United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5305W)
EPA530-F-97-007
April 1997
Pay-As-You-Throw
Success Stories
IN A GROWING NUMBER
of communities across the nation, pay-as-
you-throw (PAYT) programs are working.
This collection of testimonials presents
first-hand stories from communities that
faced significant municipal solid waste
(MSW) challenges-issues like increasing
amounts of waste, rising disposal costs, and
uncertain MSW budgets—and were able to
use PAYT to put their solid waste manage-
ment back on track.
While the specific issues varied, the lead-
ers of these communities recognized that
their old MSW programs needed to
change. More reliable funding sources
were needed, recycling programs had to
be expanded, and, most importantly, they
had to begin getting their residents to gen-
erate less waste in the first place. PAYT
turned out to be the answer.
Real-World Results
The PAYT concept is simple—rather than
paying for trash collection and disposal
indirectly (often through property taxes),
residents under this program are asked to
pay for each container of waste they
generate. It gives them an incentive to
reduce waste, and it can be very effective:
after implementing PAYT, communities
typically report reductions in waste
amounts of 25 to 35 percent, including
significant increases in recycling. To date,
nearly 2,000 communities across the coun-
try have successfully implemented PAYT.
Learn From Successful Communities
For communities considering PAYT,
making the switch may seem intimidating.
MSW planners may be concerned, for
example, that their elected officials will
not support the effort. Other planners
may feel that the design process is too
complicated or that local residents might
resist the new program.
Fortunately, decision-makers considering
PAYT have an important resource they
can turn to: the experience of the many
communities that have preceded them.
When it comes to questions about how to
evaluate, design, and implement PAYT, it's
the communities that have successfully
adopted a program of their own that can
best provide the answers.
-------
Some of the communities featured here had to develop
impressive solutions to daunting challenges before their
program could become a reality. In most cases, how-
ever, these planners simply saw an opportunity in PAYT.
They researched the issue carefully and developed a
program that, it turned out, met or exceeded their
expectations. However they came about, the programs
described in this collection are filled with important
lessons for interested community planners.
The Bottom Line
Perhaps the single biggest lesson illustrated by these
stories is that there is no one "right" way to implement
PAYT—just as there is no single compelling reason for
communities to adopt this type of program. Every com-
munity has a different story to tell and a different lesson
to teach. Nonetheless, nearly all the communities
detailed here have experienced three specific types of
benefits as a result of adopting PAYT:
It's economically sustainable. PAYT is an effective
tool for communities struggling to cope with soaring
MSW management costs. Well-designed programs
enable communities to generate the revenues they need
to cover all MSW program costs, including the costs of
complementary programs such as recycling and compost-
ing. Residents benefit, too, since they finally have the
opportunity to take control of their trash bills.
It's environmentally sustainable. Because of the
incentive it provides residents to put less waste at the
curb, communities with programs in place have reported
significant increases in recycling and reductions in waste.
Less waste and more recycling mean that fewer natural
resources need to be extracted.
It's fair. One of the most important advantages may be
the fairness PAYT offers to community residents. When
the cost of managing trash is hidden in taxes, or charged
at a flat rate, residents who recycle and prevent waste
end up subsidizing their neighbors' wastefulness. Under
this kind of program, residents pay only for what they
throw away.
For More Information
This collection highlights successful strategies for imple-
menting all types of PAYT programs in all kinds of
communities. EPA has developed additional materials for
anyone interested in learning more. For individuals look-
ing for general information about how these programs
work, EPA is making available fact sheets, a complete
PAYT guidebook, and other materials. For local solid
waste planners interested in specific ideas about how to
bring PAYT to their community, EPA has developed a
comprehensive set of tools-based on lessons from pio-
neering communities like the ones described here-to
help them design and implement a successful program.
All of these products are based on real-world informa-
tion that can help planners and others as they search for
economically and environmentally sustainable solutions to
today's solid waste management challenges. To find out
more about EPA's collection of products, call the Pay-as-
you-throw Helpline toll free at 888-EPA-PAYT.
Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent
postconsumer fiber.
-------
Population:
Type of Community:
Type of Program:
Program Start Date:
b^P
We argued that the
costs for producing
wastes should be
borne by the user
and the costs of
recycling, because of
its social and
environmental
benefits, should be
borne by the city.
EPA530-F-97-007b
PAY- AS- YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES
Dover, New Hampshire
26,000
Rural
Bag and Tag
October 1991
Pay-as-you-thmw has proven to be
a very effective means of managing
Dover's solid waste,
Getting Started: Why Pay-As-You-Throw?
The City of Dover is a community of
approximately 26,000 people on New
Hampshire's seacoast. Our municipal landfill
was closed in 1979, and at that time the city
entered into a relationship with a private
hauler for collection and disposal at a pri-
vately owned and operated landfill. The city
collected approximately 24,000 tons of trash
each year, of which approximately 11,000
tons were residential refuse.
Before 1989, Dover had no recycling pro-
gram. Any and all trash residents wished
to discard was left at the curb, and 3]/2
truck routes were needed to collect the
refuse daily. The cost of refuse collection
and disposal was escalating rapidly.
Responding to citizen pressure, the
Dover city council
created an ad
hoc committee
on recycling in
the fall of 1989.
