Pay-As-You-Throw Success Stories

United States Solid Waste and EPA530-F-97-007 Environmental Protection Emergency Response April 1997 Agency (5305W) Some of the communities featured here had to develop It’s fair. One of the most important advantages may be impressive solutions to daunting challenges before their the fairness PAYT offers to community residents. When program could become a reality. In most cases, how- the cost of managing trash is hidden in taxes, or charged 1EPA Pay-As-You-Throw ever, these planners simply saw an opportunity in PAYT. at a flat rate, residents who recycle and prevent waste They researched the issue carefully and developed a end up subsidizing their neighbors’ wastefulness. Under Success Stories program that, it turned out, met or exceeded their this kind of program, residents pay only for what they expectations. However they came about, the programs throw away. described in this collection are filled with important For More Information lessons for interested community planners. This collection highlights successful strategies for imple- pay for each container of waste they The Bottom Line menting all types of PAYT programs in all kinds of I N A GROWING NUMBER generate. It gives them an incentive to Perhaps the single biggest lesson illustrated by these communities. EPA has developed additional materials for of communities across the nation, pay-as- reduce waste, and it can be very effective: stories is that there is no one “right” way to implement anyone interested in learning more. For individuals look- you-throw (PAYT) programs are working. after implementing PAYT, communities PAYT—just as there is no single compelling reason for ing for general information about how these programs This collection of testimonials presents typically report reductions in waste communities to adopt this type of program. Every com- work, EPA is making available fact sheets, a complete first-hand stories from communities that amounts of 25 to 35 percent, including munity has a different story to tell and a different lesson PAYT guidebook, and other materials. For local solid faced significant municipal solid waste significant increases in recycling. To date, to teach. Nonetheless, nearly all the communities waste planners interested in specific ideas about how to (MSW) challenges—issues like increasing nearly 2,000 communities across the coun- detailed here have experienced three specific types of bring PAYT to their community, EPA has developed a amounts of waste, rising disposal costs, and try have successfully implemented PAYT. benefits as a result of adopting PAYT: comprehensive set of tools—based on lessons from pio- uncertain MSW budgets—and were able to use PAYT to put their solid waste manage- neering communities like the ones described here—to Learn From Successful Communities It’s economically sustainable. PAYT is an effective help them design and implement a successful program. ment back on track. tool for communities struggling to cope with soaring For communities considering PAYT, MSW management costs. Well-designed programs All of these products are based on real-world informa- While the specific issues varied, the lead- making the switch may seem intimidating. enable communities to generate the revenues they need tion that can help planners and others as they search for ers of these communities recognized that MSW planners may be concerned, for to cover all MSW program costs, including the costs of economically and environmentally sustainable solutions to their old MSW programs needed to example, that their elected officials will complementary programs such as recycling and compost- today’s solid waste management challenges. To find out change. More reliable funding sources not support the effort. Other planners ing. Residents benefit, too, since they finally have the more about EPA’s collection of products, call the Pay-as- were needed, recycling programs had to may feel that the design process is too opportunity to take control of their trash bills. you-throw Helpline toll free at 888-EPA-PAYT. be expanded, and, most importantly, they complicated or that local residents might had to begin getting their residents to gen- resist the new program. It’s environmentally sustainable. Because of the erate less waste in the first place. PAYT Fortunately, decision-makers considering incentive it provides residents to put less waste at the turned out to be the answer. curb, communities with programs in place have reported PAYT have an important resource they significant increases in recycling and reductions in waste. Real-World Results can turn to: the experience of the many Less waste and more recycling mean that fewer natural The PAYT concept is simple—rather than communities that have preceded them. resources need to be extracted. paying for trash collection and disposal When it comes to questions about how to indirectly (often through property taxes), evaluate, design, and implement PAYT, it’s the communities that have successfully Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent residents under this program are asked to 2 postconsumer fiber. adopted a program of their own that can best provide the answers. United States Solid Waste and EPA530-F-97-007 Environmental Protection Emergency Response April 1997 Agency (5305W) Some of the communities featured here had to develop It’s fair. One of the most important advantages may be impressive solutions to daunting challenges before their the fairness PAYT offers to community residents. When program could become a reality. In most cases, how- the cost of managing trash is hidden in taxes, or charged 1EPA Pay-As-You-Throw ever, these planners simply saw an opportunity in PAYT. at a flat rate, residents who recycle and prevent waste They researched the issue carefully and developed a end up subsidizing their neighbors’ wastefulness. Under Success Stories program that, it turned out, met or exceeded their this kind of program, residents pay only for what they expectations. However they came about, the programs throw away. described in this collection are filled with important For More Information lessons for interested community planners. This collection highlights successful strategies for imple- pay for each container of waste they The Bottom Line menting all types of PAYT programs in all kinds of I N A GROWING NUMBER generate. It gives them an incentive to Perhaps the single biggest lesson illustrated by these communities. EPA has developed additional materials for of communities across the nation, pay-as- reduce waste, and it can be very effective: stories is that there is no one “right” way to implement anyone interested in learning more. For individuals look- you-throw (PAYT) programs are working. after implementing PAYT, communities PAYT—just as there is no single compelling reason for ing for general information about how these programs This collection of testimonials presents typically report reductions in waste communities to adopt this type of program. Every com- work, EPA is making available fact sheets, a complete first-hand stories from communities that amounts of 25 to 35 percent, including munity has a different story to tell and a different lesson PAYT guidebook, and other materials. For local solid faced significant municipal solid waste significant increases in recycling. To date, to teach. Nonetheless, nearly all the communities waste planners interested in specific ideas about how to (MSW) challenges—issues like increasing nearly 2,000 communities across the coun- detailed here have experienced three specific types of bring PAYT to their community, EPA has developed a amounts of waste, rising disposal costs, and try have successfully implemented PAYT. benefits as a result of adopting PAYT: comprehensive set of tools—based on lessons from pio- uncertain MSW budgets—and were able to use PAYT to put their solid waste manage- neering communities like the ones described here—to Learn From Successful Communities It’s economically sustainable. PAYT is an effective help them design and implement a successful program. ment back on track. tool for communities struggling to cope with soaring For communities considering PAYT, MSW management costs. Well-designed programs All of these products are based on real-world informa- While the specific issues varied, the lead- making the switch may seem intimidating. enable communities to generate the revenues they need tion that can help planners and others as they search for ers of these communities recognized that MSW planners may be concerned, for to cover all MSW program costs, including the costs of economically and environmentally sustainable solutions to their old MSW programs needed to example, that their elected officials will complementary programs such as recycling and compost- today’s solid waste management challenges. To find out change. More reliable funding sources not support the effort. Other planners ing. Residents benefit, too, since they finally have the more about EPA’s collection of products, call the Pay-as- were needed, recycling programs had to may feel that the design process is too opportunity to take control of their trash bills. you-throw Helpline toll free at 888-EPA-PAYT. be expanded, and, most importantly, they complicated or that local residents might had to begin getting their residents to gen- resist the new program. It’s environmentally sustainable. Because of the erate less waste in the first place. PAYT Fortunately, decision-makers considering incentive it provides residents to put less waste at the turned out to be the answer. curb, communities with programs in place have reported PAYT have an important resource they significant increases in recycling and reductions in waste. Real-World Results can turn to: the experience of the many Less waste and more recycling mean that fewer natural The PAYT concept is simple—rather than communities that have preceded them. resources need to be extracted. paying for trash collection and disposal When it comes to questions about how to indirectly (often through property taxes), evaluate, design, and implement PAYT, it’s the communities that have successfully Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent residents under this program are asked to 2 postconsumer fiber. adopted a program of their own that can best provide the answers. EPA530-F-97-007b P AY -AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES

