United States
                Environmental Protection
                Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA-530-R-99-013
June 1999
v> EPA      Cutting the Waste Stream in Half:
                Community Record-Setters
                Show How


-------
Cutting the Waste Stream in Half:

Community Record-Setters Show How       •-   .,
                               Waste
                              Reduction

-------
Table  of Contents
    Acknowledgments	iv
    Abbreviations	v
    Definitions andTerms Used inThis Report	vi

    Introduction	1
        Identifying Record-Setters	4
        Calculating Waste Reduction Levels	4
        Determining Costs	8
        Evaluating Program Cost-Effectiveness	10

    Keys to Residential Program Success 	12
        Targeting a Wide Range of Materials	13
        Composting	13
        Achieving High Participation Levels  	18
        Convenience 	18
        Local Mandates  	18
        State Mandates and  Goals	19
        Pay As You Throw 	20
        Offering or Requiring Service to Multi-Family Households 	21
        Drop-off Collection	24
        Education and Outreach 	25
        Finding Markets for Materials 	26

    Keys to Institutional/Commercial Program Success 	29
        State and  Local Mandates	29
        Economic Incentives 	30
        Technical Assistance and Outreach	31

    Keys to Cost-Effectiveness 	32
        Net Program Costs Per Household 	32
        Effect of Tip Fee Increases on Net Costs	33
        Waste Reduction Cushions Communities Against Cost Increases	34
        Factors Affecting Waste Reduction Program Cost-Effectiveness	35
        Maximizing Diversion Levels	36
        Yard Debris Collection and Composting	37
        Recyclables Processing	37
        Pay-As-You-Throw Trash Fees	38
        Drop-off Collection	39
        Dual-Collection  	39
        Integrating Waste Reduction into the Existing SWM System 	40

    Tips for Replication	42

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
                Profiles of Community Record-Setters	44
                    Ann Arbor, Michigan	45
                    Bellevue, Washington	51
                    Bergen County, New Jersey	57
                    Chatham,  New Jersey 	63
                    Clifton, New Jersey	69
                    Crockett, Texas 	75
                    Dover, New Hampshire	81
                    Falls Church,Virginia	87
                    Fitchburg, Wisconsin	93
                    Leverett, Massachusetts	99
                    Loveland, Colorado 	105
                    Madison, Wisconsin	Ill
                    Portland, Oregon	117
                    Ramsey County, Minnesota	123
                    San Jose, California 	131
                    Seattle, Washington 	139
                    Visalia, California	149
                    Worcester, Massachusetts  	155
                Appendix A: Density Factors	161
                Appendix B: Cost Detail	162

            List of Tables
                Table  1: Record-Setting Residential Waste Reduction	3
                Table  2: Record-Setting Municipal Waste Reduction 	4
                Table  3: Demographics 	5
                Table  4: Program Features	6
                Table  5: Program Features: Residential Composting 	14
                Table  6: Program Features: Residential Recycling	15
                Table  7: Materials Collected at Curbside and Drop-off  	16
                Table  8: State  Programs	19
                Table  9: Communities with Pay-As-You-Throw Trash Fees	21
                Table  10: Per Household Residential Waste Generation and Reduction	22
                Table  11: Households Served by Public Sector Curbside Recycling	23
                Table  12: Contribution of Drop-off	24
                Table  13: Institutional/Commercial Sector Recovery Activities	30
                Table  14: Net SWM Costs Per Household, Before and After	33
                Table  15: Tip Fees, Before and After  	34
                Table  16: Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation	35
                Table  17: Recycling  and Composting Gross Costs Per Ton 	38
                Table  18: Drop-off Vs. Curbside Collection Costs	39

            List of Figures
                Figure 1: Residential Waste Generation Per Household Per Day 	12
                Figure 2: The  Contribution of Institutional/Commercial Waste Recovery
                    to MSW Reduction 	29

-------
List of Sidebars
    Definition of Waste Reduction Level	2
    Capital Costs and Operating & Maintenance Costs	9
    Calculating Depreciation Costs 	10
    Categories of Recovered Materials 	13

-------

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published this report which presents results of
research by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), Washington, DC, funded by U.S. EPA grant number
X825213-01-2. ILSR principal researchers were Brenda Platt and Kelly Lease.  Neil  Seldman, of ILSR,
provided project guidance and reviewed previous drafts of this  report.  ILSR's  staff benefited from  the
cooperation of many local recycling coordinators, recycling processors, and solid  waste professionals who
supplied much of the data in the report.
    In addition to the contacts for these record-setting communities, the following individuals reviewed
previous drafts of this report:
    Peter Anderson, Recycle Works
    Naomi Friedman, National Association of Counties
    Sherrie Cruder, University of Wisconsin Extension
    Paul Ligon.Tellus Institute
    Edgar Miller, National Recycling Coalition
    Jeff Morris, Sound Resource Management

    ILSR produced this report as part  of a larger research program entitled the Waste Reduction Record-
Setters Project. ILSR developed this project to foster development of exceptional waste reduction programs
by documenting successful ones.
    A fact sheet summarizing this report, also entitled Cutting the Waste Stream in Half:  Community Record-
Setters Show How (EPA-530-F-99-017),  is available from the RCRA hotline at  1-800-424-9346.

-------
Abbreviations
   ARTS  — Advanced  Recycling Technology
       Systems, Inc.
   BCUA — Bergen County Utilities Authority
   BES — Bureau of Environmental Services
   BFI — Browning Ferris Industries
   BIRV  —  Business  and Industry  Recycling
       Venture
   BWA — Business Waste Assistance
   BY — backyard
   C&D — construction and demolition
   CPI — Consumer Price Index
   CS — curbside
   DO — drop-off
   DPW — Department of Public Works
   EPA — Environmental Protection Agency
   est. — estimated
   FTE — full-time equivalent
   FY — fiscal year
   GDP   gross domestic product
   HOPE — high-density polyethylene
   HH — household
   HHW — household hazardous waste
   ICW — institutional and commercial waste
   ILSR — Institute for Local Self-Reliance
   IWM — integrated waste management
   Ib. — pound
   MFD — multi-family dwelling
MRAP  —  Municipal  Recycling Assistance
    Program
MRF — materials recovery facility
MSW — municipal solid waste
NA — not available
NEC — Neighborhood Energy Consortium
O&M — operating and maintenance
OCC — old corrugated cardboard
OMG — old magazines
ONP — old newspapers
PAYT — pay as you throw
PET — polyethylene terephthalate
RDF — refuse-derived fuel
RLPC  —  Recycling  and Litter  Prevention
    Council
RMP — residential mixed paper
RSW — residential solid waste
SCORE — Select Committee on Recycling and
    the Environment
SFD — single-family dwelling
SW — solid waste
SWM — solid waste management
TPD — tons per day
TPY — tons per year
WMI —Waste Management Inc.
WMSC — Waste Management Service Charge
YR — year

-------
Definitions  and  Terms  Used  in  This  Report

          Communities may define the terms and calculate the amounts of waste and recycling in various ways. To
      facilitate comparison  among programs, we have utilized a uniform methodology whenever possible  to
      determine residential and commercial/institutional waste, municipal solid waste, and waste reduction levels.
      The following definitions apply to this report only and are not meant to represent industry-wide definitions.
      Some in particular differ or further delineate from definitions used to calculate EPA's Standard Recycling
      Rate (see U.S. EPA, Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments, 1997). For this report, Cutting
      the Waste Stream in Half, for instance, composting rates and costs are calculated separately from recovery rates
      and costs of other recovered materials. In addition, amounts of materials diverted from disposal for reuse are
      included in recycling figures.
       Accrual Basis Accounting:


       Avoided Disposal Fees:


       Before Year:



       Cash-Flow Accounting:

       Composting:



       Composting Rate:

       Cut It and Leave It:

       Deposit Containers Recycled:


       Disposed Waste:

       Diversion:

       Diversion Level:

       Dual-collection:
accounting that recognizes costs as services are provided, resources are
used, or  as  events and  circumstances  occur that  have resource
consequences, regardless of when cash outlays are made
disposal tip fees or costs at landfills, incinerators, or waste transfer stations
multiplied by the tonnage of material recovered through  community-
sponsored waste reduction programs
a year prior to 1996 for which community solid waste management was
collected and analyzed.  Specific "before years" were chosen for each
community to reflect years either  before community  waste reduction
programs were begun or expanded.
an accounting system where cash outlays are recorded as they are actually
paid out for goods and services
recovering and  processing  discarded  organic  materials  into  a  soil
amendment, fertilizer, and/or mulch. Composting is a form of recycling,
but for the purpose  of this report it is split out from the recycling figure
in order to add detail.
the  tonnage  of  source-separated organic  materials collected  for
composting divided  by the tonnage of waste generated
leaving grass clippings on mowed lawns in order to avoid collection and
disposal of this organic material; grasscycling
the annual tonnage  of beverage containers recycled as a result of state
bottle bills.  Massachusetts figures  also include an estimate of refillable
bottle usage.
materials landfilled  or incinerated  (with or without energy recovery).
Tires burned  to recover their heating value are counted as disposed.
source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. Used interchangeably
with "waste reduction."
the sum of materials recovered divided by total waste generated; waste
reduction  level
simultaneous curbside collection of trash and source-separated recyclables
in the same vehicle

-------
                                                          DEFINITIONS AND TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT
Flow Controls:

Franchise System:


Full Cost Accounting:



Grasscycling:

Gross Domestic Product (GDP):

Institutional/Commercial
Waste:
Materials Recovery:
Materials Recovery Facility:

Mulch Mowing:
Municipal Solid Waste:


Net SWM Program Costs:

Net SWM Program Costs/
Household:
Participation Rate:

Pay As You Throw:

Recyclables:

Recycling:
Recycling Rate:
legal authority used by state and local governments to designate where
municipal solid waste must be taken for processing, treatment, or disposal
an  arrangement  whereby  municipal government grants contractors
exclusive rights to provide services in all or part of the municipality in
return for a fee
a systematic accounting approach for identifying, summing, and reporting
the actual costs of solid waste management, taking into account past and
future outlays, oversight  and  support  service  (overhead)  costs, and
operating costs
leaving grass clippings on mowed lawns in order to avoid  collection and
disposal of this organic material; Cut It and Leave It
a measure of the size of the U.S. economy calculated by adding up all
output produced
municipal solid waste from the  institutional and commercial sectors
(excluding medical  waste). The commercial sector includes theaters,
offices, retail establishments, hotels, and  restaurants.  The institutional
sector includes establishments such as government agencies, hospitals, and
schools.
materials recycling and/or composting
facility where  recyclables are sorted, baled, or otherwise processed so as
to prepare them for end  users
mowing whereby grass clippings are left on lawns to decompose
the sum  of residential  and commercial/institutional wastes.   MSW
excludes construction and demolition debris and manufacturing wastes.
Also excluded is used motor oil.
the costs of residential  waste reduction programs plus the  costs  of
residential trash collection and disposal minus materials revenues
net SWM program costs divided by the number of households served
by trash and recycling systems
the portion of households served that take part in the curbside collection
program for recyclable materials
volume-  or weight-based collection and/or  disposal fees.  Volume-based
systems can charge customers on a per-bag or volume subscription basis.
materials separated from the solid waste stream and transported  to  a
processor or end user for recycling
the series of activities by which discarded materials  are collected, sorted,
processed, and converted into raw materials and used in the production
of new products.  Excludes the use of these  materials as a fuel substitute
or for energy production.   In this  report,  recycling  does not  include
composting. For communities with  reuse programs, we  have included
reuse in recycling rates, even though we do not consider reuse to be one
and the same as recycling.  (Reuse is not significant enough currently to
be calculated as a separate reuse rate.)
the tonnage of source-separated materials collected for recycling divided
by the tonnage of waste  generated

-------
Reject Rate:

Residential Waste:

Reuse:



Source Reduction:
Source-Separated:

Tip Fees:

Trash:
Waste Generated:

Waste Generation Rate:
Waste Reduction:
Waste Reduction Costs:
Waste Reduction Level:

Yard Debris:
Yard Trimmings:
the percentage  by weight of recyclables  or  compostables  entering  a
processing or composting facility that is disposed as residue
municipal  solid  waste from single-family and  multi-unit residences and
their yards
the repair, refurbishing, washing,  or  just the  simple recovering  of
discarded products, appliances, furniture,  and textiles for  use again as
originally  intended.   Reuse is generally  considered a form of source
reduction but in this  report reuse is included in recycling.
the design, manufacture, purchase,  or use  of materials, such as products
and packaging, to reduce the amount or toxicity of materials before they
enter  the municipal solid waste management system, such as redesigning
products or packaging to reduce the quantity  of materials  used, reusing
products  or packaging already manufactured, backyard  composting,
grasscycling, and mulch mowing
divided by households into different fractions for disposal, recycling, and
composting
the fees charged to haulers for delivering materials at recovery or disposal
facilities
materials destined for disposal facilities  (incinerators or landfills)
the sum of materials recycled, composted,  and  disposed   (including
materials handled at waste-to-energy facilities)
the average amount of waste produced  over unit time
source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting; diversion
costs incurred by a community and/or its residents for the provision of
waste  reduction services  including recycling  (including reuse)  and
composting programs.  Net costs include credit for any revenue derived
from the sale of recovered  materials.
the sum of source reduction, recycling, and composting divided by total
municipal solid waste generated (including source reduction)
leaves, grass clippings, brush, and/or plant clippings; yard trimmings
leaves, grass clippings, brush, and/or plant clippings; yard debris

-------
  INTRODUCTION
      During the past decade, the national recycling
      rate (including composting)  has climbed to
      27%.    Hundreds  of communities  have
surpassed this level. Dozens report waste reduction
levels above 50%. Who are they? What features are
common  to  these  successful  programs?   Are  the
programs  cost-effective?    What  roles  do  source
reduction, reuse, and composting play in community
waste  reduction  programs?   What can  other
communities,  governments, and  organizations —
and  the  nation as  a  whole — learn from  these
record-setters?
    To  answer  these questions,  the Institute  for
Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), in cooperation with the
United  States  Environmental Protection  Agency
(EPA), created the Waste Reduction Record-Setters
project.   The  goal of the project  is to  identify
successful waste reduction programs in communities,
businesses, and other organizations and to encourage
their replication.
    In this report, Cutting the Waste Stream in Half:
Community Record-Setters  Show  How,  the terms
"waste reduction" and "waste reduction  level"  are
used in a  manner  similar  to  the use of the EPA
Standard Recycling Rate  in other EPA publications.
However,  as  explained  later  in this introduction
under the  heading "Calculating Waste  Reduction
Levels," on page 4, and in the sidebar "Definition of
Waste Reduction Level," on page 2, waste reduction
levels were calculated using a refinement of  the
methodology   used to  calculated  the  Standard
Recycling Rate. Furthermore, the terms "recycling"
and  "composting"  are used somewhat differently
from standard EPA usage.
    As shown in Tables 1 and 2, this report features
18 communities  with record-setting residential or
municipal solid waste (MSW) reduction levels. This
report examines the policies and strategies used to
reach high diversion levels; it does not include an in-
depth discussion of materials markets. 1 Seventeen of
the communities profiled are diverting between 40%
and  65%  of their  residential waste streams from
disposal. Six are diverting between 43% and 56% of
their municipal solid waste streams  (residential plus
commercial/institutional waste).
    This report is divided into  six  main sections.
This  section,  the  introduction,  explains   the
methodology used to identify and document record-
setting waste  reduction programs.   The second
section, "Keys  to Residential  Program  Success,"
discusses  residential  waste reduction  program
features and characteristics common to many of the
record-setters.    The  next  section,  "Keys  to
Institutional/Commercial    Program   Success,"
presents   program   features  and  characteristics
common  to institutional  and  commercial  waste
(ICW) reduction programs in  those  communities
achieving  high diversion in this sector.  The "Keys to
Cost-Effectiveness"  section  presents  methods for
determining whether community  waste reduction
programs are cost-effective and evaluates  each of the
featured communities in these terms. The  "Tips for
Replication"  section presents  tips  supplied  by
community  contacts   that   may  help   other
communities achieve high waste reduction levels.
Finally, the sixth section includes in-depth profiles of
the  18 communities  and  their  waste  reduction
efforts. The information in these profiles  has  been
reviewed and validated by each community prior to
publication of this report.
     I his  report features 18 communities with
    record-setting residential or  municipal solid waste
    reduction  levels.
    We chose the communities profiled based on a
number  of   factors:    waste  reduction   level,
community  size  and  type, program  diversity,
geographical balance, and willingness and ability to
provide data.  Two of the 18 are counties. San Jose,
California,  is  the  largest city with  873,300 people;
Leverett, Massachusetts, is the smallest with less than
2,000.  Five are jurisdictions with more than 400,000
residents.   These record-setting communities are
diverse, including rural, urban, and  suburban places.
San Jose is probably  the most ethnically diverse with
large Hispanic and  Asian populations.  Chatham,
New  Jersey,  is  the  wealthiest  with  a  median
household  income of $62,100. Crockett,Texas, has

-------
INTRODUCTION
                  DEFINITION OF WASTE REDUCTION LEVEL
                  Recycling refers to the series of activities by which discarded materials are collected, sorted, processed, and converted into
                      raw materials and used  in the production of new products.  In this  report, recovery of yard debris such as grass
                      clippings, leaves, and brush is termed composting and treated separately from the recycling of other commodities in
                      order to add detail. One shorthand method for referring to the materials included in recycling by this definition is
                      "product and packaging recycling" since this excludes recycling of  leaves, brush, and grass clippings.

                  Composting is the recovering and processing of discarded organic materials into a soil amendment, fertilizer, and/or
                      mulch.  This recovery and processing can take place either through centralized collection and processing programs
                      or in backyard bins operated by individuals. According to the methodology developed to calculate the EPA Standard
                      Recycling Rate, material recovered in centralized programs is considered recycled  while that recovered in backyard
                      systems is considered source reduction.  In this  report, we  include  all  this recovered material when calculating
                      composting rates.
                  Reuse refers to the repair, refurbishing, washing, orjust the simple recovering of discarded products, appliances, furniture,
                      and textiles for use again as originally intended.  Reuse is generally considered a form of source reduction, but in this
                      report reuse is included in calculated recycling rates.
                  Source reduction is the design, manufacture, purchase, or use  of materials, such as products and packaging, to reduce
                      the  amount  or toxicity  of materials before they enter the  municipal solid waste management system, such as
                      redesigning products or packaging to reduce the quantity of  materials used, reusing products or packaging already
                      manufactured, backyard composting, grasscycling, and mulch mowing. In this report, we include source reduction
                      achieved through backyard composting in the calculated composting rates if creditable data support the estimation
                      of tonnage diverted through  such programs.
                      Using the terminology presented, the following equations define other terms used in this report:
                      Recycling tonnage = Product and packaging recycling tonnage + Reuse tonnage
                      Composting tonnage = Centralized composting tonnage + Backyard composting  tonnage
                      Total waste  generation tonnage  = Recycling tonnage + Composting tonnage +  Disposal tonnage
                      Recycling rate = Recycling tonnage /  Total waste generation tonnage
                      Composting rate = Composting tonnage / Total waste generation tonnage
                      Waste  reduction level = Recycling rate + Composting rate
                the lowest median household income of $15,700.
                They are on the west  coast, the east coast, in  the
                south, and  in  the  mid-west.   Twelve  states  are
                represented.    See  Table   3,  on   page  5,    for
                demographic information.
                    With regard to waste reduction programs, these
                record-setters are just as diverse.  Table 4, page 6,
                summarizes  major program  features.  (See Table 5,
                page 14, and Table 6, page 15, for additional program
                features.) In five communities, the public sector has
                designed and implemented  all programs; in five
                others the private  sector provides virtually all waste
                reduction services. In the remaining communities, a
                combination of the two exists.  Curbside collection
                service is the heart of many of these programs.  Only
                one  —  Leverett, Massachusetts  — relies solely on
drop-off. Two communities with curbside collection
have  plastic  bag-based  recycling programs; the  rest
use bins or a combination of bins and paper bags for
curbside set-out. Two  have dual-collection systems
in which crews collect trash and  recyclables at the
same time using a single  truck.  Four serve all their
multi-family households in addition to single-family
households.   In two communities, all households,
both single- and  multi-family, are eligible  to  be
served, although some households choose  not to
participate.   Eleven of  the  programs have  local
ordinances requiring residents to source-separate or
banning them from  setting out designated materials
with their trash. Eleven have instituted pay-as-you-
throw systems in which  residents have to pay  per-
bag    or  per-can   volume-based    trash   fees.

-------
                                                                                                                      INTRODUCTION
  Community
     /Compostinq\
+      Levell  y
          /Waste Reduction\
          (      Level?     J
                                                                                                    Are Waste
                                                                                               Reduction Programs
                                                                                                 Cost-effective?3
 Ann Arbor, Michigan
 Bellevue, Washington
 Bergen County, New Jersey
 Chatham, New Jersey
 Clifton, New Jersey^
 Crockett, Texas
 Dover, New  Hampshire
 Falls Church, Virginia
 Fitchburg, Wisconsin
 Leverett, Massachusetts
 Loveland, Colorado
 Madison, Wisconsin
 Portland, Oregon
 San Jose, CaliforniaR
 Seattle, Washington
 Visalia, California
 Worcester, Massachusetts
  Key: NA - not available          HH - household
  Note: Figures may not lolal due to rounding.  Ramsey County, MN, not included because data on residential waste generation and
    recovery not tracked separately from total municipal solid waste.  All data represents the 1996 calendar year except for Ann Arbor
    (fiscal year 1996 data); Bergen County (1995); and Falls Church, Leverett, San Jose, and Visalia (all fiscal year 1997 data).  Waste
    reduction levels above represent residential solid waste (RSW) only.  In some cases, residential waste reduction levels largely represent
    rates for single-family households and exclude multi-family households, which are often served by private haulers. See individual
    profiles for this detail.
  1ILSR recognizes composting as a Form of recycling but treats it separately in this report so that the costs and diversion levels of
    materials such as paper, bottles, and cans can be compared to the recycling of yard trimmings. Therefore, "Recycling I ovol" •
    "Composting Level" = "Waste Reduction Level."
  2Waste reduction levels may differ from the EF'A Standard Recycling Rate as defined in Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and
    local Governments, ILSR excluded MRf rejects from recycling tonnages and included estimates of materials collected through
    container deposit systems for the communities in bottle bill states.  Furthermore, materials recovered for  reuse are  included in both
    recycling and generation Figures and backyard composting tonnage was included in the composting and generation Figures (or those
    communities that provided creditable data on the amounts of material handled this way.
  "!F)ave net solid waste management costs per household served decreased as compared to a specific previous year (these years were chosen
    to reflect the period before waste reduction program implementation or a major program expansion or change) or can  trash disposal fee
    increases wholly account for increased per household costs? See individual profiles for more information.
  'Clifton serves approximately 1,300 small businesses in its primarily residential trash and recycling programs. The reported rates include
    tFie total waste stream  from 26,200 FiouseFiolds and tFiese 1,300 business and, as sucFi, is not strictly residential.
  5Tho waste reduction level for I everett includes an estimate of material composted at home  because the community has no municipal
    composting program.
  6San Jose's residential waste reduction in FY97 was 45%; for single-family households it was 55%.
Participation requirements and economic incentives
such as pay-as-you-throw trash fees are key elements
of these programs' success — in both the residential
and commercial  sectors.  In fact, five communities
have  both  pay-as-you-throw  trash  systems  and
mandatory participation  requirements.   For  many,
state programs,  policies,  and legislation  have  also
contributed to high  recovery levels.  These include
grants,    landfill   bans,    mandatory    recycling
requirements, waste reduction goals, and bottle bills.
Other  contributors  to  boosting  waste  reduction
levels include targeting a wide range of materials for
recovery  (especially  yard trimmings  and  multiple
paper  grades),  providing  convenient   curbside
collection  service  augmented with  availability  of
drop-off sites, high  public participation, and strong
public outreach programs.
     In  addition to  considering  waste   reduction
levels as a criterion  for  inclusion, we  sought  to
include  cost-effective programs.  The majority  (13
out  of 14  with comparative year  cost data) of  the
record-setters  could be  considered  "cost-effective"
according to the definition we set for this evaluation.
When  a significant portion of the waste stream is
diverted  from  disposal,  communities  benefit  from
avoiding   trash  disposal   fees.     Especially   in
communities where tip fees  are high, avoiding  these
charges can free substantial amounts of money to pay

-------
INTRODUCTION
                 Community
/Recycling\
  Leveli
                                                                     /Composting\
                                                                        Leveli
                    /Waste Reduction\
                    (     Level?      )
Bergen County, New Jersey
Clifton, New Jersey
Portland, Oregon
Ramsey County, Minnesota
San Jose, California
33%
38%
36%
40%
34%
21%
19%
13%
8%
9%
54%
56%
50%
47%
43%
                 Seattle, Washington3
                                                    34%
                                                                         10%
                                                                                                  44%
                 Note: Figures may not total due to rounding. All data represent the 1996 calendar year except for San Jose (fiscal year 1997 data). Waste
                    reduction levels above represent total municipal solid waste (MSW) (the combined waste from the residential and commercial/
                    institutional sectors).
                 11LSR recognizes composting as a form of recycling but treats it separately in this report so that the costs and diversion levels of
                    materials such as paper, bottles, and cans can be compared to the recycling of yard trimmings. Therefore, "Recycling Level" +
                    "Composting Level" = "Waste Reduction Level."
                 2Waste reduction levels may differ from the EPA Standard Recycling Rate as defined in Measuring Recycling:  A Guide for State and
                    Local Governments. ILSR excluded MRF rejects from recycling tonnages and included estimates of materials collected through
                    container deposit systems for the communities in bottle bill  states.  Furthermore, materials recovered for reuse are included in both
                    recycling and generation figures and backyard composting tonnage was included in the composting and generation figures for those
                    communities that provided creditable data on the amounts of material handled this way.
                 3Seattle tracks its waste  in three streams: residential, commercial, and self-haul. Self-haul represents materials delivered directly to a
                    city transfer station. The source of this material (residential  versus commercial/institutional) is not tracked.  In 1996, Seattle's
                    residential waste reduction level was 49%, commercial waste reduction was 48%, and waste reduction in the self-haul sector was
                    18%. The figures above are based on the aggregation of these sectors.
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

                for other solid waste management options. Yet, even
                waste reduction programs in communities with tip
                fees below the national average were  found to be
                cost-effective.2
                     In addition to avoiding trash disposal fees, other
                factors have contributed to waste reduction program
                cost-effectiveness.  In particular, the  programs have
                saved  waste  management funds  by  developing
                programs that encourage reduced waste generation,
                allow  reduction   in  the  number of  trash  routes
                serving the community, generate revenues from the
                sale of recovered materials,  and employ  low-cost
                composting methods to divert yard trimmings from
                disposal.
                     Although  no two  solid  waste  management
                programs  are  alike  and no  one definitive  model
                exists, the  communities have  all developed  their
                waste reduction programs along a common  theme:
                waste  diversion is not an  "add-on"  to  the  trash
                management  program.   Rather,  source reduction,
                recycling, and composting are all integral elements of
                their overall solid waste management programs.

                Identifying  Record-Setters
                     In  late 1996, ILSR distributed  more than 500
                announcements   to    government   organizations,
                industry associations, state recycling organizations, and
                recycling research groups  soliciting  information  on
                record-setting   waste   reduction  programs.    ILSR
follow-up identified  more  than  100  communities
reporting 50%  or higher  residential  or total MSW
reduction levels.  A one-page assessment was sent to
these communities requesting further  information on
their programs.  We used these responses and targeted
follow-up calls to identify a pool of 40 record-setters
from which to develop profiles on  15  to 20.

Calculating Waste Reduction Levels
     We have defined waste reduction success in this
report as achieving a high waste reduction level. For
each community profiled, we  first  clarified the
portion of MSW on which to focus.  Our choices
were often limited by data availability. In general, we
focused on the portion of the discard  stream handled
by   city-sponsored  programs.    For  12   of the
communities, we focus solely on residential discards.
This was further delineated for some communities.
For  example, in  Loveland, although  all households
are eligible to participate in city  programs, private
contractors  collect  trash  from  more  than  1,000
households.   All materials from these  households,
including trash  and recovery, were  excluded  from
our  calculations.  Worcester's city  programs  only
serve residents  of single-family homes and multi-
family complexes with six or fewer units.  The  city's
calculated recovery rate  of 54%  applies  to  these
households only.  In contrast, San Jose's residential
programs serve  all  households and  its residential

-------
                      Population
Community Type
                                                                  Total
                                                                        Households1
                                                                            SFDs    MFDs
Avg. Persons  Households/
    /HH      Square Mile
    Per Capita
Income (1989)
   Median HH
Income  (1989)
Residential Waste
    (lbs/HH/day)2
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Bellevue, Washington
Bergen Co., New Jersey
Chatham, New Jersey
Clifton, New Jersey
Crockett, Texas
Dover, New Hampshire
Falls Church, Virginia
Fitchburg, Wisconsin
Leverett, Massachusetts
Loveland, Colorado
Madison, Wisconsin
Portland, Oregon
Ramsey Co., Minnesota
San Jose, California
Seattle, Washington
Visalia, California
11 2,000
103,700
825,380
8,289
75,000
8,300
26,094
-10,000
17,266
1,908
44,300
200,920
503,000
496,068
873,300
534,700
91,314
Worcester, Massachusetts 1 69,759
urban, college town
suburban, urban
suburban (70 towns)
suburban borough
suburban, urban
small rural city
small rural city
suburban
small rural city
rural town
small residential city
urban, college town
urban city
urban, suburban, rural
large ethnically diverse city
urban city
urban city in rural area
urban industrial city
46,000
44,387
330,473
3,285
31,000
3,293
11,315
4,637
7,500
-650
17,476
82,949
198,368
197,500
269,340
248,970
28,869
63,588
22,000
26,026
-250,000
2,735
25,500
2,834
5,641
2,194
3,860
650
15,220
40,314
130,755
-138,250
188,900
149,300
25,346
22,500
24,000
18,361
-80,000
550
5,500
459
5,674
2,443
3,640
0
2,256
42,635
59,613
-59,250
80,440
99,470
3,523
41,088
2.43
2.34
2.50
2.52
2.42
2.52
2.31
-2.16
2.30
-2.94
2.53
2.42
2.54
2.51
3.24
2.15
3.16
2.67
2,875
1,451
1,384
1,363
2,583
523
400
2,108
216
28
744
1,257
1,437
1,268
1,539
2,706
1,009
1,696
$17,786
$23,816
$24,080
$31,947
$18,950
$9,801
$15,413
$26,709
$17,668
$19,254
$13,345
$15,143
$14,478
$15,645
$16,905
$18,308
$12,994
$15,657
$33,334
$43,800
$49,249
$62,129
$39,905
$15,720
$32,123
$51,011
$35,550
$45,888
$30,548
$29,420
$25,592
$32,043
$46,206
$29,353
$35,575
$35,977
5.71
9.18
15.21
15.81
10.14
4.51
4.71
12.45
5.89
5.50
6.00
8.38
7.10
NA
8.82
6.34
10.71
6.20
Key:  HH = households            MFDs = multi-family dwellings                SFDs = single-family dwellings
Notes:  "-" denotes "approximately"
1 Represents total households in each community: notjust the number of households served by curbside recycling programs.
Represents residential waste generated (recycling, composting, and disposal) by households served by recycling and trash programs divided by the number of households served.  See individual
   profiles for more detail.

-------
INTRODUCTION
Waste Waste Reduction Materials
Stream Level (%)1 Targeted2
Ann Arbor, Ml
Bellevue, WA
Bergen Co., NJ
Chatham, NJ
Clifton, NJ
Crockett, TX
Dover, NH
Falls Church, VA
Fitchburg, Wl
Leverett, MA
Loveland, CO
Madison, Wl
Portland, OR
Ramsey Co., MN
San Jose, CA
Seattle, WA
Visa Ma, CA
Worcester, MA
Residential
Residential
Municipal
Residential
Municipal
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Residential
Residential
52%
60%
54%
65%
56%
52%
52%
65%
50%
53%
56%
50%
50%
47%
43%
44%
50%
54%
31
29
Varies
24
20
25
28
21
25
25
19
17
22
Varies
23
23
20
24
Participation Private/ Curbside/
Mandatory^ PAYT Public Collection Drop-off^
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes?
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Some6
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Both
Private
Varies
Both
Both
Public
Private
Both
Both
Public
Public
Public
Private
Both
Private
Private
Public
Both
CS and DO
CS and DO
Varies6
CS and DO
CS and DO
CS and DO
CS and DO
CS and DO
CS and DO
DO only
CS and DO
CS (DO for YT only)
CS and DO
CS and DO
CS only
CS and DO
CS and DO
CS(DOforYTonly)
                    Key:  CS = curbside       DO = drop-off     YT = yard trimmings
                    Notes: Waste reduction levels above may represent residential solid waste only or municipal solid waste (the combined waste from the
                      residential and commercial/institutional sectors).  The "Waste Stream" column above clarifies upon which waste stream the waste
                      reduction levels are based.  In some cases, residential waste reduction levels largely represent rates for single-family households and
                      exclude multi-family households, which are often served by private haulers.  See individual profiles for this detail.
                    1 Waste reduction levels may differ from the EPA Standard Recycling Rate as defined in Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and
                      Local Governments.  ILSR excluded MRF rejects from recycling tonnages and included estimates of materials collected through
                      container deposit systems for the communities in bottle bill states.  Furthermore, materials recovered for reuse are included in both
                      recycling and generation figures and backyard composting tonnage was included in the composting and generation figures for those
                      communities that provided creditable data on the amounts of material handled this way.
                    ^Represents number of material categories (out of 37  possible) collected for recovery via curbside or drop-off in the residential sector only.
                      Each of the following is counted as one category: old newspapers, old corrugated cardboard, glossy paper (such as magazines and
                      catalogues), paperboard (such as cereal boxes, shoe boxes, egg cartons, toilet paper rolls), mail, office waste paper, kraft paper,juice and
                      milk boxes, phone books, other books, glass bottles, other glass (such as flat glass, ceramics, heat-resistant glass),  aluminum cans, steel
                      cans, aerosol cans, aluminum foil and scrap, PET bottles, HOPE bottles, other PET, other HOPE, other plastics,  lead-acid batteries, other
                      batteries, oil filters, appliances/white goods, scrap metal, tires, wood, household durables, textiles, paint brush, leaves, grass clippings,
                      garden trimmings, soiled paper, food discards.
                    ^Programs are designated as mandatory if localities  have passed bylaws or ordinances requiring residents to set out source-separated
                      recyclables or compostables, or prohibiting disposal of designated materials.  ILSR did not differentiate between bylaws and
                      ordinances that are actively enforced and those that are not.
                    Represents services or facilities provided by municipal staff or contractors, or services offered by private contractors but required by
                      statute or  ordinance.  For example, Ramsey County directs municipalities to assure curbside recycling is available to all residents but
                      does not provide the service. The county operates a network of eight yard trimmings drop-off sites for county residents.
                    5Bergen County consists of 70 municipalities, each responsible for its own trash system.  Four of these municipalities have implemented
                      pay-as-you-throw trash systems.
                    SBergen County consists of 70 municipalities, each responsible for its own trash system.  Sixty-nine of the 70 communities offer curbside
                      recycling service to their residents and 44 of these supplement their curbside program with drop-off facilities.  The remaining
                      community offers its residents a drop-off recycling  program only.
                    ?Saint Paul and three other county municipalities have enacted mandatory recycling ordinances. State law also bans leaves, grass,
                      brush, and yard debris from state landfills and incinerators.
                  recovery rate of 45% applies to materials generated

                  by all city  households  (including  those in multi-

                  family dwellings).  When comparing recovery rates

                  among communities, keep in mind the differences in

                  discard streams.

                       Communities   define  terms  and  calculate

                  amounts  of  trash,   recycling,  and  composting  in

                  various  ways.   To  facilitate  comparison  among

                  programs, we have utilized  a uniform methodology
wherever  possible   to  determine  residential  and

commercial/institutional  waste,  MSW,  and  waste

reduction levels.  (See definitions on pages vi-viii and

the sidebar on page  2.)  Many of our calculated waste

reduction levels  differ  from those reported initially

by these communities.  Major differences include the

following:

•    We included estimates of tonnage diverted via

     state bottle bills for relevant communities.

-------
                                                                                                  INTRODUCTION
•   We excluded recyclables from waste generators
    when  the  trash  from those  same  waste
    generators could not  also be  included.  (For
    example,  we  did  not  include  recyclables
    collected from 500 Loveland households served
    by the city's recycling program that were not
    part of the city's trash program.)
•   We subtracted  material rejected  at materials
    processing facilities from waste reduction levels
    and added it to disposal.
•   We sometimes  added estimates  for materials
    recovered that were  not originally  included in
    community calculated  rates.   For  example,
    Portland's Bureau of Maintenance collects and
    recovers leaves from  the street in the fall. ILSR
    calculated the weight of the leaves based on the
    volume reported by the city and the standard
    volume-to-weight   conversion   factor   for
    compacted  leaves from  the EPA  publication
    Measuring Recycling:  A Guide for State and Local
    Governments.
'   If tires, wood waste, or  other  MSW materials
    were  burned  (even to  recover their  heating
    value), we considered this to be disposal and not
    waste reduction.
•   We excluded non-municipal solid waste items
    such as construction and demolition debris and
    used motor oil.
•   For some of our  New Jersey communities,
    where collapse of flow control may be leading
    to trash bypassing tracking systems, we have used
    previous years' data for trash tonnage.3
    These adjustments serve a variety of purposes.
First,  some adjustments  were necessary  to  achieve
consistency with the definitions of waste generation
and waste  reduction used in this report.  Second, use
of a consistent methodology allows comparison of
waste reduction results among communities.  Also,
most  adjustments lower  calculated  waste  reduction
levels, ensuring our reported recovery levels would
not be considered inflated. 4
    In addition to  differing from  waste  reduction
levels reported by  the communities, our calculated
recovery rates do not include materials known to be
recovered  but not quantified. Many residents of the
communities  included have  access to private  and
county facilities that  accept trash, recyclables, and/or
materials  for  composting.   Unfortunately,  such
facilities  rarely  track tonnages   according  to  the
community of origin.   For example, residents of
Fitchburg  and Madison, both located  in  Dane
County, Wisconsin, can deliver yard debris to county
composting sites but the county does not track these
materials separately from  those delivered  by other
county residents.  In these, and similar cases, we did
not include any of this material in calculating waste
reduction levels.
    Our  methodology  for  calculating  recycling
levels further refines the  EPA  Standard Recycling
Rate.  (See the  sidebar  on page  2.)  While we
recognize that composting is a form of recycling, we
treat it separately in this report so that the  costs and
diversion  levels  of  recycling  of products  and
packaging,  such as paper,  bottles, and cans, may be
compared  to  the  recycling  of yard  trimmings.
Collection  and processing of paper, bottles, and cans
are almost always separate operations from collection
and processing of yard trimmings. We include both
recycling and  composting under the term "waste
reduction."  In fact, waste reduction, as  used in this
report, is more than just recycling and composting.
It  also encompasses some source  reduction  from
backyard composting and product reuse.