The committee,
chaired by Gary
Gilmore, city coun-
cilor, consisted of
eight interested res-
idents and a council
representative. The
committee reported
back to the council 4 months later with 10
recommendations.
The committee urged the immediate estab-
lishment of a drop-off recycling center
designed to collect a wide range of materials.
The recycling center opened in May 1990. It
quickly became very popular and a source of
civic pride.
The recycling center was run initially as an
all-volunteer effort. After a few months, the
city hired a solid waste coordinator, who
began working in conjunction with the ad
hoc committee and several city councilors
to urge the establishment of
curbside recycling
'
°-"T.«^
,.„*-* —'—
it*
-------
and the bag and tag program, which
was then unknown in northern New
England.
Overcoming Public Dissent
The three public meetings we held
were filled with heated vocal dissent.
However, we soon convinced the public
to accept these programs with a couple
of basic premises. The first premise was
that recyclable materials are a commod-
ity, and anything that is disposed of in
the landfill is waste. We argued that the
costs for producing wastes should be
borne by the user and that the costs of
recycling, because of its social and envi-
ronmental benefits, should be borne by
the city.
In September 1991, the city began curb-
side collection of recyclables, and a
month later the bag and tag program
was implemented. In conjunction with
the establishment of these programs,
the city council created a Citizen's Solid
Waste Advisory Committee responsible
for overseeing these programs.
Since the program was initiated we
have had annual public meetings and
have raised the price once. We have
not had any significant public dissent at
any meetings since the program's incep-
tion. Overall, the program has been
well received by the community and has
proven to be a very effective means of
managing Dover's solid waste.
How Does It Work?
The city no longer provides for the col-
lection and disposal of private dump-
sters. Commercial generators pay the
fees associated with the collection and
disposal. For the residents, payment of
the collection and disposal of wastes is
accomplished through the purchase of
bags and/or adhesive tags.
A special revenue fund was established
to pay for the collection, disposal, and
administrative costs associated with our
residential solid waste. The fees generat-
ed by the sale of the bags and tags go
into this fund as revenue. The goal is to
maintain a neutral fund balance that can
sustain the program, but not to build a
large balance.
Success: Saving Money and
Reducing Waste
As mentioned earlier, Dover used to
produce approximately 11,000 tons per
year of residential solid waste. Last year,
we produced approximately 3,900 tons.
In 1990 our budget for solid waste was
approximately $1.2 million. Next year's
budget (including trash and recycling) is
approximately $878,000. Our current
recycling rate is well over 50 percent
for our residential waste stream—
despite it being strictly voluntary.
Dover's success story was compiled by Gary Gilmore, City Councilor, and Carl Quiram,
P.E., Environmental Projects Manager, (603) 743-6094.
-------
PAY-AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS
FalmOUth, Maine
EPA530-F-97-007h
STORI ES
Type of Community:
Type of Program:
Program Start Date:
8,500
Suburban
Bags
By recycling and reducing waste,
citizens not only save money, but also
reduce costs for our community,
September 1992
Getting Started: Why Pay-As-You-Throw?
The success and
acceptance of pay-
as-you-throw in our
community has
been remarkable.
Our recycling rate
immediately
jumped by more
than 50 percent
and trash disposal
volumes decreased
by about 35
percent.
In 1991, the Town Council directed the
Falmouth Recycling Committee to explore
options available for solid waste collection.
After reviewing several systems, including
traditional municipal collection, franchise
contractor, and volume-based systems, the
committee developed a report recommend-
ing a modified pay-per-bag system. In this sys-
tem, the collection cost is paid through the
tax system and the disposal cost is reflected in
the cost of the special bag used in the town.
The benefits of this system include a fair
allocation of disposal and collection costs,
tax-deductible collection cost components,
lower collection costs than a traditional non-
fee system, incentives for recycling and waste
reduction, a favorable cash flow structure
(bag revenues are received before disposal
expense is incurred), and elimination of trash
"mixing" by unscrupulous haulers. A unani-
mous vote of the council in the spring of
1992 directed the town to implement the
program in September 1992.
How Does It Work?
The town buys about 175,000 large bags (33-
gallon) and 75,000 small bags (20-gallon)
each year. About a dozen local stores,
including Shaw's Supermarkets, retail the
bags. Bags cost the town 12 and 9 cents
respectively and the store is allowed a
(Bourn of 3Winnirtl|. fflatne
*,!,„ (Q.
£071 ?«
^^
and c
-------
2-cent per bag markup. The retail prices
of the bags are 91 and 64 cents, respec-
tively. In addition, a 91-cent sticker is
available for bulky items under 35
pounds, and a $4.80 tag is used for
large items such as mattresses and sofas.
Stores are invoiced for the bags at the
time of delivery and have 30 days to
pay. This system works well for the citi-
zens, because they buy bags and simply
use them the way they had before this
program was implemented.
By recycling and reducing waste, citizens
not only save money, but also reduce
costs for our community. The burden
on the town is minimal because its only
responsibilities are bag delivery, billing,
and recordkeeping. Also, cash flow is
positive for the town because the bags
are paid for before use. There is no
concern with unpaid and uncollectible
charges that can occur with post-use
billing.