Dover, New Hampshire

Population: 26,000 Pay-as-you-throw has proven to be Type of Community: Rural a very effective means of managing Type of Program: Bag and Tag Dover’s solid waste.

Program Start Date: October 1991

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

The City of Dover is a community of back to the council 4 months later with 10 approximately 26,000 people on New recommendations. Hampshire’s seacoast. Our municipal landfill The committee urged the immediate estab- was closed in 1979, and at that time the city lishment of a drop-off recycling center entered into a relationship with a private designed to collect a wide range of materials. hauler for collection and disposal at a pri- The recycling center opened in May 1990. It vately owned and operated landfill. The city quickly became very popular and a source of collected approximately 24,000 tons of trash civic pride. each year, of which approximately 11,000 tons were residential refuse. The recycling center was run initially as an all-volunteer effort. After a few months, the Before 1989, Dover had no recycling pro- city hired a solid waste coordinator, who gram. Any and all trash residents wished began working in conjunction with the ad to discard was left at the curb, and 3½ hoc committee and several city councilors truck routes were needed to collect the to urge the establishment of refuse daily. The cost of refuse collection curbside recycling and disposal was escalating rapidly. Responding to citizen pressure, the We argued that the Dover city council costs for producing created an ad wastes should be hoc committee on recycling in borne by the user the fall of 1989. and the costs of The committee, recycling, because of chaired by Gary its social and Gilmore, city councilor, consisted of environmental eight interested res- benefits, should be idents and a council borne by the city. representative. The committee reported and the bag and tag program, which How Does It Work? was then unknown in northern New The city no longer provides for the col- England. lection and disposal of private dump- sters. Commercial generators pay the Overcoming Public Dissent fees associated with the collection and The three public meetings we held disposal. For the residents, payment of were filled with heated vocal dissent. the collection and disposal of wastes is However, we soon convinced the public accomplished through the purchase of to accept these programs with a couple bags and/or adhesive tags. of basic premises. The first premise was A special revenue fund was established that recyclable materials are a commod- to pay for the collection, disposal, and ity, and anything that is disposed of in administrative costs associated with our the landfill is waste. We argued that the residential solid waste. The fees generat- costs for producing wastes should be ed by the sale of the bags and tags go borne by the user and that the costs of into this fund as revenue. The goal is to recycling, because of its social and envi- maintain a neutral fund balance that can ronmental benefits, should be borne by sustain the program, but not to build a the city. large balance. In September 1991, the city began curbside collection of recyclables, and a Success: Saving Money and month later the bag and tag program Reducing Waste was implemented. In conjunction with the establishment of these programs, As mentioned earlier, Dover used to the city council created a Citizen’s Solid produce approximately 11,000 tons per Waste Advisory Committee responsible year of residential solid waste. Last year, for overseeing these programs. we produced approximately 3,900 tons. In 1990 our budget for solid waste was Since the program was initiated we approximately $1.2 million. Next year’s have had annual public meetings and budget (including trash and recycling) is have raised the price once. We have approximately $878,000. Our current not had any significant public dissent at recycling rate is well over 50 percent any meetings since the program’s incep- for our residential waste stream— tion. Overall, the program has been despite it being strictly voluntary. well received by the community and has proven to be a very effective means of managing Dover’s solid waste.

