. their program, level of service, Collection of green waste is not type of service, customer provided to apartments, service. More flexibility. All condominiums, or businesses. Large private contractors are profit volumes of green waste can be taken driven and rates will probably go by residents to the Comal facility but is up annually. not included in MSW services. Transfer Station & Collection Center: Ordinance and Franchise: New New Braunfels has a central Braunfels has passed and implemented recycling center where residents and detailed ordinances that define MSW businesses can drop off recycling. services including garbage container Materials are not baled, but collected placement, licensing of private haulers, in single-stream rear-load trucks for collection methods, charges and transfer to recycling vendor facility. billings, rules for business-commercial- Compactor roll-off for cardboard industrial-institutional users. New implemented March, 2011. Braunfels controls MSW management – Proximity to landfills doesn’t in the city, any other service providers justify cost of using a transfer must be approved and licensed by New station. Transfer stations add Braunfels. unneeded costs.

Page 26 Research Data Gathering (Continued)

A matrix list of MSW services and rate Appendix section. This document also information for each of the comparative includes MSW services and rate information communities is provided in the Baseline for the City of Bryan, City of Denton, and Community Comparison spreadsheet in the City of College Station.

Page 27 Research Data Gathering (Continued)

Summary of Public Input and Focus Groups

One of the most important processes data from the comparative community to gather information to determine if presentations) and establish goals and current MSW services are meeting the recommendations for the San Marcos MSW needs of the community is through public plan. Participation at the first public input input meeting, aka “town hall meetings.” meeting and focus group meetings was The citizens that use the services can considered average, but the responses were provide important information regarding considered representative of the MSW deficiencies, wants/needs, and the types issues in San Marcos. Upon completion of and level of service for which they are this task, the goals and recommendations willing to pay. were presented at a second public input meeting for review and discussion. Below is For the public input process for the San a synopsis of the questions and data Marcos MSW Assessment and Plan, two gathered from the public input process. public input meetings and five focus group meetings were scheduled. The objective of First Public Input Meeting – October the first public input meeting (October 25, 24, 2010 2010) was to gather a broad spectrum of information from the citizens of San Marcos The following questions were (residents and businesses). Subsequent to presented to the public at the first public the first public input meeting, five focus input meeting, conducted on October 25, group meetings were scheduled to gather 2010: input from the different socio-economic sectors of the community (environmental, Are you satisfied with current MSW residential, downtown business district, services? student residential, commercial, and multi- If you are not satisfied with current family), all of which utilize MSW services, services, what needs to be changed or whether it is provided through the City of added? San Marcos or contracted independently. To reduce the time requirement for Are there additional services you conducting the focus group meetings, input want, need, or think may be needed? meetings for two of the socio-economic If there was an added cost to sectors (environmental and multi-family) provide an additional service, would were held on the same day, but as different you be willing to pay a fee or a higher groups. After gathering the data from the service rate for that service? first public input meeting and the focus groups, the task force met on two different Would you substitute or change an occasions to review the data (including the existing service in order to have a

Page 28 Research Data Gathering (Continued)

different or another service you Need additional or expanded green consider important? If, yes, which waste recycling options (e.g. home service would you change or composting, local composting or green substitute? waste processing). To manage the volume of responses, Need better/comprehensive public the responses were categorized as awareness and education component strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and about MSW services and recycling threats (SWOT analysis). Some responses Increase recycling city-wide (multi- are similar in content, or stated differently, family and businesses). but with the same meaning and were presented as one summarized response. Lack of planned MSW service The following is a synopsis of the responses: options for downtown district.

Dominant issues expressed by each Opportunities: table group during the October 25th public meeting were: green waste management, Implement Pay-As-You-Throw composting, Pay-As-You-Throw, public (PAYT) collection and billing. awareness and education, commercial and Consider single-vendor service multi-family recycling, development of agreements. needed ordinances, and efficient solid waste management operations. Consider franchise agreement(s) for MSW services. Strengths: Develop home composting option.