Success: Saving Money and
Reducing Waste
The success and acceptance of the
program in the community has been
remarkable. Our recycling rate (always
among the highest in the region)
immediatelyjumped by more than 50
percent, and trash disposal volumes
decreased by about 35 percent.
Combined, these two statistics resulted
in a jump of our recycling rates from 12
percent before the program to 21 per-
cent currently The average rate for
local towns is 7 percent.
These statistics have meant a great deal
to the economics of our waste pro-
gram: The bid price for collection the
first year was $116,000, compared to a
bid of $146,000 for a traditional collec-
tion contract. Our current contract is
for $125,500 despite over 10 percent
growth in the community. At $55 per
ton, a reduction of 900 tons of waste
disposal per year meant a savings of
about $50,000. The current $98 per
ton tip fee calculates to $88,000 per
year savings. In addition, during the old
franchise system, residents paid the col-
lection cost directly to the hauler. Now
residents pay for collection through
their taxes, bringing the community over
$30,000 per year.
Tips for Other Communities
Some towns have bought large quanti-
ties of bags and have been dissatisfied
with size or quality. It may be prudent
to buy a smaller quantity to start with
so that changes can be made if desired.
When you "force" citizens to buy your
bag, it has to be of acceptable quality.
Educate prior to implementation! The
town conducted a citizen survey, devel-
oped a brochure, published a newslet-
ter, and passed out two free bags to
each household prior to implementing
the program. We also conducted a logo
contest in the schools that generated a
great deal of interest and media atten-
tion. The local Lions Club donated
money for the prizes.
Contact other communities and learn!
During our review, we read many arti-
cles published about other towns' pro-
grams. This is useful, but following up
with phone calls can be even more
helpful. We got copies of several towns'
brochures that alerted us to some
details that otherwise may have been
overlooked.
Involve the collection team! The con-
tractor or municipal crew can help
or hurt the program, so they need to
be on board. We developed a small
tag for collection workers to leave at
the curb if there was a reason to not
pick up trash (i.e., not in proper bag
or too heavy).
Fa/mouth's success story was compiled by Tony Hayes, (207) 781 -3919.
-------
EPA530-F-97-007I
PAY- AS- YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES
Fort Collins, Colorado
Type of Community:
Type of Program:
Program Start Date:
100,000
Urban
Varies
January 1996
Getting Started: Why Pay-As-You-Throw?
Start planning for implementation at least
six months in advance. This means both
working with your private haulers and
educating the public,
Pay-as-you-throw
has helped us to
reach our recycling
goals—a real
challenge, since
there are six private
trash haulers that
work in Fort Collins.
Fort Collins is located on the Front Range of
the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. Last year
its population passed the 100,000 mark, but
the community still takes pride in a small-
town self-image, and residents are deter-
mined to manage growth well. The natural
environment is highly valued, and solid waste
reduction is a strong environmental program
in Fort Collins.
The city conducted outreach and sponsored
a recycling drop-off site for nearly 10 years,
but without a municipal trash collection ser-
vice, increased participation depended on
haulers' efforts. A 1991 ordinance required
haulers to provide curbside recycling, but
because they included this service as an addi-
tional cost, most customers were unwilling
to pay for the service. Construction of a
county recycling center in 1992 also had little
effect on residents' recycling levels.
The city council
adopted goals in
1994 to reduce the
total waste stream
by 20 percent by the
year 2000, despite
the city's growth, and
to reduce landfilled
waste by 20 percent.
A specific target was set for increasing par-
ticipation in curbside recycling by 80 to 90
percent. Reaching these goals has been
challenging, because six private trash haulers
work in Fort Collins, ranging from corporate
players like BFI and Waste Management to
locally run family operations that have been
in business for 40 years.
Disappointed in a slow rate of progress for
recycling, the city council adopted two ordi-
nances in May 1995 that apply to single-family
and duplex residences. The first ordinance
called for haulers to "bundle" costs for recy-
cling and provide curbside recycling to cus-
tomers upon request at no extra charge. It
became effective in October 1995. The sec-
ond ordinance called for volume-based rates
to be charged for solid waste starting
in January 1996.
pott-
no1
-------
Lessons Learned
Start planning for implementation of the
rate structure change at least six
months in advance. We didn't start
working with the haulers until
September to implement the system in
January. Then, after meeting together
several times, the city agreed to amend
the ordinance to respond to haulers'
concerns about charging strictly by
volume, but this process was time-
consuming and difficult.
Make sure to publicize the changes to
remind the public and their elected offi-
cials about what will occur in the next 2
to 3 months. Use news articles, adver-
tisements, and haulers' billings.
Don't underestimate the difficulty peo-
ple will have understanding how new
trash collection rates work, and plan for
the extra work it creates for staff. Be
prepared for it to take 3, 6, or even 9
months for people to realize that they
can save money by generating less trash
with a PAYT system.
Expect private trash haulers to take the
opportunity to increase collection rates
at the same time the volume-based
rates take effect. The public assumed
the hike in collection rates was a result
of the ordinance. Haulers helped spread
the misunderstanding—it deflected criti-
cism from them!