Dover’s success story was compiled by Gary Gilmore, City Councilor, and Carl Quiram, P.E., Environmental Projects Manager, (603) 743-6094. EPA530-F-97-007h PAY-AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES

Falmouth, Maine

Population: 8,500 By recycling and reducing waste, Type of Community: Suburban citizens not only save money, but also Type of Program: Bags reduce costs for our community.

Program Start Date: September 1992

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

In 1991, the Town Council directed the reduction, a favorable cash flow structure Falmouth Recycling Committee to explore (bag revenues are received before disposal options available for solid waste collection. expense is incurred), and elimination of trash After reviewing several systems, including “mixing” by unscrupulous haulers. A unani- traditional municipal collection, franchise mous vote of the council in the spring of contractor, and volume-based systems, the 1992 directed the town to implement the committee developed a report recommend- program in September 1992. ing a modified pay-per-bag system. In this system, the collection cost is paid through the How Does It Work? tax system and the disposal cost is reflected in the cost of the special bag used in the town. The town buys about 175,000 large bags (33- gallon) and 75,000 small bags (20-gallon) The benefits of this system include a fair The success and each year. About a dozen local stores, allocation of disposal and collection costs, acceptance of pay- including Shaw’s Supermarkets, retail the tax-deductible collection cost components, bags. Bags cost the town 12 and 9 cents as-you-throw in our lower collection costs than a traditional non- respectively and the store is allowed a community has fee system, incentives for recycling and waste been remarkable. Our recycling rate immediately jumped by more than 50 percent and trash disposal volumes decreased by about 35 percent. 2-cent per bag markup. The retail prices ton, a reduction of 900 tons of waste of the bags are 91 and 64 cents, respec- disposal per year meant a savings of tively. In addition, a 91-cent sticker is about $50,000. The current $98 per available for bulky items under 35 ton tip fee calculates to $88,000 per pounds, and a $4.80 tag is used for year savings. In addition, during the old large items such as mattresses and sofas. franchise system, residents paid the col- Stores are invoiced for the bags at the lection cost directly to the hauler. Now time of delivery and have 30 days to residents pay for collection through pay. This system works well for the citi- their taxes, bringing the community over zens, because they buy bags and simply $30,000 per year. use them the way they had before this program was implemented. Tips for Other Communities By recycling and reducing waste, citizens Some towns have bought large quanti- not only save money, but also reduce ties of bags and have been dissatisfied costs for our community. The burden with size or quality. It may be prudent on the town is minimal because its only to buy a smaller quantity to start with responsibilities are bag delivery, billing, so that changes can be made if desired. and recordkeeping. Also, cash flow is When you “force” citizens to buy your positive for the town because the bags bag, it has to be of acceptable quality. are paid for before use. There is no concern with unpaid and uncollectible Educate prior to implementation! The charges that can occur with post-use town conducted a citizen survey, devel- billing. oped a brochure, published a newsletter, and passed out two free bags to each household prior to implementing Success: Saving Money and the program. We also conducted a logo Reducing Waste contest in the schools that generated a The success and acceptance of the great deal of interest and media atten- program in the community has been tion. The local Lions Club donated remarkable. Our recycling rate (always money for the prizes. among the highest in the region) Contact other communities and learn! immediately jumped by more than 50 During our review, we read many arti- percent, and trash disposal volumes cles published about other towns’ pro- decreased by about 35 percent. grams. This is useful, but following up Combined, these two statistics resulted with phone calls can be even more in a jump of our recycling rates from 12 helpful. We got copies of several towns’ percent before the program to 21 per- brochures that alerted us to some cent currently. The average rate for details that otherwise may have been local towns is 7 percent. overlooked. These statistics have meant a great deal Involve the collection team! The con- to the economics of our waste pro- tractor or municipal crew can help gram: The bid price for collection the or hurt the program, so they need to first year was $116,000, compared to a be on board. We developed a small bid of $146,000 for a traditional collec- tag for collection workers to leave at tion contract. Our current contract is the curb if there was a reason to not for $125,500 despite over 10 percent pick up trash (i.e., not in proper bag growth in the community. At $55 per or too heavy). Falmouth’s success story was compiled by Tony Hayes, (207) 781-3919. EPA530-F-97-007i P AY -AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES

Fort Collins, Colorado

Population: 100,000 Start planning for implementation at least Type of Community: Urban six months in advance. This means both Type of Program: Varies working with your private haulers and

Program Start Date: January 1996 educating the public.