Current services are providing Develop local composting (local adequate MSW disposal and recycling collection center drop-off) option for options. green waste and recyclables. Single-stream recycling is a better ”Incentivize” waste reduction and collection method. recycling. Citizens are willing to pay for Cooperation/collaboration between additional MSW services, if the services Texas State University and the City of and costs are justified and reasonable. San Marcos. Cooperation/collaboration between Weaknesses: City of San Marcos and Hays Consolidated ISD. Curbside collected “green” waste is picked up by the service vendor and land filled.

Page 29 Research Data Gathering (Continued)

Threats: 1) to provide adequate collection services for the volume of Lack of enforcement of existing disposable waste and recyclable codes and regulations. materials being generated; Lack of MSW codes and ordinances. 2) to increase recycling rates for materials currently collected; Lack of ordinances that enable San 3) to increase recycling options for Marcos to effectively management additional materials; MSW in city boundary. 4) to provide efficient and cost effective MSW services; and, Focus Group Meetings 5) to provide services that effectively manages a growing volume of MSW The questions for the different focus as the city grows. groups were almost the same, but slightly differentiated to address certain questions San Marcos is an environmentally unique to each socio-economic sector. The conscientious community and wants to questions that were developed were based preserve its “environmental heritage,” the on input from the October 25th public input San Marcos River, it being a primary natural meeting and the comparative community resource asset. The residential sector, presentations. Focus Group meetings were overall, likes the current services being held for the following socio-economic or provided, but understands the need to MSW service sectors in the city: expand existing services and wants additional services. The downtown district Focus Group Meeting Date sector is concerned about cost increases Environmental Nov 4, 2010 Neighborhood/Residential Nov 4, 2010 resulting from changes in MSW services and Texas State University Dec 1, 2010 management, but at the same time (students) understands service and management Downtown District Dec 16, 2010 modifications are needed to address Multi-family and Jan 26, 2011 current problems. Multi-family property Commercial owners have managed MSW services for their complexes and do not see a need for The following is a summarization of the service changes; multi-family recycling was comments from the public meeting and initiated by ordinance following the focus groups. commencement of this planning process, and the data that has been generated The citizens of San Marcos want and points to the need for enhanced public need additional MSW services for five awareness to generate increased primary reasons: participation by residents. Focus group participation by the commercial business

Page 30 Research Data Gathering (Continued) sector was very light-comments/input being The following were identified through that similar issues and problems being public input and focus groups as services experienced in the downtown district are that need to be modified, expanded, and/or being experienced in other commercial diversion rates increased: recycling (paper, sectors of the city. A focus group plastic, aluminum, glass, metals), green comprised of Texas State University waste collection and management, bulky students was formed as this socio-economic waste collection and management, sector, although transient, generates a household hazardous waste. The following significant amount of MSW in the city. Their were identified as services that need to be comments supported issues and needs added: management of business/ identified by other focus groups. commercial waste and recycling, construction/demolition waste The following are the existing core management and recycling, a full-service services currently being provided by the collection center (for all materials), Pay-As- City of San Marcos through contractual You-Throw collection and billing system, services: enhance and expand public awareness residential curbside garbage collection about MSW issues and recycling, and recycling (with bulky waste pickup), reasonable and equitable codes and/or ordinances that foster improved MSW municipal facility (offices, parks and management city-wide. recreation areas) garbage collection and recycling, A summary of the focus group multi-family recycling, and a questions and responses can be found on full-service recycling drop-off center. the following pages.

Multi-family, business and commercial garbage collection services are contracted by the property and business owner, with the MSW service provider of their choice.

Page 31 Research Data Gathering (Continued)

Focus Group Questions and Responses

Are you satisfied with current MSW services?

Environmental Focus Group: Majority said no Neighborhood Group: Majority said yes Texas State University Group: Majority said yes

If you are not satisfied with current MSW services, what needs to be changed or added?

Environmental Group: Increase recycling, implement recycling for multi- family dwellings, schools, and businesses; Implement Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT), Single-Vendor or City-wide franchise, green waste ordinances, composting.

Neighborhood Group: Implement Pay-As-You-Throw, need comprehensive public awareness about MSW issues and services, schedule neighborhood cleanups annually.

Downtown District Group: Implement Pay-As-You-Throw; MSW services are inefficient, not clean, or planned; Implement recycling; provide additional MSW service options to businesses.

What MSW services or issues are most important or beneficial to the environment? Of those you named which are the most important?