Make sure the transition between billing
systems is smooth. Because we had
some program overlap, both our
haulers and the city staff got a new
round of calls from angry, confused
people who had received two different
bills. However, the city has been
adamant about reimbursing customers
for cans/bags of trash that they didn't
generate—the most important feature
of the system to reward people with
cost savings.
Success: Increased Recycling
Participation
As of July 1996, recycling has increased
to 79 percent participation in single-
family and duplex households, up from
53.5 percent the previous year. With
only 6 months' worth of data to analyze
trends, it is hard to specify what is hap-
pening with solid waste reduction goals,
but we have clearly found a way to
accomplish our goal for 80 to 90 per-
cent participation in curbside recycling.
Now that the residents of Fort Collins
are so much more conscious of
reducing their waste stream, they have
demanded opportunities to recycle new
materials, including cardboard, office
paper, and compostable items.
The bundling ordinance and PAYT
system have significantly increased
households' recycling efforts, so the
experience, although sometimes difficult,
was certainly worthwhile. Now that
we're 6 months into the new system,
the city council is already looking ahead
to the feasibility of districting Fort
Collins into trash collection zones!
We know that Fort Collins is not com-
pletely out of the woods yet. We are
anticipating, for instance, that this fall's
leaf-raking and bagging will add to
peoples' trash bills—and that they are
going to demand that the city do
something about it. Still, we feel confi-
dent that Fort Collins made the right
choice by adopting the pay-as-you-
throw ordinance.
Fort Collins's success story was compiled by Susie Gordon, Environmental Planner,
(970) 22]-6265.
-------
Population:
Type of Community:
Type of Program:
Program Start Date:
Gainesville's move to
pay-as-you-throw
did more than
reduce waste and
increase recycling-it
created a more
equitable system for
residents.
EPA530-F-97-007C
PAY-AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES
Gainesville, Florida
96,000
Suburban
Cart-based Cans
October 1994
Why Pay-As-You-Throw?
The results of the first year of our
program were amazing. After
implementing pay-as-you-throw, we
watched our recycling rates soar!
Before variable-rate pricing, the cost to indi-
viduals for service was hidden. Residential
users did not have an apparent reason to
limit their disposal habits. Now, Gainesville's
variable-rate pricing generates a visible
monthly charge that has resulted in a sub-
stantial reduction in both solid waste and
the costs associated with its disposal.
f
City
How Does It Work?
In July 1994, the city of Gainesville entered
into a contract with Waste Management of
Central Florida, Inc., for the collection of
residential solid waste and commingled
recyclables and into another contract with
Boone Waste Industries, Inc., for the collec-
tion of yard trash for recycling. The new
contract for solid waste service included a
variable rate for residential collections:
of Gainesville
SOLID WASTE PEPARTMEN
.S. EM
ss
**lib,pa,
in July of ISH
"3JO. IS.
du
L'l-
> a can
-------
residents pay $13.50, $15.96, or $19.75
per month according to whether they
place 35, 64, or 96 gallons of solid
waste at the curb for collection.
Recycling service is unlimited. While
residents have had curbside collection
of recyclables since 1989, the imple-
mentation of this program added
brown paper bags, corrugated card-
board, and phone books to the list of
items recycled.
Planning Ahead
Planning ahead was critical to the suc-
cess of Gainesville's program. It was cru-
cial for us to order our carts and public
outreach publications far in advance of
program implementation.
Success: Saving Money and
Reducing Waste
The results of the first year of our pro-
gram were amazing. The amount of
solid waste collected decreased 18
percent, and the recyclables recovered
increased 25 percent! The total dispos-
al tonnage decreased from 22,120 to
18,116. This resulted in a savings of
$186,200 to the residential sector, or
$7.95 per home.
Gainesville's move to a cart-based, vari-
able-rate residential collection system
did more than just increase the rate of
recovery and minimize disposal needs.
The distribution of system costs is more
equitable. Residents make the choice of
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.
-------
Population:
Type of Community:
Type of Program:
Program Start Date:
'We have not only
reduced the amount
of trash sent to the
landfill, but also
generated an
enormous amount of
civic pride in our
efforts to do
something positive
for our community
environment."
—Rick Elliot, Mayor
EPA530-F-97-007g
PAY-AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES
Mount Vernon, Iowa
3,700
Suburban
Tags
July 1991
Paying for one's waste has brought home to
each of us a growing awareness of the full
lifecycle costs of "throwing it out,"
Getting Started: Why Pay-As-You-Throw?
Mount Vernon is a small, attractive college
community in eastern Iowa, home to profes-
sional commuters as well as college staff.
The city's income level ranks above average
for the state. In July 1991, the city began to
charge directly for the collection of residen-
tial trash, bulky items, grass clippings, and
garden waste. At the same time, bins were
distributed to begin curbside collection of
materials for recycling. We expected these
two steps to work together. Charging for
each container of trash provided the finan-
cial incentive to move material from trash
containers into recycling bins—the city
would then contract to collect this recycling
material free of direct charge.
How Does It Work?
The city's pay-as-you-throw system
works quite simply.
Households purchase
$1.75 tags at city hall
or one of several
stores. As a public
service, stores sell the
tags with no markup.