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

Fort Collins is located on the Front Range of A specific target was set for increasing par- the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. Last year ticipation in curbside recycling by 80 to 90 its population passed the 100,000 mark, but percent. Reaching these goals has been the community still takes pride in a small- challenging, because six private trash haulers town self-image, and residents are deter- work in Fort Collins, ranging from corporate mined to manage growth well. The natural players like BFI and Waste Management to environment is highly valued, and solid waste locally run family operations that have been reduction is a strong environmental program in business for 40 years. in Fort Collins. Disappointed in a slow rate of progress for The city conducted outreach and sponsored recycling, the city council adopted two ordi- a recycling drop-off site for nearly 10 years, nances in May 1995 that apply to single-family but without a municipal trash collection ser- and duplex residences. The first ordinance vice, increased participation depended on called for haulers to “bundle” costs for recy- haulers' efforts. A 1991 ordinance required cling and provide curbside recycling to cus- haulers to provide curbside recycling, but tomers upon request at no extra charge. It because they included this service as an addi- became effective in October 1995. The sec- tional cost, most customers were unwilling ond ordinance called for volume-based rates Pay-as-you-throw to pay for the service. Construction of a to be charged for solid waste starting has helped us to county recycling center in 1992 also had little in January 1996. reach our recycling effect on residents’ recycling levels. goals—a real The city council adopted goals in challenge, since 1994 to reduce the there are six private total waste stream trash haulers that by 20 percent by the work in Fort Collins. year 2000, despite the city’s growth, and to reduce landfilled waste by 20 percent. Lessons Learned generate—the most important feature of the system to reward people with Start planning for implementation of the cost savings. rate structure change at least six months in advance. We didn’t start working with the haulers until Success: Increased Recycling September to implement the system in Participation January. Then, after meeting together As of July 1996, recycling has increased several times, the city agreed to amend to 79 percent participation in single- the ordinance to respond to haulers’ family and duplex households, up from concerns about charging strictly by 53.5 percent the previous year. With volume, but this process was time- only 6 months’ worth of data to analyze consuming and difficult. trends, it is hard to specify what is hap- Make sure to publicize the changes to pening with solid waste reduction goals, remind the public and their elected offi- but we have clearly found a way to cials about what will occur in the next 2 accomplish our goal for 80 to 90 per- to 3 months. Use news articles, adver- cent participation in curbside recycling. tisements, and haulers’ billings. Now that the residents of Fort Collins Don’t underestimate the difficulty peo- are so much more conscious of ple will have understanding how new reducing their waste stream, they have trash collection rates work, and plan for demanded opportunities to recycle new the extra work it creates for staff. Be materials, including cardboard, office prepared for it to take 3, 6, or even 9 paper, and compostable items. months for people to realize that they The bundling ordinance and PAYT can save money by generating less trash system have significantly increased with a PAYT system. households’ recycling efforts, so the Expect private trash haulers to take the experience, although sometimes difficult, opportunity to increase collection rates was certainly worthwhile. Now that at the same time the volume-based we’re 6 months into the new system, rates take effect. The public assumed the city council is already looking ahead the hike in collection rates was a result to the feasibility of districting Fort of the ordinance. Haulers helped spread Collins into trash collection zones! the misunderstanding—it deflected criti- We know that Fort Collins is not com- cism from them! pletely out of the woods yet. We are Make sure the transition between billing anticipating, for instance, that this fall’s systems is smooth. Because we had leaf-raking and bagging will add to some program overlap, both our peoples’ trash bills—and that they are haulers and the city staff got a new going to demand that the city do round of calls from angry, confused something about it. Still, we feel confi- people who had received two different dent that Fort Collins made the right bills. However, the city has been choice by adopting the pay-as-you- adamant about reimbursing customers throw ordinance. for cans/bags of trash that they didn’t

Fort Collins’s success story was compiled by Susie Gordon, Environmental Planner, (970) 221-6265. EPA530-F-97-007c P AY -AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES

Gainesville, Florida

Population: 96,000 The results of the first year of our Type of Community: Suburban program were amazing. After Type of Program: Cart-based Cans implementing pay-as-you-throw, we

Program Start Date: October 1994 watched our recycling rates soar!

Why Pay-As-You-Throw? How Does It Work? Before variable-rate pricing, the cost to indi- In July 1994, the city of Gainesville entered viduals for service was hidden. Residential into a contract with Waste Management of users did not have an apparent reason to Central Florida, Inc., for the collection of limit their disposal habits. Now, Gainesville’s residential solid waste and commingled variable-rate pricing generates a visible recyclables and into another contract with monthly charge that has resulted in a sub- Boone Waste Industries, Inc., for the collec- stantial reduction in both solid waste and tion of yard trash for recycling. The new the costs associated with its disposal. contract for solid waste service included a variable rate for residential collections:

Gainesville’s move to pay-as-you-throw did more than reduce waste and increase recycling–it created a more equitable system for residents. residents pay $13.50, $15.96, or $19.75 Success: Saving Money and per month according to whether they Reducing Waste place 35, 64, or 96 gallons of solid waste at the curb for collection. The results of the first year of our program were amazing. The amount of Recycling service is unlimited. While solid waste collected decreased 18 residents have had curbside collection percent, and the recyclables recovered of recyclables since 1989, the imple- increased 25 percent! The total dispos- mentation of this program added al tonnage decreased from 22,120 to brown paper bags, corrugated card- 18,116. This resulted in a savings of board, and phone books to the list of $186,200 to the residential sector, or items recycled. $7.95 per home.