Environmental Group: Multi-family recycling, green waste composting, business recycling, school recycling, Pay-As-You- Throw, ordinances limiting plastic bags and bottles, MSW franchise/single-vendor

Downtown District Group: Implement Pay-As-You-Throw; MSW services are inefficient, not clean, or planned. Implement recycling; provide additional MSW service options to businesses.

Page 32 Research Data Gathering (Continued)

Alternate Questions

Residential: Do you think Pay-As-You-Throw is an appropriate method for curbside garbage collection and billing? Why or why not?

Neighborhood Group: Majority, no answer. Respondents stated PAYT incentivizes waste reduction and is a fair method for MSW services billing.

Downtown: Do you have an issue or problem with garbage dumpster placement, overflows, littered alleyways, or others using your dumpster for trash disposal?

Downtown/Apartment & Commercial Group: 50% yes, 50% no. Respondents stated there are issues with dumpster placement in alleyways and parking lots, overflowing dumpsters, lack of space planning for MSW services, need improved pickup scheduling.

Texas State Students: As an apartment or housing resident, what MSW services or issues do you think are most important or beneficial?

Answer: Pay-As-You-Throw, leave green waste on lawn, education about recycling, composts/mulching of green waste, HHW & E-Waste.

Do you think Pay-As-You-Throw helps accomplish environmental goals?

Environmental Group: Unanimous, yes. Incentivizes waste reduction, cost savings may help pay for other programs.

Neighborhood/Residential: Do you like having curbside green waste pickup? Do you think keeping green waste out of the landfill is important? Do you think composting or mulching green waste is important?

Answer: Unanimous, yes to all questions.

Page 33 Research Data Gathering (Continued)

Downtown and Apartments: As a business owner do you think it’s important to have MSW services that are beneficial to the environment?

Answer: Unanimous, yes. However, businesses have a concern that recycling may increase operating costs. Need proper planning and dumpster placement.

Do you think keeping green waste out of the landfill is important? Do you think composting or mulching of green waste is important?

Environmental Group: Unanimous, yes to both questions.

Do you think keeping waste out of the landfill is important and helps accomplish environmental goals?

Texas State Students: Majority, yes. Keep anything recyclable out of the landfill.

Do you think having a local drop-off center for recyclables, green waste, electronics, and other materials would benefit the environment or environmental goals?

Environmental Group: Unanimous, yes.

Downtown District Group: Unanimous, no. Unanimously, downtown district focus group participants want more MSW service collections.

Apartment/Commercial Businesses:One response, yes. MSW drop-off is a possibility for the downtown area and for other sectors of the city. There are logistics concerns by food and entertainment establishments regarding a district drop-off location for MSW. Texas State University Group: Majority, no answer. A drop-off center may generate a cost savings re transportation costs and resources; may increase recycling rate and volume; Incorporate reuse in local drop-off center.

Page 34 Research Data Gathering (Continued)

Do you think having a local drop-off center for recyclables, green waste, electronics, and other materials would improve solid waste services?

Neighborhood/Residential: Unanimous, yes. If it is a one-stop drop-off for all materials; like recycling in the monthly rate; curbside services are good for those who can’t get to a drop-off center; depends on the spectrum of services offered.

Do you think having a local drop-off center for recyclables, electronics, and other materials (bulky waste items i.e. appliances, couches, etc) would provide disposal and recycling services apartment residents need?

Texas State Students: Majority, yes. Incorporate reuse in local drop-off center.

Do you think it’s important to educate and make the public aware about MSW services and issues?

Environmental Group: Unanimously, yes. Neighborhood Group: Unanimously, yes. Texas State University Group: Majority, yes.

What is the best way to educate and make the public aware about MSW issues and services?

Environmental Group: Consistent and repetitive public awareness; information is easily available; information through schools, make it fun so people will want to read about it; utilize environmental groups; have special events; develop mascot, logo, and slogan; educate medical professionals about proper disposal, provide incentives.

Downtown District, Apartment & Commercial Businesses: Not a hot topic for business owners-there are other more important issues; distribute information through the downtown business association, through a newsletter, letters, public meetings and group presentations.

Page 35 Research Data Gathering (Continued)

If a MSW ordinance was proposed that increased services and had the potential to benefit the environment, would you be in favor of it?