     Waste reduction, as used  in this report, is more

    than just recycling  and  composting.  It also

    encompasses some source reduction from

    backyard composting and  product reuse.


    Quantifying source reduction is difficult. While
many of  our record-setters have shopper education,
backyard composting,  and  grasscycling programs,
few have reliable figures on the amount of material
prevented from entering the waste stream as a result
of these programs. Thus, we only include  estimates
of source  reduction  in waste  reduction  levels
reported  for a given year (such as those listed in Table
1)  if  creditable  data  on  the amount  of  material
recovered through  these  programs were  available.
We do, also, compare per household residential waste
generation  before and  after program  start-up or
major  program  expansion.   If  generation  has
decreased,  we  consider   this  decrease  source
reduction.  (See Table  10, page 22, for data on waste
generation  levels and possible source reduction.)

-------
INTRODUCTION
                   The  reuse component of source reduction is
               hard to quantify.  Four  of our record-setters have
               substantial product reuse programs but few actually
               weigh the goods reused.  Many more collect textiles
               and bulk goods, a portion of which is reused. Where
               decent estimates were available for reused goods, we
               have included  these in  calculated waste reduction
               levels as part of recycling.   (Ideally, we would have
               reported  source  reduction as  a separate rate, but
               measured amounts are not significant enough to be
               shown as  a source reduction/reuse rate. In addition,
               for  some  materials  such  as  textiles, the  amount
               reused versus recycled is  not tracked.)


   We believe  that the  waste reduction  levels as we

   have reported them may be understated for many

   of these record-setting  communities.
                   Thus, we believe that the waste reduction levels
              as we have reported  them may be understated for
              many of these record-setting communities. Initially
              Chatham reported 85% of residential waste reduced;
              Madison, 52%; Leverett, 62%;  and Crockett, 70%.
              The waste reduction levels  calculated  according to
              our methodology are lower, with Chatham at 65%;
              Madison, 50%; Leverett, 53%; and Crockett, 52%.
                   Because of variations in waste generation rates,
              the highest waste reduction levels do not necessarily
              correspond  with  the  lowest per household disposal
              rates. For example, although Chatham  recovers  65%
              of its residential solid waste generation, the average
              household still disposes more than 5.5 pounds per
              household per day.  Crockett, on the other hand, has
              a  waste reduction  level of  52% but average per
              household disposal  is  only 2.2 pounds per day.  (See
              Figure 1, page 12.)  Household income  levels in  each
              community may  explain much of  the variation in
              residential waste  generation rates. The community
              with the lowest per household waste generation (4.5
              pounds per  household per day)  is Crockett, which is
              also  the  community  with  the  lowest median
              household income  ($15,720 in 1989)  according to
              1990 U.S. Census data.  Similarly, the  municipality
              with the  highest per household waste  generation
              (15.8 pounds per household per day)  is Chatham,
              which  is also the community  with  the highest
median household income ($62,129 in 1989).5 See
Table  3,  page  5,  for  community  demographic
information and residential waste generation rates.

Determining Costs
    As we  have gone  to great  lengths  to  make
residential waste  reduction  levels  comparable, we
have also tried to use a consistent methodology in
calculating costs.6  Most profiles  contain  detailed
information on costs of waste reduction (separated
into recycling and composting and also aggregated)
and  trash  management programs.   These costs
include the annualized cost of capital  expenditures;
annual operating and maintenance  costs; and credits
for revenues generated  from material  sales.  We
added  waste reduction and trash management costs
to calculate total solid waste management costs.  (See
the sidebars on pages 9 and 10 for further details on
methodology used to calculate these costs.)
    Communities account for and track their costs
very differently.   Some  expend  much effort  to
include all  indirect and administrative overhead
costs;   others exclude  these  entirely.   Some use
accrual accounting techniques, others  rely on cash-
flow accounting.  Appendix  B and each profile
carefully explain  the  basis for cost data,  what is
included,  what  is excluded,  and  the  accounting
technique employed by the community to track
costs.7
    We have made a  concerted  effort to use a
uniform  methodology  for  documenting  and
assessing costs. Yet, due to the difficulty in gathering
reliable and consistent cost information, the figures
presented in this report have some limitations.  The
costs  documented  focus on the  costs  of trash
management and waste reduction  incurred by the
local government or community profiled or fees for
services  paid  directly  by  the residents  of the
communities.  We, therefore,  did  not include the
value   of  services, such as technical assistance,
provided to localities by counties and  states. But, if
communities received program support funds from
these  sources, the full  costs of the  programs are
included, not just out-of-pocket expenditures made
from community funds. In addition, costs of capital
equipment  are  reflected  in  debt  service   or
depreciation costs, regardless of the source  of funds
used   to   purchase  the   equipment.     When
communities or individual residents  hired private
entities to provide waste management services, the

-------
                                                                                                          INTRODUCTION
CAPITAL COSTS AND OPERATING &
MAINTENANCE COSTS	
     Communities  incur two  types  of costs  when
implementing a materials recovery program:  capital
costs and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs.
     Capital  costs  are large expenditures for  items
expected  to  have  a lifespan extending over multiple
years  including equipment  (e.g.,  vehicles,  household
recycling  containers,  conveyors, crushers,  balers,
grinders),   land,   and  building  construction  and
improvement.  Each  profile includes  a table  listing
equipment used in the program, quantity, what it is used
for, how  much it cost, and when those costs  were
incurred.
     The annualized value of capital expenditures can be
accounted for through built-in replacement fees, debt
service payments for past purchases, or depreciation
costs.  If  a  community  did not already  include the
annualized cost of capital  expenditures in their reported
costs, ILSR calculated depreciation costs for  these
outlays.  For example, Falls Church's reported SWM costs
included depreciation costs for its equipment used in the
trash  and  composting programs but  did  not include
depreciation  for city-purchased recycling  bins.   ILSR
calculated  this  amount and added it to  reported  costs
for the city's recycling  program.   ILSR  assumed
contractors providing services to  our  record-setters
passed on the annualized cost of capital expenditures in
the fees they charged.
     Annual  O&M  costs  are ongoing expenses that
include  such  items  as  equipment  leasing  and
maintenance, utilities, labor and  benefits,  tip  fees,
administrative  expenses,  licenses,  supplies, insurance,
marketing fees, contract fees, and publicity programs.
     Most of the profiles include a table presenting net
costs  for  waste  reduction  programs,  followed  by  a
second table summarizing costs for total  solid  waste
operations.  The net costs represent the annualized cost
of capital expenditures, O&M costs, and  any offsetting
revenues  from  material  sales.   These costs generally
cover the residential sector only. The tables break costs
down  into  basic  categories, such  as  collection,
processing  and marketing,  tip  fees,  administration
/overhead,  depreciation,  and  educational/publicity.
Recycling and  composting are shown  separately and
then combined to  show overall waste reduction costs.
Appendix B provides further detail on what types of
expenses were  included  in the cost analysis for each
community.
costs of these services are represented by fees, which
likely include a profit margin.  Furthermore, we did
not  consider  financing arrangements  of facilities
used by communities but owned by  other public
bodies. For example, Loveland disposes of its trash at
the  Larimer  County  Landfill  and   delivers  its
recyclables  to the  Larimer  County  MRF  for
processing.    Larimer County  levies  a  tip  fee
surcharge  on waste disposed at its landfill.  These
funds are used to subsidize its MRF. In this case, we
allocated the entire tip fee paid at the landfill to the
city's trash management program and the city's waste
reduction  costs do not reflect the subsidy  of the
MRF.  A justification  for this accounting decision is
that Loveland would have to pay the same tip fee at
the landfill regardless  of whether they  chose to use
the  county  MRF.  Another example  is that some
communities use  county-owned facilities.  These
county facilities may be supported by tax revenues,
some of which were paid by the profiled community
or  its  residents.   We  did  not  account  for  local
subsidies of county facilities in our cost analysis, only
any  fees charged directly for the  use of the facility.
Again, the justification is that the communities were
required to  pay taxes  to  the counties  regardless of
whether they or their residents use county facilities.
None of the profiled communities operate their own
disposal facilities.   Disposal  costs   reflect  only
collection  costs  and  tip fees, and administration,
education, and equipment depreciation costs, when
applicable.
     While our preference would have been to use
full-cost accounting techniques to document  and
compare these record-setting  communities,  such
research and analysis were beyond the  scope of this
report.8
     All  source data,  unless  otherwise noted, were
provided directly by our program contacts. We have
checked and corroborated data  to  the best  of our
ability.   In  most cases,  additional   analysis  was
necessary so the costs presented  reflect  only those
associated with the relevant programs. For example,
costs    of    Crockett's   municipally    provided
institutional/commercial trash  and waste reduction
programs were excluded because the profile focuses
on the residential  waste stream.
     We do  not believe cost data presented  in this
report should be used to make comparisons among
communities regarding the relative cost-effectiveness
of their programs.  Differences in local costs of living

-------
INTRODUCTION
                 CALCULATING DEPRECIATION  COSTS

                      If the communities did not account for the
                 annualized cost of capital expenditures, ILSR calculated
                 depreciation costs for these outlays. For example, Falls
                 Church included depreciation costs for its equipment
                 used in the trash and composting programs but did not
                 include depreciation for city-purchased recycling bins.
                 ILSR calculated this amount and added it to reported
                 costs for the city's recycling program.
                     When depreciation calculations were necessary,
                 ILSR used straight-line depreciation. We did not
                 include estimates of the salvage value of the
                 equipment or time value of money in making these
                 calculations.  In addition, we continued to add a line
                 item for depreciation even after equipment lifespan
                 expired (to avoid a sudden artificial drop in
                 depreciation simply because a year had passed and to
                 account for potential increases in purchase prices in
                 replacement equipment). This methodology ensured
                 that our calculations were conservative.
                      Equipment lifespans used in ILSR's depreciation
                 calculations are as follows:

                 Equipment Type                        Lifespan
                 Baler                                   10 years
                 Chippers                                 5 years
                 Conveyor system                         10 years
                 Dump-trailer                             5 years
                 Fork lift                                  7 years
                 Front-end loader                          7 years
                 Front-end loader claw attachments           7 years
                 Glass crusher                            10 years
                 Leaf vacuums                             5 years
                 Oil filter crusher                         10 years
                 Open-body trucks                         5 years
                 Plastics granulator                        10 years
                 Recycling bins and trash containers          10 years
                 Recycling trucks                          5 years
                 Self-dumping hoppers                     7 years
                 Stationary processing equipment           10 years
                 (such as screeners, roll-off s,
                 leaf boxes, dumpsters)
                 Trash trucks                              7 years
                 Tub grinder                             10 years
                 Windrow turner                           7 years
                 Yard debris collection trucks                 7 years
                 Note: Lifespan estimates provided by Ecodata, Inc., Westport, CT.


               and market conditions, and  service levels offered by
               programs  all  have  financial consequences.  Local
               factors influence fuel costs, labor costs, and tip fees.
               Two communities offering  the exact same services
               would have different costs because of these and other
               locally and regionally variable factors. Local market
conditions  can  have  a  substantial  effect.   For
example, communities near well-established markets
often have  lower  transportation costs and  receive
higher  revenues for collected  materials.   Finally,
because  each  program  is  configured  differently,
comparisons  of  costs  across  programs  can  be
misleading.   For  example,  Falls  Church  offers
residents free delivery of leaf mulch as part of its yard
debris management program. This extra service adds
to the  program cost but gives residents  of Falls
Church a benefit  not received  by residents of the
other communities profiled.

Evaluating Program Cost-Effectiveness
    We   examined   cost-effectiveness   of  each
community's waste management program in  light of
two standards. These standards are:
    (1)  net solid waste  management program costs
per household have stabilized or  decreased as a result
of new or expanded waste reduction programs; and
    (2)  net solid waste  management program costs
per household have  increased but the increase can
wholly be accounted for by increased disposal tip fees.
    In  order  to  determine  the  effect  of waste
reduction  programs on  community  solid waste
management budgets over time, we looked at the
effect these  programs  had  on  total  annual waste
management costs,  comparing  1996 costs to costs for
some "before year." For most  communities included
in the report, the "before year"  represents a year either
before the  community's waste  reduction program
began or before a major expansion of that program.9
In order to  normalize for changes in population, we
compared costs  on a per household  basis.  For nine
(out of 14) of our record-setters for which these data
are available, net program costs per household served
have remained the same or decreased. See Table 14 on
page  33  for   comparisons  of  net solid  waste
management costs per household over time.
    Our  second  standard  for  evaluating  cost-
effectiveness is  a variation of  the first.  Of the five
communities    where    per    household   waste
management  costs  increased,  three  would  have
experienced no  per household cost increases and one
would have experienced a per household increase of
less than 5% if trash  tip fees had not increased since the
waste reduction  program began or expanded.   In
effect,  the  communities'  costs  increased but the
increases were less  than they would have been if the
communities had no waste reduction programs.

-------
                                                                                                                                        INTRODUCTION
      We also examined whether the implementation

of waste  reduction  programs  has  cushioned  the

community from future  cost increases in solid waste

management.    ILSR  did  not  consider  any  waste

reduction  program  cost-effective  based  on  this

criterion alone but does consider this effect as further

evidence  of  cost-effectiveness  of  waste  reduction

programs that  meet other criteria.

Notes:
1 Additional resources on this topic are available from the U.S. EPA at its Jobs
   Through Recycling web site (http://www.epa.gov/jtr) including
   publications and links to other resources. Two specific publications
   available at this site are Jobs Through Recycling Annotated Resource
   Bibliography and Market Share: Successful Strategies Learned from the
   JTR Experience.
^Disposal tip fees averaged close to $40 per ton in 1996. Average tip fees at
   landfills for 1996 were $31 per ton; at incinerators $63 per ton. Of total
   MSW, 57% was landfilled and 16% was incinerated.  Data source:  U.S.
   EPA software "Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Factbook," version 4.0,
   August 1,1997.
3Qur community contacts in New Jersey indicated that after flow control
   was struck down  in the courts, trash tonnages delivered to disposal
   facilities in the state decreased. The contacts believe trash generation
   did not decrease,  only reported tonnage decreased because some trash
   generated in New Jersey communities was disposed in facilities outside
   the state and therefore outside the data tracking system.  In these cases,
   we estimated trash disposal tonnages from historical data believed to
   provide a more realistic estimate of actual disposal tonnages.
4The adjustments that increased calculated waste reduction rates were due
   to the addition of deposit container recovery amounts and the inclusion
   of materials recovered but not included in community calculations.
5Linear regression reveals a strong association (correlation coefficient > 0.75)
   between median household income and per household residential  waste
   generation among 17 of the communities profiled. (Per household
   residential waste generation data are not available for Ramsey County,
   Minnesota.)
^Unless otherwise noted, costs are presented in 1996 dollars (having been
   converted, when necessary, using the Gross Domestic Product deflator
   for state and local government expenditures).
'Appendix B, located in the report after the community profiles, contains
   more detailed information on reported costs than is in each profile.
   Specific information in  the appendix includes whether debt service or
   capital repayment costs were included by the community or have  been
   calculated by ILSR and which overhead and administrative costs were
   included.
SFor more information on full-cost accounting techniques see U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. Full Cost Accounting for Municipal
   Solid Waste Management: A Handbook.  EPA/530-R-95-041. September
   1997.
9The "before year"  used for Bergen County was 1993.  This year was used
   simply because it is the earliest year for which county staff had accurate
   data for both trash and waste reduction tonnages.

-------
KEYS  TO  RESIDENTIAL  PROGRAM  SUCCESS
                Why  are  our residential  record-setters  so
                successful? What strategies are common to
                community  programs  achieving   high
      residential waste reduction levels?  Do local or state
      mandates and goals affect waste reduction levels?  Is
      drop-off collection needed when curbside collection
      services are offered?  Can implementing pay-as-you-
      throw  (PAYT)  trash systems  contribute to reaching
      high diversion levels?
          The  communities  profiled   are   achieving
      residential waste recovery rates from 40 to 65%. Key
      strategies for  achieving  these  high  residential
      recovery levels include:
      •   targeting a wide range of materials for recovery
          (specifically yard trimmings and multiple paper
     grades),
 •    encouraging or  requiring  participation  (by
     using  such  strategies  as  making  programs
     convenient, enacting  mandates, and instituting
     pay-as-you-throw trash programs),
 •    offering service to  multi-family dwellings (see
     Table 11, page  23, for information concerning
     households  served  in   each  community's
     curbside recycling program), and
 •    augmenting curbside collection with drop-off
     collection.
     In addition, fundamental  to  the success  of all
 waste  reduction  programs  are  education  and
 outreach and finding markets for materials.
                 FIGURE  1:  RESIDENTIAL WASTE  GENERATION  PER  HOUSEHOLD PER DAY
                        Trash
                                         Recycling
Composting
       Notes: Ramsey Co. is not included because MSW generation data cannot be broken down into residential versus commercial. ILSR
       recognizes composting as a form of recycling but treats it separately in this report so that the costs and diversion levels of materials such
       as paper, bottles, and cans can be compared to the recycling of yard trimmings. Therefore, "Recycling" + "Composting" + "Trash" =
       Average waste generation per household per day. Waste reduction levels may differ from the EPA Standard Recycling Rate as defined in
       Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments. ILSR excluded MRF rejects from recycling tonnages and included
       estimates of materials collected through deposit containers for the communities in bottle bill states. Furthermore, materials  recovered
       for reuse are included in both recycling and generation figures, and backyard composting tonnage was included in the composting and
       generation figures for those communities that provided creditable data on the amounts of material handled this way.
      Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

-------
                                                                         KEYS TO RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
  CATEGORIES OF RECOVERED  MATERIALS

      To represent the variety of materials collected in
  residential waste reduction programs, ILSR defined 37
  categories. These categories are:
      1. Newspaper
      2. Corrugated cardboard
      3. Glossy paper (such as magazines and catalogues)
      4. Paperboard
      5. Mail
      6. Office waste paper
      7. Kraft paper
      8. Juice and milk boxes
      9. Phone books
      10. Other books
      11. Glass bottles and jars
      12. Other  glass (such  as flat glass, ceramics, and
         heat-resistant glass)
      13. Aluminum cans
      14. Aluminum foil and scrap
      15. Steel cans
      16. Aerosol cans
      17. PET  bottles
      18. Other PET
      19. HOPE bottles
      20. Other HOPE
      21. Other plastics
      22. Lead-acid batteries
      23. Other batteries
      24. Oil filters
      25. Appliances and/or white goods
      26. Scrap metal
      27. Tires
      28. Wood
      29. Household durables
      30. Textiles
      31. Paint
      32. Brush
      33. Leaves
      34. Grass clippings
      35. Garden trimmings
      36. Soiled  paper
      37. Food discards
Targeting a Wide Range of Materials
    All of our record-setters target a wide range of
materials  for  recovery  including  several grades of
paper and yard  trimmings.  For this  report, ILSR
defined  37  categories  of materials  collected  in
residential waste reduction programs. See the sidebar
on this page.  Table 7, on pages 16 and  17, lists the
materials  each  community  collects  for   reuse,
recycling, and composting at curbside and through
drop-off sites, and Table 6, on page 15, summarizes
key features of residential recycling programs. Ann
Arbor targets more types of materials at curbside than
any other community documented.   Heat-resistant
glass, ceramics, textiles, and used oil filters are some of
the nonconventional materials collected at curbside
in this  city.  San Jose recycles all types of plastics
including polystyrene  and  film  plastics.   Seven
communities include textiles, and nine recover juice
and milk cartons.   Saint Paul in  Ramsey County
picks  up  reusable household  goods  such as small
appliances, books, hardware  and tools, unbreakable
kitchen goods, games, and toys as part  of its curbside
recycling program. Fitchburg has a similar program;
reusable household goods are collected once a  month
at curbside.  Leverett accepts  reusable goods at  its
drop-off facility; the  town's diversion rate rose by 1%
as a result of reuse at this facility.  Targeting  several
grades  of paper  and yard trimmings  is critical  to
reaching high diversion levels.    Paper  and yard
trimmings are the two most significant components
of the residential waste  stream.  Our  record-setters
compost between 17%  and 43% of their residential
waste.  Paper recovery (all grades) accounts for 12%
to 45% of residential materials diverted.



      I  argeting several  grades  of paper  and yard

    trimmings is critical  to reaching high  diversion

    levels.
Composting
    Our   data  indicate   that   collecting   and
composting yard trimmings is a key to reaching 50%
and higher waste reduction levels and doing so cost-
effectively.   Figure  1  shows  the contribution  of
composting  yard trimmings  to  residential waste
reduction levels.   For  11  of the 18  communities,
composting accounts  for  half  or  more  of all
residential waste  reduction.  Three of these — San
Jose and Visalia, California, and Crockett,Texas — are
in warm climates and generate yard trimmings year-
round.  They also collect yard trimmings weekly at
curbside year-round.  Most of the  other programs
combine  seasonal curbside  collection with drop-off

-------
KEYS TO RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
                              Residential
                                  Waste  Residential
                               Reduction Composting
                                  Level1     Level
                                     Ratio of CS
                                     to DO Tons
                                                                           Curbside Pick-up Frequency
                                                   Participation
                                                     Incentives
                  Ann Arbor, Ml
                  Bellevue, WA
                  Bergen Co., NJ
                  Chatham, NJ
                  Clifton, NJ
                  Crockett, TX
                  Dover, NH
                  Falls Church, VA
                  Fitchburg, Wl
                  Leverett, MA
                  Loveland, CO
                  Madison, Wl
                  Portland, OR
                  Ramsey Co., MN
                  San Jose, CA
                  Seattle, WA
                  Visa Ma, CA
                  Worcester, MA
                                      13:1
                                     allCS
                                      NA
                                      4:1
                                     allCS
                                      NA
                                      1:2.6
                                     allCS
                                      1:1.5
                                     all BY
                                      1:2
                                      2:1
                                      2.4:1
                                      NA
                                     allCS
                                  all CS and BY
                                      5.7:1
                                      NA
YT weekly (April-Nov.); loose leaves 2x in Nov. and Dec.   Convenience, Fines
     YT twice monthly except monthly Dec.-Feb.
                    Varies
            Leaves weekly (Oct.-Dec.)
   YT weekly (March-Dec): loose leaves 2-3x in fall
             YT weekly year-round
          YT 2x each in fall and spring2
 YT weekly (Jan.-Oct.): fall leaves: brush year-round
            YT 4x/year: brush 8x/year
                    None
      YT weekly 8 mos./year (at $4.25 per mo.)
      YT 5x per year: brush monthly April-Oct.
             YT biweekly year-round
                    Varies
             YT weekly year-round
        YT weekly to monthly year-round6
             YT weekly year-round
                leaves 1x in fall
                                                 CP = container provided            CS = curbside
                                                 PAYT = pay-as-you-throw trash fees  YT = yard trimmings
       Convenience, PAYT
                   NA
                  PAYT
       Convenience, Fines
       Convenience, Fines
                  PAYT
            Convenience
             PAYT, Fines
                  PAYT
               PAYT, CP
                  Fines
                  PAYT
                  PAYT
       Convenience, PAYT
       Convenience, PAYT
        Convenience, CP
                  PAYT
DO = drop-off
Key:  BY = backyard
     NA = not available
Notes:
^'Recycling Level" + "Composting Level" = "Waste Reduction Level."  Waste reduction levels may differ from the EPA Standard Recycling
   Rate as defined in  Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments. ILSR excluded MRF rejects from recycling
   tonnages and included estimates of materials collected through container deposit systems for the communities in bottle bill states.
   Furthermore, materials recovered for reuse are included in both recycling and generation figures and backyard composting tonnage
   was included in the composting and generation figures for those  communities that provided creditable data on the amounts of
   material handled this way.
^Effective 1997, spring collections were discontinued.
3Brush year-round weekly except during fall leaf season.
deduction levels are  based on municipal solid waste as residential waste figures are not available.
5Composting rate excludes self-haul (drop-off) tonnage as self-haul  materials are both residential and commercial in origin.
6South section of city:  biweekly March-Nov, monthly Dec.-Feb. North section of city: weekly March-Oct, two November collections,
   monthly Dec.-Feb.
                 Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
                 site availability.  Table 5  summarizes key features of
                 the residential composting programs and breaks out
                 composting  levels  from  overall waste  reduction
                 levels.
                     Those communities with  PAYT trash fees are
                 particularly successful  in getting residents to  take
                 their yard trimmings to drop-off sites when curbside
                 is not available. In 1996,  Dover, New Hampshire, for
                 instance, only collected  yard trimmings  at curbside
                 four times per year (twice in the spring and twice in
                 the fall).   Almost three times  more tonnage  was
                 collected  at  drop-off   than   through  curbside.
                 Loveland, Colorado, is another example.  Residents
                 can subscribe to  weekly curbside pick-up of yard
                 debris (available eight  months  of the year), or take
                 the material to a central drop-off site. In 1997, about
                 27%  of  households subscribed  to  the  curbside
                 program; most of  the remainder opted for the drop-
                                                         off  site,  which  is  free, or  they  source  reduce via
                                                         mulch mowing and backyard composting.  In 1996,
                                                         the  drop-off site accounted for  two-thirds of  yard
                                                         trimmings  collected  for  composting.   Worcester's
                                                         PAYT system also helped it achieve high composting
                                                         levels.  Worcester only offers fall leaf collection once
                                                         to each household.  But it has three drop-off sites for
                                                         leaves, grass  clippings, garden  debris,  brush,  and
                                                         Christmas trees.  The sites, which are  free of charge
                                                         to  residents, are open April through  November,
                                                         Wednesday, Saturday,  and Sunday.  Residents bring
                                                         yard trimmings to drop-off sites rather than pay  per-
                                                         bag fees to set them out at their curb for disposal.
                                                              For communities without PAYT trash fees as an
                                                         incentive to use drop-off sites, providing regular  or at
                                                         least frequent curbside collection during the spring,
                                                         summer, and fall  seasons is essential to reaching  high
                                                         composting levels.  Madison and  Fitchburg, in Dane

-------
                                                                                     KEYS TO  RESIDENTIAL  PROGRAM  SUCCESS
Waste Reduction Recycling Ratio of CS Pick-up Containers Container Segregations
Level1 Level"? to DO Tons Frequency Provided Type Required3
Ann Arbor Ml
Bellevue, WA
Bergen Co., NJ
Chatham, NJ
Clifton, NJ
Crockett, TX
Dover, NH
Falls Church, VA
Fitchburg, Wl
Leverett, MA
Loveland, CO
Madison, Wl
Portland, OR
St. Paul, MN
San Jose, CA
Seattle, WA
Visa Ma, CA
Worcester, MA
52%
60%
49%
65%
44%
52%
52%
65%
50%
53%
56%
50%
40%
NA
45%
49%
50%
54%
30%
26%
17%
22%
16%
20%
35%
25%
29%
31%
19%
16%
23%
NA
19%
29%
16%
27%
19.3:1
63:1
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.5:1
3.3:1
4.8:1
all DO
19.3:1
13.1:1
allCS
NA
allCS
3.7:18
mostly CS
NA
Weekly
Weekly
Varies
2x/Month
1x/3 Weeks
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
-
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
2x/Month
Weekly
Weekly-Monthly9
Weekly
Weekly
Yes
Yes
Varies
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
11 -gallon bins
set of three stackable bins
Varies
resident provided bins
resident provided bins
clear plastic bags4
bins and bags5
18-gallon bin and paper bags
12-gallon stackable bins
-
12-gallon and 15-gallon bins
clear plastic bags and paper bags
14-gallon bin and paper bags
14-gallon bin and bags6
18-gallon stacking bins7
Varies! o
110-gallon special split bin
14-gallon bins
3
4
Varies
5
7
3
3
4
4

3
4
Varies
5
5
2 or 3
1
3
Participation Participation
Rate Incentives
93%
90%
Varies
80%
80-85%
80-90%
74%
-90%
98%
-
97%
97%
81%
62%
83%
>90%n
-100%
NA
Convenience, Fines
Convenience, PAYT
Varies
PAYT, Fines
Fines
Convenience, Fines
Convenience, PAYT
Convenience
Convenience, PAYT, Fines
PAYT
Convenience, PAYT
Convenience, Fines
PAYT
PAYT
Convenience, PAYT
Convenience, PAYT
Convenience
Convenience, PAYT
  Key:  CS = curbside       DO = drop-off     NA =  not available            PAYT = pay as you throw    -- = not applicable
  Notes: "-" = "approximately"
  1 Waste reduction levels may differ from the EPA Standard Recycling Rate as defined in Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments. ILSR
    excluded MRF rejects from recycling tonnages and included estimates of materials collected through container deposit systems for the communities in
    bottle bill states. Furthermore, materials recovered for reuse are included in both recycling  and generation figures and backyard composting tonnage was
    included in the composting and generation figures for those communities that provided creditable data on the amounts of material handled this way.
  2ILSR recognizes composting as a form of recycling but treats it separately in this report so that the costs and diversion levels of materials such as paper,
    bottles, and cans can be compared to the recycling of yard trimmings. Recycling rate as reported here does not include recovery of materials through
    composting.
  3The number of segregations residents in the SFD recycling program must make when setting out recyclables at the curb, excluding the set-out of appliances, white
    goods, other durables, scrap metal, tires, batteries, motor oil and filters, telephone books, and textiles (which are usually not set out on a weekly or even monthly
    basis).
  4Paper can be set out in paper bags.
  5Dover gave each single-family household a free  18-gallon bin for commingled containers at the start of its curbside recycling program.  The city no longer
    distributes free bins so residents of new homes and those whose bins have been  lost or damaged must use their own containers. These containers must be
    clearly distinguishable from trash containers.
  6The city provides each household with one blue  recycling bin.  Durable goods and textiles go  in plastic bags: glass, old newspapers, mixed paper, and  cans must
    each go in a separate bin or bag.
  7The stacking bins are for newspaper, mixed paper, and glass. Residents also use a 32-gallon container, which they provide, for cansjuice and milk cartons,
    plastics, and scrap metals.
  8This ratio compares tons  of materials collected in the curbside residential program  with tons of material collected at private recycling drop-offs and buy-backs.
    Additional residential recyclables are delivered to the city's transfer  stations for recycling but the tonnage is not separable from commercial materials
    recycled at the stations.
  9North section of city has weekly collection: the south section has monthly collection.
  10Residents in the north section receive three 12-gallon bins. In the south section, they receive a 60- to 90-gallon toter in which they commingle all
    recyclables except glass, which is set out in a separate bin.
  11Estimate for single-family households.  In 1996, 43% of multi-family buildings, representing  56% of units,  participated.
County, Wisconsin,  are  two  communities  that

provide  only  seasonal  curbside  service,  thereby

avoiding   the   costs   of  year-round  collection.

Madison collects  leaves,  grass  clippings, garden and

other yard debris, twice in the spring and three times

in the fall.  Brush  is collected monthly, April through

October.  The  city  also operates three drop-off sites

(open April through the first  week in December),

and city residents can also opt to take  leaves and

other  yard  trimmings   to  three  Dane   County

compost  sites.    Fitchburg  has  a  similar program.
Mandatory  ordinances  banning  set  out  of  yard

trimmings with trash (backed  by the threat of steep

fines)   help   encourage  participation   in   these

communities.

     Fall leaf collection is perhaps the single largest

contributor to waste reduction levels in communities

with fall seasons.  For six of the record-setters with

fall   leaf  collection data,  leaves  alone  reduced

residential waste by  12% (in Ann Arbor) to 34% (in

Chatham).

-------
Community
                      Materials Collected at Curbside
Materials Collected at Drop-off
Ann Arbor, Ml       ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paperboard, paperback and phone books, milk andjuice cartons, steel and
                     aluminum cans, aluminum and ferrous scrap, aerosol cans, white goods, glass containers, glass
                     dishes and heat-resistant glass, ceramics, #1-3 plastic bottles, household batteries, used motor
                     oil, oil filters, textiles, brush, leaves, grass clippings, other yard debris, holiday trees

Bellevue, WA        ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paperboard, kraft paper bags, phone books,juice and milk cartons, steel and
                     aluminum cans, aluminum foil, non-ferrous scrap metal, white goods, glass containers, #1 and #2
                     plastic bottles, brush, leaves, grass clippings, and other yard and garden debris
Chatham, NJ         ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paperboard, brown paper bags, paperback and phone books, milk andjuice
                     cartons, steel and aluminum cans, aluminum foil, metal clothes hangers, aerosol cans, white goods,
                     glass containers, #1-3 plastic bottles, household batteries, empty latex paint cans, leaves

Clifton, NJ           ONP, OMG, RMP, paperback and phone books, hardcover books without covers, steel and aluminum .
                     cans, scrap metal, white goods, glass containers, leaves, grass clippings,  brush, other yard debris,
                     holiday trees
all materials collected at curbside plus tires, car batteries, hardcover books,
polystyrene, packing peanuts, foam egg cartons, wood waste, and
automotive fluids, freon-containing appliances, building materials
all materials collected at curbside plus #6 plastic food containers, lead-acid
and household batteries, antifreeze, oil filters, tires, household goods (textiles,
working small appliances, usable furniture), scrap metal, scrap lumber,
fluorescent lamps and ballasts, ceramic bathroom fixtures

all materials collected at curbside (except household batteries and white goods)
plus brush, grass clippings
all materials collected at curbside (except compostables, scrap metal, and white
goods) plus OCC, aluminum plates and trays, #1 and #2 plastic bottles, lead-
acid batteries
                                                                                 1
Crockett, TX         ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paperboard, phone books, steel and aluminum cans, aluminum foil and plates,
                     scrap metal, aerosol cans, white goods, glass containers, all plastics, used motor oil, brush, leaves,
                     grass clippings, other yard debris

Dover, NH           ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paperboard, phone booksjuice and milk cartons, steel and aluminum cans,
                     aluminum foil, scrap metal, large appliances, glass food and beverage containers, #1-2 plastic
                     bottles, leaves, grass clippings, other "soft" yard trimmings

Falls Church, VA     ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paperboard, phone books, steel and aluminum cans, white goods, glass
                     containers, #1 and #2 plastic bottles, grass clippings, leaves, brush, and other yard debris

Fitchburg, Wl        ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paperboard, kraft paper, phone and paperback books, steel and aluminum
                     cans, white goods, glass bottles and jars, all plastic containers, #4  plastic container lids, rigid and
                     foam polystyrene, reusable household items (e.g., textiles, small appliances, housewares, and
                     toys), leaves, grass clippings, brush, holiday trees, and other yard debris
all materials collected at curbside plus oil filters
all materials collected at curbside (except milk andjuice cartons) plus brush,
tires, car and other batteries, textiles, empty aerosols, holiday trees, oil filters,
wood, construction and demolition materials

all recyclables collected at curbside plus aluminum foil and pie pans, some
household batteries, and scrap metal

ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paperboard, kraft paper, phone and paperback books,
scrap metal, leaves, grass clippings, holiday trees, other yard and garden debris,
Leverett, MA
                     no curbside collection
ONP; OCC; OMG; RMP; paperboard; kraft paper bags; phone books; other
booksjuice and milk boxes; glass containers; steel and aluminum cans; all
plastic bottles, tubs, trays, and jars; lead-acid batteries; household batteries;
textiles;  reusable goods; white goods; paint; and  scrap metal
Key:     OCC = old corrugated cardboard   OMG = old magazines   ONP = old newspapers   RMP = residential mixed paper
Note: Bergen County is not included.  Each community in the county has its own recycling program and materials accepted vary in the different programs.