Planning Ahead Gainesville’s move to a cart-based, variable-rate residential collection system Planning ahead was critical to the suc- did more than just increase the rate of cess of Gainesville’s program. It was cru- recovery and minimize disposal needs. cial for us to order our carts and public The distribution of system costs is more outreach publications far in advance of equitable. Residents make the choice of program implementation. service delivery based on individual waste-generation habits. This reduces the level of subsidy that unlimited, flat- rate collection systems encounter.

Gainesville’s success story was compiled by Gina Hawkins, Recycling Coordinator, (352) 334-5040. EPA530-F-97-007g P AY -AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES

Mount Vernon, Iowa

Population: 3,700 Paying for one’s waste has brought home to Type of Community: Suburban each of us a growing awareness of the full

Type of Program: Tags lifecycle costs of “throwing it out.”

Program Start Date: July 1991

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

Mount Vernon is a small, attractive college pounds, and multiple tags for bulky items. community in eastern Iowa, home to profes- Homeowners also receive a $7 solid waste sional commuters as well as college staff. bill monthly. The city discounts the monthly The city’s income level ranks above average fee for households defined as low income for the state. In July 1991, the city began to under the school lunch program. charge directly for the collection of residen- While the revenue from tag sales roughly cov- tial trash, bulky items, grass clippings, and ers the cost of trash collection and landfill fees, garden waste. At the same time, bins were the monthly billing finances the “free of distributed to begin curbside collection of charge” collection of recycling material, leaves, materials for recycling. We expected these and brush. Residents say tags are a fair way to two steps to work together. Charging for pay for trash disposal, and the combination of each container of trash provided the finan- tags and monthly fees provides a steady rev- cial incentive to move material from trash enue to the city. containers into recycling bins—the city would then contract to collect this recycling Why Tags? material free of direct charge. “We have not only The city council appointed the Reduction reduced the amount How Does It Work? and Recycling Committee to develop a solid of trash sent to the The city’s pay-as-you-throw system landfill, but also works quite simply. generated an Households purchase enormous amount of $1.75 tags at city hall or one of several civic pride in our stores. As a public efforts to do service, stores sell the something positive tags with no markup. for our community The price for collection is one tag for environment.” each container, which —Rick Elliot, Mayor must be no more than 30 gallons or 40 waste program. We spent over a year have reduced waste in various ways: 1) researching the experiences of other recycling appliances; 2) recycling materi- communities and consulting experts, als the city does not accept at drop-off and eventually recommended tags for facilities in Cedar Rapids and places of waste collection to accompany curbside employment that recycle these items; 3) recycling. Tags cost little to print, permit backyard composting of organic wastes; residences to continue using their con- 4) purchase of reuseable rather than dis- tainers within the volume and weight posable materials; and 5) more yard limits, adhere securely at all tempera- sales. Much of this additional recycling tures, are convenient for participating and reduction is doubtless motivated by merchants to handle, and can easily be the tags that residents must purchase to removed when the trash is collected. send trash to the landfill. We believe Stealing of tags has not been a problem that such incentives would also work in this residential community. with less expensive drop-off recycling programs in other cities. Success: Increased Waste As Mount Vernon’s mayor, Rick Elliot, Reduction and Recycling says: “Our program has been very suc- Pay-as-you-throw played a major role in cessful due to the initial involvement of motivating waste reduction and nearly a large number of citizens, continued doubling recyling. The city estimates that expansion of recycling opportunities, the trash the typical resident sent to the community education and ownership of landfill decreased by nearly 40 percent, the program, and a very civic-minded, from 45 pounds per week in 1990 to 27 cooperative recycling and refuse vendor. pounds in 1995. In addition, requiring a This program works and it works well.” tag for each container of grass clippings and garden waste has nearly eliminated How Mount Vernon’s Program the collection of these materials. The total Could Be Even Better reduction of residential trash and all yard waste per household exceeds the goal of The major challenge inherent in any 50 percent waste reduction the state leg- reduction and recycling program is islature has established for the year 2000. informing the public. The city needs to Dumping, subject to a $1000 fine in do better at keeping households cur- Mount Vernon, has not been a problem. rent on changes in the recycling program. One successful example is an Altogether, by recycling and reducing information packet prepared by the trash, and by leaving grass cuttings on Recycling and Reduction Committee the lawn or composting it, the average that explained to households how, with household saved $47 last year in fewer reasonably frequent mowing, grass cut- tags purchased, a total saving of some tings left to decompose produce a $46,000 for our 980 households. At 9 healthier lawn. Informing households pounds per household per week, Mount about alternative ways to deal with Vernon leads all 17 cities in Linn County wastes goes hand in hand with pay-as- in recycling. you-throw to maximize the effective- In addition to putting more into recy- ness of the financial and environmental cling bins, residents of Mount Vernon incentives.