The price for collec-
tion is one tag for
each container, which
must be no more than
30 gallons or 40
pounds, and multiple tags for bulky items.
Homeowners also receive a $7 solid waste
bill monthly. The city discounts the monthly
fee for households defined as low income
under the school lunch program.
While the revenue from tag sales roughly cov-
ers the cost of trash collection and landfill fees,
the monthly billing finances the "free of
charge" collection of recycling material, leaves,
and brush. Residents say tags are a fair way to
pay for trash disposal, and the combination of
tags and monthly fees provides a steady rev-
enue to the city.
Why Tags?
The city council appointed the Reduction
and Recycling Committee to develop a solid
CITY OF MOUNT VERNON, IOWA
Rick Ellin", Ma!f0r
COUNCIL:
Dime Hotfinum
I,
Mictuel R. Stilti'i i
Frank SiA"
^JfftSSSSSK-
S.=-. If materials fc'twi'd"1* N
-------
waste program. We spent over a year
researching the experiences of other
communities and consulting experts,
and eventually recommended tags for
waste collection to accompany curbside
recycling. Tags cost little to print, permit
residences to continue using their con-
tainers within the volume and weight
limits, adhere securely at all tempera-
tures, are convenient for participating
merchants to handle, and can easily be
removed when the trash is collected.
Stealing of tags has not been a problem
in this residential community.
Success: Increased Waste
Reduction and Recycling
Pay-as-you-throw played a major role in
motivating waste reduction and nearly
doubling recyling. The city estimates that
the trash the typical resident sent to the
landfill decreased by nearly 40 percent,
from 45 pounds per week in 1990 to 27
pounds in 1995. In addition, requiring a
tag for each container of grass clippings
and garden waste has nearly eliminated
the collection of these materials. The total
reduction of residential trash and all yard
waste per household exceeds the goal of
50 percent waste reduction the state leg-
islature has established for the year 2000.
Dumping, subject to a $1000 fine in
Mount Vernon, has not been a problem.
Altogether, by recycling and reducing
trash, and by leaving grass cuttings on
the lawn or composting it, the average
household saved $47 last year in fewer
tags purchased, a total saving of some
$46,000 for our 980 households. At 9
pounds per household per week, Mount
Vernon leads all 17 cities in Linn County
in recycling.
In addition to putting more into recy-
cling bins, residents of Mount Vernon
have reduced waste in various ways: 1)
recycling appliances; 2) recycling materi-
als the city does not accept at drop-off
facilities in Cedar Rapids and places of
employment that recycle these items; 3)
backyard composting of organic wastes;
4) purchase of reuseable rather than dis-
posable materials; and 5) more yard
sales. Much of this additional recycling
and reduction is doubtless motivated by
the tags that residents must purchase to
send trash to the landfill. We believe
that such incentives would also work
with less expensive drop-off recycling
programs in other cities.
As Mount Vernon's mayor, Rick Elliot,
says: "Our program has been very suc-
cessful due to the initial involvement of
a large number of citizens, continued
expansion of recycling opportunities,
community education and ownership of
the program, and a very civic-minded,
cooperative recycling and refuse vendor.
This program works and it works well."
How Mount Vernon's Program
Could Be Even Better
The major challenge inherent in any
reduction and recycling program is
informing the public. The city needs to
do better at keeping households cur-
rent on changes in the recycling pro-
gram. One successful example is an
information packet prepared by the
Recycling and Reduction Committee
that explained to households how, with
reasonably frequent mowing, grass cut-
tings left to decompose produce a
healthier lawn. Informing households
about alternative ways to deal with
wastes goes hand in hand with pay-as-
you-throw to maximize the effective-
ness of the financial and environmental
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.
-------
Population:
Type of Community:
Type of Program:
Program Start Date:
Two years after the
program started, a
city councilman who
had voted against
the new program
came up to me in a
local store with a
smile on his face and
simply said 'You
know, you were
right.' Then I knew
the program was
really working.
EPA530-F-97-007a
PAY-AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES
PoqUOSOn, Virginia
11,500
Suburban
Bags
July 1992
With pay-as-you-throw, we've had the
largest amount of recyclables collected
in our nine-community regional
recycling program for four years,
Getting Started: Why Pay-As-You-Throw?
In the fall of 1991, we decided to shut down
a very successful drop-off recycling center
and join a regional curbside program the
next spring. Our main reason for going with
the curbside program was that we knew we
could get better citizen participation and
further increase recycling. Because of the
success of the drop-off program, we were
asked by the city council to review the city
trash program and develop a plan to
improve it.
Our group was made up of about a dozen
interested citizens, two city employees, and
two city councilmen. One of the first things
we did was to develop the following mission
statement: "To review every aspect of waste
management in Poquoson to maximize
REDUCTION, REUSE, and RECYCLING,
and to recommend ways to accomplish this
with the minimum cost
to the taxpayer."
This statement
was read at the
start of every
meeting to make
sure we stayed
focused on our
agreed-upon goal.
After discussing all
types of different programs, we decided to
focus on a fairly new system that was volume-
based and where people paid for the amount
of trash they discarded, rather than a flat-fee
system.