Environmental Group: Unanimously, yes. Neighborhood Group: Unanimously, yes. Texas State University Group: Majority, yes.

If a MSW ordinance was proposed that increased services or service efficiencies, or had the potential to improve costs or lower costs, would you be in favor of it?

Neighborhood/Residential: Unanimously, yes.

Downtown District: Unanimously, non-committal. Will consider it.

Apartment & Commercial Businesses: 50% responded no; 50% responded maybe/depends. Beautification is important. Beautification adds to property value.

If implementation of an MSW ordinance that increased services or service efficiencies and benefitted the environment, but increased costs, would you be in favor of it?

Environmental Group: Unanimously, non-committal. “It depends” Neighborhood Group: Unanimously, yes. Texas State University Group: 43%, yes; 47% non-committal. Depends on what it cost.

If a MSW ordinance was proposed that increased services or service efficiencies, but increased the cost of MSW services, would you be in favor of it?

Answer: Unanimously, yes.

Downtown District: No response. It depends on the proposed ordinance, associated costs, and benefits.

Apartment & Commercial Businesses: 50% responded no; 50% responded maybe/depends.

Page 36 Research Data Gathering (Continued)

Would you substitute or change an existing service in order to have a different or another service you consider important?

Environmental Focus Group: Unanimously, yes. Neighborhood Group: Unanimously, no. Texas State University Group: Majority said yes.

Which service would you change or substitute?

Environmental Group: 1/week recycling, 2/month garbage collection; 1/month bulk pickup, 1/month green waste pickup.

Neighborhood Group: Would pay to add quality services, but not reduce current services; would like a menu of services with costs.

Texas State University Group: Less garbage pickups, more recycling; Implement PAYT; less frequent green waste collections in exchange for one large (no limit) green waste collection.

If there was an added cost to provide an additional service, would you be willing to pay a fee or higher service rate for that service?

Neighborhood Group: Unanimously, yes. Pay for quality services.

Downtown District: 33%, no; 66%, non-committal.

Apartment & Commercial Businesses: Unanimously, non-committal. Depends on additional service and benefit derived.

Is there another issue concerning your MSW services that we have not mentioned or discussed, but which is important to you?

Environmental Group: Dead animal pickup, solid waste department implements research based on intervention, i.e. pharmaceuticals, HHW, river bottom cleanup, city- wide pickup, animal waste.

Neighborhood Group: Fines for misuse of services, enforce codes for curbside trash receptacle removal.

Downtown District: Need additional parking space.

Page 37 Research Data Gathering (Continued)

Apartment & Commercial Businesses: Centralized facility for green-waste processing, MSW management plan for downtown, centralized dumpster location for MSW collection, standardized MSW codes that don’t over-regulate businesses, planning for increased densities in the future in downtown district, reliable service at a reasonable cost, MSW management plan for all sectors of the city.

Texas State University Group: Restaurant and bar recycling, restaurant food waste composting, recycling in all commercial businesses.

If it cost $1.50/month/resident for a one-stop drop center for all materials, would you be willing to pay (without losing current services)?

Answer: Unanimous, yes. Should include all residents and multi-family.

Would you agree to a “franchise” type ordinance in San Marcos to improve services and lower costs for residents?

Answer: 89%, yes; 11%, no.

Page 38 Goals and Recommendations

Detailed Goals and Recommendations

After gathering 5. Provide training starting in the input from comparable public schools and university and communities and a reach out to other areas. public input process of 6. Make use of the radio and TV PSA’s, town hall meetings and and marquis. focus group 7. Mail out a calendars and/or flyers. discussions, the San 8. Utilize technology and mobile Marcos MSW Task applications to distribute Force developed six information and mobile applications recommendations to address short-term, Outcome: Results will be an informed medium-term, and public, and public implementation of “best long-term MSW needs and service options. management” practices for MSW services. They are: Metric A: Increase residential 1. Increase Public Awareness and recycling participation rate from 58 Education % to 65% by 2013, to 75% by 2015, 100% by 2030. Strategy: Develop and implement a Metric B: Number of schools that comprehensive MSW Services public participate. awareness component. Collaborate with Texas State University, local ISD, and other Metric C: Number of public groups. awareness pieces that are distributed. Justification: Effective and consistent communication will educate the public 2. Increase Waste Reduction about MSW issues and foster participation /Diversion in waste reduction initiatives.