-------
 Community
                       Materials Collected at Curbside
 Materials Collected at Drop-off
 Loveland, CO         ONP, OCC, kraft paper bags, steel cans, aluminum cans, clean aluminum foil, pie, or food trays,
                       empty aerosol cans, white goods, glass containers, narrow necked #1 and #2 plastic  bottles,
                       grass clippings, small branches, leaves, garden trimmings

 Madison, Wl          ONP, OCC, OMG, kraft paper bags, phone books, tin/steel cans, aluminum cans,  scrap metal,
                       appliances, glass bottles and jars, #1 and #2 plastic containers, tires, leaves, brush, grass clippings,
                       garden and other yard debris, holiday trees

 Portland, OR          ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paper egg cartons, paperboard, kraft paper bags, phone books, milk cartons,
                       aseptic containers, steel cans, aluminum cans, other clean aluminum, ferrous and non-ferrous
                       scrap, aerosol cans, glass containers, all plastic bottles, used  motor oil, leaves, grass clippings,
                       brush, and other yard debris

 Saint Paul,  MN       ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paperboard, steel and tin cans, aluminum cans, glass containers, durable
                       household goods (textiles, books, working small appliances, hardware and tools, unbreakable
                       kitchen goods, games, and  toys), yard trimmings collection available for an extra fee

 San Jose, CA          ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paperboard, kraft paper bags, egg cartons, phone books, milk and juice boxes,
                       glass containers, aluminum and steel cans, scrap ferrous metal and aluminum, appliances, textiles,
                       plastic bottles andjugs, polystyrene packaging, used motor oil, furniture, brush, leaves, grass clippings,
                       garden trimmings

 Seattle, WA          ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paperboard, paper bags, phone books, paperback books, glass containers,
                       aluminum and steel cans, ferrous scrap, white goods, #1 and #2  plastic bottles, brush, leaves, grass
                       clippings, other  garden trimmings,  holiday trees

 Visalia, CA            ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paperboard, glass containers, aluminum cans, steel and tin cans, all plastic
                       containers, milk and juice cartons, wood, brush, leaves, grass clippings, and other garden trimmings

 Worcester,  MA       ONP, OCC, OMG, RMP, paperboard, paper bags, phone books, milk and juice cartons, steel cans.
                       aluminum cans, aluminum  trays and tins, scrap metal, white goods, glass containers, all plastic
                       containers (except motor oil and antifreeze containers and pails or buckets), leaves

 Key:    OCC = old corrugated cardboard  OMG  = old  magazines   ONP = old newspapers   RMP = residential mixed paper
 Note:  Ramsey County is not included.   Each community in the county has its own recycling program.  Materials accepted vary.
 OMG, office paper, phone books, automotive batteries, brush, leaves, grass
 clippings, garden trimmings, fluorescent tubes, motor oil, transmission fluid,
 antifreeze

 leaves, brush, grass clippings, other yard trimmings, used oil, appliances, other
 large items
 varies by site
 plastic containers, hard-to-handle materials at annual neighborhood clean-ups
 same materials as curbside plus lead-acid batteries, used motor oil, used oil
 filters, and clean wood scrap and lumber
 same materials as at curbside plus holiday trees
 leaves, grass clippings, garden debris, brush, holiday trees
Saint Paul is included as an example of one program in Ramsey County.
Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

-------
   KEYS TO RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
In Loveland, Colorado, residents can pay $4 a month for
weekly curbside yard trimmings collection. They receive a
90-gallon roll cart.  Here, a 16-cubic-yard semi-automated
truck empties a cart.
                                  Many   of  the
                             composting     pro-
                             grams in our record-
                             setting  communities
                             were begun indepen-
                             dently  of state-legis-
                             lated   requirements
                             for such programs, al-
                             though  some of the
                             communities did ex-
                             pand existing or cre-
                             ate   new  programs
                             when the state-legis-
                             lated   requirements
                             passed.    Massachu-
                             setts, Michigan, Min-
                             nesota,  New  Hamp-
                             shire, and Wisconsin
                             all    have    enacted
                             disposal   bans   for
                             leaves  and/or   yard
                             trimmings. New Jer-
                             sey   law    requires
                             counties  to  include
                             plans for recovery of
                             leaves    in    their
                             recycling plans.  Ore-
                             gon  requires  some
                             communities  (includ-
                             ing  the  metropolitan
                             Portland area) to have
yard debris programs. Fitchburg and Madison, both
in Wisconsin, began their programs in the 1980s; the
state landfill ban  did not  become effective  until
1993.  Ann Arbor began its yard debris program in
1990; the state banned the material from disposal in
1993.  Worcester began composting fall leaves more
than three years before the  state's disposal ban on
leaves  took  effect,  but  the  city's  programs for
collecting and  composting  other yard trimmings
were started  in the first  year  disposal  of  these
materials was   banned.   Clifton began  its  leaf
collection program the year the state law was passed.
Dover's program was instituted the year before the
ban became effective.

Achieving High Participation Levels
     All of our  residential record-setters have high
resident  participation levels  (ranging from  62% to
100%).!  Strategies used to reach high participation,
and  consequently  high  diversion  levels,  include
making programs convenient, enacting  mandates,
and instituting PAYT programs.  Communities are
enhancing  program  convenience  by  providing
recycling bins and/or paper bags for yard trimmings.
PAYT programs encourage residents to participate in
waste reduction efforts; mandatory programs require
it. With the exceptions ofVisalia and Falls Church,
our  record-setting  communities  either  mandate
program participation (residents are not allowed to
put designated recyclables in their trash) or they have
instituted  PAYT trash systems (residents are charged
volume-based fees for their trash).  Table 4, page 6,
summarizes program  features for each community.

Convenience
    Residents  are more  likely  to  participate  in  a
recycling or waste reduction program if doing so  is
convenient.    Indeed  some studies  report  that
perception of inconvenience of recycling was stronger
among survey respondents who did not recycle than
among those  who did.2  To  make  participation as
convenient as possible, and thus maximize the amount
and the quality of material collected, communities are:
•   providing  curbside  collection  of recyclables
    with the same frequency curbside collection of
    trash is provided;
•   providing  seasonal  and  frequent  curbside
    collection of yard trimmings;
•   offering service to all households;
•   utilizing set-out  and collection methods that
    encourage resident participation as well as yield
    high-quality, readily marketable materials (such
    as using  large clear plastic bags  or bins for
    commingled food and beverage containers, and
    separate set-outs  for paper grades);
•   providing adequate  containers for storage  and
    set-out of residential  recyclables; and
•   establishing recycling drop-off sites at disposal
    facilities if residents self-haul trash.

Local Mandates
    Local  requirements  and mandates  encourage
residents to participate in recycling and composting
programs. Eleven of our 18 record-setters have some
sort of local ordinance either requiring residents to
source-separate  or banning them from setting  out
designated recyclables or compostable materials with
their trash.

-------
                                                                             KEYS TO  RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM  SUCCESS
     Madison  experienced  dramatic increases  in
recovery  levels  when  mandatory programs  were
enacted. The city's diversion rate jumped from 18%
to 34%  when  the city enacted a local ordinance
mandating  businesses  and  residents   to  source-
separate  materials for composting. In  1991, when
recycling program participation  became mandatory,
recycling tonnage increased from the  previous year.3
     Many   communities  with  local   mandatory
recycling ordinances have enforcement programs,
which help increase participation.   Clifton's city
ordinance, for example, provides for  two warnings
for  failure  to  comply  with  the law.   After  the
warnings, penalties can  be assessed: $25  for the first
offense, $100 for the second  offense, $250 and/or 90
days of community service for the third  offense, and
$1,000 fine and/or up to 90  days  of  community
service for  each subsequent offense.  During 1997,
waste enforcement staff issued 750 warnings.  Most
recipients of the warnings began  complying with the
law.  As a result, only  ten summonses were issued
resulting in seven fines.
     In  Falls  Church   the  city  code mandates
provision of recycling and  yard trimmings collection
services for all residents receiving city trash services.
Participation in  these  programs  is  voluntary  for
residents  but  the  ordinance  sends  a   message  to
residents  that  the  community  is  committed  to
maintaining the programs in  the long-term.  This
message, in turn, may inspire increased participation
in the programs.

    Local requirements and  mandates encourage

    residents to participate in recycling  and

    composting programs.
State Mandates and Goals
    State  waste reduction  goals, requirements, and
policies influenced many of our record-setters.  Policies
at the state level encourage governments at the local level
to implement waste reduction  programs.  The profiled
communities are in 12 states. Table 8 summarizes these
states' goals and recycling requirements.  Of these states,
eight  —  California, Massachusetts,  Minnesota, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, and Washington
— have statewide waste reduction goals ranging from
40% to 60%.   (Virginia's recycling goal  was  25% by
1995.)  New Hampshire's goal is the only one based on
reducing per capita solid waste disposed: 40% reduction
by weight by the year 2000 as compared to 1990. State
                                                  Goali
                                                                                   Mandates/Bottle Bills
 California        Eachjurisdiction to divert 50% of waste by 2000
 Colorado        Informal goal of 50% disposal reduction by 2000
 Massachusetts                46% statewide recycling by 2000
 Michigan                                         None
 Minnesota?                      50% recycling by 12/31/96

 New Hampshire          40% disposal reduction, as compared to
                             1990 per capita disposal, by 2000
 New Jersey         65% recycling of total waste stream by 2000
 Oregon                     50% statewide recycling by 20005
 Texas                    40% disposal reduction as compared
                           to 1992 per capita disposal, no date
 Virginia                             25% recycling by 1995
 Washington                         50% recycling by 1995
 Wisconsin                                         None
                                      Bottle bill
                                         None
                           Bottle bill, disposal bans
     Bottle bill, yard trimmings ban, county plans required
        Disposal bans, PAYT required.mandates,3 regional
          and metropolitan county waste plans required
              Yard trimmings and wet-cell battery ban

                   County plans required, mandates4
                             Bottle bill, mandates6
                                         None

                                         None
                             County plans required
                                   Disposal bans
 1 Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington consider composting to be a form of recycling when evaluating success
    in meeting state recycling goals.
 2Goal for seven county metropolitan area only. 50% can include a 5% yard debris credit and a 3% source reduction credit.
 3Counties must provide citizens with the "opportunity to recycle."
 4Each county's plan must provide for recovery of leaves and three additional materials. Each county must hire a recycling coordinator.
 5The state also set a recycling goal for the metropolitan Portland area of 45% by 1995.
 ejurisdictions with populations of 4,000 or more must offer curbside recycling and a yard debris program that diverts a similar percent
    of materials as diverted in weekly curbside programs.

-------
KEYS TO RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
               goals and requirements that local jurisdictions develop
               plans to meet state goals, provided stimulus for many of
               our  record-setters  to  implement waste  reduction
               programs.   Visalia implemented  its waste reduction
               programs in order to meet state requirements. Crockett
               began its waste reduction programs the year after the
               state set its  40% MSW recycling goal.    Portland
               implemented citywide curbside recycling in  1987; the
               states  1983  Recycling  Opportunity  Act  provided
               impetus for this  decision.  After  the state legislature
               enacted the 1991 Recycling Act,  Portland expanded
               waste reduction services, adding curbside collection of
               yard debris  in 1992.


  r AYT systems cover solid waste costs directly

  rather than through the  tax base or a flat fee, thus

  serving as a direct economic incentive for

  households to  reduce their trash  and  recover as

  much  as possible.
                   State landfill  bans have been another impetus for
               communities to  develop  alternative  destinations for
               certain materials.  Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
               New  Hampshire, and Wisconsin  ban yard  trimmings
               from landfill disposal. Massachusetts also bans lead-acid
               batteries; tires; white goods; aluminum, metal, and glass
               containers; single polymer plastics; and recyclable paper
               from  landfills and incinerators.  In  addition to yard
               trimmings, Wisconsin  has also banned steel, glass, and
               aluminum  containers;  paperboard;   polystyrene
               packaging; corrugated cardboard; newspaper and other
               paper; and tires from Wisconsin landfills.   Minnesota
               prohibits  tires,  lead-acid  batteries,  used   oil,  major
               appliances, and rechargeable batteries from placement in
               mixed municipal waste.  New Hampshire bans wet-cell
               batteries  from landfills and incinerators.  As discussed
               earlier, some communities had yard trimmings recovery
               programs  before  state bans were enacted  and  others
               began or expanded their programs when yard trimmings
               were  banned from disposal facilities.  Similarly, while
               Fitchburg's mandatory recycling program pre-dated the
               states  disposal  bans,  start-up  of Worcester's program
               coincided with the institution  of the states landfill bans.
Worcester's program was designed with compliance with
the bans in mind.
    Some states encourage development  of waste
reduction programs through grant programs  providing
equipment or funds  to localities.  All of our  record-
setting communities are located in states that have or had
grant  programs.   Our  18 record-setting communities
have used grant funds  for general waste management
support and to purchase specific recycling or composting
equipment. Falls Church and Madison deposit state aid
funds  in their general funds which in turn directly fund
the cities'waste management programs. The city of Ann
Arbor used state grant funds to purchase recycling trucks.
Clifton purchased a recycling trailer and a compactor
truck  (used for brush collection)  from state grant funds.

Pay  As  You Throw
    Eleven of the 18 communities utilize some form
of pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) trash fees. See Table 9,
page 21, for details of these PAYT programs. Many of
these  communities are among  those with the lowest
per household  residential  waste  generation levels.
PAYT systems cover solid waste costs directly rather
than through the tax base or a flat fee, thus serving as
a direct economic incentive for households to reduce
their trash and recover  as much as possible.4,5
    Two basic PAYT systems exist: (1) the bag and tag
system in which residents pay for each bag or tagged
can set out at the curb; and (2) the  can or container
system in which residents subscribe to trash  service
levels  with containers  of varying capacities, and pay
higher fees for levels with larger or more containers.
Under the bag system,  two sizes are usually available: a
15-gallon bag  or a 30-gallon bag.   Communities
design special bags, often with the city logo.  Loveland
uses two  different colors  (blue and green) for different
size bags.  Dover has chosen orange bags. Chatham has
opted for blue bags. Worcester uses yellow bags.
    PAYT  programs   may contribute  to  source
reduction.6   In  order to  measure  possible  source
reduction, we compared total per household residential
waste generation from  the current year (usually 1996)
to the same  figure from a  prior year.  Any  evident
decline in generation may indicate residents truly are
producing less waste per household.  However, it could
also be the result of other factors (such as a change in
measurement methods  or accuracy or a change in yard
trimmings production  due to weather variations). In
our 11 PAYT communities, possible  source reduction
of greater than 20% is evident in Dover and Crockett.

-------
                                                                         KEYS TO  RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
Waste  generation rates  decreased less  than  20% in
Chatham, Falls Church, Fitchburg,  and Loveland.  In
the other  PAYT communities, while waste reduction
levels have drastically increased with  the advent of
PAYT, per household waste generation has increased
or changed  very little.  Table 10, page 22,  lists per
household waste generation rates.
    Communities with PAYT trash fees do well in
encouraging residents to use drop-off  sites, especially
for recyclable materials not collected at curbside and at
times when  yard trimmings  are  not  collected at
curbside.
Offering or Requiring Service to Multi-
Family Households
    For the most part, waste reduction levels for our
residential record-setters reflect public sector programs
only.  In most communities, the public sector  (often
represented by the local public works  department)
provides services to single-family households but not
to multi-family dwellings (MFDs) above a certain size
(such as buildings with more than three or four units).
Building managers or owners of larger MFDs typically
contract directly with a private hauler to provide waste
management  services.   Worcester's  54%  residential
waste reduction level, for instance, excludes trash and
recyclables generated  from  12,720  households in
buildings  or  complexes with seven or  more  units,
(TifflXl
Community
Bellevue




Chatham

•HtrafflnffliiRSvH
Program
System Initiation
can 1977




blue bag 11/92

Dover orange bag and tag 10/91

Fitchburg



Leverett

Loveland


Portland



Ramsey Co.2



San Jose


Seattle



Worcester
Key: gal
Notes:
1 Fees as of mid

can and tag 1 994



bag 1990

bag and tag pilot-1991
citywide
1992
can 1992



can 7/91



can 7/93


can 1981



yellow bag 11/93
T!l7TKlS7*!RRF!*;7!lirfn!l
Price Paid by Residents1
$7.13 per month for 19-gal. mini-can:
$12.91 for one 30-gal. can: $18.10 for two
cans: $22.76 for three cans: $28.85 for four
cans: $13.45 for 32-gal. toter; $20.38 for
60-gal. toter: $26.10 for 90-gal. toter
$0.65 for 15-gal. bag: $1.25 for 30-gal. bag
plus $75/household/year flat fee
$0.75 for 15-gal. bag: $1.10 for 30-gal. bag:
tags cost $2.75
$82 per household/year fee for 32-gal. can.
Additional yearly fees for trash over this
amount: $34.68 for 64-gal. can: $60.96 for
95-gal. can. Tags are $1 .50 each.
Annual $20 fee to use transfer station plus
75C for 15-gal. bag and $1.50 for 30-gal. bag
55C for 15-gal. bag: $1 for 32-gal. bag: 45C
for stamp for 13 gallons: 85C for stamp
for 30 gallons
Weekly service: $1 4.80 per mo. for 20-gal.
can: $17.50 for 32-gal: $18.90 for 35-gal.;
$22.85 for 60-gal.: $27.85 for 90-gal.
Monthly service: $9.95 for 32-gal.
$8.76 to $14.99 per month for low volume:
$10.83 to $16.25 for 30-gal. can:
$1 3.80 to $1 7.33 for two 30-gal. cans:
$17.03 to $22.23 for three cans/unlimited
$13.95 per month for 32-gal. can: $24.95
for 64-gal.;$37.50 for 96-gal.; $55.80 for
128-gal.
$10.05 per month for 12-gal. micro-can:
$12.35 for 19-gal. mini-can: $16.19 for
32-gal.: $32.15 for two 32-gal. cans: $16.10
for each additional 32-gal. can
25C for 1 5-gal. bag: 50C for 30-gal. bag
m^^^^^^^^^H
Residential Waste
Service Provider (Ibs/HH/day)
private hauler




private hauler

private hauler

private hauler



town

city


private haulers



private haulers



private haulers


private haulers



city
9.18




15.81

4.71

5.89



5.50

6.00


7.10



NA



8.82


6.34



6.20
= gallon HH = household NA = not available


1997. They may be subject to change. Per month fees are for weekly trash service,

unless otherwise noted.
2The county requires trash haulers to offer volume-based trash fees. The City of Saint Paul passed a similar ordinance July 1


1991. Fees
shown above represent the range in fees Saint Paul's haulers charge for their four levels of service.

-------
KEYS TO RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
                                              which are not served by
                                              the city's Department of
                                              Public   Works.    Our
                                              record-setters are serving
                                              between 51%  and 100%
                                              (median  90%)   of  their
                                              total  households  with
                                              city-sponsored  recycling
                                              programs.  For  at least
                                              three of these  — Ann
                                              Arbor, Crockett, and San
                                              Jose —  residential waste
                                             all  households  in  the
                community.   In these communities, all multi-family
                households have recycling  service.7   Seattle offers
                recycling  and  yard  debris services  to all  MFDs,
                although  in  1996,  buildings  participating  in the
                recycling  program  included   only  54%  of  total
                households in  MFDs.   Table  11, page  23, presents
Resident recycling in an Ann Arbor multi-family complex.

                    reduction   levels  cover
numbers of SFDs and MFDs in each community and
the percentage served by curbside recycling programs.
San Jose and Crockett also offer their MFDs curbside
collection of yard trimmings.
     Cities with a large proportion of residents living
in multi-unit buildings will have difficulty reaching
high reduction levels for total residential waste without
targeting   multi-unit   households  for   recyclables
collection.
     Recovering recyclable and compostable materials
from multi-unit buildings can be  more challenging
than  collecting  recyclables  from   single-family
households. Variables such as space and layout, waste
hauling contracts, length of  resident tenancy,  and
janitorial  work agreements  differ  from  building to
building.   Cities  also often  hesitate to  intervene in
apartment   buildings'   private   waste   hauling
arrangements.    Yet,  currently  operating programs
demonstrate that multi-unit buildings can achieve high
                                     Waste (%)   "Before Year" Per Household Waste"Current Year" Per Household Waste     Possible
                                     Reduction        Generation (Ibs/HH/day)           Generation (Ibs/HH/day)     Source Reduction2
                                       Levell          Year     Total     Trash           Total        Trash               (%)
Ann Arbor, Ml
Bellevue, WA
Chatham, NJ
Clifton, NJ
Crockett, TX
Dover, NH
Falls Church, VA
Fitchburg, Wl
Leverett, MA
Loveland, CO
Madison, Wl
Portland, OR
San Jose, CA
Seattle, WA
Visa Ma, CA
Worcester, MA
52%
60%
65%
44%
52%
52%
65%
50%
53%
56%
50%
40%
45%
49%
50%
54%
FY89
1989
1991
1987
1991
1990
FY90
1992
NA
1989
1988
1992
FY93
1987
FY94
1992
5.61
7.30
16.85
9.83
6.10
6.18
13.23
6.16
NA
6.63
8.19
6.14
8.61
5.61
10.58
5.84
4.68
6.52
6.20
8.68
6.10
5.98
8.10
4.02
NA
6.63
6.75
4.36
5.74
4.54
10.33
4.97
5.71
9.18
15.81
10.14
4.51
4.71
12.45
5.89
5.50
6.00
8.38
7.10
8.82
6.34
10.71
6.20
2.72
3.69
5.56
5.68
2.16
2.26
4.34
2.95
2.56
2.63
4.19
4.27
4.81
3.23
5.38
2.86
-2%
-26%
6%
-3%
26%
24%
6%
4%
NA
10%
-2%
-16%
-2%
-13%
-1%
-6%
                  Key: HH = household           NA = not available
                  Note: The "current year" for Ann Arbor is FY96 and FY97 for Falls Church, Leverett San Jose, and Visalia. For all other communities the
                    current year is 1996. Bergen County is excluded because ILSR estimated 1995 generation to be equal to 1993 generation, making
                    this comparison invalid.  Ramsey County is excluded as MSW generation figures cannot be broken down into residential versus
                    commercial.
                  1 Waste reduction levels may differ from the EPA Standard Recycling Rate as defined in Measuring Recycling:  A Guide for State and
                    Local Governments.  ILSR excluded MRF rejects from recycling tonnages and included estimates of materials collected through
                    container deposit systems for the communities in bottle bill states. Furthermore, materials recovered for reuse are included  in both
                    recycling and generation figures, and backyard composting tonnage was included in the composting and generation figures for those
                    communities that provided creditable data on the amounts of material handled this way.
                  ^Represents the reduction (or increase) in residential waste generated per household per day from 1996 as compared to the "before year."  A
                    negative number indicates an increase in waste generation. Waste can increase or decrease as a result of a number of factors such as
                    differences  in measurement from year to year or heavy yard trimmings generation one year as compared to the previous year. We label
                    this column "Possible Source Reduction" as there is no way to ascertain if households have truly source reduced.

-------
                                                                              KEYS TO RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
                     No. of Households
                           Total
                   SFDs    MFDs     Total
   No. of Households
  Served by Curbside1
SFDs    MFDs     Total
 % of Total Households
  Served by Curbside
SFDs   MFDs     Total
Ann Arbor, Ml
Bellevue, WA
Chatham, NJ
Clifton, NJ
Crockett, TX
Dover, NH
Falls Church, VA
Fitchburg, Wl
Leverett, MA3
Loveland, CO
Madison, Wl
Portland, OR
St. Paul, MN
San Jose, CA
Seattle, WA4
Visa Ma, CA
Worcester, MA
22,000
26,026
2,735
25,500
2,834
5,641
2,194
3,860
650
15,220
40,314
130,755
73,745
188,900
149,500
25,346
22,500
24,000
18,361
550
5,500
459
5,674
2,443
3,640
0
2,256
42,635
59,613
26,582
80,440
99,470
3,523
41,088
46,000
44,387
3,285
31,000
3,293
11,315
4,637
7,500
650
17,476
82,949
198,368
100,327
269,340
248,970
28,869
63,588
22,000
23,372
2,735
23,000
2,834
5,641
2,194
3,860
--
15,220
40,314
129,698
73,745
188,900
148,300
25,346
22,500
24,000
NA?
0
5,000
459
5,359
734
0
--
1,702
17,635
0
26,582
80,440
54,899
654
28,368
46,000
NA
2,735
28,000
3,293
11,000
2,928
3,860
--
16,922
57,949
129,698
100,327
269,340
203,199
26,000
50,868
100%
90%
100%
90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
--
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
NA
0%
91%
100%
94%
30%
0%
--
75%
41%
0%
100%
100%
55%
19%
69%
100%
NA
83%
90%
100%
97%
63%
51%
--
97%
70%
65%
100%
100%
82%
90%
80%
  Key:  MFDs = multi-family dwellings         NA = not available             SFDs = single-family dwellings
  Note: SFDs may include duplexes and households with up to 11 units. See individual profiles for clarity on how each community
    defines SFDs and MFDs. Data not available for Bergen County, NJ. Ramsey County is not included as county-wide data are not
    available. Saint Paul is included as an example of one program in Ramsey County.
  1 Represents households served by city-sponsored curbside recycling programs. Actual households served by recycling may be greater.  For
    example, in Fitchburg, the city provides service to 943 MFDs, but all MFDs are required to implement a recycling program for their tenants.
  2Bellevue serves its residents of multi-family housing  in a program separate from the one profiled in this report.
  ^Leverett provides neither curbside trash nor recycling collection.
  4AII Seattle households are eligible to receive trash and recycling services.
waste reduction levels. Local government can play an
important role  in facilitating these recycling efforts.
Efforts to promote multi-unit recycling by our record-
setters included:
•    requiring  owners of  multi-unit  buildings to
     provide a minimum level of recycling services to
     their tenants;
•    requiring residents of multi-unit  buildings to
     recycle  designated materials;
•    providing collection service or requiring private
     haulers  to provide this service;
•    offering haulers  economic incentives to collect
     recyclables;
•    providing buildings with recycling  containers;
     and
•    conducting education and  outreach (including
     multi-lingual materials) to residents in MFDs.
     San Jose  and Ann Arbor are good examples.
Both  provide  their  multi-family  buildings  with
recycling services; buildings  receive  recycling carts
and can set  out the same materials as  single-family
homes. In Ann Arbor, where recycling is mandatory,
   multi-unit buildings have to comply with residential
   recycling  requirements.    In San  Jose's voluntary
   program, the city has a separate contract with one of
   its recyclers to serve multi-family households.  Built
   into this contract  (and its other residential recycling
   contracts)  is a per ton incentive payment through
   which the contractor receives more money from the
   city for each ton  of  recyclables  that  are collected
   from MFDs and actually marketed.
        While Fitchburg only provides city service to
   buildings  with  four or  fewer  residences,  its  local
   Solid  Waste  and  Recycling Ordinance  requires
   owners  of multi-family dwellings with five or  more
   units to implement  a recycling  program for  their
   tenants.   The ordinance specifies 16  categories of
   materials  as  recyclable.    Falls  Church  requires
   apartment and condominium complexes to  provide
   on-site  recycling  of newspapers, glass, and  cans at
   least  once every  two  weeks.   In  Portland, multi-
   family complexes (defined as  those with five or  more
   units) must recycle at least five materials; newspapers
   and scrap  paper are two of these. The  other  three

-------
KEYS TO RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
                                              materials    can    be
                                              corrugated cardboard,
                                              magazines,  tin  cans,
                                              glass  containers,  or
                                              plastic bottles.  Ram-
                                              sey County directs its
                                              municipalities      to
                                              provide  recycling  to
                                              MFDs.  As  a  result,
                                              Saint  Paul's manda-
                                              tory  recycling  ordi-
                                              nance requires occu-
                                              pants of all properties
                                              in  the  city, including
                                              MFDs, to recycle at
                                              least three materials.
                    Loveland's  requirements  are  aimed at haulers,
                not  building  managers  or  residents.    Loveland
                requires private trash haulers serving the MFD sector
                to  offer  recycling  services.   Recycling collection
                from  multi-family  dwellings must  be  frequent
                enough  to  prevent  recycling   containers  from
                overflowing.
Two-thirds of yard trimmings collected for composting in
Loveland, Colorado, are received at the city's drop-off site,
shown above.
                Drop-Off Collection
                    While  curbside collection is  generally  a more
                effective way to maximize the amount of recyclable
                materials collected, drop-off collection can augment
                curbside  and  serve  as  the  primary  method  of
                recyclables collection in rural communities in which
                residents self-haul trash.   It can  also  serve multi-
                family households  who  may not have  "curbside"
                service.     Furthermore,  drop-off  facilities  can
                sometimes accept a wider variety of materials  than
                are collected at the curbside and can provide a central
                                              location for displaying
                                              items  available   for
                                              reuse.    Convenient
                                              placement of sites and
                                              economic  incentives
                                              (such as  payment for
                                              recyclables or PAYT
                                              trash systems)  increase
                                              residents'  participa-
                                              tion  in drop-off  pro-
                                              grams. As Table 4, on
                                              page 6, indicates, most
                                              of  our  record-setters
                                              utilize  some  form  of
                                              drop-off  collection.
Table 7, on pages 16 and 17, lists materials collected
at drop-off for each community.
     Table 6, on  page  15, shows, where data were
available, the ratio of curbside recyclables tonnage to
that collected at drop-off sites. With the exception
of Leverett, in which  residents self-haul their trash
and  recyclables, curbside accounts for the lion's share
of  material  recycled.   Drop-off  can  still  play  a
significant  role.    In   Dover, for  every 4.5  tons
collected at curbside, another ton is collected at its
drop-off site. In  Falls  Church, the ratio of curbside
to drop-off tons is 3.3:1. Both of these communities
accept materials at their drop-off sites that are  not
collected   through   their   curbside   programs.
Additional  materials  Falls Church collects  include
aluminum foil and  pie plates, scrap metal, and some
household batteries.   Dover's drop-off  site accepts
tires, car batteries,  textiles, and empty aerosol cans,
none of which are  accepted  in its curbside program.
                                                                             TABLE 12:  CONTRIBUTION OF DROP-OFF
                                                                                                  RSW
                                                                                               Reduction
                                                                                                  Level
                                  % Via     % Via
                                 Curbside   Drop-off
                                                                            Ann Arbor, Ml1
                                                                            Bellevue, WA
                                                                            Chatham, NJ?
                                                                            Dover, NH
                                                                            Falls Church, VA
                                                                            Fitchburg, Wl
                                                                            Leverett, MA3
                                                                            Loveland, CO
                                                                            Madison, WH
                                                                            Seattle, WA5
                                                                            Visalia, CA1
                       52%
                       60%
                       65%
                       52%
                       65%
                       50%
                       53%
                       56%
                       50%
                       49%
45%
59%
34%
33%
59%
32%
 0%
31%
37%
36%
42%
 3%
<1%
 9%
19%
31%
25%
12%
 6%
 5%
                                                                             Key:  RSW = residential solid waste
                                                                             Note: Figures may not total due to rounding. San Jose, CA, not
                                                                               included because drop-off sites are not operated by the
                                                                               public sector and tonnage data were not available. Data not
                                                                               available for Bergen County NJ; Clifton, NJ; Crockett, TX;
                                                                               Portland, OR: Ramsey County, MM; and Worcester, MA.
                                                                             1 Recyclables collected via the state's bottle bill are not included in
                                                                               these figures.
                                                                             2The percentages for curbside and  drop-off reflect yard
                                                                               trimmings only.  The breakdown of recyclables collected at
                                                                               curbside versus drop-off is not available.
                                                                             3The 31% recovered via drop-off reflects recyclables and
                                                                               reusable items. The other 22% recovered is based on
                                                                               estimates of yard trimmings backyard composted  in this
                                                                               rural community.
                                                                             4The residential recovery level includes an estimated  1,320 tons
                                                                               of material recovered through backyard composting.
                                                                             5The "% Via Curbside" and "% Via Drop-off" columns do not
                                                                               add to the residential recovery level because the residential
                                                                               recovery level includes estimated backyard composting by
                                                                               residents.  The curbside percentage represents material
                                                                               collected in the city program. The drop-off percentage
                                                                               represents the materials collected at private facilities.
                                                                        Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

-------
                                                                      KEYS TO  RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
    Drop-off  programs are an  excellent way to
recover reusable items.  Leverett's Recycle/Transfer
Station has  a  very  active "Swap Shop"  which  is
called the "Take It or Leave It." Residents can leave
or take  books, furniture, tools, clothes, and other
reusable items. In Saint Paul, each of its 17 planning
districts  offers  a drop-off site once a year for hard-
to-handle household discards such as tires, furniture,
appliances, computers,  and bicycles.   Most of the
materials dropped off are recovered for reuse.  In
1996, this program diverted  1,800 tons of material
and saved an additional $75,000 in avoided disposal
fees.
    With regard  to  yard  trimmings,  drop-off can
account  for the  majority  of material  recovered,
especially in PAYT  communities, where residents
have an  economic incentive to take materials not
collected at  curbside to a drop-off site. This is the
case in Dover, Fitchburg, and Loveland. For other
communities,  curbside accounts  for most  yard
trimmings collected.  Table 5, on page 14, shows the
ratio of yard trimming tonnage collected at curbside
versus drop-off sites.
    Table 12  breaks down the portion  of  total
materials recovered  through curbside  and drop-off
collection for the 11 communities for which  these
data were available. Drop-off collection accounts for
less than 1% to 31%  of waste diverted  for  these
communities. With the exceptions  of  Bellevue and
Falls Church, none of the communities would have
reached   a  50%  or  higher  waste  reduction  level
without  recovery of material collected at drop-off
sites.

Education and Outreach
    All  of our community  record-setters promote
recycling through education, publicity, and outreach.
Educational  programs  provide   residents   with
information  about both "how" and "why" to recycle.
Since every  community's  program  is  unique,
educational  programs  are  necessary  to  provide
residents  with the knowledge to participate correctly.
Furthermore, research has indicated that individuals
who connect  recycling with  the  larger  issues of
resource  conservation and environmental protection
are motivated  to participate  in recycling and  reuse
programs.8   Outreach techniques  used in  our
communities include  fact  sheets  and pamphlets,
newsletters, recycling  guides, posters, utility or tax bill
inserts, calendars, radio and newspapers ads, hotlines,
public service announcements, appearances on local
cable shows, and booths at community events.
    In Chatham, the boroughs yearly calendar is the
principal source  of education about  solid waste
management.  The calendars  are  mailed to each
household   yearly  and  detail  procedures  for
preparation of trash, recyclables, and yard trimmings.
They also  list  the dates  for  leaf and recycling
collections and the  hours of the drop-off recycling
center and mulch site.

    Mil of our community record-setters promote

    recycling through education, publicity, and

    outreach... Outreach techniques used in our

    communities include fact sheets and pamphlets,

    newsletters,  recycling guides,  posters, utility or tax

    bill  inserts,  calendars, radio and newspapers ads,

    hotlines,  public  service announcements,

    appearances on  local cable shows,  and  booths at

    community events.

    More  and  more  communities  are  taking
advantage of the Internet to spread the word about
recycling. Ann Arbor, Saint Paul, Seattle, Portland, and
Worcester have or are developing Web pages on waste
reduction.
    Some  communities promote  recycling  and
education through in-person  education.   In-person
outreach  includes  door-to-door  visits,  staffed
recycling  booths  at  community  events,  and
presentations at neighborhood meetings.  Both before
and after Visalia implemented its new waste reduction
program, staff  were always  willing to  meet with
individuals to resolve any issues. This personal contact
with residents was an important element in creating
Visalia's  successful  program.  Volunteers can  help
spread  the  word  about recycling and  composting
through  personal  contact.    Seattle's  "Friends  of
Recycling"  provides  free  training  to residents
interested in serving their neighborhood for one year
as a community resource on  waste  programs.  The

-------
  KEYS TO RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
                                          volunteers share in-
                                          formation on  waste
                                          reduction.
                                               The    corner-
                                          stone     of     Falls
                                          Church's  education
                                          program     is    its
                                          "Recycling    Block
                                          Captains" program in
                                          which    over    100
                                          resident  volunteers
                                          distribute  informa-
                                          tion    and    make
                                          personal     contact
                                          door-to-door.
                                               Education
                                          programs directed at
                                          school-age children
                                          produce positive en-
                                          vironmental     atti-
                                          tudes,   which  are
                                          retained over  time.9
                                          Environmentally
                                          aware youth may play
                                          a  role  in  the  long-
                                          term  success  of  a
                                          waste reduction pro-
                                          gram.   Many  com-
                                          munities  utilize for-
             mal or informal waste reduction curricula to teach
             waste reduction concepts. Ann Arbor contracts with
             a  local  nonprofit  group  to  do youth education
             programs in the schools; more than 100 presentations
             are given each year.  Madison  airs  public  service
             announcements  called,  "Earth Alerts,"   during
             children's television programming.   Seattle's school
             grants  program  provides  money  to  elementary
             through high schools to fund development of solid
             waste class projects.


rvecycling collection programs can only  be  as

successful  as the recycling marketing program.
                     Some of our larger communities devote a staff
                 person  to publicity and outreach. Ann Arbor has a
                 full-time  employee   coordinating   publicity  and
                 outreach for all the city's waste reduction programs.
In Ann Arbor, this playground is made from locally
collected and processed recycled plastics.
    For  cities with ethnically diverse  populations,
producing educational materials in more than one
language can  help increase  understanding of and
participation  in  recycling programs.    Saint  Paul
produces  a  recycling guide  in English,  Spanish,
Hmong,  Cambodian, and Russian.   Many of  its
hotlines also include messages in languages other than
English.  In San Jose, all  outreach is done in three
languages: English, Spanish, and Vietnamese.
    Targeting outreach to new residents  can  help
maintain or increase  participation levels.  Most  of
Loveland's outreach is targeted at new residents, who
are required to sign up with the program at the city
utility's office.  There, they are given an information
packet. Recycling bins are delivered free of charge to
new residents.
    Demographic factors  play an important role  in
determining the  amount  of money a community
must spend on waste reduction educational programs,
and the types of programs  implemented.  Cities  with
transient  populations and  diverse ethnic groups face
the greatest challenges in securing broad participation,
and must typically spend more money on waste
reduction education.  Smaller communities, on the
other  hand, can rely on  volunteer efforts, and word-
of-mouth to ensure participation in waste reduction
programs. Leverett, for instance, reports spending no
money on education.