Bringing the Opposition on Board
We called and talked to people involved
with these different programs and found
out what problems and successes they
were having. We eventually ended up with
two three-inch binders full of information.
After many meetings and sometimes heated
discussions, we were ready to submit our
basic recommendations to the city council
and the public. At the public hearing, seven
people talked against the
. -.'
-------
plan, and the city council seemed split
on the issue. The word "change" is
usually not well accepted in Poquoson.
We invited the seven speakers against
our plan to join our committee and
work with us to develop a final recom-
mendation. In the end, the six that
joined us supported the final plan.
Bags, Tags, or Cans?
Another big question was: Do we use
bags, stickers, or containers? Our
research showed that stickers are being
counterfeited in one city and that there
is no effective way to control bag size.
Containers required a large, upfront
capital cost, and we wanted to develop
a program that required no additional
cost to the city. Furthermore, we are a
very windy city—and typically after a
trash pickup empty trash cans roll all
over the neighborhoods! Since all of
our trash was being sent to a waste-to-
energy (WTE) plant and not a landfill,
plastic bags were not a negative as far
as disposal was concerned. We decid-
ed to use plastic bags.
How Best To Distribute
the Bags?
Although many cities sell their bags from
city office locations, this puts a big bur-
den on city personnel and can be incon-
venient for citizens. We talked with all
our grocery, drug, and convenience
stores and set up a program in which
they would sell the bags and turn over
all the proceeds to the city after they
were sold. In other words, they would
make no profit on selling the bags, but
also would have no investment in them.
It was pointed out to them that this
would be a community service.
Spreading the Word
The next step was informing the public
of the new program, how it would
work, and when it would start. We pre-
pared news releases for our local
papers, wrote articles for the city
newsletter, and made a videotape of the
program using local talent that was then
shown on the city public access channel.
We also trained speakers about the
subject and made them available to
any groups that were interested.
"We're number one
every time"
We are part of a regional recycling pro-
gram with nine other cities and counties.
Because of the way our trash program
encourages recycling, our city has had
the largest amount of recyclables collect-
ed per house, per month for the entire
four years we have been in the program.
We're not number one most of the
time, we're number one every time.
Poquoson's success story was compiled by Bob Kerlinger, Recycling Committee Chair,
868-3779.
-------
EPA530-F-97-007d
PAY- AS- YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES
San Jose, California
Population:
Type of Community:
Type of Program:
Program Start Date:
850,000
Urban
Four-sort
We worked to educate residents away
from the concept of unlimited garbage
toward the idea of unlimited recycling,
July 1993
Getting Started: Why Pay-As-You-Throw?
In the three years
since our program
began, an average of
87 percent of
residents have
requested 32-gallon
cans—the smallest
size we offer.
San Jose is the nation's eleventh largest city.
Our residents are among the most educated
and affluent in the country and represent a
diverse community, with the two largest
minority groups being Latino (27 percent)
and Asian (14 percent).
Before July 1993, San Jose provided unlimited
weekly garbage collection service at a flat
monthly rate of $12.50 per household.
Residents set out an average of three 32-
gallon garbage cans per week. The city fully
implemented its Recycle Plus (RP) residential
integrated waste management program for
186,000 single-family dwellings on July 1, 1993.
This program was designed to permit the
city to reach its California Integrated Waste
Management Act goal of 50 percent waste
reduction by 2000.
The new RP program result-
ed from over 3 years of
planning that included
extensive research on all
major policy changes.
This program includes a
fully automated garbage
collection system, an
aggressive PAYT rate
structure, a four-sort
recycling system, and a contractor payment
mechanism which provided financial incen-
tives that encourage contractors to promote
recycling.
Educating the Public
The public was involved in the design of the
RP program through a questionnaire mailed
to all 186,000 households; community meet-
ings throughout the city; pilot projects in 17
neighborhoods for collection of yard trim-
mings and mixed papers; and the use of a
public review committee to select the firms
that would be given 6-year collection contracts
for the collection of garbage and recyclables
and for recyclables processing.
A comprehensive public outreach campaign
aimed at single-family households explained
the new variable rates being introduced, the
new categories of recyclables being
added to the services
provided,
-------
and the benefits of participating. All
materials were produced in three lan-
guages (English, Spanish, and Vietnamese).
The campaign was guided by the infor-
mation received during a series of focus
groups in the three languages, baseline
and follow-up telephone surveys, and
shopping mall intercept surveys. More
than 250 community meetings were held
in 1993, and a block leader program and
school education program were
organized.
Getting the Prices Right
Staff began researching unit-pricing
structures for the new RP program in
the spring of 1992 through surveys and
interviews with successful PAYT com-
munities nationwide. Residents were
offered 32-, 64-, 96-, and 128-gallon
carts with an "aggressive" unit-pricing
structure. This structure provided a
slight price break for each additional 32
gallons of capacity at the 64- and 96-gal-
lon level, which the council considered
important to help residents make the
transition from flat rate to unit pricing.
We had to ensure that we had suffi-
cient quantities of wheeled-garbage
carts in the sizes the residents would
request. We sent out a return-reply
card to all single-family households in
January 1993 with our estimated rates,
and let residents know that no reply
would result in delivery of the default
32-gallon cart.