Strategy: Increase recycling tonnage and Recommendations: lower the amount of waste requiring land 1. Utilize newspaper stories, web site filling. Increase green waste diversion, apply posting, trash can lid postings, and variable rate, require composting and utility bill mailers. construction and demolition waste. 2. Meet with Downtown Association

and Neighborhood Associations. Justification: Current recycle program 3. Conduct classes at the San Marcos participation rates are above average, but Nature Center. actual diversion rates are below average. 4. Coordinate with Chamber of Curbside green waste is currently land Commerce to spread information filled. A modification of this method could through their network. result in lower service costs.

Page 39

Goals and Recommendations (Continued)

Recommendations: 2015, 50% by 2020, and 100% by 1. Assess the service contract and 2030. modify to include one green waste collection and one bulk waste Metric D: Increase downtown collection per month. recycling diversion rates 25% by 2. Develop ordinances or codes that 2015, 50% by 2020, and 100% by require green waste 2030. diversion/recycling and foster C&D Metric E: Increase municipal recycling and ensure proper recycling diversion rates 35% by disposal. 2015, 60% by 2020, and 100% by 3. Implement billing process 2030. modifications based on cart size -

Pay-As-You-Throw. 4. Modify route/scheduling to separate 3. Evaluate and Implement Cost bulky waste and green waste Efficient Services collection. 5. Require event composting. Strategy: Implement “best management 6. Use compostable product utensils at practices” that enable San Marcos to events. provide effective and cost efficient services. 7. Develop and operate a green waste collection center. Justification: As the demand and/or need 8. Develop home composting for services increase, and as costs to programs. provide services increase, it is imperative to 9. Develop municipal project evaluate options that deliver the most cost construction policies that utilize efficient services. Information gathered locally generated recycled materials about MSW operations in other such as crushed glass for fill communities has shown there are cost material. efficient options San Marcos can implement to meet growing service needs. Outcome: Cost efficiencies/reduction, equitable billing based on waste generation, Recommendations: recycling/landfill diversion, decreased illegal 1. Implement Pay-As-You-Throw. dumping. 2. Modify route schedules to separate bulk and green waste collection. Metric A: Increase green waste 3. Have one provider (franchisee) for diversion rate 50% by 2015, 75% by residential and commercial solid 2020, 100% by 2030. waste services for entire City to leverage economies of scale for Metric B: Increase C&D diversion lower rates. 15% by 2015, 35% by 2020, and 65% 4. Develop partnership for local green by 2030. waste recycling/processing. 5. Amend contract for one bulk waste Metric C: Increase commercial pickup per month for lower rate. recycling diversion rates 15% by

Page 40

Goals and Recommendations (Continued)

Outcome: Operational efficiencies that reduce number of dumpsters and maintain and/or increase MSW services maximize space. while keeping rates and fees level or 2. Create city-wide development codes reduced. that address MSW service and issues including requirements for: Metric A: Implement MSW Garbage and recycling services/management systems dumpsters for new (“best management practices”) that developments. incentivize waste reduction and LEED certifications. lower service costs. Green builder program (single stream recycling for

Metric B: Perform periodic construction). evaluation of “best management Provide construction practices” implemented to recycling dumpsters for determine if cost efficiencies are green waste like sheet rock, being achieved. 2 x 4’s and wood products.

3. Implement environmentally 4. Establish Land Development Codes preferred purchasing policies. to Address Municipal and 4. Implement City sustainability plan. Commercial, Multifamily, and Downtown Solid Waste Issues Outcome: Uniform MSW service requirements for all downtown area Strategy: As future growth and businesses and residents, properly planned redevelopment progress, incorporating and placed dumpsters, extra dumping, odor MSW planning into the design and permit control, and overflowing dumpster issues phase of developments will enable effective resolved. LDC planning codes for future MSW management. downtown redevelopment, leverage economies-of-scale and operational Justification: There are MSW issues efficiencies by increasing recycling currently impacting the downtown district- participation and implementing variable issues which, if not addressed in the rate for different businesses. downtown district master plan, will hinder cost and operationally efficient services in Metric A: Develop MSW codes or the future, as the district is redeveloped. ordinance for downtown district by This situation could also become 2012. problematic in other parts of the city.