Finding Markets for Materials
    One of the most fundamentally important  tasks
in reaching high waste reduction levels is finding  an
outlet for collected material.  Identifying markets and
securing  agreements with  materials  brokers and end
users are all part  of this task.  Recycling collection
programs can only be as  successful as  the  recycling
marketing program.   Consequently, market analysis
must be both a planning and ongoing activity.
    Identifying outlets  for collected material is  an
important  component of  all  18 record-setting
programs. Many rely on  private processors to find end
users.  Of the 18  profiled  communities, only Clifton
and Crockett  market their  own materials. Municipal
recycling  coordinators  and  private processors are
finding different end uses  for the same  materials and
using a variety of  strategies to keep materials moving
to those  who can manufacture new products  from
them.
    In  all  of our  record-setting communities,
recovery  of yard trimmings and various paper grades

-------
                                                                        KEYS TO RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
are key  elements  of  their  high recovery  levels.
Locating markets for compost or mulch and  mixed
paper enable communities to include yard debris and
multiple  paper  grades in  their  waste  reduction
programs.
    Processing yard trimmings into compost, mulch,
or  other soil  amendments  and  marketing  these
products  has  not been a problem for  any  of these
record-setters.  Many of the communities  (such  as
Chatham, Crockett, and Worcester) own municipal
compost  sites and frequently use compost and  mulch
in local parks and on city property as well as give
these away free to residents. Clifton shares a  compost
site with  a neighboring town. Madison uses  a county
facility. The City of Ann Arbor sells its city-produced
compost  and  mulch.  In 1996, the city grossed about
$3.50 in sales  revenues for each ton of yard trimmings
collected. (Gross program costs were $41 per ton.) In
San  Jose, Dover,  and Visalia,  private  contractors
process and market yard trimmings.  They likewise
retain revenues  from  the  sale  of  these  products.
Loveland has  a  unique  arrangement  with  its
processor. The city and its processor equally share all
processing  and  marketing  expenses  and  revenues.
Finished compost from  Loveland's  yard  debris
program  is marketed as "Loveland's Own Compost."
It sells retail  and wholesale, bulk and  bagged. All
finished compost is sold.  In 1996, the city about $6
per ton for yard trimmings collected. (The  earnings
partially offset the city's expenditures of less than $11
per ton for processing the material.)
    Nearly all of our record-setters collect  mixed
paper. Mixed paper from some of these communities,
including  Falls   Church,  Fitchburg,  Bellevue,
Worcester,  and  Dover,  is  marketed  by  national
companies. These  companies have access to national
and   international  markets  and  benefit   from
economies of scale, making it profitable to process and
market materials with low resale value. Communities
in regions with a strong recycling-based industry, such
as New Jersey, are able to forge individual agreements
with local companies.  Clifton's recycling coordinator
has secured  mixed paper  markets locally.   While
recycling-based manufacturing is not as prevalent in
Texas, Crockett's Solid Waste Director worked hard to
locate markets for materials collected in the  city. He
has entered into a private  agreement with a paper
company in Houston to accept all paper collected in
Crockett's recycling program.
    Most community recycling programs accept glass
bottles and jars,  but  few accept  pane glass,  heat-
resistant  glass, or ceramic  materials.   Ann Arbor's
program  is unique in accepting these materials. The
city-owned MRF, operated by a contractor, accepts
these  materials and  markets  them  as aggregate to a
company in Dearborn, Michigan.  By expanding  the
city's  processing  capability and contracting with an
independent  company that  operates  many MRFs,
Ann Arbor has  been  able to add materials to its
recycling program and boost diversion.

    Lrommunities can  boost waste diversion by

    recovering items no  longer  wanted  by  their owners

    but fit  for use by others.  Saint Paul  and Fitchburg

    divert durable  items, such as small  appliances,

    textiles and  clothing, books, and toys,  as part of

    their regular curbside recycling programs.
    Communities can  boost  waste diversion by
recovering items no longer wanted by their owners
but fit for use by others.  Saint Paul and Fitchburg
divert durable items, such as small appliances, textiles
and clothing, books, and toys, as part of their regular
curbside recycling programs.    Both  cities   have
partnered with  local charities:   Saint  Paul   with
Goodwill Industries  and Fitchburg  with the  Saint
Vincent De  Paul Society. The charities receive items
collected at  curbside for sale in their shops.   On  a
smaller  scale, the recycling  program in Ann Arbor
accepts textiles that are marketed to a textile recovery
company for reuse and recycling.  San Jose also
includes  textiles in its curbside recycling program.
The textiles are  marketed  to  rag dealers, a  used
clothing store, and a homeless shelter.
    As  the  packaging industry has changed,  new
challenges have  arisen for  communities aiming to
maximize waste diversion.  Polycoated paper, aseptic
packages, and many types  of  plastics  have proven
difficult to  recycle  and markets  are often hard to
locate.   Communities  wishing  to recover  these
materials often  must ship them to far away markets
and  deal  with  volatility.    Crockett's  Solid  Waste

-------
KEYS TO  RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
                  Director,  in  response  to  public  demand, started
                  collecting all  plastics before he had secured a market
                  for them.  He stockpiled  more than ten tons of the
                  material  before  finally  locating  a  market  for  the
                  material in late 1997. He is hoping his perseverance
                  in locating the market will pay off and the  city will
                  forge a long-term relationship.
                       Other communities collecting plastics in addition
                  to #1 and #2 polymers include  Ann Arbor, Bellevue,
                  Chatham,  Fitchburg,  Leverett, Portland,  San Jose,
                  Visalia,  and  Worcester.     Ann  Arbor,  Chatham,
                  Crockett,  Dover,  Loveland,  and  Portland  recycle
                  aerosol cans.  Ann Arbor, Bellevue, Chatham, Dover,
                  Leverett, Portland,  San  Jose,  Visalia,  and  Worcester
                  recycle milk and juice cartons and aseptic packages.
                  In  these  communities,  with   the  exception  of
                  Crockett, the marketing of these materials is handled
                  by  contractors  and the communities themselves  do
                  not locate the markets.  The role of the communities
                  is often  one  of requiring  the collection of a material
                  in contracts or requesting  the  processor accept them.
                  Community  requirements  and  requests  can  spur
                  technological  innovation  and  market  creation   for
                  materials. The record-setting communities collecting
                  non-traditional materials  may be  clearing a  path  for
                  other communities to have access to stable markets  for
                  these materials.
                       State and local disposal  bans have spurred market
                  development for  some materials.  For example, many
                  states have  banned  oil filters from disposal in landfills
                  and/or incinerators. Community collection programs
                  provide  residents  with   non-disposal  options   for
                  handling the  filters.  Ann Arbor,  Bellevue, Crockett,
                  Dover, and Seattle collect  used oil  filters for recycling.
                  Three of these communities  (Ann Arbor, Bellevue,
                  and Seattle) are in states that ban disposal of the filters.
                  Technology to recover oil in the filters has developed
                  to  handle  the  banned  material;  little recovery was
                  accomplished before bans were enacted. Landfill bans
                  of yard trimmings  are another example. These  bans
                  have  led  to  the  development   of  a  composting
                  infrastructure at the local  and regional levels.
   amount of these materials recovered did not account for the entire
   increase in recovery that occurred.
Cuthbert, 1993, 'Variable Disposal Fees Reduce Waste," American City and
   County June 1993: 47; Jenkins, 1991, Municipal Demand for Solid Waste
   Services: The impact of User Fees, Dissertation, The University of Maryland,
   Economics Department, and 1993, The Economics of Waste Reduction,
   Edward Elgar Publishing Company, Brookfield, Vermont; Miranda, 1993,
   "Managing Residential Municipal Solid Waste: The Unit-pricing Approach,"
   Resource Recycling November 1993: 37-40; and Stone and Harrison, 1991,
   •Residents Favor User Fees," BioCycle August 1991: 58-59.
5EPA has developed information and resources on implementing PAYT
   programs. Its PAYT Helpline is available at 888-EPA-PAYT (888-372-7298).
   Further information is available on the EPA Web site at www.epa.gov/payt.
^Jenkins, 1993, The Economics of Waste Reduction, Edward Elgar Publishing
   Company, Brookfield,  Vermont; and Miranda, Everett, Blume, and Roy,
   1994, "Market-Based  Incentives and Residential Municipal Solid Waste,"
   Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13: 681-698.
^Saint Paul also provides  recycling service to all households, including MFDs.,
   but ILSR could not calculate a residential waste reduction level for the city
   since Ramsey County does not track trash according to origin by location
   (Saint Paul versus other county communities) or sector (residential versus
   commercial).
SDeYoung, 1990, "Recycling as Appropriate Behavior: A Review of Survey Data
   from Selected Recycling Education Programs in Michigan," Resources,
   Conservation and Recycling 3: 253-266; Duggal, Saltzman; and Williams,
   1991, "Recycling: An  Economic Analysis," Eastern Economic Journal 17:
   351 -358; and United  States Environmental Protection Agency Office of
   Solid Waste and Emergency Response.  Decision-Maker's Guide to Solid
   Waste Management,  Second Edition.  EPA530-R-95-023. August 1995.
9Jaus, 1984, "The Development and Retention of Environmental Attitudes in
   Elementary School Children," Journal of Environmental Education 15(3):
   33-36.
                  Notes:
                  1 Participation levels presented are those measured and reported by the
                    communities.
                  ^Lansana, 1992, "Distinguishing Potential Recyclers from Nonrecyclers: A Basis
                    for Developing Recycling Strategies," Journal of Environmental Education
                    23(2): 16-23; and De Young, 1988-89, "Exploring the Difference Between
                    Recyclers and Non-recyclers: The Role of Information," Journal of
                    Environmental Systems 18(4): 341-351.
                  ^Madison's recycling tonnage more than doubled from 1990 to 1991.  The city
                    also added corrugated cardboard and mixed containers in 1991 but the

-------
  KEYS TO  INSTITUTIONAL/COMMERCIAL  PROGRAM SUCCESS
   Institutional and commercial waste (ICW) is often
   a significant portion  of municipal  solid waste,
   even in small cities and suburbs. The U.S. EPA
estimates ICW comprises  between 35  to  45% of
total MSW generated in the country. 1  Six of our
communities  — Bergen  County, Clifton, Portland,
Ramsey County/Saint Paul, San Jose, and Seattle —
include ICW in their  reported  waste reduction
levels.   In  these  communities,  recovered  ICW
represents 23% to 42% of all municipal solid waste
generated.2   Unlike most residential waste, ICW is
usually not collected as part of community-operated
or  community-contracted  waste   management
programs.   In  most communities, businesses and
institutions directly pay private companies to collect
ICW. Municipalities have been slower to target this
waste stream  for recovery  compared to residential
waste but cannot reach high recovery of  the total
MSW stream unless they do.
    Figure   2  shows the  importance  of  ICW
recovery in reaching high MSW  reduction levels.
High recovery levels can  be  achieved  both in
communities  that  provide  trash and  recycling
services to commercial and institutional customers
and  those  where  private  companies   provide
commercial and institutional waste services.  Table
13, page 30, presents data for ICW generated and
recovered  for  our six  ICW  record-setters and
summarizes their ICW recovery programs.  Many of
our residential waste reduction record-setters also
target ICW for recovery, but their programs are not
recovering close to or above 50% of ICW
    Our ICW record-setters are using the following
strategies to spur the development of private sector
waste reduction programs:
•    mandating that  businesses and  institutions
    recover   a wide range   of  recyclable  and
    compostable materials,  prohibiting  disposal of
    specific   materials  such as  yard  trimmings,
    requiring businesses  to  submit  reports  on
    amount   of   materials   recovered,   and/or
    enforcing program requirements by inspecting
    businesses  to   see  if  they  are  meeting
    requirements or employing other enforcement
    mechanisms;
•    requiring haulers to  provide a minimal level of
    recycling services for a wide range of  materials
    and/or requiring them to charge volume-based
    trash fees;
•   instituting  economic incentives  targeted  at
    businesses and private haulers, such as charging
    reduced or no tipping fees at recycling drop-off
    sites, charging lower franchise fees, and offering
    tax relief for haulers who recycle ICW;
•   providing  technical assistance, such  as waste
    audits, disseminating listings of drop-off  sites
    and  private  recycling  services,  and assisting
    businesses and haulers with marketing recovered
    materials  by  informing them  of  different
    marketing options  or allowing them to bring
    materials to public processing centers; and
•   providing municipal pick-up of a wide range of
    commercial/institutional recyclables  and/or
    convenient drop-off depots that accept materials
    generated by the commercial and institutional
    sector.

State and Local  Mandates
    By requiring businesses and  institutions  to
recycle,   communities  can    encourage   the
establishment   of a  private  sector   recycling
infrastructure.  Of the six ICW  record-setters,  four
require businesses to recycle.
    In Bergen  County, the county's Long-Term
Solid Waste Management Plan requires commercial
and   institutional   establishments  to   recycle
corrugated  cardboard,  high-grade  paper,  mixed
paper  (newspapers,   magazines,   phone  books,
   FIGURE 2:  THE CONTRIBUTION  OF INSTITUTIONAL/
 COMMERCIAL WASTE  RECOVERY TO MSW REDUCTION
    60%
    50%
    40%
 o
 &
 
-------
KEYS TO INSTITUTIONAL/COMMERCIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
ICW
Generated
Year (tons)
Bergen Co., NJ
Clifton, NJ
Portland, OR
St. Paul, MN1
San Jose, CA
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
392,215
56,714
794,091
NA
881,860
ICW ICW
Recovered Waste Reduction Total
(tons) (%) Businesses Mandatory
245,195
38,561
410,091
NA
367,871
63%
68%
52%
NA
42%
30,900
3,100
50,000
7,800
27,000
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
Economic
Incentives
High tip fees ($103/ton)
High tip fees ($11 2/ton)
High tip fees ($63/ton)

Haulers charged reduced franchise and
        Seattle, WA
1996    379,166    181,562
                                                     48%
                                                                            other fees for recyclables
                                                                  no        Tax incentives for recycling haulers.
                                                                            Reduced tip fees charged for recyclables
                                                                            (including yard debris) at city facilities
Key: ICW = institutional and commercial waste                            NA = not available
Note: All of these communities offer waste reduction and recovery technical assistance, such as waste audits, consultations, workshops, and
  marketing assistance, to the institutional/commercial sector.
11CW waste generated and recovered in St. Paul is not available as private haulers operating in the city also operate in the county and elsewhere.
  Neither the county nor St. Paul track ICW separately from other MSW generated.
        Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

               paperboard, books, kraft paper bags, and mail), glass
               beverage containers, aluminum  cans, ferrous  scrap,
               and white goods. The county requires businesses to
               document  and  report  the amounts  of materials
               recovered.
   I he institution of economic incentives that
  reward recovery over disposal, such as reduced
  tipping  fees for delivering recyclable and
  compostable materials  to drop-off  sites,  tax
  incentives,  and reduced  franchise and  other fees,
  encourage businesses to recycle and haulers to
  offer collection of recyclable materials.
                   Clifton, another  New  Jersey community,  has
               passed  an  ordinance  requiring commercial  and
               institutional establishments  in Clifton to  "source
               separate, collect, transport, and market" materials for
               which   markets  are  secured  —  currently  22
               categories.  Private contractors serving both residents
               and  commercial  establishments are  required to
               report  to  the  city the  quantities of material they
               recycle. The recycling ordinance allows levying fines
               for non-compliance.
                                                Effective  January  1996, Portland  required  its
                                            businesses to source-separate recyclable materials in
                                            order to achieve a recovery level of at least 50% of
                                            their  waste.   The businesses  are  free  to recycle
                                            whichever materials they choose.  City staff began
                                            enforcing the ordinance in June 1996 by conducting
                                            unannounced business  inspections.  If warranted,
                                            staff make recommendations on  improvements and
                                            offer free technical assistance. To date, no business
                                            contacted has refused  to work toward compliance
                                            and  no  penalties  have  been  issued.   Surveys  of
                                            Portland businesses have shown  29%  of businesses
                                            reported they did  not recycle in  1993 as compared
                                            to only 7% in 1996.
                                                Saint Paul, where  more than  half of Ramsey
                                            County's  population resides, requires  commercial
                                            establishments to recycle at least three materials. The
                                            ordinance is enforced on a complaint basis only.
                                                State policies have also helped spur recycling in
                                            the  commercial   and   institutional sectors.   For
                                            example,  Minnesota prohibits  all waste generators
                                            and  handlers, including those  in the  business and
                                            institutional sectors,  from  placing  leaves,  grass
                                            clippings, garden  debris, and tree and  shrub  waste
                                            with mixed MSW and disposing these in a landfill or
                                            incinerator. The  state  also prohibits tires, lead-acid
                                            batteries, used oil, major appliances, and rechargeable
                                            batteries from placement in mixed MSW.

                                            Economic Incentives
                                                Instituting economic incentives  that reward
                                            recovery over disposal, such as  reduced tipping fees

-------
                                                       KEYS TO INSTITUTIONAL/COMMERCIAL PROGRAM SUCCESS
for delivering recyclable and compostable materials
to  drop-off  sites,  tax incentives, and  reduced
franchise  and other  fees,  encourage  businesses to
recycle and haulers to offer collection of recyclable
materials. High tipping fees for trash can also act as
an  economic incentive for  recovery, although  no
communities have artificially raised tip fees for this
purpose.
    Seattle  uses both reduced tipping fees and  tax
incentives to encourage commercial recycling. The
city charges no tip  fee  for  loads  of recyclables
delivered to its transfer stations. The per ton tip  fee
for a load of yard debris is 25%  lower than the tip fee
charged  for  trash delivered  to these  facilities.  In
addition,  the city charges trash  haulers a tax  on
collection revenues,  but  excludes  collection  of
commercial recyclables from this tax.
    In San Jose, financial incentives encourage waste
reduction  in  the  commercial  and institutional
sectors.   Trash haulers pay the  city fees for  trash
collected (in fiscal year 1997, $1.64 per cubic yard of
trash in franchise fees and $1.77 per cubic yard of
trash in  source reduction and recycling fees).  In
contrast, recycling collection companies do not pay
per ton fees for recyclables. The trash fees are a direct
incentive  for businesses to recycle and reduce their
solid waste.  City staff manage  the franchises, ensure
that franchised haulers remit proper fees, periodically
audit haulers, and tabulate monthly data from haulers
and recyclers on the amount of materials collected.
    In Bergen County and Clifton, New Jersey, local
mandates encourage businesses to recycle, but trash
disposal fees, which at times have been above  $100
per ton,  may be a greater incentive. By recycling,
local businesses not only comply with local laws but
also achieve  substantial savings on avoided disposal
costs.

Technical Assistance and Outreach
    All of our six ICW record-setters provide their
commercial and institutional sector with some  form
of technical assistance.
    Bergen County developed a waste audit manual
for businesses and sent a  copy to companies  with
more than 100 employees.  Businesses were asked to
complete the audit and return it to county staff. The
staff used the audits to determine where its efforts
were  most  needed.   County  staff  provide on-site
visits to businesses that request  them.
    Clifton's recycling coordinator has helped many
businesses develop programs that meet or exceed the
city requirements.  When mandatory recycling first
began,  the recycling  coordinator  helped locate
markets  for  materials, performed  informal  waste
audits to help reduce waste, and provided advice on
complying with the recycling ordinance.
    A,
   Ul of our six ICW record-setters  provide their
commercial  and institutional sector with some
form of technical assistance.
    In  Portland, staff also help companies  devise
recycling  programs  to   meet   local  recycling
requirements.  City staff have identified businesses
needing assistance  through inspections  of  business
facilities.
    San  Jose   staff  likewise  provide  technical
assistance to  businesses by helping  them implement
in-house  recycling programs,  performing "waste
assessments,"  and identifying end users for  recycled
materials.  Businesses receive a packet that  includes
information  on  how  to start  recycling,  waste
reduction ideas, waste characterization analysis tools,
a directory of recyclers, and a list of commercial solid
waste services.
    The  Seattle Public  Utilities and the  Greater
Seattle Chamber of Commerce sponsor the  Business
and  Industry  Recycling Venture  (BIRV).   This
program encourages waste prevention, recycling, and
purchasing  of  recycled-content  products within
Seattle's business community. BIRV offers businesses
a  hotline, informational  materials,  and technical
assistance; and conducts presentations and seminars.
Notes:
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
  Waste in the United States: 1996 Update. EPA/530-R-97-015. May
  1997.
2The recovery level for ICW in Ramsey County/Saint Paul can not be
  calculated as ICW is not tracked separately from residential waste or total
  MSW.

-------
KEYS  TO  COST-EFFECTIVENESS
                     Are our record-setting programs cost-effective?
                     Have net solid waste management costs  per
                     household remained the same or decreased
              since waste reduction programs were implemented or
              expanded?  Are per household cost increases due to
              rising trash disposal tip fees?  Have waste reduction
              programs cushioned  communities from  future cost
              increases in solid waste management?
                  To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of our record-
              setting communities, we have looked  at  costs by
              addressing  these  questions.    Thirteen  of  14
              communities, for which comparative year cost data
              exist, pass one of the two criteria for cost-effectiveness
              as outlined in the introduction, pages 10-11.  In the
              other  community, Loveland,  per household  costs
              increased  35%  from  1989  to   1996  while  the
              community went from zero to 56% waste reduction.
              Per ton disposal fees in  Loveland were  only $10 in
              1996, the lowest of all the communities profiled.
              Loveland worked hard  to  implement recycling and
              yard debris  programs at the lowest cost possible.
              However, because of the low tip fee for disposal, the
              net costs for these  programs are slightly higher than
              the net costs for direct disposal.  (For details on cost
              calculations, see the sidebar "Capital and Operating &
              Maintenance Costs" on page 9.)
                  Many  factors  make these communities'  waste
              management programs cost-effective.  One common
              theme is  that  these  communities  consider  waste
              reduction and disposal to be two equally important
              parts  of an  overall waste  management  strategy.
              Recycling and  composting are not add-ons; rather,
              they form an  integral  part  of  the overall  waste
              management program.   Communities' commitment
              to waste reduction allows them to save money on
              disposal and reallocate waste management  funds so
              that each  part  of the  waste  stream  is  handled
              appropriately and cost-effectively.

              Net  Program Costs Per Household
                  In order  to evaluate the effect waste reduction
              programs  have on waste management costs  over
              time,  we compared  total  solid waste management
              costs for two or more years for each community for
              which these data were  available.  Table  14, on page
              33, compares 1996  net solid waste management costs
              per household served  to a  "before year" for 14
              communities for which these data were available. It
also shows 1996 residential waste reduction levels as
compared  to  the   "before  year. "1     For  all
communities  included in the report except Bergen
County, the "before  year" represents a year either
before the  community's  waste  reduction  program
began or before a major program expansion.2  Net
solid  waste  management costs  include  program
operation and maintenance costs and the annualized
value of capital costs, and take into account materials
revenues. (See the individual profiles and Appendix
B for information specific to  each community.)  The
"before year" costs further take into account the cost
of inflation by converting  cost  figures into  1996
dollars using  the  gross domestic product (GDP)
deflator.
    For nine of our 14 record-setters for which cost
data  are available, net program costs per household
served  have  remained the same or  decreased:
Chatham, Crockett, Dover, Falls Church, Fitchburg,
Leverett, Portland, San Jose, and Seattle.3
    Chatham's  solid  waste  management  costs
dropped  from $1.1 million in 1991 to $632,000 in
1996. When  inflation is taken into account, during
the same period,  net program costs per household
decreased from $457  to $228.
    Dover's net residential waste management costs
dropped  from $1.0  million  in 1990  to  $798,000
while adding  more  than 1,000  customers.    Per
household costs decreased more than 40%; dropping
from $122 in 1990 to $73 in  1996. During the same
period,  residential  waste  reduction increased from
3% to 52%, while residential waste generation per
household decreased  24%.   (See page 39 for a
discussion on Dover's decrease in per household
waste generation.)
    Prior  to    implementing   recycling   and
composting  programs  in 1992,  Crockett  paid a
private company to collect and dispose of  its trash.
In 1991, the cost (in  1991 dollars) to the  city was
nearly $200,000 or $64 per household for residential
service.   Per household costs   were  $72  when
adjusted  to constant 1996 dollars.  In 1996,  total
residential solid waste costs were $250,000, but were
offset by $24,000 in  revenues  from  the  sale  of
recyclables.  Net solid waste management costs were
$69 per household in 1996,  less than the 1991 per
household costs.

-------
                                                                                            KEYS TO COST-EFFECTIVENESS
     In FY93, San Jose provided trash and  limited
recycling services only to residents of single-family
homes.   Per household  costs  averaged $207.   By
FY97  the  city  had  expanded  its waste reduction
programs to  target more materials and had begun
providing trash and recycling services to residents of
both single- and multi-family residences. FY97  per
household costs averaged $187 for all households and
$210 per household for single-family homes.
     For Falls Church, Fitchburg, Leverett, Portland,
and  Seattle, per  household costs for residential waste
management have also stayed the same or decreased.
The most  dramatic reduction  in costs occurred in
   TABLE 14:  NET SWM COSTS  PER HOUSEHOLD,
   BEFORE AND  AFTER
        "Before Year" Net SWM Costsl
                (Year)     ($/HH)
1996 NetSWIW
  Costs ($/HH)
 Res. Waste Reduction (%)
(Before Year)(Current Year)
Ann Arbor, Ml
Chatham, NJ3
Clifton, NJ
Crockett, TX
Dover, NH
Falls Church, VA
Fitchburg, Wl
Leverett, MA
Loveland, CO
Madison, Wl
Portland, OR4
San Jose, CA5
Seattle, WA
Visa Ma, CA
FY89
1991
1987
1991
1990
FY90
1992
FY87
1989
1988
1992
FY93
1987
FY94
$73
$457
$153
$72
$122
$372
$126
$84
$63
$163
$241
$207
$155
$190
$78
$228
$178
$69
$73
$215
$108
$53
$85
$175
$211
$210
$155
$202
16%
63%
12%
0%
3%
39%
35%
0%
0%
18%
29%
33%
19%
2%
52%
65%
44%
52%
52%
65%
50%
53%
56%
50%
40%
55%
49%
50%
  Key:    FY = fiscal year      HH = households    NA = not available
        Res. = residential     SWM = solid waste management
  Note:  Net SWM costs are shown in constant 1996 dollars and take into account operating
    and maintenance costs, annualized costs of capital, and materials revenues. The costs
    include recycling, composting, and trash service costs. Households represent the number
    of households served by both the waste reduction and trash programs.  Costs presented
    are not meant to be comparable among communities. The information is presented to
    illustrate changes in costs over time in the individual communities.  See Appendix B for
    more information on how costs were calculated for each community.  Bellevue, Saint Paul,
    and Worcester are not included because costs before recycling began are not available.
    Bergen County and Ramsey County are not included as costs for waste reduction and
    trash collection and disposal are largely incurred at the local level. The County functions
    are largely data analysis, technical assistance, and enforcement, rather than provision of
    basic waste management services.
  1 "Before Year" represents a year either before waste reduction program implementation or before
    major program change or expansion (such as advent of PAYT trash fees).
  2Current year is FY96 for Ann Arbor, FY97 for Falls Church, Leverett, and Visalia, and 1996 for all
    others.
  31991 costs reflect (1) the annual flat fee of $350 households paid to a local  hauler for trash
    collection and disposal before PAYT fees were instituted and (2) costs for the community
    recycling and composting programs.
  Represents fees households paid to private haulers and not costs incurred by Portland.
  5FY97 cost and waste reduction data presented for service to single-family residences only in
    order to make data more comparable to FY93. San Jose did not offer city waste management
    services to residents of multi-family dwellings until FY94.  FY97 average solid waste
    management costs for all households was $187 and the total residential waste reduction level
    was 45%.
 Falls  Church  where costs dropped from $372  to
 $215 per household from FY90 to FY97.

 Effect of Tip Fee Increases on Net  Costs
      Of the  five communities where per household
 waste  management  costs increased   (Ann  Arbor,
 Clifton, Loveland,  Madison, and Visalia), three would
 have experienced  no per household cost increases if
 trash tip fees  had  not  increased since the waste
 reduction program began or expanded.  (See Table
 15, page  34, for  "before  year"  and  1996  tip fees.)
 Costs in Visalia would have increased less than 5% if
 trash tip fees had not increased from $30 to $33 per
 ton.  All  five of these communities use landfills  for
	  which they pay a per ton fee.
                       The  increase   in   tip   fees
                       resulted from higher per ton
                       fees charged at these disposal
                       sites, not from increased costs
                       resulting  from  the  loss   of
                       economies    of  scale    at
                       community-owned facilities.
                            In FY89,   Ann Arbor's
                       residential waste management
                       cost $60 ($73 in 1996  dollars)
                       per household. Tip fees at the
                       landfill used by the city were
                       $13  per  ton  ($16  in  1996
                       dollars).     By   FY96,  per
                       household   costs  for  waste
                       management rose to $78 per
                       household and  tip  fees  were
                       $27 per ton. If the landfill tip
                       fee in FY96 had only risen at
                       the  rate   of  inflation    (as
                       determined  by  the  gross
                       domestic  product  deflator)
                       and all  other costs stayed the
                       same,  per   household  costs
                       would have been $72, roughly
                       equivalent with FY89 costs.
                            Increases in trash  tip fees
                       have  had  a more  dramatic
                       effect   in   Clifton.     Per
                       household costs for residential
                       waste management rose from
                       $153 in 1987 to $178 in 1996.
                       During this same time  period,
                       per ton tip fees for trash more
                       than tripled  in constant dollar

-------
KEYS TO COST-EFFECTIVENESS
                 TABLE 15:   TIP FEES, BEFORE AND
                 AFTER ($/TON)
                Community
                   "Before Year"
                 Trash Tip Fees1
1996 Trash
 Tip Fees1
Ann Arbor, Ml               $16
Bellevue, WA                $57
Bergen County, NJ          $131
Chatham, NJ               $141
Clifton, NJ                  $35
Crockett, TX                 $10
Dover, NH                  $75
Falls Church, VA             $29
Fitchburg, Wl                $31
Leverett, MA?                 NA
Loveland, CO                 $5
Madison, Wl                $16
Portland, OR                $72
San Jose, CA                $29
Seattle, WA                 $60
Visalia, CA                  $30
Worcester, MA               $37
                                                          $27
                                                          $66
                                                         $103
                                                         $102
                                                         $112
                                                          $13
                                                          $46
                                                          $45
                                                          $36
                                                          $58
                                                          $10
                                                          $34
                                                          $63
                                                          $28
                                                          $45
                                                          $33
                                                          $31
                Key:      NA = not available
                Note: All costs represent dollars per ton. All costs have been
                   converted to 1996 dollars using the Gross Domestic Product
                   Deflator.  Ramsey County, MN, is excluded because data are
                   not available.
                1 Represents average tip fee paid at landfills, incinerators, or
                   transfer stations for trash disposal.
                2Prior to 1 992 Leverett owned and operated its own landfill. The
                   town did not track tonnages of material disposed at the
                   facility, therefore: it is  impossible to calculate per ton disposal
                   costs for trash prior to 1992.
               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
               value from $36 per ton to $112 per ton. If the tip fee
               in 1996 had only been $36 per ton and all other costs
               stayed the same, per household costs would have been
               $99.  Therefore, the increase in per household costs
               can wholly be accounted for through the increase in
               trash  tip fees.  In fact, if tip fees had remained stable
               at the 1987 level, 1996 per household costs  would
               have decreased significantly.


   L/f the 14 communities where cost data were

   complete, 13 passed one  of our two criteria for

   determining cost-effectiveness.
                   A similar, though less dramatic, effect of increases
               in trash tip fees occurred in Madison.  Madison's per
               household waste management costs rose 8% from
               $163 in 1988 to $175 in 1996. During this same time
period, average per ton tip fees paid by the city for
trash disposal increased from $16 to $34. If disposal
tip fees had remained constant at the 1988 level, per
household costs for solid waste management  would
have totaled only $161 in 1996.
    In FY94,Visalias residential waste management
program cost $190 per  household.   By FY97  per
household costs had risen to $202.  During the same
period, tip fees paid by the city rose from $30  to $33
per ton.  If tip fees had remained constant at $30, per
household costs for waste management would have
averaged only  $199 in FY97, less than 5% greater
than per household costs before the city instituted its
waste reduction programs.
    Although trash tip fees paid by Loveland more
than doubled from 1989 to  1996, this increase can
not account for the entire increase in per household
waste management costs during the same period.  Per
household waste management costs  increased from
$63 to $85 from 1989 to 1996 while trash tip fees
went from only $5 per ton to $10 per ton. Increases
in tip fees account  for less  than $3  of  the  per
household cost  increase.   The  effect of tip  fee
variation is minimal because Loveland pays the lowest
tip fee of all the profiled communities. If tip fees had
been just $25 per ton in 1989  ($30 in 1996 dollars),
per household costs  for solid waste  management
would have dropped between 1989 and 1996.

Waste Reduction Cushions Communities
Against  Cost  Increases
    Another question we posed regarding  program
cost-effectiveness    considered    whether     the
implementation  of   waste   reduction programs
cushioned communities from future cost increases in
solid waste management.  We  did  not consider any
waste reduction program cost-effective based on this
criterion alone but believe waste management planners
should consider evidence of this sort  when making
program  decisions.    The  following  evidence of
cushioning against  future  cost  increases  is both
quantitative and qualitative.
    Data from Madison  illustrate  quantitatively how
waste reduction programs reaching high diversion levels
can cushion a community from increases in total waste
management costs.  Madison reconfigured  its waste
management system as a result of increased diversion,
shifting trash collection resources to its waste reduction
program. Assuming the city's waste reduction program
had not  reached  50% diversion, this reconfiguration

-------
                                                                                           KEYS TO COST-EFFECTIVENESS
would not have been possible.  If 1988 disposal costs
were projected to actual 1996 disposal costs, 1988 per
household costs  would have increased to $187 per
household.  Actual per household costs  for residential
waste  management were $175  in  1996; therefore,
increased diversion  and  the  changes  in resource
allocation made as a result helped cushion Madison
from increases in waste management costs potentially
greater than those experienced.
    Loveland's and Dover's  diversion programs have
cushioned these  communities  from potential  future
cost increases in  waste management.   County  staff
estimate  remaining landfill capacity at the  Larimer
County Landfill, where Loveland's trash is disposed, at
eight years, after which a new facility will have to be
sited and constructed.  Disposal  at the the  new landfill
will most likely cost more than the current facility  in
order to incorporate a liner, leachate collection system,
and methane gas management system.   If Loveland
maintains its 1996 waste reduction level of 56%, future
tip fee  increases will have less than half of the effect than
would be  experienced  if the city  had no  waste
reduction program.
    Potential savings to Dover as a result
of its waste  management  program played
an integral part in the city's decisions to
implement and continue  these programs.
Dover's former municipally owned landfill
is on the Superfund National Priority List
and the city has been assessed 70% liability
for its clean-up.   Dover city  planners
believe   aggressive   waste    diversion
decreases  the potential for future public
liability in the event of necessary clean-up
of its current disposal site.
     In summary, of the 18 community
waste reduction programs profiled in this
report, data were available to evaluate cost-
effectiveness  for  14.  See Table  16  for a
summary of the  results of  our  cost-
effectiveness  evaluation.   No cost  data
were available for Bergen and  Ramsey
Counties. Nor were the data available for
Bellevue and Worcester complete enough
to evaluate these programs fully. Of the 14
communities  where  cost  data  were
complete,  13  passed  one  of  our  two
criteria for determining cost-effectiveness.
The   other   community,  Loveland
           experienced a total waste  management program cost
           increase  after  implementing  its  aggressive  waste
           reduction program.  This cost increase  cannot be
           explained wholly by increases in trash disposal tip fee
           increases.
               For  seven  of the  communities,  qualitative or
           quantitative  evidence indicates  their waste reduction
           programs  have   cushioned   them   against   trash
           management program cost  increases that have occurred
           or are reasonably anticipated to occur in the future.

           Factors   Affecting   Waste   Reduction
           Program  Cost-Effectiveness
               What  contributes  to the cost-effectiveness of
           the programs examined?   Can curbside recycling
           programs be cost-effective in bottle bill states? Have
           net  solid  waste  program  costs  per  household
           decreased in  many  of these  cities as a result of
           revenue gained from sale of recovered materials? Are
           waste  reduction  programs  cost-effective  only in
           communities that  must pay high  tip  fees  for  trash
           disposal?   What  other   factors  influence  cost-
           effectiveness of these waste reduction  programs?
               Net Program
               Cost per HH
            Remained the Same
               or Decreased?
    Increased
   Tip Fees are
Solely Responsible
  for Increased
   Net Costs?
 Waste Reduction
    Cushioned
Community Against
  Cost Increases?
    Final
 Classification
     as
Cost-Effective1
Ann Arbor, Ml
Bellevue, WA
Chatham, NJ
Clifton, NJ
Crockett, TX
Dover, NH
Falls Church, VA
Fitchburg, Wl
Leverett, MA
Loveland, CO
Madison, Wl
Portland, OR
San Jose, CA
Seattle, WA
Visalia, CA
Worcester, MA
No
No data
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No data
Yes
No data
NA
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
Yes
NA
NA
NA
Yes
No data
Yes


Yes

Yes


Yes
Yes
Yes



Yes

Yes
Undecided
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Undecided
Key:               NA = Not applicable
Notes: Bergen County, New Jersey and Ramsey County (including Saint Paul), Minnesota, are not
included because data were not available to evaluate program cost-effectiveness by any of the above
criteria.
1 According to the methodology used in this report, community waste reduction programs are
considered cost-effective if the answer to either of the first two questions is "Yes." The other criterion
provides further information about the success of the waste reduction programs but are not sufficient
to adequately evaluate program cost-effectiveness.

-------
KEYS TO COST-EFFECTIVENESS
                   Five of our record-setters (Ann Arbor, Portland,
               San  Jose, Visalia, and Worcester)  offer  curbside
               recycling  to  their residents and  are  in  states with
               container deposit laws. Four  of these communities
               (Ann Arbor, Portland, San Jose, and Visalia) have cost-
               effective waste reduction programs; data were  not
               available to determine if Worcester s program is cost-
               effective.  Critics of container deposit systems have
               stated these systems interfere with curbside recycling
               programs  by  removing high-value  aluminum from
               the  residential  waste stream, thereby reducing
               revenues  earned from materials  collected.   Our
               record-setters show  that container deposit systems
               and cost-effective waste reduction programs are  not
               mutually exclusive.