Mount Vernon’s success story was compiled by Don Cell, Chair of the Reduction and Recycling Committee. For more information on Mount Vernon’s pay-as-you-throw program, call Bluestem Solid Waste Agency at (319) 398-1278. EPA530-F-97-007a PAY-AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES

Poquoson, Virginia

Population: 11,500 With pay-as-you-throw, we’ve had the Type of Community: Suburban largest amount of recyclables collected Type of Program: Bags in our nine-community regional

Program Start Date: July 1992 recycling program for four years.

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

In the fall of 1991, we decided to shut down types of different programs, we decided to a very successful drop-off recycling center focus on a fairly new system that was volume- and join a regional curbside program the based and where people paid for the amount next spring. Our main reason for going with of trash they discarded, rather than a flat-fee the curbside program was that we knew we system. could get better citizen participation and further increase recycling. Because of the Bringing the Opposition on Board success of the drop-off program, we were asked by the city council to review the city We called and talked to people involved trash program and develop a plan to with these different programs and found improve it. out what problems and successes they were having. We eventually ended up with Our group was made up of about a dozen two three-inch binders full of information. interested citizens, two city employees, and Two years after the two city councilmen. One of the first things After many meetings and sometimes heated program started, a we did was to develop the following mission discussions, we were ready to submit our basic recommendations to the city council city councilman who statement: “To review every aspect of waste management in Poquoson to maximize and the public. At the public hearing, seven had voted against REDUCTION, REUSE, and RECYCLING, people talked against the the new program and to recommend ways to accomplish this came up to me in a with the minimum cost to the taxpayer.” local store with a This statement smile on his face and was read at the simply said ‘You start of every know, you were meeting to make sure we stayed right.’ Then I knew focused on our the program was agreed-upon goal. really working. After discussing all plan, and the city council seemed split our grocery, drug, and convenience on the issue. The word “change” is stores and set up a program in which usually not well accepted in Poquoson. they would sell the bags and turn over We invited the seven speakers against all the proceeds to the city after they our plan to join our committee and were sold. In other words, they would work with us to develop a final recom- make no profit on selling the bags, but mendation. In the end, the six that also would have no investment in them. joined us supported the final plan. It was pointed out to them that this would be a community service. Bags, Tags, or Cans? Another big question was: Do we use Spreading the Word bags, stickers, or containers? Our The next step was informing the public research showed that stickers are being of the new program, how it would counterfeited in one city and that there work, and when it would start. We pre- is no effective way to control bag size. pared news releases for our local Containers required a large, upfront papers, wrote articles for the city capital cost, and we wanted to develop newsletter, and made a videotape of the a program that required no additional program using local talent that was then cost to the city. Furthermore, we are a shown on the city public access channel. very windy city—and typically after a We also trained speakers about the trash pickup empty trash cans roll all subject and made them available to over the neighborhoods! Since all of any groups that were interested. our trash was being sent to a waste-to- energy (WTE) plant and not a landfill, “We’re number one plastic bags were not a negative as far as disposal was concerned. We decid- every time” ed to use plastic bags. We are part of a regional recycling program with nine other cities and counties. How Best To Distribute Because of the way our trash program encourages recycling, our city has had the Bags? the largest amount of recyclables collect- Although many cities sell their bags from ed per house, per month for the entire city office locations, this puts a big bur- four years we have been in the program. den on city personnel and can be incon- We’re not number one most of the venient for citizens. We talked with all time, we’re number one every time.

Poquoson’s success story was compiled by Bob Kerlinger, Recycling Committee Chair, (804) 868-3779. EPA530-F-97-007d P AY -AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES

San Jose, California

Population: 850,000 We worked to educate residents away Type of Community: Urban from the concept of unlimited garbage Type of Program: Four-sort toward the idea of unlimited recycling.