Consideration of MSW issues in future Metric B: Develop vendor service development could alleviate service requirements for the downtown inefficiencies and enhance development. district by 2012 (and verify). Metric C: Develop proposed city- Recommendations: wide land development 1. Establish downtown franchise district for downtown master plan to codes/ordinances for MSW reduce unsightly overflow and management and services by 2020.

Page 41

Goals and Recommendations (Continued)

5. Correlate Economic Development Metric B: Recruitment of two Policies That Encourage New companies (minimum) that utilize recycled materials as part of their Recycling Businesses and Expansion manufacturing process by 2015. of Existing Businesses Metric C: Cooperation with two education institutions (minimum) to

add job training programs for MSW Strategy: Positive economic impacts can be certifications by 2015 (Nature Center, realized through Implementation of MSW Gary Job Corps, San Marcos High management systems through proper School). strategy and collaboration. Implement incentives that maintain and create jobs and generate a positive economic impact. 6. Explore Service Options That Enable San Marcos to Achieve Metric Justification: Recycling has fostered the Goals and Effectively Manage development of businesses that de- Increased MSW Generation and manufacture discarded items and businesses Service Demands that re-manufacture recycled content products. This economic sector can produce a Strategy: Implement service options that are positive economic impact (i.e. job creation) specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and and future economic growth in San Marcos. timely = SMART

Recommendations: Justification: Establishing “metrics” for 1. Utilize unused city property for recommended programs imposes public/private partnerships, performance standards, by which planned cooperation with San Marcos evaluation can determine if programs are Economic Development and Texas meeting primary objectives and producing a State University to foster positive cost/benefit. Proper evaluation can development and commercialization determine whether a program should be of advanced MSW technologies. modified or discontinued. 2. Develop purchasing policies for

recycled office and facility products. Recommendations: 3. Develop specifications and purchasing

policies for recycled construction 1. Perform feasibility study for MSW materials such as recycled glass for fill Transfer Station, Citizens Collection or trail material. Station, or combination of multiple

collection sites city-wide. Outcome: Increased recycling, waste 2. Explore joint ventures, partnerships, reduction, positive local economic impact. or other collaborative opportunities

that help achieve goals. Metric A: Expansion of existing recycling businesses, track by job Outcome: Operationally efficient MSW creation, volume and/or weight. services, increased cost efficiencies, increased recycling and landfill diversion.

Page 42

Goals and Recommendations (Continued)

Metric A: Annual Review of goals and realistic in relation to the improvement strategies, modifications as projects you have in place. appropriate. Time frame: Identify when you are Metric B: Implement tasks to achieve targeting to hit your goal. short-term goals by 2015, mid-term goals by 2020, and long-term goals by 2030.

Metric C: Development of local recycling collection center for green waste and/or recycling by 2015.

Metric D: Conduct MSW transfer station feasibility study by 2015.

Track established metrics established for recommended strategies to determine if they meet the S.M.A.R.T. test.

Specific: Provide enough detail so that there is no question on what is being measured and no question how the metric is calculated. You should be specific as to the measurement, goals and responsible people/department.

Measurable: Make sure you have a reliable system in place that will accurately measure your performance.

Attainable: Will the Supply Chain projects you have scheduled for the year produce results that will achieve your goal? The person setting the goal and the person responsible for achieving the goal should agree with the target. If results are un-attainable or unrealistic, they will have a de-motivating effect on your employees.