    I  he waste reduction programs considered cost-

   effective are not just those that must  pay high  tip

   fees for trash  disposal.
                   Materials revenues do affect program economics
               but eliminating revenues would not change the cost-
               effectiveness determination for most of the profiled
               programs.  Of  the  14  communities  for which cost
               data were available,  five  (Dover,  Falls  Church,
               Fitchburg, San Jose, and Visalia) receive no revenues
               from materials sales.  Loveland did not pass our cost-
               effectiveness  tests.   Seattle  data  did  not  provide
               revenue   figures.    Of  the   remaining  seven
               communities, six would still pass one of our cost-
               effectiveness criteria if revenues  were  set to zero.
               Only Madison, Wisconsin, where material revenues
               averaged nearly $10 per household in 1996, would
               no  longer  pass  our  cost-effectiveness  tests  if these
               revenues were eliminated.
                   Cost-effective  waste   reduction   programs
               considered are not just those that must pay high tip
               fees for  trash disposal.  Among the  communities
               profiled,  tipping fees for  trash disposal range from
               more than $100 per ton in Clifton, New Jersey, to
               less  than $15   per  ton  in Crockett, Texas,  and
               Loveland, Colorado.  Eight  (of 17 for which  data
               were  available)  of the communities  pay  tip  fees
               below $40 per ton.  (SeeTable 15, page 34 for tip fee
               information.) Six, of the seven of these programs for
               which data are available, pass our cost-effectiveness
tests.   One community, Loveland, failed the cost-
effectiveness tests according to our criteria.
    Many factors  contribute  to program  cost-
effectiveness for our communities. Collection and
processing systems vary widely from one community
to the next. Each system collects different types and
amounts  of materials,  requires distinct  set-out
procedures,  and  employs   different  processing
techniques.   In  some communities, public works
crews collect materials. In others, private companies
under contract with the city provide services. While
there  is no simple  formula for  determining which
system  is more  advantageous,  there  are  some
relationships between program types and costs.
    Our  record-setters  have improved collection
efficiencies,  reduced   landfill  disposal   costs,
implemented cost-competitive  waste  reduction
programs, generated  materials  revenues,  and
produced less trash in order to reduce or  stabilize
solid waste management costs.  Specific  techniques
include:
•   maximizing diversion levels and the amount of
    material recovered to reduce disposal costs;
•   collecting  and composting  source-separated
    yard trimmings;
•   taking advantage of private sector or regional
    processing facilities;
•   maximizing   materials   revenues   through
    favorable agreements with processors, operating
    a  local MRF,  or through  directly marketing
    segregated materials to end  users;
•   implementing pay-as-you-throw trash fees;
•   utilizing drop-off programs  in rural areas where
    curbside programs may not  be cost-effective, or
    to supplement  curbside programs;
•   utilizing appropriately designed dual-collection
    systems  (especially viable  for  communities
    where the  MRF is  near  or adjacent to  the
    disposal facility); and
•   integrating   waste  reduction programs and
    systems   into   the   existing   solid   waste
    management system (rather than viewing them
    as add-on systems).

Maximizing  Diversion  Levels
    High diversion levels  can reduce costs in two
major ways:  (1)  by significantly reducing landfill or
other disposal costs, and (2)  by eliminating  some
trash routes and  their  associated  costs.

-------
                                                                                    KEYS TO COST-EFFECTIVENESS
    As mentioned earlier, tip fees for trash do not
necessarily have  to  be  high  in  order for waste
reduction programs  to  be cost-effective.  On the
other hand, tip fees do have  a direct effect on total
program  cost.  In the profiled communities, trash tip
fees alone  account for 12% to 78% (median value
34%) of total trash costs and from 6% to 65% of total
solid waste management costs.  As more material is
recovered rather than disposed,  communities  can
reduce this expense, reaping considerable savings.
    Additional   savings  can  be  generated  by
restructuring  trash  collection  systems.   When
communities  begin to divert or  reduce significant
portions  of their waste  streams, trash collection
systems can be reconfigured  as a  result of handling
less trash, thereby avoiding  collection costs.  Falls
Church,  Virginia, substituted its   second-day  trash
collection  with  weekly   recycling   collection.
Madison, Wisconsin, eliminated several trash routes.
(See Integrating Waste  Reduction in the  Existing
SWM  System, page 40, for  more information  on
how maximizing waste reduction can reduce costs.)

Yard Debris Collection and Composting
    Yard trimmings collection costs  vary widely
among our record-setters, but tend to be lower than
recycling collection costs.  See Table 17, page 38, for
cost  comparisons   between  each  community's
recycling and yard debris management programs.
Yard trimmings  are more  homogenous than the
various types  of recyclables; they can be compacted;
and they  can be collected in one vehicle. Thus, yard
trimmings  collection systems can  be very efficient.
Moreover,  many of our  record-setters  only  offer
curbside  collection  in  the spring, summer, and/or
fall,  avoiding  the additional costs  of  year-round
service.   By targeting yard trimmings, communities
can  reduce  per ton  costs  for   waste reduction
programs and overall solid waste management costs.
    Composting costs also tend to  be lower than the
processing costs of recyclables and trash disposal fees.
Many communities are avoiding composting costs by
relying on county or private facilities that charge
minimal  or no tipping  fees.  For  those  that  are
composting their yard trimmings  at local facilities,
the cost of processing yard trimmings ranges from $2
per ton in Worcester to $25 per ton in Loveland.
    Backyard composting and grasscycling are often
the least-cost  method of diverting yard trimmings
from disposal.  With grasscycling, residents save time
in bagging grass clippings and may avoid user fees for
yard debris collection. Communities avoid the costs
of   collection   and   processing   or   disposal.
Community savings are usually somewhat offset by
the costs of a modest education program. Backyard
composting  programs  generally  cost  both  the
resident and the community more than grasscycling
but  less  than  community-wide  collection  and
processing programs.

     Migh diversion  levels can reduce costs  in two

     major ways:   (1) by significantly  reducing landfill

     or other  disposal costs, and (2)  by eliminating

     some trash routes  and their associated costs.
    In  most  of  our record-setting  communities,
composting has had a dramatic and beneficial impact
on net waste reduction costs.  This does not mean
that  communities should  abandon  their curbside
recycling programs and simply focus on composting.
Rather,  the  advantage  of  an  integrated  and
comprehensive approach  is  in  decreasing  overall
waste reduction and solid waste management costs as
well  as  in  extending the  life  of local landfills  and
conserving natural resources.

Recyclables Processing
    Costs  for processing  recyclables and revenues
received from  materials sales affect overall waste
reduction costs.   Some  of our record-setters avoid
the costs of building and operating their own MRF
by  using  private  sector   or  regional processing
facilities.  Loveland can tip recyclables for free  at a
county  MRF.   Madison  and Visalia  have  forged
favorable agreements with private  processors.   In
Madison, the city receives 80% of materials revenues.
    Ann Arbor and Crockett own their own MRFs.
Ann Arbor contracts out operation of its MRF. The
city receives 35% of sales  revenue  above a trigger
price  of $40 per ton. In Crockett, the city operates
the MRF and retains all revenues from the sale of
materials.
    In  Bellevue, Chatham, Dover,  Fitchburg,  San
Jose, Seattle, and Worcester, fees paid to contractors
include  collection and processing of recyclables.  For

-------
KEYS TO COST-EFFECTIVENESS
                              Collection
Recycling
Processing
                                                        TotaM
                                                                      Collection
Composting
  Processing
                                                                                               Tola 11
                                                                                                              Waste Reduction
                                                                                                                   Total
Ann Arbor, Ml
Bellevue, WA?
Chatham, NJ
Clifton, NJ
Crockett, TX
Dover, NH
Falls Church, VA
Fitchburg, Wl
Leverett, MA
Loveland, CO
Madison, Wl
Portland, OR8
St. Paul, MN
San Jose, CA9
Seattle, WA10
Visalia, CA
Worcester, MA
$73
$129
$38
$46
$14
$67
$41
$81
$7
$112
$115
$124
$81
$62
$91
$61
$49
$14
incl.
incl.3
<$1
$100
incl.
incl.
incl.
$04
$05
$42
incl.
incl.
incl.
incl.
$29
incl.
$102 $29
$139
$39
$55
$189
$75
$62
$117
$51
$128
$160
$196
$115
$206
$121
$114
$54
$102
$34
$21
$14
$19
$68
$56
--
$34
$1036
$84
NA
$89
$91
$53
$31
$22
incl.
$6
$5
$21
$7
$10
incl.
--
$11
$10?
incl.
NA
incl.
$12
$16
$2
$50 $77
$102
$48
$35
$78
$27
$80
$78
--
$53
$79
$132
NA
$96
$142
$87
$40
$118
$45
$42
$120
$60
$73
$101
$51
$80
$107
$176
NA
$143
$129
$96
$47
                   Key:       incl. = included with collection     NA = not available     -- = not applicable
                   Note:  All costs are in dollars per ton and represent gross costs.  Materials revenues are not included. Collection and processing costs
                     reflect curbside and drop-off costs.  Costs presented are not meant to be comparable among communities, rather the information is
                     useful in evaluating each community's individual programs. Bergen County not included because data not available.
                   ''Total recycling costs and total composting costs include administrative, overhead, and publicity/education costs, which are not reflected in
                     collection nor processing costs.
                   ^Recycling and composting collection costs represent contractor costs to provide service as reported to the city. These contractor costs do
                     not correspond with the fees paid by residential customers to the contractor. Total costs represent contractor costs and city expenditures
                     for contract oversight administration, and education programs.
                   Chatham pays its contractor $23.81 per household served. This fee, which in 1996 equalled $38 per ton recycled, includes collection,
                     processing, and marketing of recyclables.
                   4Recyclables delivered to state-developed MRF in Springfield,  MA, which charges no tip fee. Hauling costs to the MRF were $31  per
                     ton.
                   5Recyclables delivered to county-owned MRF, which charges no tip fee.
                   6Collection costs for curbside collection only.
                   ^Processing costs also include drop-off collection costs.
                   Collection and processing costs reflect payments by individual households to haulers for services. ILSR added a 70C per household
                     recycling revenue credit to estimate costs excluding revenues. See profile for more detail. Total costs represent collection and
                     processing costs, and hauler and city administration/overhead/education.
                   9The difference between total per ton recycling costs and the per ton cost of collection (including processing) reflects the marketing
                     incentive fee payments that the city pays its contractors for every ton actually marketed to an end  user.
                   lOSeattle's presented recycling costs are net costs, not gross costs. The city reported only actual payments to contractors which include
                     credits for material revenues.  Compost collection costs include costs to handle materials at  city transfer stations and to transport
                     materials to processing facilities.
                 most  of these communities, contractors  retain all

                 revenues.  Chatham  splits revenues  50:50 with its

                 contractor.

                      Clifton   is  unique  in  avoiding  the  costs of

                 processing altogether. It collects segregated materials

                 at curbside (residents even color-sort glass).   Once

                 collected,   materials   are  stored   at   the   city's

                 Department   of  Public  Works  yard  in roll-off

                 containers  provided  by  end  users with whom

                 Clifton has  directly forged agreements.   In  1996,

                 Clifton  incurred  no  processing  costs   (just  the

                 equivalent of 19t a ton  for marketing) but received
                                  more  than  $13 per ton  on  average in  materials

                                  revenues.


                                  Pay-As-You-Throw  Trash Fees

                                       Those  communities  with  pay-as-you-throw

                                  (PAYT)  trash  fees, have  seen trash  disposal  per

                                  household significantly decrease.  In Bellevue, trash

                                  disposed dropped from 20,900 tons per year in 1989

                                  to  15,700 tons per year in  1996 even though the

                                  number  of households  served increased 33%  during

                                  the  same  period.   In Worcester,  average trash

                                  landfilled per household dropped from 5.0  pounds

                                  per day in 1992 to  2.9  pounds per day in 1996 — a

-------
                                                                                      KEYS TO COST-EFFECTIVENESS
42%  reduction.   In  Portland,  average  trash  can
weights  dropped.  In two  of  our  eleven PAYT
communities — Dover and Loveland — total waste
generated per household has decreased by 10% or
more.   This  means  that  less waste  needs to  be
collected for recovery and for disposal, which in turn
leads  to  decreased trash costs. In  Dover, on a per
household basis, waste generation decreased 24% and
costs  decreased  by  40%.   The  city's  recycling
coordinator credits the PAYT system  with these
reductions.  PAYT trash fees also have been shown to
encourage use of drop-off sites, which often tend to
have  lower  per ton operating costs than curbside
programs, thereby contributing to savings. Residents
have a financial incentive to take recyclables and yard
trimmings not collected in the curbside program to
drop-off sites that will accept these materials.

Drop-off Collection
    While  curbside   collection   is  critical  to
maximizing participation and therefore  recovery
levels,  drop-off  is  generally  cheaper  for  the
community. 4   (See Table  18 for a comparison of
drop-off versus curbside collection costs.)  Generally
the more materials collected at drop-off, the lower
average per  ton costs for waste reduction.
    Staffing at drop-off sites does have an effect on
per ton  collection costs.   For example, Ann Arbor
and Dover have staff present at their multi-material
drop-off facilities and per ton collection costs are $41
and $24  per ton in these cities. These costs are well
below the cities' curbside collection costs, but higher
than  the   collection  costs  per  ton   paid   by
communities with unstaffed drop-off facilities.

Dual-Collection
    One way  two  of  our  record-setters  have
integrated   recycling  completely into  their solid
waste management systems is through use of dual-
collection vehicles, which collect recyclables  and
trash  in  separate  compartments  on one truck.
Loveland and Visalia  use dual-collection  systems,
which   differ   significantly   from   each  other.
Loveland's vehicles have three compartments:  a 10-
cubic-yard compactor for trash and two side-loading
compartments for commingled food  and beverage
containers  and  for mixed  paper.   Visalia's  fully
automated  dual-collection system  uses  a unique
110-gallon  split container in  which residents place
their  trash  in  one  side  and their commingled

• TABLE 18: DROP-OFF vs. CURBSIDE COLLECTION COSTS!
Per Ton Recycling Collection Costs Per Ton Composting Collection Costs
Curbside Drop-off Total Curbside Drop-off Total
Ann Arbor, Ml $75 $41 $73
Bellevue, WA1 $126 $316 $129
Chatham, NJ NA NA $39
Dover, NH2 $77 $24 $67
Falls Church, VA? $52 $5 $41
Fitchburg, WH $96 $7 $81
Leverett, MA -- $7 $7
Loveland, C0ซ $106 $236 $112
Madison, WI6 $111 $157 $115
San Jose, CA? $62 - $62
Seattle, WAS $91 __ $91
Visalia, CA9 $61 NA $61
$28 $37 $29
$102 - $102
$39 $14 $34
$68 $03 $19
$68 - $68
$117 $15 $56
$86 $8 $34
$103 $30 $79
$89 - $89
$79 - $79
$61 $8 $53
Key: NA = not available -- = not applicable
Note: Some communities are excluded as curbside versus drop-off tonnage and costs are
not available. Costs presented are not meant to be comparable among communities,
rather the information is useful in evaluating each community's individual programs.
iSpecial recycling drop-off events accept many non-conventional materials such as
fluorescent lights and ballasts which have high processing costs. Cost for curbside and
drop-off include processing costs and represent contractor costs to provide service as
reported to the city. These contractor costs do not correspond with the fees paid by
residential customers to the contractor.
2Costs for recycling collection include processing costs.
3Drop-off collection costs $0 because drop-off site is unattended. Contractor collects and
hauls material from the drop-off: these costs are included with material processing
charges.
Composting costs include both collection and processing.
5Drop-off recycling costs also include costs for household hazardous waste program.
SRecycling drop-off facility accepts only appliances and scrap metal. Composting drop-
off costs also include processing for all yard trimmings collected at both curbside and
drop-off.
7Costs for curbside collection include processing costs.
BSeattle's presented recycling collection costs represent net payments to contractors. The
city reported only actual payments to contractors which include credits for material
revenues. Compost collection costs include costs to handle materials at city transfer
stations and to transport materials to processing facilities.
9Visalia does not track curbside collection costs for recyclables, yard debris, and trash
separately. The city assumes per ton collection costs are the same for each material.
 Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

recyclables in the other.  Split compactor trucks pick
up and empty the container, trash falling into one
compartment, and recyclables into the other.  Dual-
collection  works  for
these   communities
because their  pro-
cessing facilities  for
recyclables  are  ad-
jacent or very  close
to   their   transfer
stations  or  disposal
facilities for trash.
     Prior  to imple-
menting   its  dual-
collection  program,
Loveland  had   no
recycling   services.

-------
KEYS TO  COST-EFFECTIVENESS
               Under the former system, each trash route served
               450 homes per day. Now each serves 950 homes per
               day. Per household costs are higher under Loveland's
               current system than they were  before the changes,
               but residents receive more services. Yet, if tip fees
               had been just  $25 per  ton in  1989 ($30 in 1996
               dollars),  per  household  costs  for  solid  waste
               management would  have dropped between 1989
               and 1996.  Costs likely would have been higher had
               the city chosen an alternative system for collection
               of recyclables.  According to studies performed  by
               the city prior to choosing dual-collection, the city
               spends $100,000 per year less on its dual-collection
               system as compared to what costs would have been
               had the  city chosen to use separate trucks for trash
               and recycling collections.


   Waste reduction programs do not have to  pay

   for themselves  through fees and revenues in order

   to be cost-effective.

                   Visalia's fully automated dual-collection system
               was   designed   to  maintain   the  same  route
               productivity collecting trash and  recyclables as  the
               former fully automated trash system  — the same
               time,  number of stops,  number of employees, and
               number of vehicles.  It  succeeded.  A $3.5 million
               lease/purchase  agreement was arranged to finance
               the new dual-collection vehicles and split containers.
               Staff calculated that residential collection rates would
               need to be increased to $1.20 per month to fund the
               lease/purchase  agreement.    The  city's  source
               separated  yard  debris  collection program  cost
               approximately $4 per  household per month. These
               increases were offset, however, by savings in tip fees.
               Landfill  tip fees are $31 per ton, while  tip fees for
               composting are $15 per ton and  recycling processing
               fees are $28 per ton.   The new  program saved
               approximately $300,000 per year  in tip fees, which
               resulted  in an actual rate increase to each household
               of only $3.20 per month.

               Integrating  Waste Reduction  into the
               Existing SWM System
                   Many recycling critics maintain that recycling is
               an add-on  cost to solid waste  management.  The
               experience of a majority of our record-setters dispels
this myth.  By diverting close to  half or more than
half of their residential waste streams, our  record-
setters no longer treat recycling as an add-on to their
existing  systems.   Waste reduction has  been fully
integrated into the waste management system and has
become the primary way many of these communities
manage  household  discards.   Communities  that
maximize  the amount of material diverted  from
disposal  often  have  low  per ton recycling  and
composting costs. A truck must travel the same route
length regardless of how many residents participate in
the program. Recycling collection systems become
more  cost-effective when the amount of materials
collected at each stop is maximized.
    When  trash  significantly  decreases,  waste
reduction programs can be more fully integrated into
existing solid waste systems. They no longer require
additional costs and labor, but now become a primary
way to collect residential materials. Labor and trucks
are shifted. Trash routes are reduced.  Revenues are
generated.  Source reduction and reuse decrease the
amount of wastes generated.
    Most  items  in solid  waste  budgets  do  not
represent rigid costs. Capital costs spent on facilities
such  as  incinerators  and  landfills  and payments
required  under the terms of put-or-pay contracts are
often  rigid. In contrast, labor can be reassigned. Trash
trucks are  often  replaced every few years and have
resale  value.    Short-term  contracts  can  be
renegotiated to   reflect  system  changes.   By
reallocating resources,  many  cities  have integrated
waste reduction with no increase in solid waste costs.
    In Madison, the DPWs budget has risen during
the last decade, but  so has the population and the
number of households served. The net cost of overall
solid waste services has increased from $163  (in 1996
dollars)   per household  in   1988  to  $175  per
household in 1996.  During this same period, tip fees
more  than  doubled in real  dollars (to equal the
national  average  disposal  tip  fee  of  $34 per ton)
accounting for all of the cost increase. High diversion
levels  decreased the number of trash collection routes
needed (from 26 to 20) and helped to hold landfill tip
fees  in  check.    If  we  normalize for  population
growth, Madison reduced the number of trucks in its
trash  fleet by  30%  because  of recycling  and
composting.
    Falls Church reduced trash collection from twice
a week to once weekly in 1991 just one year after the
city started multi-material curbside recycling.  As a

-------
                                                                                                          KEYS TO  COST-EFFECTIVENESS
result,  the  city  cut  the  number  of  trash  crew
members from ten to seven. Worcester was also able
to reduce trash routes when the city's recycling and
composting  programs   diverted   materials  from
disposal.


     As  communities  increase  materials recovered,
waste reduction programs no longer operate as add-
ons but rather can begin to off-set and enhance  a
city's  trash  collection  and  disposal  infrastructure
making the overall system  more  efficient and cost-
effective.      Improved   market    conditions   for
recyclables, resulting  from increased demand  for
recycled goods, would  also serve  to lower net costs.
Waste reduction programs do  not  have to  pay  for
themselves through fees and revenues in order to be
cost-effective.   As  waste reduction levels increase,
communities    can    reconfigure    their     waste
management systems, shifting resources from trash to
materials recovery  programs in  order to  create cost-
effective,  integrated  programs.   This  shifting  of
resources can be easier to accomplish if communities
are  not  tied  into  capital-intensive  or long-term
arrangements,   i.e.,  ownership   of  landfills   and
incinerators, and long-term contracts, especially put-
or-pay  contracts.
Notes:
11LSR requested 1996 waste management program data from participating
   communities. As some communities (Ann Arbor, Falls Church, San Jose,
   and Visalia) track data on fiscal year basis, they were not able to provide
   calendar year data. These communities provided data for a time period
   that included a portion of 1996. Ann Arbor data covers FY96. Falls
   Church, San Jose, and Visalia provided FY97 data.  The most recent year
   for which Bergen County had data was 1995; figures presented represent
   that year.
2The "before year" used for Bergen County was 1993. This year is the earliest
   year for which county staff had accurate data for both trash and waste
   reduction tonnages.
3In this report the statement average per household costs have "remained
   the same" indicates costs are within 5% of the cost with which the
   comparison  is being made.
4Three of our communities (Bellevue, Loveland, and Madison) have higher per
   ton costs for recyclable materials collected at drop-off facilities.  Ann
   Arbor has a higher per ton cost for yard debris at drop-off facilities. In
   each of these cases, special circumstances explain why drop-off costs are
   high.  Bellevue does not maintain a year-round drop-off facility. The city
   sponsors two special recycling events yearly at which staff accept oil
   filters, household and lead-acid batteries, tires, household goods (textiles,
   working small appliances, usable furniture), white goods, scrap metal, #6
   plastic food  containers, scrap lumber, antifreeze, fluorescent lamps and
   ballasts, and ceramic bathroom fixtures for recycling. Drop-off costs also
   include processing costs, which for many of these nonconventional items
   are high.  Loveland's recycling drop-off collection costs also include costs
   for the city's household hazardous waste program. Madison accepts only
   appliances and scrap metal for recycling at its drop-off facility. The city
   tracks costs for the drop-off site with costs for its curbside collection
   program for bulky material. ILSR estimated costs for the drop-off
   program based on the total per ton cost of the entire program, most
   likely over-estimating actual costs for the drop-off program. Ann Arbor
   did not track the costs for itsjoint recycling and yard debris drop-off site
   by material type. ILSR assumed collection costs per ton were equal
   regardless of material type.

-------
TIPS  FOR  REPLICATION
       Collection
              Collect as  wide a variety of materials  as
       possible, including mixed paper.
              Collect, yard trimmings for composting.
              Use  drop-off  sites to  augment  curbside
       collection.
              Consider  commingled set-out.  Residents
       prefer the convenience of commingling materials for
       collection.
              Distribute bins to all participants.

       Education
              Focus on  education  that  teaches  residents
       how to use your  particular system.
              Remember raising overall  environmental
       awareness can boost enthusiasm for waste reduction
       programs.
              Reaching children  can be  a way to educate
       entire households.
              larget educational  efforts  at  new  residents
       and at all ethnicities.
              Continuously  remind  and   educate  the
       population about waste reduction.
              Spend the extra money to make promotional
       materials attractive.
              Support education programs  with market
       research to most efficiently target resources.
              Keep promotional  materials simple and use
       culturally sensitive language and messages.
              Repeat messages in a variety of media.
              One-to-one outreach can be very effective.

       Program  Planning
              Build broad program  support during the
       planning stages by  seeking public  input, selling the
       program to those active in the community (such as
       service  and  civic clubs), and building  political
       support.
              Make program participation as convenient as
       possible. Keep the program easy and user-friendly.
              Investigate dual-collection, especially when
       faced with an aging trash fleet.
              Consider  pilot  programs to collect data (put
       reporting requirements in contracts).
       Do your own homework to fit your program
to your  community.   Do  not simply attempt  to
replicate  another  community's  program  without
considering  your  community s similarities  and
differences.
       Be willing to accept some or all of the risk
of secondary materials prices.
       Base some of your trash hauler's payment on
tons collected so as less trash  needs to be disposed,
savings accrue.
       Learn from  others'  experiences.  Find out
what  other communities  have  accomplished and
how they did it.

Policies
       Implement a pay-as-you-throw.' trash system
(and include small container  options such as a 15
gallon bag or a mini-can to encourage residents  to
generate  as little trash as possible).
       Set up  a cost structure that encourages
recycling and waste reduction for  businesses and
haulers.
       Encourage  source   reduction   (such   as
through backyard composting, mulch mowing, and
pay-as-you-throw trash fees).
       Encourage reuse.
       Pass  a local ordinance requiring residents,
businesses, and institutions  to participate  in waste
reduction activities or requiring haulers  to  offer
their  customers  (residential  and commercial)  a
minimal level of recycling services.
       Enforce mandatory  programs to boost both
the quantity and quality of participation.
       Offer recycling services to  multi family
households, require haulers to  provide these services,
or    require   that    multi-family     building
owners/managers provide recycling services to their
tenants.

-------
                                                             TIPS  FOR  REPLICATION
Ongoing Programs
       Be prepared for resistance to change.  Be very
clear about the  "whys" of a program change  to
increase buy-in. Anticipate likely questions.
       Recruit and reward citizen volunteers, who
have many skills and can help maintain community
motivation.
       Be  accessible  to residents  and  business
recyclers.
       Talk to your customers.   Solicit input and
give feedback on program progress.
       Seek committed staff and administration  to
ensure  program success.
       Commit to and concentrate on high-quality
customer service.
       Listen to your line employees. Workers know
the system and its strengths and weaknesses.
       Get your hands dirty.  Management can gain
insight concerning problems and opportunities  by
working on collection routes and poking around in
containers.
       Create  a  relationship  with  haulers  that is
conducive to continuous improvement.
       Secure stable markets for reusable items and
recyclables.
       Know  your  markets.    While   certain
commodities  may  be present  in great  enough
quantities to make collection appear attractive, lack
of markets can disrupt  the system.
       Not collecting  a material  is  better  than
collecting it for recycling and then landfilling it.
       Avoid  adding  a  material to the recycling
program and  then taking it  away, especially  if the
trash system is pay-as-you-throw.
       Talk with  other recyclers when faced with
problems.  Most likely someone else has encountered
a similar problem and can offer advice.
       Share your experience.
       Know what everything costs.
       Collect  and  analyze data to  document
success.
       Be conservative  when reporting recycling
and composting tonnages and program costs.
       Never stop striving to improve; there's always
room for improvement.
       Be creative.

-------
PROFILES  OF  COMMUNITY  RECORD-SETTERS
                   The  community  profiles,  pages  47  to  162,
                   provide comprehensive  in-depth  information
                   about each community.  They each  follow a
               similar structure.
                   First page:    summarizes  waste  reduction
               programs and key drivers for high diversion levels
               and cost-effectiveness.  At the top, we show waste
               reduction level and on  what it is based; that is,
               residential solid waste or municipal solid waste. The
               first  chart,  Residential  Waste  Generation Per
               Household  Per Day,  compares  residential  waste
               generated per household per day for two  or more
               years and shows the breakdown among recycling,
               composting, and disposal. The Program Summary
               table summarizes  and  compares 1996 residential
               waste generated and diverted and net solid  waste
               program costs for residential  programs to a previous
               year  (before  waste   reduction  programs  were
               implemented  or before a major program expansion
               or change).  (Unless otherwise noted, costs for years
               other than 1996 have been converted to 1996 dollars
               using the GDP deflator.)  Basic demographic data
               are also provided on the first page.
                   Second page:  starts with  a table detailing 1996
               materials recycled, composted, and  disposed.  The
               table also shows percent waste reduction and pounds
               per  day  of  residential  waste  generated.  Notes to
               these tables clarify  what: figures include and exclude
               and how some figures are calculated or determined.
                   Third page: generally is a side bar summarizing
               collection   systems for   curhside  collection of
               recyclables, curbside collection of yard trimmings,
               and drop-off collection.   Program  start-up date,
               household served,  materials  targeted,  set-out and
               collection methods, participation rates, enforcement
               measures are all included here.
                   State and Local Policies:   summarizes state and
               local policies, legislation, ordinances, and regulations
               that play a  role in these communities' high  waste
               reduction levels. Information on pay-as-you-tlirow
               trash fees are included in this  section.
                   Source Reduction and  Reuse Initiatives:  describes
               any initiatives  in place  to  encourage   source
               reduction and reuse.  Backyard composting, mulch
               mowing, reuse efforts, and impact of pay-as-you-
               throw trash fees on waste generation  are discussed
               here.
    Recycling  Program".    this  section  generally
summarizes   residential    recycling   program!
residential  diversion levels,  service provider,  and
processing technique.
    Commercial Recycling  Program:   included  for
MSW record-setters, and describes recycling in the
institutional/commercial sector.
    Composting Program',  surnmari/es collection  and
processing systems for yard trimmings.
    Education, Publicity and Outreach: describes each
community's outreach efforts.
    Costs!  summarizes cost data.  Employment  and
wage data, where available, are  included here too.
One table lists equipment costs (item, cost, for what
it is used, and the year it was purchased). Two other
tables detail operating and maintenance costs (annual
costs, the tonnage these costs cover, per ton costs, and
per household costs). The first O&M table focuses
on  waste  reduction program costs.  The second
O&M  table details  total solid waste management
costs (disposal, waste reduction,  and  total costs).
Notes to each table clarify cost data.  A bar chart
compares per ton operating costs for trash collection
and disposal  to waste reduction  costs  (collection,
processing, and marketing). Waste reduction costs are
shown   two ways!  gross per ton costs, and net per
ton  costs  (which  take into  account materials
revenues). Where available, this chart compares 1996
data with data from  previous years.
    Funding and Accounting Systems:  describes how
waste reduction and trash services are funded  and
mentions  the  accounting system  each community
uses to  track expenditures.
    Future Plans and Obstacles to Increasing Diversion:
mentions  future plans  and  obstacles communities
face to  increasing diversion levels.
    Tips for Replication:  lists tips our community
contacts have  for  other  communities interested in
replicating their success.
    Contact:   lists   our primary contact(s)  for
information provided in  each profile.

    Text notes are at the end of each profile.

-------
 ANN   ARBOR.
                                                    Residential Waste Reduction
                                                                                                                ro
                                                RESIDENTIAL WASTE  GENERATION
                                                    PER HOUSEHOLD  PER  DAY
                                                7.0
                                                6.0
                                                5.0
                                                            FY89      FY96
                                                   Q Trash   Q Recycling

                                            Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
      Recycling in Ann Arbor began when a
      community-based nonprofit opened a
      drop-off station in 1970.  A few years
later a volunteer group called Recycle Ann
Arbor  began  the  city's  first   curbside
recycling  program.   Today  Recycle  Ann
Arbor contracts with the city  to collect 24
types  of  recyclables  weekly  from   all
residents.   The City Department  of Solid
Waste provides trash collection and seasonal
weekly curbside collection of four types of
yard debris.  A comprehensive drop-off site
(operated  by  Recycle Ann  Arbor, under
contract with the  city)   accepts materials
collected  at  curbside  along  with  three
additional categories of materials including
building materials and  tires. Michigan  also
has a bottle bill that recovers an estimated 5% of the waste stream.  In FY96, Ann Arbor residents
reduced their waste by  52%; 30% through recycling and 23% through composting.
     Contributing factors to Ann Arbor's waste diversion level are a state ban on landfilling yard debris,
curbside collection of 24 types of recyclables coupled with a mandatory ordinance, multi-family
dwelling recycling service, and the bottle bill. The state ban spurred Ann Arbor to develop a compost
site, draft an ordinance requiring residents to separate "compostables" from trash, and start curbside
service for these materials. The ordinance encourages residents to participate.  As 52% of households
are multi-family, the city recognized the importance of providing this sector with waste reduction
services. Multi-family buildings receive recycling carts and can divert the same materials as do single-
family homes, with the exception of motor oil and batteries. The bottle bill provides an incentive to
recover designated containers.
                                                   From  FY89 to  FY96  per household  net
                                              solid waste management costs rose from $73 to
                                              $78. During the same period per ton trash tip
                                              fees rose more than 70%.  Cost-effectiveness of
                                              Ann Arbors  programs  is  enhanced by  city
                                              ownership of its MRF, the relatively low cost of
                                              yard debris  diversion, and  contracting with a
                                              nonprofit for recycling  services.  The  city's
Tons Per Year
   Disposal
   Diversion
Percent Diverted
   Recycled
   Composted
  FY89
44,806
 37,425
  7,381
  FY96
47,943
 22,839
 25,104
  16%
  16%
   0%
  52%
  30%
  23%
Average Ibs./HH/day       5.61         5.71
   Disposal               4.68         2.72
   Diversion              0.92         2.99
Annual Disposal Fees
   Disposal	$588,993      $618,841
Net Program Costs/HH   $72.96       $77.61
   Disposal Services       $63.68        $42.17
   Diversion Services        $9.29        $35.44
Notes: 43,774 households served in FY90; 46,000 in FY96.  1989
  dollars adjusted to 1996 dollars using the GDP deflator.
  Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
                                              ownership of the MRF reduces the processing
                                              fee it  pays compared to the  fees charged  at
                                              private facilities. Yard  debris  diversion is the
                                              least  expensive of  Ann  Arbor's solid waste
                                              management activities  at only  $50 per  ton.
                                              Recycle Ann Arbor bids  competitively for the
                                              city's recycling contract  and  has consistently
                                              been awarded the contract.
                                                                         DEMOGRAPHICS
                                                                         POPULATION: 112,000(1994)
                                                                         HOUSEHOLDS: 22,000
                                                                           single-family and
                                                                           duplexes; 24,000 multi-
                                                                           family
                                                                         BUSINESSES:
                                                                           approximately 3,000
                                                                         LAND AREA:  16 sq. mi.
                                                                         HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
                                                                           2,875/sq. mi.
                                                                         AVERAGE PER CAPITA
                                                                           INCOME:  $17,786(1989)
                                                                         MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
                                                                           INCOME:  $33,334(1989)
                                                                         COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
                                                                           Urban college town with
                                                                           131 parks.  Industries
                                                                           include research,
                                                                           healthcare, publishing,
                                                                           automotive and software.
                                                                           Largest employers include
                                                                           The University of
                                                                           Michigan, GM, Chrysler,
                                                                           Ford,  University Microfilms,
                                                                           Inc., Border's, Gelman
                                                                           Sciences, Parke Davis, and
                                                                           Edwards Bros.
                                                                         COUNTY: Washtenaw

-------
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN
                  RESIDENTIAL  WASTE REDUCTION
                 Recycled 2
                    Newspapers
                    Corrugated Cardboard
                    Glass
                    High-Grade Paper
                    Tin/Steel Cans
                    Appliances
                    Scrap Metal
                    Mixed Plastics
                    HOPE
                    Magazines
                    Boxboard
                    Textiles
                    PET
                    Other Paper
                    Aluminum Cans
                    Household Batteries
                    Oil Filters
                    Automobile Batteries
                    Deposit Contained
                    MRF Rejects4
Tons (FY961)
    14,182
      6,595
      1,797
      1,416
        783
        278
        451
        190
        151
        149
         85
         35
         29
         25
         13
         12
          6
          1
         <1
      2,339
       -173
                 Composted/Chipped5
                    Leaves
                    Curbside Yard Debris
                    Other Yard Debris
     10,922
      6,016
      4,011
        895
                 Total Waste Reduction
                                                25,104
                 MSW DisposedSB
                    Trash
                    MRF Rejects
     22,839
     22,666
        173
                 Total Generation
                                                47,943
                 Percent Reduced
                                                 52.4%
                 Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day           5.71
                 Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding. Figures represent all
                    residential waste. Building materials are excluded. ILSR reduced
                    amount of materials collected through drop-off by 50% to account for
                    non-Ann Arbor residents using sites. Ann Arbor reported the drop-off
                    tonnage includes a negligible amount from the commercial sector.
                 1 Fiscal year extends July 1,1995 to June 30,1996.
                 ^Tonnage for each category of material processed at the MRF is based
                    on incoming weights of commingled materials and outgoing weight
                    ratio of material at MRF facility.
                 3ILSR calculated bottle bill tonnage using 66.8 pounds per capita of
                    bottle bill recovery in Michigan (figure supplied by the Container
                    Recycling Institute), of which 60% was counted in the residential
                    sector.
                 4Based on reported MRF reject rate of 1.5%.
                 5Qty estimated tonnage composted and disposed using a density of four
                    cubic yards per ton until September 1995. Actual tonnage used
                    thereafter.
                 ^Disposal includes estimated tonnage for multi-family dwellings based
                    on city staff estimate of 40% of trash collected in front-loading
                    trucks is collected from multi-family dwellings.
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

                State and Local Policies
                     Michigan's  bottle  bill was instituted  in  1976.
                The bill's main provision was a 10t return deposit on
                soft drink and beer containers.  This program diverts
glass, aluminum, and PET from disposal.
     A  1988 "Clean Michigan" bond funded waste
reduction efforts throughout the state.  Ann Arbor
used its $900,000 portion to purchase recycling bins
and vehicles,  develop  a  compost  site, and  create
educational displays.
     The  state banned landfill disposal of yard debris
in 1993.  Phase-in of the ban was complete in 1995.
     Michigan counties are responsible  for  creating
five-year   waste  management  plans, coordinating
area-wide SWM program development, and setting
minimum recycling collection guidelines.
     The Ann Arbor Solid Waste Commission has set
yearly material recovery goals.  The goal for FY96
was 44%; for  FY2000, it is  60%.  City  rules and
regulations, first enacted in 1990 and since revised,
require residential  recyclables and compostables be
source-separated from trash.