Program Start Date: July 1993

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

San Jose is the nation’s eleventh largest city. recycling system, and a contractor payment Our residents are among the most educated mechanism which provided financial incen- and affluent in the country and represent a tives that encourage contractors to promote diverse community, with the two largest recycling. minority groups being Latino (27 percent) and Asian (14 percent). Educating the Public Before July 1993, San Jose provided unlimited The public was involved in the design of the weekly garbage collection service at a flat RP program through a questionnaire mailed monthly rate of $12.50 per household. to all 186,000 households; community meet- Residents set out an average of three 32- ings throughout the city; pilot projects in 17 gallon garbage cans per week. The city fully neighborhoods for collection of yard trim- implemented its Recycle Plus (RP) residential mings and mixed papers; and the use of a integrated waste management program for public review committee to select the firms 186,000 single-family dwellings on July 1, 1993. that would be given 6-year collection contracts This program was designed to permit the for the collection of garbage and recyclables city to reach its California Integrated Waste and for recyclables processing. Management Act goal of 50 percent waste reduction by 2000. A comprehensive public outreach campaign aimed at single-family households explained The new RP program result- the new variable rates being introduced, the In the three years ed from over 3 years of new categories of recyclables being planning that included since our program added to the services extensive research on all provided, began, an average of major policy changes. 87 percent of This program includes a residents have fully automated garbage collection system, an requested 32-gallon aggressive PAYT rate cans—the smallest structure, a four-sort size we offer. and the benefits of participating. All household size and income and permit- materials were produced in three lan- ted eligible residents to receive a 30 guages (English, Spanish, and Vietnamese). percent discount on their bill. About The campaign was guided by the infor- 3,400 households currently participate mation received during a series of focus in this program. groups in the three languages, baseline and follow-up telephone surveys, and Managing the Program Costs shopping mall intercept surveys. More than 250 community meetings were held The challenge faced by the program is in 1993, and a block leader program and to both continue and expand its multi- school education program were pronged recycling efforts to meet diver- organized. sion goals, while reducing costs to close the projected $5 million cost-to-revenue gap in five years. The city already has Getting the Prices Right reduced costs by over $4 million annu- Staff began researching unit-pricing ally through contract renegotiations that structures for the new RP program in resulted in extending the term of the RP the spring of 1992 through surveys and and yard-trimming collection contracts interviews with successful PAYT com- from June 1999 to June 2002. munities nationwide. Residents were offered 32-, 64-, 96-, and 128-gallon carts with an “aggressive” unit-pricing Success: Waste Reduction structure. This structure provided a and Increased Recycling slight price break for each additional 32 Staff did not anticipate how quickly resi- gallons of capacity at the 64- and 96-gal- dents would change their recycling par- lon level, which the council considered ticipation to accommodate the 32-gallon important to help residents make the size cart, especially since prior to RP the transition from flat rate to unit pricing. average set-out was three garbage cans. We had to ensure that we had suffi- Since RP implementation, an average of cient quantities of wheeled-garbage 87 percent of residents have requested carts in the sizes the residents would the 32-gallon size. request. We sent out a return-reply The difference between the “before card to all single-family households in and after” garbage set-out volume could January 1993 with our estimated rates, readily be found in the quantity of recy- and let residents know that no reply clables collected in the new RP program. would result in delivery of the default The volume of recyclables and yard 32-gallon cart. trimmings being collected more than Staff was able to work out a compro- doubled the levels recorded prior to RP. mise with the city council, which Most importantly, residents reported included offering one of the most com- wide satisfaction with the program and prehensive low-income rate assistance its results (80 percent in 1993 to 90 per- programs for garbage service in the cent in 1996. Figures are based on a ran- state. Criteria were based solely on dom sample telephone survey).

San Jose’s success story was compiled by Jo Zientek, Supervising Environmental Services Specialist, (408) 277-5533. EPA530-F-97-007e P AY -AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES

South Kingstown, Rhode Island

Population: 30,000 With pay-as-you-throw, the average family Type of Community: Suburban of four has reduced its solid waste stream Type of Program: Drop-off, Tags to one tagged bag of waste and one bag

Program Start Date: August 1994 of recyclables per week.

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

Solid waste for South Kingstown and its and abuse of a flat-rate annual vehicle pass regional partner Narragansett is processed program, which provided unlimited disposal at the town’s Rose Hill Regional Transfer with little or no incentive to recycle materials. Station (RHRTS). Given the community’s Because of these concerns, South Kingstown oceanfront shoreline, the approximate year- and Narragansett initiated a volume-based tag round population of 22,000 residents swells solid waste disposal system and a voluntary to an estimated 30,000 persons in the sum- source reduction recycling program for mer months. Residents of both communities RHRTS residential users. can dispose of solid waste by either con- tracting with a private refuse hauler or by How Does It Work? directly accessing the transfer station. Under the tag solid waste disposal system, After facility operations began at RHRTS in each residential user directly accessing the 1983, the disposal cost to “direct access” resi- transfer station is required to purchase dential users continued to escalate. This refuse tags ($10.00 for10 tags) for solid increase in disposal costs was due in part to waste disposal. Residential RHRTS customers increasing tipping fees, higher processing costs, place a tag on each garbage bag