Staff was able to work out a compro-
mise with the city council, which
included offering one of the most com-
prehensive low-income rate assistance
programs for garbage service in the
state. Criteria were based solely on
household size and income and permit-
ted eligible residents to receive a 30
percent discount on their bill. About
3,400 households currently participate
in this program.
Managing the Program Costs
The challenge faced by the program is
to both continue and expand its multi-
pronged recycling efforts to meet diver-
sion goals, while reducing costs to close
the projected $5 million cost-to-revenue
gap in five years. The city already has
reduced costs by over $4 million annu-
ally through contract renegotiations that
resulted in extending the term of the RP
and yard-trimming collection contracts
from June 1999 to June 2002.
Success: Waste Reduction
and Increased Recycling
Staff did not anticipate how quickly resi-
dents would change their recycling par-
ticipation to accommodate the 32-gallon
size cart, especially since prior to RP the
average set-out was three garbage cans.
Since RP implementation, an average of
87 percent of residents have requested
the 32-gallon size.
The difference between the "before
and after" garbage set-out volume could
readily be found in the quantity of recy-
clables collected in the new RP program.
The volume of recyclables and yard
trimmings being collected more than
doubled the levels recorded prior to RP.
Most importantly, residents reported
wide satisfaction with the program and
its results (80 percent in 1993 to 90 per-
cent in 1996. Figures are based on a ran-
dom sample telephone survey).
San Jose's success story was compiled by b Zientek, Supervising Environmental Services
Specialist, (408) 277-5533.
-------
Population:
Type of Community:
Type of Program:
Program Start Date:
,
EPA530-F-97-007e
PAY- AS- YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES
South KingStOWn, Rhode Island
30,000
Suburban
Drop-off, Tags
August 1994
With pay-as-you-throw, the average family
of four has reduced its solid waste stream
to one tagged bag of waste and one bag
of recyclables per week,
Getting Started: Why Pay-As-You-Throw?
Solid waste for South Kingstown and its
regional partner Narragansett is processed
at the town's Rose Hill Regional Transfer
Station (RHRTS). Given the community's
oceanfront shoreline, the approximate year-
round population of 22,000 residents swells
to an estimated 30,000 persons in the sum-
mer months. Residents of both communities
can dispose of solid waste by either con-
tracting with a private refuse hauler or by
directly accessing the transfer station.
After facility operations began at RHRTS in
1983, the disposal cost to "direct access" resi-
dential users continued to escalate. This
increase in disposal costs was due in part to
increasing tipping fees, higher processing costs,
and abuse of a flat-rate annual vehicle pass
program, which provided unlimited disposal
with little or no incentive to recycle materials.
Because of these concerns, South Kingstown
and Narragansett initiated a volume-based tag
solid waste disposal system and a voluntary
source reduction recycling program for
RHRTS residential users.
How Does It Work?
Under the tag solid waste disposal system,
each residential user directly accessing the
transfer station is required to purchase
refuse tags ($10.00 for 10 tags) for solid
waste disposal. Residential RHRTS customers
place a tag on each garbage bag
The success of both
the vo/ume-based
disposal system and
the enhanced
recycling facility has
exceeded all
pre-operational
expectations.
Td
Town of South Kingstown, Rhode Isls
P.O. Bolt 31
ftl 02MC-OOJ1
18,1996
TOWN OF SOUTH KINGSTON
PAY-AS-YOU-THROW TESTIMONIAL
-------
(35-pound/33-gallon limit) prior to dispos-
al. Refuse tags were chosen in lieu of bags
to provide residents free choice with
regard to the size and type of refuse bag
they were accustomed to using.
Some residents continue to use trash
cans for refuse disposal. The RHRTS
operates as a solid waste enterprise
fund, and operational costs are covered
by the cost of the refuse tags.
Utilization of the recycling center by
residential RHRTS users continues to
remain a voluntary decision. Residents
who maximize their recycling efforts
can minimize tag purchases and reduce
their overall solid waste disposal costs.
RHRTS residential users with wasteful
disposal habits who choose not to
recycle must consequently purchase
additional tags.
Complementary Programs
Residential users can dispose of bulky
waste and yard waste at a rate of 5 cents
and 3.5 cents per pound, respectively.
Residents may also elect to purchase yard
waste bags at a cost of 75 cents each
(which includes the disposal fee) for dis-
posal of grass clippings and leaves.
In addition, the town constructed new
recycling disposal facilities for direct
access residential users that became
operational on August 1, 1994. The
enhanced recycling center accepts a
wide variety of materials that can be
recycled by residents at no cost, includ-
ing aluminum, steel, plastic, newspaper,
glass, and many others. Yard waste,
uncontaminated wood demolition, and
ferrous and nonferrous scrap metals are
also recycled, but are assessed a tip fee
due to associated processing costs.
Success: Saving Money and
Reducing Waste
The success of both the volume-based
disposal system and enhanced recycling
facility has exceeded all pre-operational
expectations. The capture ratio of recy-
clables from direct access residential
users has consistently reached approxi-
mately 40 percent, with levels as high
as 51 percent (not including bulky or
recyclable yard waste). Recycling cap-
ture ratios approach 60 percent if yard
waste and bulky recycled waste esti-
mates are included.