Source  Reduction & Reuse Initiatives
     The   city runs  a  quarter-acre  composting
demonstration site, the Home  Compost Education
Center, located near city center at the Leslie Science
Center Park.  This site features more than  a  dozen
working compost bins  of various designs. According
to city  studies, 40% of homes in Ann Arbor do some
sort of  home composting.
     Recycle Ann  Arbor runs a  Re-Use  Center,
which accepts and resells used building materials.

Recycling Program
     In  FY96, Ann Arbor diverted 30% of its waste
through recycling and  bottle bill recovery.   Recycle
Ann Arbor  has  provided  residential   curbside
collection citywide since 1985.  In 1996, the city and
Recycle Ann Arbor signed a new two-year contract.
Residents receive two  bins for recycling collection
and sort  designated  recyclables into  three  main
categories. They can also drop  off their  recyclables.
     In  addition to its residential services,  the city
offers trash and recycling service to businesses.  The
city's "RecyclePlus" program collects green-bagged
recyclables,  cardboard,  and  trash  from businesses
receiving its services.
     Materials  collected for recycling are delivered to
the  city-owned  MRF,  which opened August 1995.
Resource   Recovery    Systems,   Inc.  designed,
constructed, and operates the  MRF.  Twelve  new
materials   were  added  to Ann  Arbor's  recycling
program  as a  result of the facility coming  on-line.

-------
                                                                                                           ANN  ARBOR. MICHIGAN
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF  RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:
             Mandatory:
      Households Served:
     Materials Accepted:
   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Recycle Ann Arbor (non-profit organization)
Limited program began in mid-1970s; 1985 monthly curbside; citywide weekly implementation 1991
Yes, for all materials
All city households served
Milk and juice boxes, steel and aluminum cans, aluminum  scrap, scrap  metal, glassjars and bottles, glass dishes and heat-
resistant glass, ceramics, #1-3 plastic bottles, aerosols, paperback and phone books, paperboard, textiles (including clothing,
linens, paired shoes; excluding nylons, non-shoe leather, dirty rags), OMG, ONP, RMP (including office and shredded paper, file
folders, envelopes, mail, greeting cards, paper bags), OCC, household batteries, motor oil, oil filters, and white goods
Weekly
Single-family homes: mixed paper and fibers  in tan 11-gallon bin; boxboard in kraft bag or another boxboard container; textiles
in sealed plastic bag; and mixed glass, metals, ceramics, and  containers in green 11-gallon bin.  Batteries and drained oil filters
in separate plastic bags next to bins.  Motor oil in milkjugs  next to recycling bins. Multi-family residences:  Same sort in two
105-gallon wheeled carts located next to dumpsters.
Semi-automated  cart collection at apartments, two-compartmented trucks for single-family dwellings (most not packers,
newest truck is); one-person crews. Paper and textiles go in one hopper; other commingled recyclables go in another. Batteries
are  put in the cab; jugs of motor oil go on  racks under trucks.
93% of private homes recycle at least once a month (October 1995 survey by Recycle Ann Arbor)
Convenience, mandatory
Sticker and leave contaminated materials, can refuse to collect trash containing recyclables, city code provides for fines up to $500
for failure to comply with ordinance and associated rules but to date no fines have been issued
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF  YARD TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
   Collection Frequency:

        Set-out Method:

      Collection Method:

      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
1990
City of Ann Arbor Department of Solid Waste
Single family dwellings
Yes
Leaves, grass clippings, brush, holiday trees, other garden trimmings
Canned,  bagged, or bundled materials:  Weekly,  seasonally, April 1 through November 30;  loose  leaves collected from street
during November and December, with each street getting two passes; holiday trees for two weeks in January
In cans marked with "Compostable" sticker or in  paper yard debris bags; brush can be bundled; loose fall leaves are swept into
the street; holiday trees left at curb along residential recycling routes and at centralized points at multi-family locations.
One-person crews collect materials using side-loader trash trucks.  Front-end loaders dump loose leaves  into dump or packer
trucks.
NA
Convenience, mandatory
City code provides for fines up to $500 for failure to comply, to date no fines have been issued
DROP-OFF COLLECTION
        Number of sites:

                Staffing:
        Service Provider:
     Materials Accepted:


  Participation Incentives:

         Sectors Served:
One: Drop-off Station adjacent to the Resource Recovery Center (prior to December 1996, two drop-offs operated; one at the
Resource Recovery Center run by the City of Ann Arbor, and one at another location run by Recycle Ann Arbor)
Yes
Recycle Ann Arbor
All materials collected in curbside programs, hardcover books, polystyrene, packing peanuts, yard debris, foam egg cartons, car
batteries. Materials accepted for a fee include:  clean wood ($12/cubic yard), freon-containing appliances ($25 each), tires ($3
or $8 each), automotive fluids (excluding motor oil, $1/gallon), building materials and bulky items ($16/cubic yard)
Mandatory for materials  collected at curbside.  Residents can drop off (non-freon) appliances free of charge.  Saturday &
Saturday hours.  Inexpensive compost sales.
Residential (some businesses occasionally use the drop-sites; the amounts they bring are negligible)

-------
ANN ARBOR.  MICHIGAN
                  Item
                                                       Cost
                  1 Front-Load Trash Truck^            $135,798
                  MRF3                            $5,200,000
                  1 Front-Load Trash Truck!             $126,035
                  2 Side Loading Trash Trucks^          $189,798
                  1 Trommel Screed                   $157,550
                  1 Front-Load Trash Truck!             $115,330
                  1 Front-Load Trash Truck!             $121,611
                  8 Lo-Dal Recycling TrucksS             $696,370
                  1 Scarab Windrow Turned             $126,792
                  5 Side Loading Trash Trucks!           $474,495
                  1 Tub Grinder3                      $193,091
                  3 Side Loading Trash Trucks!           $274,644
                  2 Side Loading Trash Trucks!           $177,450
                  1 Front-Load Trash Truck!             $101,911
                  CMC Delivery Truck!                   $18,660
                  Ford Stake Body Truck!                 $38,592
                  1 John Deere Loader!                  $80,000
                  1 Side Loading Trash Truck!             $81,900
                  2 Side Loading Trash Trucks!           $157,192
                                                                                      Use
         Trash Collection
            Recycling
         Trash Collection
    Trash/Yard Debris Collection
           Composting
         Trash Collection
         Trash Collection
            Recycling
           Composting
    Trash/Yard Debris Collection
           Composting
    Trash/Yard Debris Collection
    Trash/Yard Debris Collection
         Trash Collection
            Recycling
      Bulky Waste/Appliances
           Composting
    Trash/Yard Debris Collection
    Trash/Yard Debris Collection
                 1 Purchased outright using money from General Fund.
                 2AII front-load trucks have a Mack truck body with a 34-cubic-yard Lo-Dal packer.
                 3Purchased/built using Environmental Bond funds.
                 4AII side-loading trash trucks have 17 cubic yards of capacity.
                 ^Recycling trucks purchased by city using state grant funds.  Trucks leased to Recycle Ann Arbor.
                                                                                                             Year Incurred
 1995
1994-95
 1993
 1992
 1992
 1991
 1991
 1991
 1991
 1991
 1991
 1990
 1989
 1988
 1987
 1987
 1987
 1986
                Steel is  magnetically sorted; all other materials are
                manually sorted. The reject rate at the MRF is 1.5%
                by weight. The city receives  35% of sales revenue
                above a trigger price of $40 per ton.

                Composting Program
                     In FY96, Ann Arbor diverted 23% of residential
                waste through composting.  Residents are required
                to separate yard trimmings from trash. April through
                November,   city   crews  weekly   collect   yard
                trimmings. In the fall, the city collects loose leaves
                raked to the street.  Residents also can  take  yard
                debris to  a drop-off site  adjacent to the  Resource
                Recovery Center.
                     Yard  debris  is  composted on  the  Resource
                Recovery Center site.  Here, material is ground with
                a tub grinder and composted in mechanically turned
                windrows. Finished compost is screened and sold to
                individuals and businesses.  In the last few years, all
                compost and mulch  has been sold.

                Education, Publicity, and  Outreach
                     One  full-time employee  coordinates publicity
                and  outreach for all the city's waste programs.
     City  publications  include  the  twice  yearly
"WasteWatcher"  (sent  to   every  household),  a
quarterly newsletter (sent to multi-family building
managers), and numerous fact sheets and pamphlets.
New residents receive "move-in" packets explaining
trash,   recycling,   and   composting  programs.
Information is also spread through cable television, at
information kiosks, on the city's Internet site, at city-
sponsored community events,  through Washtenaw
County's "EarthBeat" radio  program,  in  a weekly
"Recyclers" Guide" column  in the local newspaper,
and  through phone hotlines.
     Ann Arbor's new MRF includes an education
center, which has a viewing area of the processing
area and interactive displays.  Seasonal tour  guides
and  volunteers staff the education center.
     The city  contracts  with  the   local  nonprofit
Ecology  Center  to  do  education  programs  in
schools; they give more than 100 presentations each
year.

Costs
     In FY96, the city spent $3.7 million  for trash,
recycling, and yard debris services — about $81  per

-------
                                                                                                                ANN  ARBOR.  MICHIGAN
household served.  Of this, about 52% was  spent on
trash collection and disposal, 33% on recycling,  and
15%    on  yard  debris  collection  and  recovery.
Materials  revenues reduced this by $148,000 to $3.6
million (or  $78 per household served).
     On a per-ton basis, overall waste reduction  was
$77 ($71  with  revenues).  Recycling costs $102  per
                      ton  ($93 with  materials revenues),  and yard debris
                      recovery, $50   ($47  with  materials  revenues).    In
                      contrast, trash  collection  and disposal cost  $86  per
                      ton.
                           When the cost of inflation is taken into account,
                      average  annual   per   household  costs  for   trash
                      management rose from $73 in FY89 to $78 in FY96.
Recycling Gross Costs
Curbside Collectlon'l
Drop-off Collection2
Curbside Appliance Collection
Processing3
Administration4
Education/Publicity^
Composting Gross Costs
Curbside Collection?
Drop off Collection
Processing
Administration4
Education/Publicity3
$1,226,613
$845,619
$24,411
$10,163
$1/3, 708
$129,252
$43,460
$551,395
$287,697
$28,644
$157/115
$58,102
$19,536
12,044
11,091
592
361
12,044
12,044
12,044
10,922
10,152
770
7,029
10,922
10,922
$101,85
$76.24
$41.26
$28.15
$14.42
$10.73
$3.61
$50.48
$28.34
$37.20
$22.40
$5.32
$1.79
$26.67






$11.99





  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                           $1,778,007
                      22,966
                        $77.42
                   $38.65
  Materials Revenues
     Recyclables
     Compost
($147,714)
 ($109,261)
  ($38,453)
22,966
 12,044
 10,922
($6.43)
 ($9.07)
 ($3.52)
($3.21)
  Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                           $1,630,293
                      22,966
                        $70.99
                   $35.44
  Note: Figures may not totai due to rounding. Recycling tonnage figure above is different than figure in tabie. page '18, as figure above includes MR!- rejects and
  28 tons or motor oil, arid excludes deposit containers.
  • The cost figure reflects the city's payment to Recycle Ann Arbor and includes the overhead and administration costs of that organization. Ann Arbor's
  contract with Recycle Ann Arbor is based on a per household charge for Sf Ds. a per cart charge for Mf Ds, and a flat fee for servicing the drop-off center.
  --Costs for scrap metal and appliances collected at drop-off site were assumed to be constant from FY95.
  3Represents tip fees paid to Resource Recovery Systems for processing of city's recyclables. Capital costs for facility were paid out of Lnvironmental Bond
  and paid back out of the city's general fund.  The city receives lease  payments from Resource Recovery Systems which offset this debt.
  "Administration costs tracked for the Solid Waste Department.  These costs hove been pro rated based on percentage of budget spent on each function.
  -"'Solid Waste Department education/publicity costs have been pro-rated based on percentage of budget spent on recycling, composting, trash.
  ^Collection costs include labor costs including fringe benefits and vehicle costs including depreciation.
                                                                     Tons
Trash Gross Costs
Collection1
Disposal
Administration2
Education/Publicity3
$1,939,780
$1,047,811
$618,841
$204,401
$69,727
22,666
22,666
22,666
22,666
22,666
$85.58
$46.23
$27.30
$9.02
$3.03
$42.17




  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                           $1,778,007
                      22,966
                        $77.42
                   $38.65
  SWM Gross Costs
                                           $3,717,787
                      45,631
                        $81.47
                   $80.82
  Materials Revenues
($147,714)
                                                                  22,966
                       ($6.43)
                  ($3.21)
  Total SWM Net Costs
                                           $3,570,073
                      45,631
                        $78.24
                   $77.61
  Note: Figures may not total due to rounding. Overhead/administrative costs above the Division level are not included.
  1 Collection performed by single person crews.  Side-loading trucks used for SFD collection, front-loaders for MFD collection. Commercial waste collection
  performed on same routes as MFD collection. Ann Arbor assumes 40% of the front-loader collection is residential and costs have been pro-rated. Irash
  disposed at BFI landfill in Salem, Ml, 20 miles from downtown Ann Arbor and 25 miles from the MRF. Collection costs include labor costs including fringe
  benefits and vehicle costs including depreciation.
  ^Administration costs tracked for the Solid Waste Division. Ihese costs have been pro-rated based on percentage of budget spent on each function.
  ^Education/Publicity costs tracked for entire Solid Waste Division. Ihese costs have been pro-rated based on percentage of budget spent on each function.

-------
ANN ARBOR.  MICHIGAN
                      PER TON OPERATING COSTS FOR
                    RESIDENTIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
                            FY89
                         Trash
                                          FY96
                                   Gross Waste
                                   Reduction
| Net Waste
 Reduction
               During the same period, per ton trash tip fees rose
               more than 70%.  Improved collection efficiencies,
               reduced total disposal costs, and yard debris diversion
               are primarily responsible for keeping the  increase at
               a minimum.
                   The  Solid Waste Department employs 18 full-
               time equivalent collectors and support workers and
               an additional  three full-time  equivalent  seasonal
               workers for yard debris recovery.   Hourly  wages
               average $12 to $15 per hour for composting and
               trash services.

               Funding &  Accounting Systems
                   Principle funding  for program operating costs
               comes from the city's general fund. This funding is
               supplemented  by  grants, user  fees,  and  material
               revenues.    Washtenaw  County  receives  host
               community  funds from the  BFI  landfill located
               within its boundaries. These funds are distributed to
               local communities based on population and meeting
               basic recycling program criteria. In FY95  Ann Arbor
               received $117,592 from these funds, which it used to
               finance solid  waste services.   The  Solid  Waste
               Department charges disposal fees for appliances and
               building materials, compostable material delivered to
               the  city  compost site by  non-residents,  and  for
               special trash collections.  Sale  of recyclables and
               compost also generates revenue.
                   In 1990 Ann  Arbor voters  approved a  $28
               million environmental  bond.  The  bond funded
               development and implementation of an  Integrated
               SWM  Strategy (construction of the MRF, recycling
               collection expansion   to  all residents, and  initial
closure and remediation of the city's landfill).  The
city's general fund is repaying the bond issue at 6%
interest over 17 years.

Future Plans and Obstacles  to
Increasing  Diversion
    Obstacles to increasing the city's diversion level
are the high turnover rate for residents and the need
to educate residents about new materials added to
the collection program. 1  The high turnover  rate,
especially among University  of Michigan students,
results in the need for constant education.
    Ann  Arbor   is  studying the   feasibility of
composting food discards with a view toward adding
residential food recovery if the project is successful.
The  city  is  composting  food   discards   from
University  of Michigan  dining facilities  at its
compost facility.   A  county grant  is  funding this
project.
    Other plans  include expanding  commercial
recycling, adding  new  materials to the recycling
program  including  injection  molded  HOPE,
fluorescent  tubes, and  carpeting,  and  targeting
outreach  to  multi-family dwellings in  order to
increase participation in waste reduction programs.

Tips for Replication
         Keep the program easy and  user-friendly
         Include public  input.
         Look for  ways to cooperate with other
         entities.
         Use conservative projections for tonnages
         and market prices.
Notes:
11n 1995 twelve additional materials were added to the list of those
  collected. Ann Arbor's recycling coordinator believes many residents are
  still not recycling some or all of those items.
                     CONTACTS
                     Tom McMuttrie
                     Recycling Coordinator
                     City of Ann Arbor Dept. of Solid Waste
                     100 N. Fifth Avenue
                     Ann Arbor, Ml 48107
                     PHONE: 734-994-6581
                     FAX: 734-994-1816
                     WEB SITE: http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us

-------
                                                  RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION
                                                       PER HOUSEHOLD PER DAY
                                                           1989
                                                          Trash
                                                                    1993
                                                                     Recycling
                                                                             1996
                                                               I Composting
                                               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
      Bellevue began its first recycling program
      in  1989.  Strong citizen  participation
      and program expansions resulted in a
60% residential waste  reduction level in 1996;
26%  diversion through recycling  and  34%
through composting.  Bellevue contracts with
a local  company to provide residential waste
services.  Homes with up to 10  units  have
weekly curbside trash and recycling collection
and, for most of the year, twice monthly yard
debris collection.  Residents can  also drop  off
their materials at  county  transfer stations,
which accept  trash and yard debris on a fee
basis and recyclables for free. 1
     Key drivers of Bellevue's waste reduction
program include a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT)
fee structure for trash, a convenient recycling
program offering recycling on the same day as trash for most participants, and free provision of
recycling bins to all participants, collection of 25 materials for recovery (including mixed paper),
and composting.  Since Bellevue instituted incentive-based trash rates  in  1990, residents have
downsized their average level of  service. In  1989,  13% of residents subscribed to trash service
with weekly collection of one 30-gallon can and 53% subscribed to the three-can level. By the
end of  1996, 62% of  trash  customers subscribed to one-30-gallon can or mini-can (19 gallons)
service  and 12% to three-can or  greater service.  During the same period, per household trash
disposal decreased from  6.52  to 3.69 pounds per day.  At least 90% of households served in the
program receive same-day collection of trash, recyclables, and yard debris.  The city's  contractor
provides recycling bins to all participating households and weekly collects 20 materials at curbside
for recycling and composting; residents can recycle nine additional materials  through twice yearly
drop-off collection programs.  Bellevue's composting program diverts one-third of the city's waste
                                                stream.
                                                     The cost-effectiveness of Bellevue's waste
                                                management system  is enhanced by  the low
                                                cost of waste reduction, especially composting,
                                                in  comparison to disposal.  In  1996, disposal
                                                cost $174 per ton; recycling, $139 per ton; and
                                                composting, $102 per ton. Per ton disposal tip
                                                fees rose from $57 to $66  from  1989 to 1996;
                                                increased  diversion has helped  contain costs.
                                                Bellevue's waste management system handled
Tons Per Year
   Disposal
   Diversion
Percent Diverted
   Recycled
   Composted
Average Ibs./HH/day
   Disposal
   Diversion
23,396
 20,900
  2,496
  11%
   6%
   5%
  7.30
  6.52
  0.78
                                    1996
               39,186
                15,719
                23,467
                 60%
                 26%
                 34%
                 9.18
                 3.69
                 5.50
Annual Disposal Fees
   Disposal
$1,191,847    $1,033,362
Net Program Costs/HH       NA      $235.64
   Disposal Services          NA       $116.68
   Diversion Services         NA       $118.97
Notes: 17,556 households served in 1989; 23,372 in 1996. 1989
   dollars adjusted to 1996 dollars using the GDP deflator.
   Numbers may not add to total due to rounding. 1989
   program costs not available as residents paid contractors
   directly and rates paid are not public information.
                                                much  more  material  in 1996 than  in  1989,
                                                both  on  a  gross  tonnage  basis  and  per
                                                household served.   Most  of the  additional
                                                material  handled is yard debris.2 The relative
                                                low cost of  composting  has  helped  cushion
                                                Bellevue  from  potentially  vast increases in
                                                waste  management costs.
                                                                              DEMOGRAPHICS
                                                                           POPULATION: 103,700(1996)
                                                                           HOUSEHOLDS: 44,387
                                                                              (1996); 26,026 single-
                                                                              family households (1-10
                                                                              units), 18,361 multi-family
                                                                              units
                                                                           BUSINESSES: 16,900 total
                                                                              (1996), over 10,000 in-
                                                                              home businesses
                                                                           LAND AREA:  30.6 sq. miles
                                                                           HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
                                                                              1,451  households/sq.  mi.
                                                                           AVERAGE PER CAPITA
                                                                              INCOME:  $23,816(1989)
                                                                           MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
                                                                              INCOME:  $43,800(1989),
                                                                              $47,489(1996)
                                                                           COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
                                                                              Wealthy suburban
                                                                              community on east side of
                                                                              Lake Washington.
                                                                              Principle employers are
                                                                              Microsoft, Boeing,
                                                                              Nordstrom, PACCAR,  Puget
                                                                              Sound Energy, and
                                                                              Safeway.  Some
                                                                              manufacturing, mostly
                                                                              office-based businesses.
                                                                           COUNTY:  King

-------
BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON
                 RESIDENTIAL WASTE REDUCTION
                                               Tons (1996)
                 Recycled
                   Mixed Paper
                   Newspaper
                   Glass
                   Tin
                   Collection Day Drop-off
                   Aluminum
                   HOPE
                   PET
                   Other Plastics
                   White Goods
                   Scrap Metal
                   MRF Rejectsl
10,107
  4,241
  3,612
  1,513
   276
   158
   149
    25
    12
     8
   -62
                 Composted/Chipped
                   Curbside Collection?
13,360
 13,360
                 Total Waste Reduction
                                                23,467
                 MSW Disposed
                   Landfilled
                   MRF Rejectsl
15,719
15,657
    62
                 Total Generation
                                                39,186
                 Percent Reduced
                                                 59.9%
                 Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day            9.19
                 Note: Figures include waste from 23,372 single-family households in city
                   programs and exclude 10-15% of single-family households that do not
                   participate in municipal trash, recycling, and composting programs.
                   Also excluded are materials delivered to private and county facilities.
                   All weights are scale weights.
                 1 As reported by Fibres International, 0.62% by weight is the monthly
                   average of Bellevue recyclables processed at MRF rejected as
                   nonrecyclable.
                 218,845 households subscribed to the yard debris collection program.
               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

               State and Local  Policies
                    In 1989, the Washington State Legislature passed
               the  "Waste  Not Washington Act."  The Act set  a
               waste  management hierarchy for the state with the
               priorities being: (1) waste reduction; (2)  recycling
               with source-separation of  materials preferred; (3)
               energy  recovery,  incineration, or  landfilling  of
               separated   waste;  and   (4)  energy   recovery,
               incineration, or landfilling of mixed waste.  The Act
               also set a state recycling goal of 50% by 1995.  This
               goal was not met but the state has shown consistent
               progress  toward  50% waste  reduction;  the  state
               calculated recycling rate was 39% in 1995, up from
               30% in 1989.
                    The Act  required  county  governments  to
               prepare  solid   waste  management   plans  that
               incorporated waste reduction and  recycling.  The
               state provided local governments over $25 million in
               grant funds to revise their waste management plans
and  to implement waste reduction and  recycling
programs.    The   Clean Washington  Center  was
formed  later  in   1991 to  focus  on  markets  for
recyclable materials.
     King County  adopted its own waste reduction
goals of 35% by 1992, 50% by  1995,  and 65% by
2000.    Bellevue  actively  participated  in  the
development of, and  has adopted  the 1992  King
County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan. In keeping with the Plan, Bellevue has entered
into an agreement to deliver trash to King County
facilities and requires its contractor to do so.
     Bellevue adopted a PAYT trash rate structure in
1977. The system was revised in 1990 to incorporate
incentives for decreased disposal (see table, page 56).
The city contracts with Eastside Disposal to offer
waste  management services to residents.   Eastside
Disposal must charge all Bellevue customers the rates
set out in its contract.
     The  city  has   no   mandatory  recycling
requirement for residents. By contract, Eastside can
not  dispose  of collected yard debris or recyclables,
must recycle white goods, and  recyclables  must be
marketed.

Source Reduction & Reuse Initiatives
     Bellevue encourages source reduction through
home  composting.   In 1996, Bellevue held a home
composting bin sale where the city sold 750 bins with
a $60 value for $10. In  1997 it sold an additional 1200
for  $15.   The  city  also   holds  educational  and
composting  workshops.  As a further  incentive to
compost, since around  1990, customers not using the
yard  debris  collection  service  (excluding  those
subscribing  to mini-can trash service) receive a $1.68
monthly credit on their trash bills. In 1996, more than
4,500 took advantage of this  credit program.
     Bellevue, in partnership  with  the  Alliance of
American Veterans, accepts reusable household items at
its special collection day events. The Alliance accepts
any usable  household item including books, clothing,
furniture, functioning appliances, and toys. Collected
items are offered for sale at the Alliance's store.

Recycling Program
     In 1996 Bellevue recycled 26% of single-family
household  waste.   Paper  products  accounted  for
more  than  75% of the material  recycled.  Per its
contract with the city, Eastside Disposal must supply
each participating  household with a  set  of three

-------
                                                                                                          BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:
             Mandatory:
      Households Served:
     Materials Accepted:

   Collection Frequency:

        Set-out Method:


      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Eastside Disposal
September 1989.  Polycoated paper and HOPE were added in May 1992.
No
23,372 (1996).  Residences with 10 or fewer units are eligible to participate.
Tin cans, aluminum cans and foil, glass containers, PET bottles, HOPE bottles, polycoated paper including milk cartons and drink
boxes, non-ferrous scrap, mixed paper (mail, magazines, phone books, paperboard, kraft bags), OCC, ONP, white goods
Weekly for most materials, white goods by appointment. Contract requires at least 90% of served households receive collection
of trash, yard debris, and  recycling on same day and no customers may have more than two weekly collection days.
Bin  for glass, plastics, metals, polycoated paper, another for mixed  paper, third for newspaper.  Bins stackable, container bin
should be on top.  Cardboard can be flattened, bundled, and set next to bins.  White goods must have doors removed and be
placed within five feet of the curb.
Contract requires all three recycling bins be collected simultaneously.  Eastside collects materials in  semi-automated three-
compartment trucks with single-person crews. Eastside uses Crane Carrier chassis fitted with Heil Recycler full-trough 40-cubic-
yard bodies. One-  or two-person crews collect white goods (equipment varies).
90% of eligible households signed up for service
Lower disposal fees through increased diversion
Improperly prepared materials can be tagged and left at curb by Eastside.
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
   Collection Frequency:


        Set-out Method:


      Collection Method:

      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
September 1989
Eastside Disposal
18,845 (1996).  Service offered to residents in buildings with four or fewer units.
No
Grass clippings, brush, leaves, and other yard debris, garden debris including uncooked vegetables and fruits, holiday trees
Twice monthly except Dec-Feb. when collection is once monthly. Contract requires at least 90% of served households receive
collection of trash, yard debris, and recycling on same day and no customers may have more than two weekly collection days.
Bulky items collected on an on-call basis.
Toters or 32-gallon trash cans marked  "yard debris" or biodegradable containers such  as kraft paper bags or cardboard boxes.
During Dec-Feb may have up  to 20 30-gallon units of debris for each collection; 10-unit max rest of year. Branches bundled.
Bare holiday trees cut to less than four feet, bundled.
Single-person crews collect material in semi-automated 20-cubic-yard Crane Carrier rear-load compactors. Two-person crews
collect bulky materials using a rear-load compactor truck.
NA
Lower disposal fees through increased diversion
Improperly prepared materials can be tagged and left at curb by Eastside.
DROP-OFF COLLECTION
        Number of sites:

                Staffing:
        Service Provider:

     Materials Accepted:
 Participation Incentives:
         Sectors Served:
Factoria Transfer Station, 4 PM - 1 AM Monday-Friday  Two city-sponsored special drop-off collection days for recycling yearly.
Fibres International operates a private drop-off facility at its MRF.
Bellevue special collection days: Yes
King County Solid Waste Division for Factoria site, City of  Bellevue and Eastside Disposal for special collection days, Fibres
International operates its own drop-off facility
Yard debris, all recyclables accepted in curbside program, oil filters, household and lead-acid batteries, tires, household goods
(textiles, working small appliances, usable furniture), scrap metal, #6 plastic food containers, scrap lumber, antifreeze, fluorescent
lamps and ballasts, ceramic bathroom fixtures
Free recycling of materials that are often difficult to recycle.  Lower disposal fees through increased diversion
Special collection:  open to all residents of King County. Transfer Station and Fibres International drop-off sites accept materials
from any source.

-------
  BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON
Automated yard debris collection in Bellevue
                                                 stackable  recycling
                                                 bins   and  replace
                                                 them if lost or dam-
                                                 aged   other   than
                                                 through   customer
                                                 negligence.  Eastside
                                                 sells collected  mate-
                                                 rials to Fibres  Inter-
                                                 national for process-
                                                 ing  and  marketing.
                                                 Both     companies
                                                 share  the risks  and
                                                 benefits  of  market
                                                 price
swings.
                                                                     3
                  (Bellevue  adjusts rates  paid to haulers every three
                  years to compensate for market fluctuations, sharing
                  risk with  its contractors in  this manner.)   Fibres
                  International processes  the  incoming material, at its
                  Bellevue facility, in three  streams.   Newspaper  is
                  typically baled after little or no processing. Laborers
                  manually remove cardboard from the mixed paper
                  stream  and both commodities are baled.  The third
                  stream  of  commingled materials receives  the most
                  processing.   Ferrous  materials  are  removed  by
                  magnetic separation. Eddy currents and air classifiers
                  remove plastics  and   aluminum.    Laborers  sort
                  remaining materials manually.
                       Bellevue holds two special recycling collection
                  days each year, in April and October. This drop-off
                  program collects hard  to  recycle items including
                  textiles, porcelain plumbing fixtures, scrap lumber,
                  fluorescent and incandescent bulbs, oil filters, lead-
                  acid and household batteries, tires, household goods,
                  scrap metal,  and plastics in  addition  to  materials
                  collected at curbside. Residents must pay fees for the
                  recycling of some items at these events. A variety of
                  vendors recycle the materials from  these  special
                  collection  days.
                       Eastside  Disposal  picks  up  white  goods at
                  curbside by appointment usually for a $25  fee.4

                  Composting  Program
                       In  1996, Bellevue diverted 34% of its residential
                  waste  through  composting.   Eastside  Disposal
                  provides residents twice monthly curbside collection
                  of yard  and garden debris from March to November
                  and once monthly collection December to February.
                  Upon request, residents receive, at no charge,  one
                  90-gallon  yard  debris toter.  Additional  toters are
                  subject  to  a $1.68 per month rental  fee.  Residents
may  set out up  to  10 units (one unit  =  30-32
gallons) of yard debris each collection day.  Eastside
Disposal provides  bulky yard trimmings  collection
on an on-call basis.5
     Eastside Disposal collects and delivers materials
to the Cedar  Grove  composting facility in Maple
Valley, Washington (15 miles from Bellevue).  Cedar
Grove also composts  produce trimmings,  chipped
wooden pallets, and waxed cardboard with the yard
debris.  At  Cedar Grove, incoming material  is
shredded and piled on concrete pads and composted
in static aerated  piles.  Finished  compost  is sold
through local retail outlets in the Puget Sound area.
     Bellevue residents can also deliver yard debris to
King County  transfer stations, for a fee  (passenger
cars, $10.75 minimum, $68 per ton).

Education, Publicity, and Outreach
     The centerpiece of Bellevue's outreach effort is
the  Neighbors  for  Recycling  (NFR)  Program.
Bellevue trains the Program's volunteer participants
to  do  educational  outreach  in the  community.
Volunteer  activities  include staffing  information
booths at  community  events, shopping  malls and
individual  stores; making presentations on recycling
at apartment complexes; developing and distributing
information  sheets and posters; helping city staff at
Special  Recycling Collection  Days;  and  giving
school presentations on waste management issues.
     City staff produce printed materials, staff booths
at fairs and trade  shows, and make  presentations to
              Level
                                     Monthly Fee1    # Customers2
              Mini-Can (19-Gallon)
              One 30-Gallon Can
              Two 30-Gallon Cans
              Three 30-Gallon Cans
              Four 30-Gallon Cans
              32-Gallon Toter
              60-Gallon Toter
              90-Gallon Toter
              Yard Debris Only
              Recycling Only
                               $7.13
                              $12.91
                              $18.10
                              $22.76
                              $13.45
                              $20.38
                              $26.10
                               $4.97
                               $3.17
2,943
6,406
1,270
  49
  10
5,214
4,795
2,772
  55
  72
              Notes: For all service levels except mini-can, a $1.68/month credit is
                available to customers who don't generate yard debris.  Extra cans of
                trash cost $3.13 per pick-up. Hauler provides one 90-gallon yard debris
                toter per customer upon request; additional toters are available for a
                $1.68 monthly rental fee.
              ipee schedule effective 4/97.  Reflects price increase over 1996 rates due
                to Consumer Price Index adjustment and increase in King County tip
                fee. Trash service level fees include weekly trash and recyclables
                collection, once or twice monthly yard debris collection,  litter control
                services, and 4.5% utility tax.
              ^Enrollment as of December 1996.

-------
                                                                                                          BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON
service  and  trade  organizations.   City  brochures
include   "The  Ins   and   Outs   of  Recycling,"
"Composting at Home Made Easy," and "Where to
Recycle White Elephants."   City staff publish  and
distribute  two  newsletters and  make  recycling
posters  available  in  Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese,
Chinese, Cambodian, Korean, and Japanese.
     Bellevue'sWeb site features information on solid
waste programs.
     Eastside  Disposal  provides  a  public  speaking
program  for  schools and   other  gatherings  upon
request, a staffed phone line for a minimum of nine
hours on  weekdays,  plant tours  and  route  visits,  a
                     yard debris collection calendar in brochure form, and
                     covers the costs of  printing  and distributing  every
                     three  years a  packet  of  city  developed  materials
                     describing available  services.   The  company  has
                     started  a  project  to   produce  a  video  on  waste
                     reduction,  recycling, and  composting for libraries,
                     home viewing, and TV cablecast.

                     Costs
                          The  City  of Bellevue handles very little of the
                     funds for municipal waste  management.    Rather,
                     under contract, Eastside Disposal collects service fees
                     directly from customers. The rates charged for each
                                                Cost
                                                                 Tons
                                                                                    Cost/Ton
                                                          Cost/HH/YR
  Recycling Gross Costs
    Curbside Collection and Processing"
    Drop-off Collection'
    White Goods Collection^
    Administration4
    Education/Publicity^
$1,414,789
                   $60.53
Composting Gross Costs $1,365,745
Curbside Collection and Processing1
Bulky Yard Debris Collection!
Administration4
13,360
13,348
1?
13,360
$102.23
$101.86
$1?5.00
$0.35
$58.44



  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                         $2,780,535
                      23,529
$118.17
$118.97
  Materials Revenues
    ($0.00)
                                                               23,529
 ($0.00)
 ($0,00)
  Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                         $2,780,535
                      23,529
$118.17
$118.97
  Note:  Figures may not total due to rounding.  Tonnages above do not match those on page 54 as MRP rejects are included above. Bellevue's contract with
    Pastside F)isposal for recycling and yard debris services is effective April 1, 1994 to March 31, ?004.
  "Contractor reported costs of program.
  2Contract stipulates [astside Disposal service special collection day at no charge to city. Costs represent contractor reported costs of providing program.
  3White goods collected on an on-call basis.  Costs represent $26 fee charged to customers for 160 collection visits.
  -'Represents Utilities Department expenditures for administration staff salary, benefits, and overhead.
  -'Represents Utilities F)epartment expenditures for education staff salary, benefits, overhead, and production of educational materials.
                                                Cost
                                                                 Tons
                                                                                    Cost/Ton
                                                          Cost/HH/YR
Disposal Gross Costs1
Trash Collection2
Tip Fees
Administrations
$2,726,947 15,657
15,657
15,657
15,657
$174.17
$107.57
$66.00
$0.59
$116.68



  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                         $2,780,535
                      23,529
$118.17
$118.97
  SWM Gross Costs
                                         $5,507,481
                      39,186
$130.55
$235.64
  Materials Revenues
    ($0.00)
                                                               23,529
 ($0.00)
 ($0.00)
  Total SWM Net Costs
                                         $5,507,481
                      39,186
$130.55
$235.64
  Note:  Numbers may not total due to rounding. Disposal tonnage above does not match that on page 54 as MRF rejects are excluded above.
  1 Costs represent contractor's cost of providing service and city administration costs.
  ^Eastside Disposal collects trash weekly. Bellevue's contract with Eastside Disposal for trash services is effective April 1,1994 to March 31, 2004.  Eastside
  Disposal reported total costs of trash collection and disposal. ILSR calculated collection costs by subtracting tip fee at King County transfer station (located
  in Bellevue) for 15,657 tons of material disposed.
  ^Represents Utilities Department expenditures for administration staff salary, benefits, and overhead. Trash education and publicity not separable from
  administrative costs and are included in these figures.