Realistic: Don't plan to do things if you are unlikely to follow through. Better to plan only a few things and be successful rather than many things and be unsuccessful. Your Supply Chain goals should be challenging, but

Page 43

Appendix

City of San Marcos Population and Growth Patterns

The City of San people with total households of 19,981. Marcos experiences a Projections estimate the population will higher than average increase by 34.4% to 72,455 by 2020 and growth rate due to households will increase by 25.7% to several factors which 26,906. Owner occupied housing accounts include: 1) home of a for only 25% of total households. The major State student population (est. 32,572) accounts university, 2) for 37.6% of the San Marcos population. attractive geographic Texas State University (Tx State) is a primary and environmental employer and is the foundation for features, 3) above economic activity in San Marcos. It is also a average standard of living, 4) interstate large generator of MSW, but manages MSW transportation system with connections to through its own contracts. An ESRI Tapestry major commerce centers in Texas (Austin, Segmentation Profile ranks San Marcos San Antonio, Houston), 5) and economic primarily as a “college town.” factors that produce a favorable investment Texas State University-San Marcos is climate and serve as an engine for growth. the sixth largest university in the State of Texas has been ranked as the fastest Texas, and is experiencing an average growing state in the nation. Central Texas, annual growth rate of approximately 5.7%, specifically Austin, is considered one of the with a current enrollment of approximately most desirable places to live according to 32,572. Student enrollment is expected to reports in Relocation.com, CityRating.com, reach 37,000 by 2015 and 41,500 by 2020. and Forbes Magazine. The City of Austin is Tx State has the second highest growth rate a primary economic activity center in Texas in the country for colleges with enrollment and San Marcos is thirty miles from Austin over 25,000 students.1 Currently, 11% on IH-35. San Marcos is situated to benefit (3,582) of the student population is from the increased economic activity required to house on-campus, with an occurring in Central Texas and has favorable additional 6,500-9,970 students electing to economic factors (young and able reside on-campus. The remaining 22,800 workforce and low cost-of-living) and students reside locally and in other incentives to attract new start-ups and communities within a 60 mile radius of San relocations. Marcos. The number of students residing in Demographic data compiled by the City the City of San Marcos is estimated to be of San Marcos Planning and Development over 14,000, mostly in multi-family Dept. shows a current population of 53,910 complexes and single-family rentals, and in

Page 44 Appendix (Continued) on-campus housing. The off-campus development strategies that are pro- student population within city limits (est. business and incentivizes new business 7,700+) utilizes San Marcos MSW services. startup, relocation, and expansion. Housing Student housing is projected to increase by trends show multi-family rental is dominant an estimated 2,400 beds over the next five with only 25% of total households being years. owner occupied. This trend is expected to continue in the foreseeable future. San Marcos is located in one of the Therefore, evaluation of MSW services to fastest growth areas and one of the most the multi-family sector is essential. important international trade areas in the United States. The San Marcos Economic 1 Statistical data obtained from City of Development Corporation and the City of San Marcos Housing report and Texas State San Marcos have developed economic Institutional Research.

City of San Marcos Population Growth & Housing Statistics

Census 2000 2010 2020

Total Population 34,733 53,910 72,455

Total Households 12,660 19,981 26,906

Owner Occupied Housing (units) 3,824 4,995 6,727

Renter Occupied Housing (units) 8,836 14,986 20,179

Population increase from 2000 to 2010: 55.2% Projected population increase 2010 to 2020 (10 years): 34.4% Total Households increase 2000 - 2010: 57.8% Projected Households increase 2010 - 2020: 25.7% Owner occupied housing increase 2000-2010: 30.6%; 2010 - 2020: 34.7%

Renter occupied housing increase 2000-2010: 69.6%; 2010 - 2020: 34.6% Renter housing to occupied housing: 2010 – 2020 = 75%

(Source: City of San Marcos, Texas State Data Center, CAMPO, US Bureau of Census)

Page 45 Appendix (Continued)

Detailed Breakdown of Waste Types Landfilled in Texas, 2009

Page 46 Appendix (Continued)

Monthly Requests from Citizens

2010-11 Monthly Resident Solid Waste Requests Reque 1400 1311 1164 1200 1112 1000 750 800 695

600 475 506 476 393 400 312 332 289 254 275 202 227 236 238 212 203 155 139 167 200 84 91 123 46 39 46 41 67 68 64 72 69 72 0 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Bulky Requests Container Requests Other Requests Complaints

Page 47 Appendix (Continued)

Landfill Data

Page 48 Appendix (Continued)

Trash and Recycling Collection Zones

Page 49 Appendix (Continued)

Comparative Community Baseline Summarization

Following is the baseline community baseline summarization document as well as footnotes and explanations.

Page 50 Appendix (Continued)

Page 0 Appendix (Continued)

Page 1