Under the PAYT program, RHRTS resi-
dential users discharged approximately
2,175 tons during fiscal year 1994-95, as
compared with 7,608 tons in fiscal year
1991-92 under the former vehicle sticker
program. The average family of four has
reduced its solid waste stream to one
tagged bag and one bag of recyclables
per week. This equates to a total yearly
refuse disposal cost of $52 per year,
which is a $40 savings from the previous
year's average cost of $92. Elderly and
single residents have reported a reduc-
tion in solid waste disposal to as low as
one refuse bag every two weeks, for a
total yearly refuse disposal cost of $26.
South Kingstown's success story was compiled by Ion R. Schock, Utilities Director,
(401) 789-9331
-------
Population:
Type of Community:
Type of Program:
Program Start Date:
Two years into our
program, residents
had significantly
increased their
recycling—and
many had also
requested services
that could help
them reduce waste
even more!
EPA530-F-97-007f
PAY- AS- YOU-TH ROW SUCCESS STORIES
Vancouver, Washington
69,000
Urban
Cans
January 1990
Getting Started: Why Pay-As-You-Throw?
An excellent public information and
education program is imperative,
The city of Vancouver is located in Clark
County, the southernmost county in the
state of Washington, along the north shore
of the Columbia River. Garbage collection
service in the city is mandatory and has
been a contracted service since 1937. In 1989,
the state of Washington passed the Waste
Not Washington Act, which required cities
and counties to implement programs aimed
at reaching a statewide goal of 50 percent
waste reduction and recycling by 1995. In an
effort to reduce our reliance on landfill dis-
posal and to meet local and statewide goals,
the city adopted the philosophy, "The more
you use, the more you pay."
How Does It Work?
Linear rates were introduced in 1990
when the city coun-
cil approved a rate
increase that made
the second can rate
84 percent greater
than the first can.
After 15 months, our
data showed a 13 per-
cent increase in the
number of customers
choosing the one-can
basic service and a corresponding decrease
in customers choosing the two-can service.
In 1992, the city implemented a weekly mini-
can option, and within five months nearly
500 residents had switched to the mini-can.
By the end of the following year, this number
had doubled and the city was receiving num-
merous customer requests for more service
choices. Three new residential garbage service
level options were implemented: every-
other-week 32-gallon can, every-other-week
mini-can, and monthly 32-gallon can service.
These options are increasingly being utilized
as customers learn how waste reduction and
avid recycling can help them reduce their
monthly garbage output and bill.
•is City
-------
Complementary Programs
In 1992, in cooperation with Clark
County, the city implemented a curb-
side recycling program. The program is
mandatory for single-family households,
and all households are billed $3.10 per
month for weekly recycling as part of
their garbage service. A similar program
is also available to all multifamily com-
plexes within the city limits.
The city's contracted hauler also offers
a voluntary yard debris collection pro-
gram. For a monthly fee ($5.55), cus-
tomers can set out up to 96 gallons of
material. Since the program is voluntary,
it does not conflict with citizens who
choose to compost their organic wastes
at home or self-haul to local compost-
ing facilities.
Meeting the Challenges: Tips
for Other Communities
Vancouver has encountered a variety of
challenges throughout the past several
years, and we hope that other jurisdic-
tions may benefit from our experiences.
A significant concern has been whether
we are receiving accurate and up-to-
date data from our garbage and recy-
cling program service providers. It is
important to select providers who have
excellent computer tracking and report-
ing systems and adequate staffing in
place to accomplish these needs. All
solid waste programs require the con-
tractor to provide monthly reports that
enable the city to track the program's
activities and monitor progress.
An excellent public information and
education program is imperative.
Although our experiences with new
program campaigns have been very
positive, it has been a challenge to
ensure that all citizens are informed
about new and existing programs and
the different service levels available to
them. Our ongoing challenge has been
finding sufficient time and resources to
dedicate to frequent, targeted public
relations campaigns.
When the city first attempted to imple-
ment our once-a-month collection
option, it was not approved. The city
council, along with the local health dis-
trict, had concerns about its potential
negative impact on health and safety.
Monthly service was eventually
approved due to the pressure from
recently annexed citizens, namely avid
recyclers and senior citizens who were
used to handling recycling and garbage
on their own. The variety of service
options, although positive from a waste
reduction and customer standpoint,
increases the instability of the revenue
stream for the service providers and
makes enforcement of mandatory col-
lection more difficult.
Program Success
We have found volume-based linear
rates to be an effective tool for encour-
aging residents and businesses to exam-
ine their disposal habits, to recycle
more, and to decrease their garbage
service levels. The city exceeded its 50
percent recycling goal by the end of
1995. Based on available data sources, it
was determined that 51 percent of the
city's wastes were recycled and 49 per-
cent were disposed of in the landfill that
year. While some residents are motivat-
ed by environmental stewardship, others
are encouraged to change habits based
on their pocketbooks. Although volume-
based linear rates pose challenges, we
believe that they are the driving force
behind our success in meeting our waste
reduction and recycling goals.
Vancouver's success story was compiled by Andrea Friedrichsen and Tamera I. Kins, Solid
Waste Program Manager, (360) 696-8186.
------- |