-------
BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON
                        PER TON OPERATING COSTS FOR
                      RESIDENTIAL WASTE  MANAGEMENT
                 $160
                            Trash
                                         1996
                                       Gross Waste
                                       Reduction
| Net Waste
 Reduction
                service level are set  by contract and shown in the
                table on page 56. Of total expenditures, about 50%
                was spent on trash collection and disposal, 26% was
                spent on recycling, and 25% was spent on yard debris
                collection and recovery.
                     On a  per-ton basis, trash cost  $174, recycling
                $139, and yard debris recovery, $102.

                Funding & Accounting Systems
                     Bellevue residents pay Eastside Disposal  directly
                for  their   waste  management services.    Eastside
                Disposal  makes  a monthly  payment  ($26,394  in
                1996) to the city to  cover the city's administrative
                costs.6  These funds  are  held in an  enterprise  fund
                and tracked using cash flow accounting.
                     Bellevue also receives grant funds from the state
                and county to fund  its programs.  These  funds are
                maintained in  separate accounts and tracked  using
                accrual accounting.

                Future Plans and Obstacles to
                Increasing Diversion
                     Bellevue's  Solid  Waste  Administrator believes
                increasing  diversion  in the single-family  residential
                sector  would be difficult.   The  program  already
                collects most discard streams that have a high enough
                price or make up a large enough component of the
                waste stream for  collection  to  be cost-effective.
                Bellevue   has   shifted  planning   and   education
                attention from the single-family sector, which had a
                1996 MSW recovery rate of 60%, to  the  multi-
                family   and commercial   sectors,  where   MSW
                recovery in 1996 was 25%.
Tips for Replication
        Collect mixed paper.
        Commit to and concentrate on high-quality
customer service.  Bellevue Utilities Department has
service   representatives   answering   its   phones.
Customers appreciate the personal  service  and rate
the city's service very highly.
        Spend the extra money to make promotional
materials attractive.
        Continuously  remind and  educate   the
population about waste reduction.
        Raising overall environmental  awareness will
boost  enthusiasm  for waste  reduction  programs.
Bellevue's population, and  people in  the Pacific
Northwest, in general, have a strong environmental
ethic that has contributed significantly  to the high
diversion level.
        Implement a PAYT rate structure for trash.
Notes:
1 Approximately 10% of eligible household do not subscribe to services
  offered by Eastside Disposal, the municipal contractor. These residents
  most likely use county drop-off sites. Figures for trash, recycling, and
  yard debris recovery by Bellevue residents at these facilities are not
  separable from figures for waste delivered by other county residents and
  therefore are not included.  Effective April 1,1997, fees at county
  transfer stations for material delivered in passenger cars were trash, $13
  per trip; and yard debris, $10.75 per trip. The county charges for
  materials delivered in other vehicles according to weight at the rates of
  $79.63/ton for trash and $68/ton for yard debris.
?The apparent increase in per household waste generation can be accounted
  for in two ways.  First, until 1989, it was legal to burn yard debris in
  Bellevue. Material burned never entered the MSW stream. Second, in
  1993, Bellevue annexed land with 6,000 homes. These homes have much
  larger than average lots and contributed to a per household increase in
  yard debris generation.
3The details of this agreement are proprietary information.
4The hauler sometimes charges more than $25 if the pick-up is distant from
  the hauler.
5Bulky yard debris includes piles of brush exceeding the  prescribed size limit;
  any bag, bundle, can, or item over 60 pounds; tree parts over four inches
  in diameter; or any item that will not fit in the toters.
SThe monthly payment was initially set at $25,000 per month in 1994 and
  has been increased by 100% of the CPI each year since.
                       JHfll
                       Thomas Spille
                       Solid Waste Program Administrator
                       Resource Management and Technology
                       Utilities Department
                       City of Bellevue
                       301  116th Avenue Southeast, Suite 230
                       P.O.  Box 90012
                       Bellevue, WA 98009-9012
                       PHONE:  425-452-6964
                       FAX: 425-452-7116
                       E-MAIL: tspille@ci.bellevue.wa.us
                       WEB SITE:  http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/
                         bellevue/homemap.htm

-------
                                 NTY.   NEW  JERSEY
                                               Municipal Solid Waste Reduction
                                                                                                                  ro
                                                 RESIDENTIAL WASTE  GENERATION
                                                     PER HOUSEHOLD  PER DAY
                                                 14.0
                                                             1993
                                                                          1995
                                                       Trash
                                                                  Recycling
   n  1995, Bergen County diverted 54% of
   its  municipal solid waste,  21% through
   composting and 33% through recycling.
    Bergen   County   consists   of    70
municipalities.    Each  community  must
provide  its  own trash, recycling,  and  yard
trimmings collection services.  The county's
principal  waste   management   functions
include   providing   funding,   technical
assistance, education programs and  resources,
and data management. These functions are
performed by staff of the Bergen County
Utilities  Authority  (BCUA).   The county
also owns a waste transfer station and a yard
trimmings processing  facility.  Communities
had been required to deliver their trash to the
county-owned transfer station under the states flow control policy, but flow control has ended
as a result of a  constitutional challenge.  The county's waste management system  is currently
undergoing changes in response to this legal decision.
    The keys to Bergen County's  high  waste diversion rate include mandatory recycling in the
residential and commercial sectors, historically high disposal fees, the existence of well-established
                                              markets for recovered materials (especially paper),
                                              extensive  education  and  outreach programs,
                                              technical assistance programs, funding support for
                                              development  and  implementation  of  waste
                                              reduction  programs, and  availability of a  yard
                                              debris management facility.
                                                    Community  recycling  coordinators  in
                                              Bergen County report waste reduction programs
                                              are cost-effective in their communities.  Reasons
                                              cited for the cost-effectiveness of waste reduction
                                              efforts in Bergen  County  are reduced labor and
                                              disposal costs for  trash  as  a  result  of waste
                                              diversion, low or reduced hauling and tip fees for
                                              recyclables  as  compared  to  trash,  revenues
                                              generated   from  sale of  recyclables  offsetting
                                              program costs, and reduced need  for purchase of
                                              compost and mulch for  use in city projects.
 RESIDENTIAL  PROGRAM
 SUMMARY
Tons Per Year1
   Disposal
   Diversion
Percent Diverted
   Recycled
   Composted
Average Ibs./HH/day
   Disposal
   Diversion
Annual Disposal Fees
   Disposal
   Avoided Disposal
Net Program Costs/HH
   Disposal Services
   Diversion Services
   1993
693,840
 353,315
 340,525
   49%
   16%
   33%
  15.21
   7.74
   7.46
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
  1995
693,840
 353,815
 340,025
   49%
   17%
   32%
  15.21
   7.75
   7.45
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
Notes: Figures above represent residential sector only. ILSR
  estimated households served in 1993 and 1995 at 250,000,
  the number of dwellings in buildings with four or fewer
  units. Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
11n order to account for waste bypassing the county transfer
  station in 1995, ILSR assumed total 1995 generation to be
  equal to 1993 generation and added an estimated
  tonnage to disposal. See note 2 on waste reduction table
  on the next page for more detail.
                                              Note: We tried to compare waste generation and reduction to a
                                              previous year before significant program changes or expansions. We
                                              used 1993 for Bergen County as it is the earliest year for which complete
                                              data were available. No significant program changes occurred between
                                              1993 and 1995.
                                                                           DEMOGRAPHICS
                                                                           POPULATION: 825,380(1995)
                                                                           HOUSEHOLDS: 330,473
                                                                             (1996); 250,000 SFDs
                                                                             (estimate, four or fewer
                                                                             units per building), 80,000
                                                                             MFDs (estimate, five or
                                                                             more units)
                                                                           BUSINESSES:  30,859
                                                                             (1998)
                                                                           LAND AREA:  238.7 sq. mi.
                                                                           HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
                                                                             1,384 per sq. mile
                                                                           AVERAGE PER CAPITA
                                                                             INCOME:  $24,080(1989)
                                                                           MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
                                                                             INCOME:  $49,249(1989)
                                                                           COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
                                                                             Suburban.  Populations of
                                                                             communities in the county
                                                                             range from 22 in Teterboro
                                                                             to over 37,000 in Teaneck
                                                                             and Hackensack.  Major
                                                                             employers include Sharp
                                                                             Electronic Corp., Nabisco
                                                                             Inc., ARA Leisure Services,
                                                                             and Bergen Pines County
                                                                             Hospital.

-------
BERGEN  COUNTY. NEW JERSEY
                                     Residential
                                           Tons
         Commercial
               Tons
              Total
              Tons
                  Recycled/Reusedl       116,677
                     Newspaper           53,172
                     Commingled Containers 25,819
                     Corrugated Cardboard   11,101
                     Mixed Paper
                     White Goods
                     Glass
                     Aluminum
                     Ferrous Metal
                     Non-Ferrous Scrap
                     Plastics
                     High-Grade Paper
                     Tin Cans
                     Clothing
                     Magazines
                     Batteries
                     Anti-freeze
                     Oil Filters
                     Food Discards
  10,362
   4,907
   4,836
   1,922
   1,202
    944
    719
    628
    579
    280
    126
     71
      6
      1
      0
237,515
  17,430
     55
 101,185
  29,288
   5,924
   6,244
    415
  10,647
   7,303
   7,893
  23,391
    495
    440
      3
    262
     43
      0
  26,497
354,192
  70,602
  25,874
 112,287
  39,650
  10,831
  11,080
   2,337
  11,849
   8,247
   8,612
  24,019
   1,075
    720
    128
    332
     49
      1
  26,497
                  Composted/Chipped
                     Leaves
                     Yard Trimmings
                     Brush and Chips
223,348
 151,079
  46,456
  25,813
  7,680
    523
   1,941
   5,216
231,028
 151,602
  48,397
  31,030
                  Total Waste Reduction 340,025     245,195    585,221
                  MSW Disposed?       353,815     147,020    500,835
                     BCUA Transfer Station  243,663       76,053     319,715
                     Bulky Items3          26,905       17,937      44,842
                     Other Disposal (est.)    83,247       53,031     136,277
                  Total Generation
                                       693,840     392,215  1,086,055
                  Percent Reduced
                                         49.0%
                                                    62.5%
                                                               53.9%
                  Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day 15.21

                  Notes: Tonnages reflect total tons of material reported to county as
                    recycled by communities.  ILSR calculated household generation per day
                    assuming households in buildings with four or fewer units were served
                    in residential programs.
                  11LSR excluded reported tire  recycling of 2,610 tons because county staff
                    could not verify tires had been recycled as opposed to incinerated.
                  2frash disposal figures represent material generated in Bergen County
                    and delivered to the BCUA transfer station. The amount of Bergen
                    County trash delivered to the transfer station decreased from
                    303,608 tons of residential trash and 135,765 tons of commercial
                    trash in 1993 to only 243,663 tons of residential trash and 76,052
                    tons of commercial trash 1995.  Total waste generation for Bergen
                    County in 1993 was 1,086,055 tons; total recovery equalled 563,837.
                    County staff believe the reduction in disposal was due to trash
                    generated in the county being delivered to other disposal facilities
                    after flow control  ended  and the slight increase in recovery not an
                    actual reduction in generation.  In order to account for waste
                    diverted from the  county transfer station, ILSR assumed total 1995
                    generation to be equal to 1993 generation and added an estimated
                    tonnage to disposal.
                  -"Bulky items can include both residential and commercial municipal
                    solid waste items such as furniture and appliances plus non-munici-
                    pal solid waste such as construction and demolition materials, tree
                    parts, and railroad ties. The county does not have data on the pro-
                    portion of materials originating in each sector or the proportion of
                    materials that are  MSW vs. non-MSW.  ILSR split the total reported
                    bulky tonnage 60:40 between the residential and commercial sector
                    based on the estimated proportion of the total waste stream in each
                    sector for the country as reported in the U.S. EPA Characterization of
                    Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:  1996 Update.
State and Local Policies
     New  Jersey had  legislated  "flow  control"  of
MSW  All municipal trash generated in New Jersey
communities was directed to specified county  or
regional utility  authorities for disposal.  The state
intended  this system to  allow utility  authorities to
create   integrated  waste  management  systems,
guarantee  them economies  of  scale,  and  ensure
revenue levels through tip fees.   Flow control  has
been declared unconstitutional.
     New Jersey's "Statewide Source Separation and
Recycling Act"  (P.L. 1987, c.102), enacted in 1987,
set a mandatory  state recycling goal of 25% by 1990,
required counties to develop  plans for the recovery
of leaves and three additional materials, and to hire a
recycling  coordinator.  In  1990, the state  revised its
goal to  60% of total waste (50% of MSW) by 1995.
The goal  was again  revised to 65% recycling of the
state's total waste stream by December 31, 2000.
     The  Bergen County Long-Term  Solid Waste
Management   Plan   requires   commercial   and
institutional establishments to  recycle corrugated
cardboard,  high-grade  and  mixed   paper,  glass
beverage  containers, aluminum  cans,  ferrous scrap,
white  goods, and  construction  and  demolition
debris.   The county  requires businesses to track and
report the amounts of materials recovered. The plan
requires residential  sector recycling  of newspaper,
glass  beverage containers,  food  and beverage cans,
ferrous scrap, white goods, leaves, and grass clippings.
     All  communities  in  Bergen  County  have
enacted  mandatory  recycling  ordinances.    Some
mandate recycling of materials in addition to those
required by the  county, such as magazines, plastics,
high-grade  paper, and nonferrous scrap.
     Most  Bergen  County  municipalities  provide
residential  trash  services  or   hire and  pay for  a
contractor to collect their residents' trash.  Residents
of seven communities must contract directly with
trash haulers.  Only four of the  70 municipalities -
Midland Park, Old Tappan.Teaneck, and Washington
Township - have pay-as-you-throw trash systems.

Source  Reduction &  Reuse  Initiatives
     Beginning in 1994, $750,000 from BCUA's  $5
million annual   Municipal  Recycling Assistance
Program (MRAP, see the recycling section for more
information   about  this  program)   have   been
earmarked  to  fund  source  reduction  programs.
Communities receiving  funds   have  instituted  a
                 Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

-------
                                                                                  BERGEN COUNTY. NEW JERSEY
variety of programs including waste audit programs,
school programs, surveys, advertising and awareness
campaigns, backyard  composting  and grasscycling
programs,   and   municipal    recycled-product
procurement programs. Communities have also used
these funds  to purchase waste-reducing equipment
such as mulching mowers, electric hand dryers, cloth
shopping bags, compost bins, double-sided printers
and copiers, and plain paper fax machines.
    The BCUA staff maintain a worm composting
bin used  for demonstrations,  composting  material
from the office, and starting bins. Worms are given
to schools  and  other organizations interested in
starting their own vermicomposting programs.
    The   BCUA    has   developed   numerous
publications concerning source reduction.  County
staff  have   developed   and   distributed   two
publications, " Grass.'   Cut It  and  Leave  It"  and
" Backyard Composting," aimed at diverting yard debris
from the waste stream. The " Comprehensive Guide to
Waste Reduction" provides residents information on
how to reduce  all types of discards.  The "Recycling
and  Source  Reduction Procurement  Guidelines  for
Government/Public Agencies" and " Recycling and Source
Reduction Procurement  Guidelines  for  Businesses"
provide businesses and institutions with information
on source reduction. Bergen County staff developed
and use the  " Bergen County Business Guide to Buying
Recycling and Reducing Waste" as a manual at seminars
they conduct for businesses.

Residential Recycling Program
    In  1996, Bergen County diverted 49% of its
residential waste from disposal.  Seventeen percent
was  recycled and reused.   The BCUA primarily
funds programs and provides technical assistance to
communities upon  request. County municipalities
must implement their own recycling programs. The
cornerstone of  the  county program is the MRAP,
which began in  1990 and has a yearly budget of $5
million. Communities receiving  funds from 1990 to
1993  were  required  to spend the entire  sum  on
recycling  and/or composting.   Communities have
spent the money on projects  such as purchasing
equipment   (balers,  recycling  bins,   chippers),
marketing programs,  hiring and funding  recycling
staff, collection  programs, advertising, and recycling
computer software.
    Sixty-nine of the 70 communities in the county
offer curbside recycling to their residents.  The other
community, Ho-Ho-Kus, has a drop-off recycling
center.  Each community designs its own programs;
service providers, collection frequency, and materials
accepted vary from town to town. Most supplement
the curbside  collection with  a drop-off  facility,
although 24 towns  do not.  The towns of Ramsey
and Tenafly contract with  private companies for
recycling collection.    Municipal  crews  collect
recyclables in Ridgewood, Glen Rock, Englewood,
Bergenfield, and Paramus. Bergenfield and Paramus
collect    materials   every   week,   alternating
commingled containers one week, paper the next.
Englewood collects all materials each week.  Tenafly
collects newspaper every  week but commingled
materials only twice a month.  In addition to the
designated materials included in the county plan,
Glen Rock recycles drink boxes, but only at its drop-
off center. Ridgewood collects books and aluminum
scrap   at  curbside.    Ramsey,  Ridgewood,  and
Bergenfield accept clothing at their drop-off sites.
    No  MRFs are  located  in Bergen  County.
Commingled materials are transported to processors
outside  the  county, generally to  facilities  in
neighboring  New  Jersey or  New York counties.
Some  communities,  such  as Allendale  and Glen
Rock, collect  material separated into categories or
do their own processing and marketing.
    While Bergen has no processing facilities, some
end-users and  brokers  of  recovered  materials are
located in the county. Both Garden State Paper and
Marcal Paper use recovered paper in their  Bergen
County manufacturing  facilities. Numerous small
scrap dealers broker metals for recycling.

Commercial  Recycling Program
    In  1995,  Bergen County businesses  diverted
63% of commercial and
institutional  municipal
solid     waste    from
disposal.  The success  of
waste         diversion
programs  in this sector
is  due  to strong  local
markets  for recovered
paper,  high   disposal
costs,  the  mandatory
recycling ordinance, and
county-provided tech-
nical assistance.
                          Bergen County owns this compost site located at
                          the county's old landfill.

-------
BERGEN COUNTY.  NEW JERSEY

1 BERGEN COUNTY RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAMS 1
Community Commingled
or Separated
Collection
Allendale
Alpine
Bergenfield
Bogota
Carlstadt
Cliffside Park
Closter
Cresskill
Demarest
Dumont
East Rutherford
Edgewater
Elmwood Park
Emerson
Englewood
Englewood Cliffs
Fair Lawn
Fairview
Fort Lee
Franklin Lakes
Garfield
Glen Rock
Hackensack
Harrington Park
Hasbrouck Hghts.
Ha worth
Hillsdale
S
C
c
C
c
c
S
c
c
c
S
S
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
S
c
S
c
c
c
Ho-Ho-Kus No Program
Leonia
Little Ferry
Lodi
Lyndhurst
Manwah
Maywood
Midland Park
c
c
c
S
S
c
c
Drop-off Recycling
Center Hauler


Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y


Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y


Town
Contract
Town
Town
Town
Town
Town
Town
Contract
Contract
Town
Town
Contract
Contract
Town
Town
Town
Town
Town
Contract
Town
Town
Town
Town
Town
Contract
Town
N/A
Town
Town
Contract
Town
Town
Town
Town
Trash Community Commingled
Hauler or Separatee
Collection
Contract
Contract
Town
Contract
Town
Town
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Town
Contract
Contract
Contract
Town
Contract
Contract
Town
Contract
Contract
Contract
Town
Town
Contract
Town
Contract
Contract
Contract
Town
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Montvale
Moonachie
New Milford
North Arlington
Northvale
Norwood
Oakland
Old Tappan
Oradell
Palisades Park
Paramus
Park Ridge
Ramsey
Ridgefield
Ridgefield Park
Ridgewood
River Edge
River Vale
Rochelle Park
Rockleigh
Rutherford
Saddle Brook
Saddle River
South Hackensack
Teaneck
Tenafly
Teterboro
Upper Saddle River
Waldwick
Wellington
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
S
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
S
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Drop-off Recycling
Center Hauler
Y
Y
Y

Y



Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

Y

Y



Y
Y


Y
Y
Washington Twnshp.C
Westwood
Wood-Ridge
Woodcliff Lake
Wyckoff
S
c
S
c
Y
Y
Y
Y
Contract
Town
Town
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Town
Town
Contract
Contract
Town
Town
Town
Town
Contract
Contract
Town
Town
Contract
Contract
Contract
Town
Contract
Town
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Town
Contract
Town
Contract
Trash
Hauler
Contract
Contract
Contract
Town
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Town
Contract
Contract
Town
Town
Town
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Town
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Town
Contract
                   Bergen County is home to two paper mills using
               recovered  paper  as  feedstock that create constant
               demand for recovered paper. Office-based businesses,
               in particular, can divert a significant portion of their
               waste stream  from  disposal  through  these  mills.
               Nearly 70% by weight  of all  material recovered in
               commercial recycling programs in Bergen  County is
               paper and  cardboard. High disposal fees ($54 per ton
               at the BCUA  transfer station in  February 1998, but
               MSW tip  fees were over $100 per ton from January
               1990 until November 1997) provide businesses with a
               financial incentive to recover materials for recycling
               even if they receive no revenue from their sale.  Local
               mandatory recycling ordinances provides  businesses
               with further impetus to recycle.
                   The county developed a waste audit manual for
               businesses and sent a  copy  of it  to all county
companies  with  more  than   100  employees.
Businesses  were  asked  to  complete  the  audit  and
return it to county staff. The staff used the audits to
determine  where its  efforts  were  most  needed.
County staff provide  on-site visits to  businesses  that
request them.  Businesses made most requests for site
visits  in the late  1980s  and early 1990s as they  first
developed  and  implemented  recycling  programs.
Current  recycling activities are  more focused on
expanding  programs  and the  county reports most
requests from the business sector are for information
and technical assistance not requiring site visits.
    Each  community  in  Bergen  County  is
responsible for overseeing the commercial recycling
program  within  its   own  jurisdiction.    All
enforcement of  the mandatory recycling ordinance
is handled at this level.

-------
                                                                                   BERGEN COUNTY. NEW JERSEY
Composting Program
    In  1995, Bergen  County residents  recovered
32% of their waste through composting;  businesses
recovered 2%.
    New Jersey treats brush, leaf, and grass clipping
processing   facilities   differently.     Brush-only
processing sites can operate without a permit.  It is
relatively  easy  to obtain  a permit  to  operate a
composting  site  in  which less than 10% of  the
material  processed is grass clippings.   Permits for
compost sites accepting only grass  clippings or both
grass  and leaves, called vegetative waste  compost
sites,  are  more difficult  to  obtain and  more
expensive. As a result, many communities compost
their own leaves but  few compost vegetative waste.
    Most communities in Bergen County provide
yard debris collection and/or processing services to
their  residents.   Nine  communities  do not have a
grass  clippings  program;  four  do not have  a  leaf
program.   Because  yard  debris  is  banned  from
disposal,  residents  of these  communities  must
compost materials in their backyards, hire a private
company  to take it away, or haul it to a disposal site
themselves.  Some communities, such as Glen Rock
and Ramsey, collect  fall leaves at curbside; residents
must deliver other yard debris to drop-off sites.
    Some communities  process  their  own  yard
debris while  others deliver their materials  to private
contractors.  Ramsey  solicits separate bids for  the
processing of grass clippings, leaves, and brush and
contracted with three  separate  companies in 1998.
Englewood shares a site with the neighboring town
of Leonia, where leaves are processed  by  municipal
staff but grass clippings from both communities are
composted by private companies.
    Bergen County  owns a yard debris composting
site in the town of Lyndhurst, which is  operated
under lease  by  Nature's  Choice.    The facility
occupies 25 acres on top of the old county landfill.
County communities  can deliver  yard trimmings
and brush to this site.  Each town must negotiate its
own tip  fee  with Nature's Choice,  who  returns a
portion of the  fee to  the  county  according to  the
lease agreement.  The  county receives 50t a cubic
yard for brush  and grass clippings delivered to  the
site and  25It per cubic yard  for  leaves.   Nature's
Choice composts grass  clippings and leaves in turned
windrows  and  grinds brush  into   mulch.    The
company sells finished  material  in bulk.
Education, Publicity, and  Outreach
    Bergen County runs a multi-faceted education
and  outreach program  that  includes  advertising,
publications,   promotional   items,   education
programs, a hotline, and a lending library.
    Bergen   County   supports    countywide
advertising and  publicity  campaigns  including
recycling pages in the local phone book and public
service announcements.  The  county also produces
newsletters entitled  The  Recycling Bin  and  The
Recycling Update.  Other county publications include
a Comprehensive  Guide to Waste Reduction,  Recycling
Market Directory, and The Apartment Recycling Manual.
The county  produces numerous fact  sheets about
waste reduction topics including vermicomposting,
backyard  composting,  and  recycling  of  specific
materials, such as  aluminum, renderings, and glass.
    The county  has distributed  promotional items
including decals, magnets, coloring books, litter bags,
and miniature worm bins.
    Bergen  County conducts  public  education
programs about environmental shopping and worm
composting. The  shopping program includes guided
tours  of  a grocery store to  illustrate  the effect
shopping choices  can have on the environment.  The
county also presents information about recycling and
source reduction in  county  classrooms,  for civic
groups, and in business and institutional seminars.
    The   county   sponsored   a   week-long
environmental summer  camp  program. Highlights
of the camp  included a tour of a waste incinerator
and a recycling center.
    The county  maintains  a recycling and waste
reduction  hotline.    Hotline  staff  provide waste
management information and  referrals.
    The  county maintains  a lending  library  of
materials   on  solid   waste  management  and
environmental education resources  which county
residents and businesses can use.

Costs
    The   BCUA's  budget   for   solid  waste
management  includes  its  transfer station costs,
hauling costs, tip fees, landfill closure costs, recycling
and source reduction financial assistance programs,
education    and    publicity   costs,   staff   and
administration costs, and debt service.  In  1995, the
BCUA  spent $43.6 million in  operating  expenses
(for purchased services, administration, depreciation,
and staff leave benefits) and $7.6 million for interest,

-------
debt service, and  amortization costs for  the solid
waste  system.    The  Authority's  expenditures
represent  only a  portion of  the  costs  of waste
management  in  the county.   Each community
operates a waste management program, which is for
the most part paid with  community funds.
    Average  costs  of   trash,   recycling,   and
composting in Bergen County are not available. In
seven  communities,  residents pay  waste  haulers
directly.     In   the   remaining   communities,
community funds pay  for trash services.  In  no
communities do residents have to pay directly  for
recycling  or composting  services  although some
communities  do  charge for  recycling  freon
containing  appliances.    Residents  must  pay  for
services  if  they  choose  not to  use  municipal
programs  or desire extra services.
    In a  limited  survey  of community  recycling
coordinators  from  Bergen   County,   all   six
respondents claimed their waste reduction programs
saved money or cost no more than disposal. When
asked  if  they believe their  towns' recycling  and
composting   programs   are   cost-effective,  the
recycling  coordinators from Ramsey,  Ridgewood,
Bergenfield, Paramus, and lenafly all replied in the
affirmative.    Englewood's recycling  coordinator
believes the  programs break even, costing the city no
more than  disposal alone.  Reasons cited  for the
cost-effectiveness of  the  programs include reduced
trash costs as the result of diversion (Ramsey), lower
labor  costs  as   a  result  of  waste  reduction
(Ridgewood), saving on compost purchases  for city
projects (lenafly),  free hauling and no tip fees  for
processing recycling  (Paramus), and revenues from
material sales off setting program costs (Ridgewood,
Ramsey, Bergenfield, Paramus, and'lenafly).

Funding & Accounting
    Funding  for the county's MRAP was raised
through its Solid Waste Investment Tax.  From 1990
to  1996,  the  county  distributed $35 million to
municipalities  through this program.
    The tip fee at the transfer station ($54 per ton in
February 1998) has been set so it covers the facility's
operating  and maintenance  costs,  waste  transport
costs, and  tip fees.  Prior to the end of flow control,
tip  fees at the BCUA transfer station also included
debt service on  the  facility, county  landfill  closure
costs, recycling and household hazardous waste costs,
and county administration costs and was $26  per ton
higher. As of March 1998, the BCUA was exploring
other mechanisms than  tip  fees to recover these
expenses.

Future Plans and Obstacles to
Increasing Diversion
    The end of flow control  in  New  Jersey  is
anticipated to have a profound effect on the county's
waste management system.  Substantial reductions in
tip fees have  already occurred. County staff believe
reduced  disposal costs  will lead  to  some  local
governments questioning the cost-effectiveness of
waste  reduction.    They  believe  the  county's
municipal  recycling  and  solid  waste  staff  are
convinced  of the  value  of these  programs  but
municipal governing bodies, looking for cost-cutting
measures,  may focus  on immediate savings to be
garnered while tip fees are low.  No  changes in the
county   recycling   and   yard   debris   recovery
requirements are planned. Communities can legally
only cut programs that exceed county requirements.
    As  part  of  the  county's continuing  outreach
program, in 1998, county staff plan to produce and
distribute a new flyer informing businesses about the
numerous available programs to  support commercial
and institutional waste reduction.

Tips for Replication
       Support community innovation with small
grants.
       Make programs mandatory.
       Design a  user  friendly program  where
recycling is as easy as disposal.
       Provide   bins   for  curbside   recycling
participants.
       Be  accessible  to  community and  business
recyclers.
  CONTACT
  Nina Herman Seiden
  Recycling Program Manager
  Bergen County Utilities Authority
  Department of Solid Waste Planning and Development
  P.O. Box 9
  Foot of Mehrhof Road
  Little Ferry  NJ  07643
  PHONE: 201-641-2552x5822
  FAX: 201-641-3509

-------
                                                 RESIDENTIAL  WASTE GENERATION
                                                     PER  HOUSEHOLD PER  DAY
                                                              1991         1996
                                                               |  | Recycling    |

                                             Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
                                 Trash
                                                                               | Composting
     The  Borough of Chatham is a wealthy
     tree-lined  suburban community  in
     northern New Jersey. Most residents
live in single-family homes.  This borough
produces more waste per household than the
national  average but  it also diverts  nearly
two-thirds of it from disposal (22% through
recycling and 43% through composting). A
local  company collects and disposes trash
twice  weekly  under  contract  with  the
borough.   Another  contractor  provides
curbside collection twice a month for  21
types of recyclables.  Residents deliver yard
trimmings to a mulch site and the borough
collects fall leaves.
    Waste   reduction    drivers   include
convenient leaf collection  and composting, a
curbside recycling program that collects  many materials (including mixed paper, metal clothing
hangers, and latex paint cans)  and pay-as-you-throw  (PAYT)  trash  fees.   Most  materials are
commingled in one bin. The composting program diverts more material than the borough either
recycles  or landfills — most of this in fall leaves. The borough collects bagged leaves weekly
during the fall and loose  leaves, two or three times each fall.  The per-bag  trash fees further
encourage residents to decrease trash set-out.
    The cost-effectiveness of Chatham's waste system is enhanced by the PAYT trash system, the
low costs of composting, and low recycling program costs offset by a  generous revenue sharing
agreement with the processor.  Between 1991 and 1996, net program costs per household have
decreased from $457 to  $228.
    Before switching  to the PAYT trash system in November  1992, each Chatham household
                                               paid  the  previous trash hauler a flat annual fee
                                               of $350  for  trash collection and  disposal,
                                               equivalent to more than $300 per ton.  The
                                               trash bag costs are now set  to cover tip fee
                                               disposal costs; total per ton trash costs were $157
                                               in 1996.  Composting collection and processing
                                               costs average $48 per ton; recycling collection
                                               and processing, $39 per ton. Also, the recycling
                                               contractor returns half of materials revenues to
                                               the   community.   In  1996, these  revenues
                                               defrayed  recycling collection costs by   60%.
                                               Chatham's recovery rate surpassed 60%  under
                                               both the old private trash collection system and
                                               the  new publically contracted system but per
                                               household costs dropped dramatically when the
                                               new  system was implemented.
Tons Per Year
   Disposal
   Diversion
Percent Diverted
   Recycled
   Composted
1991
8,581
3,155
5,426
 63%
 13%
 50%
                                   1996
                                   8,007
                                   2,817
                                   5,190
                                   65%
                                    22%
                                    43%
Average Ibs./HH/day       16.85        15.81
  Disposal                6.20         5.56
  Diversion              10.66        10.25
Annual Disposal Fees
  Disposal
                     $444,314
          $284,476
 Net Program Costs/HH   $456.62      $227.76
   Disposal Services       $392.81       $158.02
   Diversion Services      $63.81        $69.74
 Notes: 2,750 households and 35-40 small businesses (2,790 total)
   served in1991; 2,775 (2,735 HH, 40 businesses) in 1996. 1991
   dollars adjusted to 1996 dollars using the GDP deflator.
   Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
                                                                         DEMOGRAPHICS
POPULATION:  8,007 (1990);
  8,289(1997)
HOUSEHOLDS:  3,285 (1996);
  2,735 dwellings of three
  units or less, 550 multi-
  family dwellings
BUSINESSES:
  Approximately 300
LAND AREA:  2.41 square mi.
HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
  1,363 per sq. mile
AVERAGE PER CAPITA
  INCOME:  $31,947(1989)
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
  INCOME:  $62,129(1989)
COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
  Suburban, light industry
COUNTY:  Morris
Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliancer 1999.

-------
CHATHAM. NEW JERSEY
                                               Tons (1996)
                 Recycled!
                    Newspaper
                    Glass
                    Other Paper
                    Corrugated Cardboard
                    White Goods
                    Plastic Containers
                    Steel Cans
                    Aluminum Cans
                    Tires2
                    Household  Batteries
                    MRF Rejects3
                 Composted/Chipped^                  3,449
                    Leaves (curbside)                     2,761
                    Brush and Tree Parts (drop-off)           376
                    Grass Clippings (drop-off)               312
                 Total Waste Reduction
                                                    5,190
                 Disposed
                    Landfilled!
                    MRF Rejects
2,817
2,800
   17
                 Total Generation
                                                    8,007
                 Percent Reduced
                                                   64.8%
                 Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Days            15.81
                 Note:  Figures above exclude 550 multi-family dwellings (with four units or
                   more); private haulers service these households.
                 1 Figures include materials from 35-40 small retail establishments.
                 2fire tonnages reported to town by automotive retailers that collect and
                   privately recycle tires,  f he borough does not know whether these
                   tires are recycled or burned. Excluding tires would not change waste
                   reduction level.
                 3MRF operator reports a 1% by weight reject rate.
                 ^Measured in cubic yards and  converted using state conversion factors
                   of 1.80 cubic yards per ton for grass clippings, 8.0 cubic yards per ton
                   for brush, and  2.86 cubic yards per ton for  leaves.
                 5Rer capita waste  generation is high compared to the national average.
                   Partial explanation is the large yards in the community and the
                   affluence of its residents.  Residents produce more than seven
                   pounds per household per  day of yard debris,  fhey also recycle more
                   than two pounds of newspapers per household per day.
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.


                State and Local  Policies
                    New Jersey's "Statewide Source Separation and
                Recycling Act" (P.L. 1987, c. 102), signed into law on
                April 20, 1987, sets a  mandatory state recycling goal
                of  25%  by  1994, requires  counties  to  develop
                recycling plans to provide for the recovery of leaves
                and three additional materials, and to hire a recycling
                coordinator.  Financial assistance  for implementation
                of mandated recycling programs was raised from a
                $1.50  per ton  tax on tip  fees  at  in-state  disposal
                facilities.  In  1990, the state revised its recycling goals
                to 60% of total waste and 50%  of  municipal solid
                waste by  1995.1 The  goal was again revised to 65%
recycling  of  the  state's  total  waste  stream  by
December 31,2000.
     A local Chatham ordinance provides that it is
"unlawful   to   combine  designated,  unsoiled
recyclables with other solid waste."  In addition, the
ordinance  prohibits  solid  waste  collectors  from
collecting solid waste that contains visible signs of
designated recyclable materials.  The borough's first
recycling  ordinance  was enacted  in   1986  and
additions and  revisions were made in 1988, 1991,
and  1996.
     In November 1992, Chatham instituted per-bag
trash fees.  Residents must place their trash in special
blue 30- or 15-gallon bags or the borough's trash
hauler will not collect it. The bags cost $1.25 and
$0.65 respectively and are available at local retailers.
The  borough  also  levies a  flat  fee of $75  per
household  per  year  to  finance  its solid waste
management system.
     There is no local ordinance  requiring residents
to place  their trash in the blue bags but the borough's
contract with Luciano, a private hauler, specifies that
the contractor only collects trash set out in blue bags.

Source Reduction and Reuse
Initiatives
     The small borough  relies on Morris County
programs   and   publications  to  spread  source
reduction information.2  For example, county "Cut
It and Leave  It" brochures, available at the Town
Hall, explain how to grasscycle.
     Residents  have  organized  an  independent
"Renaissance  Book"  program at the public library,
through  which  individuals donate books.  About
80% are  reused; the rest recycled.