The success of both the volume-based disposal system and the enhanced recycling facility has exceeded all pre-operational expectations. (35-pound/33-gallon limit) prior to dispos- glass, and many others. Yard waste, al. Refuse tags were chosen in lieu of bags uncontaminated wood demolition, and to provide residents free choice with ferrous and nonferrous scrap metals are regard to the size and type of refuse bag also recycled, but are assessed a tip fee they were accustomed to using. due to associated processing costs. Some residents continue to use trash cans for refuse disposal. The RHRTS Success: Saving Money and operates as a solid waste enterprise Reducing Waste fund, and operational costs are covered by the cost of the refuse tags. The success of both the volume-based disposal system and enhanced recycling Utilization of the recycling center by facility has exceeded all pre-operational residential RHRTS users continues to expectations. The capture ratio of recy- remain a voluntary decision. Residents clables from direct access residential who maximize their recycling efforts users has consistently reached approxi- can minimize tag purchases and reduce mately 40 percent, with levels as high their overall solid waste disposal costs. as 51 percent (not including bulky or RHRTS residential users with wasteful recyclable yard waste). Recycling cap- disposal habits who choose not to ture ratios approach 60 percent if yard recycle must consequently purchase waste and bulky recycled waste esti- additional tags. mates are included. Complementary Programs Under the PAYT program, RHRTS residential users discharged approximately Residential users can dispose of bulky 2,175 tons during fiscal year 1994-95, as waste and yard waste at a rate of 5 cents compared with 7,608 tons in fiscal year and 3.5 cents per pound, respectively. 1991-92 under the former vehicle sticker Residents may also elect to purchase yard program. The average family of four has waste bags at a cost of 75 cents each reduced its solid waste stream to one (which includes the disposal fee) for dis- tagged bag and one bag of recyclables posal of grass clippings and leaves. per week. This equates to a total yearly In addition, the town constructed new refuse disposal cost of $52 per year, recycling disposal facilities for direct which is a $40 savings from the previous access residential users that became year’s average cost of $92. Elderly and operational on August 1, 1994. The single residents have reported a reduc- enhanced recycling center accepts a tion in solid waste disposal to as low as wide variety of materials that can be one refuse bag every two weeks, for a recycled by residents at no cost, includ- total yearly refuse disposal cost of $26. ing aluminum, steel, plastic, newspaper,

South Kingstown’s success story was compiled by Jon R. Schock, Utilities Director, (401) 789-9331. EPA530-F-97-007f P AY -AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES

Vancouver, Washington

Population: 69,000 An excellent public information and Type of Community: Urban education program is imperative.

Type of Program: Cans

Program Start Date: January 1990

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

The city of Vancouver is located in Clark basic service and a corresponding decrease County, the southernmost county in the in customers choosing the two-can service. state of Washington, along the north shore In 1992, the city implemented a weekly mini- of the Columbia River. Garbage collection can option, and within five months nearly service in the city is mandatory and has 500 residents had switched to the mini-can. been a contracted service since 1937. In 1989, By the end of the following year, this number the state of Washington passed the Waste had doubled and the city was receiving num- Not Washington Act, which required cities merous customer requests for more service and counties to implement programs aimed choices. Three new residential garbage service at reaching a statewide goal of 50 percent level options were implemented: every- waste reduction and recycling by 1995. In an other-week 32-gallon can, every-other-week effort to reduce our reliance on landfill dis- mini-can, and monthly 32-gallon can service. posal and to meet local and statewide goals, These options are increasingly being utilized the city adopted the philosophy, “The more as customers learn how waste reduction and you use, the more you pay.” avid recycling can help them reduce their monthly garbage output and bill. How Does It Work?

Linear rates were introduced in 1990 Two years into our when the city coun- program, residents cil approved a rate had significantly increase that made increased their the second can rate 84 percent greater recycling—and than the first can. many had also After 15 months, our requested services data showed a 13 per- that could help cent increase in the number of customers them reduce waste choosing the one-can even more! Complementary Programs about new and existing programs and the different service levels available to In 1992, in cooperation with Clark them. Our ongoing challenge has been County, the city implemented a curb- finding sufficient time and resources to side recycling program. The program is dedicate to frequent, targeted public mandatory for single-family households, relations campaigns. and all households are billed $3.10 per month for weekly recycling as part of When the city first attempted to imple- their garbage service. A similar program ment our once-a-month collection is also available to all multifamily com- option, it was not approved. The city plexes within the city limits. council, along with the local health dis- trict, had concerns about its potential The city’s contracted hauler also offers negative impact on health and safety. a voluntary yard debris collection pro- Monthly service was eventually gram. For a monthly fee ($5.55), cus- approved due to the pressure from tomers can set out up to 96 gallons of recently annexed citizens, namely avid material. Since the program is voluntary, recyclers and senior citizens who were it does not conflict with citizens who used to handling recycling and garbage choose to compost their organic wastes on their own. The variety of service at home or self-haul to local compost- options, although positive from a waste ing facilities. reduction and customer standpoint, increases the instability of the revenue Meeting the Challenges: Tips stream for the service providers and for Other Communities makes enforcement of mandatory collection more difficult. Vancouver has encountered a variety of challenges throughout the past several years, and we hope that other jurisdic- Program Success tions may benefit from our experiences. We have found volume-based linear A significant concern has been whether rates to be an effective tool for encour- we are receiving accurate and up-to- aging residents and businesses to exam- date data from our garbage and recy- ine their disposal habits, to recycle cling program service providers. It is more, and to decrease their garbage important to select providers who have service levels. The city exceeded its 50 excellent computer tracking and report- percent recycling goal by the end of ing systems and adequate staffing in 1995. Based on available data sources, it place to accomplish these needs. All was determined that 51 percent of the solid waste programs require the con- city’s wastes were recycled and 49 per- tractor to provide monthly reports that cent were disposed of in the landfill that enable the city to track the program’s year. While some residents are motivat- activities and monitor progress. ed by environmental stewardship, others An excellent public information and are encouraged to change habits based education program is imperative. on their pocketbooks. Although volume- Although our experiences with new based linear rates pose challenges, we program campaigns have been very believe that they are the driving force positive, it has been a challenge to behind our success in meeting our waste ensure that all citizens are informed reduction and recycling goals.

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