Recycling Program
     In 1996, Chatham recycled 22% of its residential
waste  stream.  The borough's PAYT fees for trash
disposal  provide residents with a financial incentive
to  recycle.    The  curbside program  accepts  21
categories of materials; the drop-off  19,  excluding
household batteries and white goods. The borough
contracts  with  Advanced  Recycling Technology
Systems, Inc.  (ARTS),  a recycling  company  in
Linden,  17 miles from Chatham, to provide twice
monthly curbside collection and to service its drop-
off center. At the drop-off site, the company collects
20-cubic-yard roll-off containers when full  and
leaves  empty  ones   in  their  place.   ARTS  also

-------
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF  RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:
             Mandatory:
      Households Served:
     Materials Accepted:
   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Luciano for white goods, Advanced Recycling Technology Systems, Inc., Linden, NJ, for all other materials
Curbside commingled collection began 1992
Yes, for all materials collected
2,735 single-family dwellings and homes up to four units and about 35-40 small retail businesses
ONP, paperboard, OCC, brown paper bags, mail,  OMG, paperback books, phone books, computer paper, wrapping paper, glass
bottles and jars, aluminum cans, metal food cans, #1, #2, and #3 plastic bottles, metal  clothes hangers, empty latex paint cans,
paperjuice boxes, milk cartons, aluminum foil, aerosol cans, household batteries, white goods
Monthly for white goods, twice monthly for all other materials
White goods set  at curb with other bulk items; newspaper is bundled; cardboard and brown  paper bags are flattened and
bundled; magazines are bundled;  other paper is  placed in reusable container(s); batteries in clear bag(s) placed at curb; other
materials commingled in reusable container(s)
White goods:  Collected  with all bulk  items by contractor who uses varying equipment and  crew sizes.  Other recyclables:
Collection done in three separate trucks each with a three-person crew: one for newspaper (Mack truck with a 32-cubic-yard
Leach packer), one for corrugated  and magazines (International truck with 19- or 21 -cubic-yard Eager Beaver body), and one for
commingled materials (Mack truck with a 32-cubic-yard Leach packer)
80% (estimate by ARTS)
Reduced trash disposal  fees through increased recycling, possibility of fines for non-compliance
Contaminated recyclables left at curbside with  "rejection slip" attached detailing the reason for rejection. Ordinance allows random
inspection of trash and  allows for fines greater than $25 and up to $1000 for the first offense if convicted.  No fines have been
levied under the ordinance.
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD  TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
   Collection Frequency:

        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:

      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
1994 for bagged leaf collection, community has composted leaves from streets since at least 1970s
Chatham  Borough DPW
2,688
Yes
Leaves
Two or three passes through community each autumn for unbagged leaves, seasonal weekly collection for leaves bagged in
borough bags during fall leaf season. Both programs run approximately mid-October to mid-December.
Bagged in kraft bags or raked loose into street
Loose leaves vacuumed or collected with salad-tong truck into five-cubic-yard dump trucks by five- to seven-person crews; two-
person crews collect bagged leaves in 20-cubic-yard packer truck.
NA
Decreased trash fees through increased  diversion, free bags for leaves given to residents at mulch site and Department of Public
Works
           Enforcement:    Enforcement has not been necessary as resident participation has conformed to program standards
DROP-OFF COLLECTION
        Number of sites:

                Staffing:
        Service Provider:

     Materials Accepted:
  Participation Incentives:

         Sectors Served:
Two  Chatham  sites; one for recyclables  (open  Saturday mornings  only), one for yard trimmings (open April-December,
Wednesdays 1 -4 PM and Saturdays 12-4 PM); residents can also use two county drop-off sites for yard trimmings
Chatham sites are staffed by individuals performing community service assignments
Advanced Recycling Technology Systems, Inc., Linden, NJ, under contract with the borough for recycling drop-off; Chatham
Borough for yard trimmings site
All materials collected at curbside except household batteries and white goods plus brush and grass clippings
Reduced trash fees  through increased recycling, free wood chips, processed mulch, and  firewood available at mulch area and
county sites
Residents and landscapers serving Chatham residents. Chatham estimates three-quarters of material delivered by residents, one-
fourth delivered by  landscapers but originating from Chatham homes.

-------
CHATHAM. NEW JERSEY
                 Item
                                                               Costs
                                                                                   Use
                                                                                                          Year Incurred
                 30-Yard Dumpster                             ~$2,500
                 2 Leaf boxes                                   $4,000
                 Leaf Vacuum                                  $16,000
                 30-Yard Dumpster                             ~$2,500
                 Ford Packer Truck w/ 20-cubic-yard Compactor      $45,000
                 John Deere Front-end Loader!                    $75,000
                 Claw Attachment for Front-end Loader             $10,000
                 2 Leaf boxes                                   $4,000
                 Royer Compost Screen                          $45,000
                 2 Leaf Vacuums?                               $32,000
                 Note: All costs and purchase dates are estimates provided by Town Administrator. Most items purchased out of recycling or solid waste utility funds and paid in
                   full at time of purchase. Front-end loader, compost screen, and packer truck purchased from borough capital fund.
                 1 Also used for public works functions other than waste management.
                 2Cost reflects current replacement value. Original purchase price not available.
                                       1995
                                       1992
                                       1992
                                       1992
                                       1990
                                       1989
                                       1987
                                       1987
                                       1986
                                       1982
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
               processes and markets the recyclables. Chatham pays
               ARTS $23.81 per household per year for services.
               Revenue  from the sale of recyclables is split 50:50.
                    ARTS staff use three separate trucks to collect
               recyclables; one for commingled containers, one for
               newspaper, and  one for corrugated cardboard and
               magazines. ARTS  chose to use the separate  truck
               collection  system   in   order    to    minimize
                                              contamination.
                                                   At the ARTS
                                              MRF,  a   magnetic
                                              separator    removes
                                              metals, an air classi-
                                              fier separates plastics
                                              and  aluminum, and
                                              an   eddy  current
                                              then removes  the
                                              aluminum from the
                                              plastics.    The re-
                                              maining   materials
                                              are manually sorted.
                                              Newspaper       is
                                              dumped on a sorting
               floor where kraft bags are manually removed.  The
               reported reject rate at the MRF is 1% by weight.
                    The  borough's  trash  collection  contractor,
               Luciano, collects white goods on the monthly bulky
               waste collection days and delivers them to recyclers.
                Composting Program
                    Composting accounts for nearly two-thirds of
               residential waste  reduction.  Residents receive  leaf
collection from mid-October to mid-December, and
can  participate two  ways.   During this period,
borough staff collect bagged leaves weekly from the
curb and the street, making two  or  three  passes on
each street.  Fall leaf collection accounted for 80% of
all yard trimmings recovered in 1996.   During the
remainder  of the year, residents  must deliver their
leaves, grass clippings, and brush to  the borough
mulch area  or use county sites. Chatham pays a fee
for county  staff to  use  county windrow-turning
equipment  to  compost  leaves at  its mulch area.
Chatham   hauls  grass   clippings  to  a private
contractor,  Rotundi,  for  composting.   Rotundi is
located within Chatham and grants the  community
free tipping of grass clippings as a host fee.  Borough
staff transport  brush to a  Morris County Utilities
Authority  site  approximately   10  miles   from
Chatham for mulching. The county charges a  tip fee
of $3.90 per cubic yard.  The county gives finished
mulch to county residents free of charge.

Education,  Publicity, and  Outreach
    The borough's  yearly calendar is the principal
source   of  information   about   solid   waste
management.  The  calendars are  mailed  to each
household   yearly   and   detail  procedures   for
preparation of trash, leaves, grass clippings, brush, and
recyclables.   It  also  lists the dates  for  leaf and
recycling collections and includes  the  hours of
operation for the recycling drop-off and  mulch area.
The borough also includes flyers in residents' annual
tax bills detailing these  programs.   Whenever a

-------
                                                                                                              CHATHAM. NEW  JERSEY
program  change  is implemented and  at  the start of
the  fall leaf program, Chatham runs advertisements
in  local  newspapers.    The  borough   also   makes
brochures about  waste management topics, such as
"Cut It &  Leave It" and environmental  purchasing,
available at the Town Hall.
                     Costs
                          In  1996, the  borough and  its  residents  spent
                     about $674,000 for  trash, recycling, and yard debris
                     services — about  $243  per  household  served.   Of
                     this, about  65%  was spent on  trash collection  and
                     disposal, 10% was  spent  on recycling, and  25%  was
                     spent  on   yard  debris  collection  and  recovery.
                                                 Cost
                                                                   Tons
                                                                                      Cost/Ton
                                                          Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costs
Curbside and Drop-off Collection1
Admin./Education/Publicity/Depreciation
Composting Gross Costs
Curbside Leaf Collection2
Leaf Bags
Drop-off Collection2
Leaf Processing3
County Mulching
Grass Clippings Composting4
Admin./Education/Publicity/Depreciation
$68,073
$67,073
$1,000
$167,014
$95,000
$12,000
$9,400
$15,500
4,000
$0
$31,114
1,758
1,758
1,758
3,449
2,761
2,761
688
2,761
376
312
3,449
$38.72
$38.15
$0.57
$48.43
$34.41
$4.35
$13.66
$5.61
$10.63
$0.00
$9.02
$24.53
$60.19







 Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                            $235,087
                      5,207
$45.15
 $84.72
 Materials Revenues
($41,566)
                                                                  5,207
($7.98)
($14.98)
 Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                            $193,521
                      5,207
$37.17
 $69.74
 Note:  Recycling tonnage figure differs from figure in table on page 66 as MRf rejects are included above. Chatham employs no staff who have solid waste
    management activities as their mainjob function. In addition to the administrative costs shown above, many employees devote small portions of their time
    to administration but cost figures are not available.
 1 Represents the borough's contract with ARfS, which began January 1,1994, and extends to the end of 1998, and includes collection and processing,  fhe
    city pays ARfS $23.81 per household to provide curbside services to 2,735 households,  fhe city pays ARfS a flat fee for servicing the recycling drop-off
    site.
 2Labor costs only.  Other costs, such as vehicle costs and employee benefits, are carried by other borough departments and cannot be calculated.
 3fee paid to county for rental of windrow turner, the staff to operate it, and cost of site permit and rental.
 ^Service granted free as in-kind community host fee.
  TOTAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS f1996)
                                                 Cost
                                                                   Tons
                                                                                      Cost/Ton
                                                          Cost/HH/YR
Disposal Gross Costs
Trash Collection and Hauling1
Tip Fees2
Trash Bag Costs3
Administration
Education/Publicity
$438,501
$142,800
$284,476
$7,225
$1,500
$2,500
2,800
2,800
2,800
2,800
2,800
2,800
$156.59
$51.00
$101.59
$2.58
$0.54
$0.89
$158.02





  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                            $235,087
                      5,207
$45.15
  $84.72
  SWM Gross Costs
                                            $673,587
                      8,007
$84.12
$242.73
  Materials Revenues
($41,566)
                                                                  5,207
($7.98)
($14.98)
  Total SWM Net Costs
                                            $632,021
                      8,007
$78.93
$227.76
  Note:  Chatham employs no staff who have solid waste management activities as their mainjob function. In addition to the administrative costs shown above,
    many employees devote small portions of their time to administration but cost figures are not available.
  1Lump sum contract fee paid to hauler by Chatham for twice weekly trash collection and hauling. Contract began in 1996 and extends to 2000.
  ^Residents, not the borough, pay for tip fees through trash bag purchases. During 1996, the tip fees at Morris County transfer stations were $110 per ton
    through July and $89.90 per ton for the remainder of the year.  ILSR calculated tip fees paid by multiplying monthly disposal tonnage as reported by
    hauler by the tip fee for that month,  fhe nearest Morris County transfer station is approximately 10 miles from Chatham.
  3ILSR calculated an estimate of fees residents paid for trash bags. Chatham's borough administrator reported the average large bag weighs 25 pounds and
    the average small bag, 12 pounds. ILSR assumed residents used an equal number of small and large bags and calculated the average cost paid by
    residents per ton of trash in this scenario would have been $104.17 per ton. Bag costs were calculated by subtracting tip fees paid from the total fees
    paid for bags and disposal.
Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance,  1999.

-------
CHATHAM.  NEW JERSEY
                      PER TON  OPERATING COSTS FOR
                    RESIDENTIAL WASTE  MANAGEMENT
                $350
                $300
                $250
                $200
                $150
                $100
                  50
I
                                                n.
                                1991
                                              1996
                          Trash
                                    Gross Waste
                                    Reduction
      | Net Waste
       Reduction
               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
               Materials revenues  reduced this to $632,000  (or
               $228 per household served).
                    On a per-ton basis, trash costs $157, more than
               three times more than waste reduction at $45 per
               ton. Recycling costs $39 per ton ($15 with materials
               revenues), and yard debris recovery, $48.  When the
               cost of inflation  is taken into  account, average per
               household costs for waste management services have
               decreased from $457 in 1991 to $228 in 1996.3
                    Chatham employs no staff who have solid waste
               management  activities   as   their    main   job
               responsibility. ARTS drivers earn $12-15 per hour,
               and collectors, $8-11 per  hour.

               Funding & Accounting  Systems
                    A  $75 per  household  fee  paid  by  Chatham
               residents and county and state funds finance waste
               management services. The borough receives half the
               revenue from the sale of its recyclables. The revenue
               from trash  bag  sales  is paid  to the  borough's
               contractor to cover disposal of residential trash.
                    The  borough  maintains  a  solid  waste  utility
               fund. All residents' fees, state and county grants, and
               recycling revenues  are deposited in this fund.  This
               fund is  tracked using modified accrual accounting.

               Future Plans  and  Obstacles to
               Increasing Diversion
                    Chatham  is  considering  adding  textiles  to
               curbside recycling collection.
                    The  Town  Administrator  is   considering
               eliminating the recycling drop-off site, reducing trash
               collection to  weekly,  and  increasing recycling
collection to weekly. He foresees having a difficult
time persuading residents to agree to these changes.
Twice weekly trash collection  is  the  norm for
communities  in  this  region of  New  Jersey  and
residents are resistant to  what they may perceive to
be a reduction in services for their money.
    The biggest obstacle to increased diversion  is
reaching renters with information on the borough's
waste reduction programs. The flyers enclosed in tax
bills go to the property owner, not the tenant.  State
law  requires  renters  to notify  their  community
government upon moving in but this  law is often
ignored.

Tips for Replication
       Make program  participation  convenient.
Chatham switched  to  commingled collection of
containers because of residents' preferences.
       PAYT systems encourage trash reduction.
                         Notes:
                         T'Total waste" includes construction and demolition materials, industrial
                           waste, and medical waste in addition to MSW.
                         ?The costs presented in this profile are for the community only and do not
                           include county costs of producing and distributing these materials.
                         ^Costs were normalized to 1996 dollars using the GDP deflator for state and
                           local government expenditures.
                           Henry Underhill
                           Town Administrator
                           Borough of Chatham
                           54 Fairmont Avenue
                           Chatham, NJ 07928
                           PHONE: 973-635-0674x108
                           FAX:  973-636-2417

-------
                                                PUBLIC SECTOR WASTE GENERATION
                                                       PER CUSTOMER  PER DAY
                                                  10.0
                                                          1987
                                                                            1996
   In  1996,  Clifton  diverted  56%  of  its
   municipal  solid  waste  from  disposal.
   Clifton diverted  44%  of city-collected
material and an impressive 68% of materials
generated by businesses and institutions  not
served by city waste management programs.
     Clifton's    public     sector    waste
management system serves 28,000 residential
customers and 1,300 small businesses in  the
city's downtown area.  Eleven categories of
recyclables are collected at curbside; the city
recycling center accepts thirteen categories
of material (nine of which are also collected
curbside).  Residents are required to recycle
other categories of materials, such as textiles,
but   do  so   through  private  recyclers.
Municipal  trash  customers  also   receive
seasonal curbside  collection  of leaves and
yard debris and year-round on-call collection
of brush.
     Clifton's private sector waste diversion
success is driven by high waste disposal fees, state and local recycling mandates, and strong local
markets and  infrastructure for recycling.  All Clifton businesses and institutions must recycle 22
materials and are eligible to receive technical assistance from the city. Tip fees in New Jersey have
traditionally  been among the highest in the nation. Waste diversion offers many businesses a less
expensive alternative to disposal.  Recycling-based manufacturing is prevalent in New Jersey,
providing markets for materials the state and city require be recovered.
                                                     Clifton's   public   waste  management
                                                program   costs  increased  from   $153  per
                                                household in 1987 to $178 in 1996.1  During
                                                the same time period, per household costs for
                                                trash disposal were held relatively constant even
                                                though trash disposal tip  fees increased from
                                                $35  per ton to  over $100.  Trash  program
                                                savings were  achieved  by decreasing  per
                                                household  disposal  amounts  by  35% and
                                                negotiating collection contracts  in which per
                                                ton costs  decreased 46%  from  1987  to  1996.
                                                Waste  reduction program cost-effectiveness  is
                                                enhanced by program design that allows  direct
                                                                   1992
                                                                   Recycling
                                               Note: Residential waste generation per household is not available
                                               as Clifton serves businesses on its residential routes. Figures above
                                               thus reflect pounds of waste generated per customer (28,000
                                               households and 1,300 businesses) per day.
                                             Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
 PUBLIC SECTOR PROGRAM
 SUMMARY
Tons Per Year
   Disposal
   Diversion
Percent Diverted
   Recycled
   Composted
Average Ibs./HH/day
   Disposal
   Diversion
  1987
49,310
 43,540
  5,770
  12%
   4%
  9.83
  8.68
  1.15
 1996
54,211
30,363
23,848
  44%
  16%
 10.14
  5.68
  4.46
Annual Disposal Fees
   Disposal
                     $1,532,786    $3,387,052
Net Program Costs/HH   $153.38     $177.73
   Disposal Services       $144.98      $147.64
   Diversion Services       $8.40       $30.08
Notes: Figures above reflect public sector collection from 26,200
   households and 1,300 businesses served in 1987; 28,000
   households and 1,300 businesses in 1996. 1987 dollars
   adjusted to 1996 dollars using the GDP deflator. Numbers
   may not add to total due to rounding.
                                                marketing  of  recyclables  thereby avoiding
                                                processing   fees   and   increasing  materials
                                                revenues. Fees for twice weekly public sector
                                                trash collection and  disposal exceed $140 per
                                                ton; waste reduction programs cost the city $37
                                                per ton.
                                                                            DEMOGRAPHICS
                                                                            POPULATION: 75,000(1996)
                                                                            HOUSEHOLDS: 31,000
                                                                              (1996) 25,500 single-family
                                                                              homes and duplexes, 5,500
                                                                              in dwellings with 3 or more
                                                                              units.
                                                                            BUSINESSES:  3,100  (1999)
                                                                            LAND AREA:  12 square mi.
                                                                            HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
                                                                              2,583 per square mile
                                                                            AVERAGE  PER CAPITA
                                                                              INCOME:  $18,950(1989)
                                                                            MEDIAN  HOUSEHOLD
                                                                              INCOME:  $39,905(1989)
                                                                            COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
                                                                              Urban, suburban. Major
                                                                              industries include
                                                                              Hoffman-La Roche
                                                                              Pharmaceuticals, Public
                                                                              Service Electric & Gas, and
                                                                              Union Camp paper
                                                                              manufacturing.
                                                                            COUNTY: Passaic

-------
CLIFTON. NEW JERSEY 56%


Public Sector! Private Sector Total
tons tons tons
Recycled? 8,449 33,366 41,815
Corrugated Cardboard 685 1 6,235 1 6,920
Mixed Paper 12 10,735 10,747
Newspaper 4,903 4,386 9,289
Glass Containers 1,386 813 2,199
Textiles3 833 0 833
White Goods 172 219 390
Steel/Tin Cans 217 138 355
Tires4 20 302 323
Scrap Aluminum 1 306 307
Plastic Containers 79 103 182
Aluminum Cans 69 58 127
Lead-acid Batteries 2 56 58
Scrap Metal 51 0 51
Anti-freeze 0 16 16
Pallets 14 0 14
Computers/Copiers 3 03
Oil Filters 1 0 1
Composted/Chipped 15,399 5,195 20,594
Grass Clippings 5,535 718 6,253
Brush/Trees 2,128 1,519 3,647
LeavesB 7,256 33 7,289
Food Discards 0 661 661
Wood Debris 480 2,265 2,745
Total Waste Reduction 23,848 38,561 62,409
MSW DisposedS 30,363 18,152 48,516
Total Generation 54,211 56,714 110,925
Percent Reduced 44.0% 68.0% 56.3%
Lbs. Waste/Customer/Day? 10.1
Notes: Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
1 Public sector tigures include 1,300 small businesses in downtown area.
These businesses generate an estimated one-third of the waste
stream.
2Tons represent material actually marketed to end users and therefore
there is no associated reject rate.
-"Textile tons reported by Clifton Goodwill.
4Tires are marketed to a variety of companies. Clifton's recycling
coordinator estimates half are burned as fuel and half are re-treaded.
This figure is half of tire collection for the year.
5Clifton estimated leaf tonnages from actual volume figures using the
following conversion factors: leaves collected in open-bodied trucks,
five cubic yards per ton; leaves vacuumed, 2.86 cubic yards per ton;
and compacted leaves, two cubic yards per ton.
6ILSR estimated disposal figures for commercial sector based on past
disposal data provided by Clifton: 1991, 19,357; 1992, 23,543; 1993,
21,683; 1994,17,858; 1995, 10,760; 1996, 8,299 tons. Bypassing of
flow control system evident in 1995 and 1996; waste reduction
tonnages did not simultaneously increase. 1992 and 1993 figures
include C&D materials. Thus ILSR has used 1994 commercial disposal
level for 1996. Based on the trend for decreasing disposal from 1992
to 1994, Clifton's recycling coordinator believes true disposal nearer
to 16,500 tons but ILSR retained the conservative higher number.
'Represents 28,000 households and 1,300 small businesses.
required counties to develop recycling plans for
recovery of leaves and three additional materials, and
to hire a recycling coordinator. In 1990, the state
revised its recycling goals to 60% of total waste and
50% of municipal solid waste by 1995. The goal was
again revised to 65% recycling of the states total
waste stream by December 31, 2000.
Clifton's local residential recycling ordinance
requires every household in the public sector
program to source-separate and recycle 18 categories
of materials. Another ordinance requires commercial
and institutional establishments in Clifton to "source
separate, collect, transport, and market" materials for
which markets are secured — currently 22
categories of materials, mostly materials targeted in
the Passaic County waste plan. Both private
contractors serving residents and commercial
establishments are required to report to the city the
quantities of material they recycle. The recycling
ordinances allow levying of fines for non-
compliance. As of December 1997, three businesses
have been fined under these ordinances.
Source Reduction & Reuse Initiatives
Clifton's recycling coordinator gives talks to
civic groups and schools on reuse, environmental
purchasing, and recycling. He also offers an annual
home composting class (lowest class attendance has
been 35 people; highest was 200 people) and has
often tied these courses to promotions by private
companies. These companies have offered mulching
mowers and home compost bins for reduced rates
and as prizes in contests they sponsor.
In 1996 Clifton gave away 800 reusable coffee
mugs in small coffee shops and at community events.
A brochure detailing the benefits of source reduction
accompanied each mug. The Environmental
Endowment for New Jersey, Inc. funded this
program with a $2,000 grant.
Residential/Public Sector
Recycling Program
In 1996, Clifton recycled 16% of its public
sector waste. Residents must source-separate
State and Local  Policies
    New Jersey's "Statewide Source Separation and
Recycling Act," signed into law on April 20,  1987,
set a mandatory state recycling goal of 25% by  1990,
recyclables into seven streams, each in its own bin or
bundle.  A  local company going  out of business
donated  15,000 four-gallon pails,  which  the city
distributed to residents for use as recycling bins.  City
crews collect recyclables at curbside and service the
drop-off site. Materials  are stored at the DPW yard.

-------
                                                                                                             CLIFTON.  NEW JERSEY
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF  RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:
             Mandatory:
      Households Served:

     Materials Accepted:

   Collection Frequency:

        Set-out Method:


      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
City of Clifton DPW
1988, for glass, aluminum, and paper.  Additional materials were added during the years 1991 to 1993.
Yes, for all materials
28,000 households (23,000 in SFDs and duplexes, 5,000 in MFDs), 1,300 businesses. All residents in buildings/complexes with
fewer than 10 units served. Businesses can use city trash and recycling service if trash totals less than eight bags per week.
Glass bottles andjars, aluminum cans, food cans, newspapers,  magazines, telephone books, mail, paperback books, hardcover
books without covers, other mixed paper, white goods, scrap metal.  Businesses have weekly cardboard collection.
Containers and paper collected every three weeks; white goods (with freon removed  if applicable) and scrap metal collected
weekly by appointment
Glass sorted by color and set out in reusable containers, aluminum cans  in separate container, food cans in  reusable container
with labels removed, newspapers in brown paper bags or bundled, other paper products in separate bags or bundles, white goods
and scrap metal placed  at curb.
Three-person crews collect source-separated recyclables in a five compartment (one compartment each for green glass, brown
glass, clear glass, aluminum cans, and food cans) Eager Beaver truck.  Three-person crews collect paper in a packer truck.  Two-
person crews collect appliances and metals in a packer truck.  Two-person crews collect OCC from businesses in a packer truck.
80-85% based on an educated guess of recycling coordinator
Mandatory ordinance
City ordinance provides  for two warnings for failure to comply with recycling ordinance. After warnings penalties of $25 for first
offense,  $100 for second offense, $250 and/or 90 days community service for the third  offense, and $1000 fine and/or up to 90
days community service for each subsequent offense. During 1997, waste enforcement staff issued 750 warnings. Ten summonses
were issued resulting  in  seven fines; the other three cases are pending in court.
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF  YARD TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:

      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
   Collection Frequency:

        Set-out Method:

      Collection Method:

      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Leaf collection began in 1987, grass clippings and other yard debris collection began in 1992
City of Clifton DPW for leaves, brush, and holiday trees; private vendor for other materials (the contract changes yearly, 1996
contractor was Straight and Narrow)
28,000
Yes, for all materials
Grass clippings, leaves, brush, other yard and garden debris, holiday trees
Weekly, late March to early December for yard debris; leaf collection middle October to mid-December, cover city two-three
times during collection period, brush collection on-call year-round; holiday trees collected January to mid-February
Yard debris and  grass clippings in biodegradable paper  bags or reusable open containers; leaves raked to curb or bagged in
biodegradable paper bags; brush piled at curb; holiday trees set out at curb (pick-up on on-call basis after mid-January)
Two-person crews collect brush and holiday trees in open-body trucks, two-person crews vacuum leaves into open-body trucks,
also use bucket-loader  into open-body or compactor trucks
NA
Mandatory ordinance
Same as recycling program
DROP-OFF COLLECTION
        Number of sites:
                Staffing:
        Service Provider:
     Materials Accepted:
 Participation Incentives:
         Sectors Served:
One (start-up in '
One part-time employee
City of Clifton DPW
Newspapers, magazines, telephone  books, mail, paperback  books, hardcover books without covers, other mixed paper, glass
bottles andjars, aluminum beverage cans, cardboard boxes, food cans, aluminum plates and trays, #1  and #2 plastic bottles.
Residents can deliver car batteries for recycling to the City Garage at no cost.
Mandatory recycling with enforcement
Residential,  commercial, institutional, and industrial (Recycling coordinator estimates 95% of material collected originates in the
residential sector.)

-------
CLIFTON. NEW JERSEY
                                                       Costs
                                                                                    Use
                                                                                                           Year Incurred
                 2 Chippers
                 8 Street Vacuums1
                 5 Roll-off Containers (40-cubic-yard)2
                 Leach Compactor Truck13
                 Tub Grinder1
                 Wildcat Windrow Turner1
                 Royer Screen1
                 Eager Beaver Trailer4
                 Eager Beaver Truck1
                 Leach Compactor Truck3 4
                 8 Open-Body Trucks12
 $46,990
$162,400
 $12,500
 $76,000
 $75,000
$150,000
 $75,000
 $15,000
 $26,000
 $72,000
       Composting
       Composting
   Recycling/Composting
    Recycling Collection
       Composting
       Composting
       Composting
    Recycling Collection
    Recycling Collection
White Goods/Brush Collection
       Composting
                  Purchased using capital funds
                 ^Equipment also used for other DPW functions such as snow removal and salt and sand storage and road application
                 325-cubic-yard packer
                 ^Purchased from state recycling grant funds
 1996
 1996
1994-6
 1995
 1995
 1992
 1991
 1988
 1988
 1988
 1985
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
                Marketing agreements have been forged with local
                businesses for the sale of the materials.  As per these
                agreements,  the  companies   provide   roll-off
                containers.  They collect full containers and leave
                empty  ones.   This  arrangement avoids the extra
                expense of MRF processing.
                    The  city employs  nine  people who  collect
                recyclables  from  the  curb, multi-family dwellings,
                and the drop-off center. They also  load recyclables
                into dumpsters for delivery to market.

                Commercial  Recycling Program
                    In  1996, Clifton  recycled 68%  of municipal
                solid waste generated in the private sector. The city's
                mandatory  recycling  ordinance,  a strong recycling
                infrastructure in  New Jersey  coupled  with high
                disposal costs,  and  assistance  Clifton's  recycling
                                             coordinator provided
                                             to businesses  contrib-
                                             uted  to this  success.
                                             The   city  mandates
                                             businesses  to  recycle
                                             newspapers, glass bot-
                                             tles  and jars,  window
                                             glass, steel and  alumi-
                                             num cans, high-grade
                                             and  mixed paper, cor-
                                             rugated    cardboard,
                                             plastic containers and
                                             film, motor oil, scrap
                                             metal, textiles, lumber,
                                             tires, lead-acid  batter-
                  ies, yard debris, food discards, white goods, tires, and
                  antifreeze.
                       Clifton  is  near  many  companies  that  use
                  recyclables as raw materials.
                       When  mandatory  recycling  began,  many
                  businesses and institutions turned  to the  city for
                  help.   The  recycling coordinator  helped  many
                  businesses meet  or exceed  city  requirements  by
                  locating markets for materials, performing informal
                  waste audits  to help  reduce waste, and providing
                  advice  on complying with the recycling ordinance.
                  Passaic  County mandated businesses with  over  100
                  employees perform waste audits  and  made staff
                  available to assist companies in performing them.2

                  Composting Program
                       Clifton offers its residents curbside collection of
                  grass clippings, leaves,  brush,  other yard and garden
                  debris,  and holiday trees. These programs divert 28%
                  of the public  sector waste stream.
                       Clifton  shares  a  compost  site  for  leaves  and
                  brush with  the neighboring City of Rutherford.
                  The site is located on Rutherford-owned land, about
                  two  miles from the center of Clifton.  Leaves are
                  composted in turned windrows and brush and wood
                  are chipped.  Clifton provides the  equipment  and
                  labor to process the materials. Finished compost and
                  mulch  are free to residents.
                       Grass clippings  are  stored at the  compost site
                  and picked up by Nature's Choice, a local private
                  composter, who sells compost commercially.

-------
                                                                                                               CLIFTON.  NEW JERSEY
Education, Publicity,  and Outreach
     Every  resident  receives  an  annual  recycling
guide, which  includes  collection schedules, drop-off
hours and  accepted  materials,  and  options  for
materials not accepted by  the city.   Local sponsors
print  and distribute the recycling guide at no cost to
the city.    Newspaper  advertisements   publicize
                                                              program changes and the start of spring yard debris
                                                              collection.     Brochures   on   source   reduction,
                                                              grasscycling, and backyard composting are  available.
                                                              Clifton's recycling coordinator  appears  on  a  cable
                                                              show  every  six  months   and  gives   free  home
                                                              composting classes once a year.
   PUBLIC SECTOR WASTE REDUCTION COSTS  f1996)
                                                 Cost
                                                                  Tons
  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                            $996,054
                                                              23,848
                                                                                     Cost/Ton     Cost/Customer/YR
Recycling Gross Costs
Curbside and Drop-off Collectionl
Marketing
Administration/Depreciation2
Education/Publ icity3
Composting Gross Costs
Collection
Grass Clippings Processing
Leaf/Brush/Wood Processing
Administration/Depreciation?
Education/Publicity3
$461,397
$388,003
$1,647
$49,661
$22,087
$534,657
$327,680
$61,000
$15,550
$107,514
$22,913
8,449
8,449
8,449
8,449
8,449
15,399
15,399
5,535
9,864
15,399
15,399
$54.61
$45.92
$0.19
$5.88
$2.61
$34.72
$21.28
$11.02
$1.58
$6.98
$1.49
$15.75




$18.25





                       $41.77
                  $34.00
  Materials Revenues
    Recyclables
    Leaf Mulch
                                         ($114,619)
                                          ($112,369)
                                            ($2,250)
23,848
  8,449
 15,399
($4.81)
($13.30)
 ($0.15)
($3.91)
  Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                            $881,436
                                                              23,848
                       $36.96
                  $30.08
Note: Figures may not total due to rounding. No overhead costs are included. These costs are paid by the Department of Public Works and are not separable for
   recycling or composting. All collection and processing costs represent labor, vehicle repair, and office expenses only.
ifons collected at curbside not separable from drop-off center tons.  Collection costs include Christmas tree and large item costs.  Costs for servicing drop-
   off center included in curbside costs. Salary of part-time staff member at the drop-off center is $13,000.
^Administration costs are salaries only for recycling coordinator and one clerical staff member. Recycling coordinator estimated one-third of his time is
   spent each on recycling, composting, and trash. ILSR estimated annualized costs for capital equipment used in the program.
^Clifton's education and publicity budget for 1996 was $45,000.  It is impossible to calculate exact expenditures for recycling and composting as separate
       ims. ILSR estimated cost for each item based on collection  and processing expenditures for each program. Source reduction education is also
       -^1 ;~ 4-u- 
-------
CLIFTON. NEW JERSEY
                      PER TON  OPERATING COSTS  FOR
                   PUBLIC SECTOR  WASTE MANAGEMENT
                           1987
                          Trash
                                      1992
                                    Gross Waste
                                    Reduction
                                                  1996
J Net Waste
 Reduction
                   The recycling coordinator gives presentations to
               school   groups   about   recycling   and   related
               environmental  projects and  distributes educational
               materials to classes upon request.
                   Clifton's "Clean Communities Program" is a
               broad-based  program.    It  includes  recycling
               education in schools and recycling litter.

               Costs
                   Solid  waste  management costs  cover:    (1)
               contracts for trash services; (2) recycling collection
               and  marketing;  (3)  yard  debris  collection and
               processing;  (4)  education and publicity;  and  (5)
               administration. Trash services accounted for 81% of
               the $5.3 million  spent on SWM in 1996.  Per ton
               costs for these services in the public sector are $142,
               largely due to high transfer station fees.
                   Clifton's waste reduction efforts cost much less
               than disposal; on average $55 per ton for recycling
               and $35 per ton for  composting. In 1996, revenues
               from the sale of materials generated nearly $115,000,
               resulting in net solid waste management costs of $5.2
               million  dollars ($178 per household or  business
               served).
                   Clifton   employs   approximately  15   FTE
               employees in its waste management programs;  these
               employees earn an average of $32,000  per year.

               Funding &  Accounting Systems
                   Funding  for  city-provided  trash  services for
               both residences and eligible  businesses is generated
               through the tax base and paid from the general  fund.
Recycling and composting programs are operated as
a self-liquidating utility.  The city transfers funds
from the general fund and state grant revenues into
a dedicated utility fund, which is used to finance the
programs.   This fund,  tracked  using  cash-flow
accounting, pays salaries of recycling and composting
staff, vehicle repairs and maintenance, staff training,
office supplies and equipment. Vehicle  capital costs
are  paid out of city bond funds and fuel is supplied
to vehicles by the DPW.

Future Plans and Obstacles to
Increasing Diversion
    Recycling  contamination has decreased due to
recently    stepped    up   enforcement;   most
contamination  still occurs  among  materials from
multi-family dwellings.  Enforcement is difficult in
this sector because individual  offenders cannot be
identified.
    Clifton's recycling coordinator believes the city's
trash  disposal figures  may  be  inflated by  several
hundred   tons  by   waste   from   surrounding
communities,  especially  those with  pay-as-you-
throw trash systems, and contractors' waste. He plans
to address this  problem by aggressively identifying
and prosecuting offenders for "theft of service."
    Clifton has consulted with private  contractors
about processing trash to recover  more materials.
Currently New Jersey's lack of a clear flow control
policy would make this difficult to implement.

Tips for Replication
       Collect  materials source-separated.
       Enforcement  of mandatory programs can
boost both the  quantity and quality of participation.
                   Notes:
                   TCosts per household in 1987 were converted to 1996 dollars using the GDP
                     deflator.
                   2The County requirements were effective 1992 for businesses with >500
                     employees, 1993 for those with >250 employees, and 1994 for those
                     with >100 employees.
                      JHfll
                     Alfred DuBois
                     Recycling Coordinator
                     City of Clifton Department of Public Works
                     307 East 7th Street
                     Clifton,  NJ  07013
                     PHONE: 973-470-2239
                     FAX: 973-340-7049

-------
                                                  RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION
                                                      PER HOUSEHOLD PER  DAY
                                                  7.0
                                                               1991      1996
                                                     Q Trash    Q Recycling

                                             Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
           Prior to 1992, Crockett contracted
           with a private company for the
           collection  and  disposal  of  all
waste generated in the city.  No  materials
were recovered  for recycling or composting.
The city took  over  trash  management in
1992 in the belief that it could provide trash,
recycling, and composting services at a lower
cost than  it had  been  paying  for  trash
collection  and  disposal.  In 1996,  Crockett
recycled 20%  and  composted  32%  of its
residential  waste stream. This 52% diversion
from  disposal  was  achieved  while  per
household costs were  held relatively stable.
     Crockett's  mandatory, weekly curbside
recycling and composting programs and the use of clear bags for trash, composting, and recycling
have contributed to the city's high diversion level. Through a local ordinance, Crockett requires
all residents to  recycle 20 categories of materials and collect four others for composting. All
residents have weekly, year-round collection service for recyclables and yard debris.  The use of
clear bags allows city staff to readily identify materials improperly prepared for recovery or trash
containing recyclables. City staff will not collect  improperly set out materials.
     The net cost of solid waste services has decreased from  $72 per household in 1991 to $69
in 1996. Program cost-effectiveness is enhanced by high diversion levels, which reduce the need
for hauling trash to  the landfill 55  miles away, the dual-collection of recyclables and yard debris,
and  the city processing  and marketing  its own materials.  Crockett staff collect recyclables and
yard debris on a single truck, which is more efficient than if two trucks and two crews were used
                                               to collect  each material separately.   Crockett
                                               processes all recyclables and yard debris in its
                                               own facility.  The  Solid Waste Director markets
                                               recyclables   directly   to  end   users.    This
                                               arrangement reduces costs as most of Crockett's
                                               markets pay to transport the processed material.
                                               The  city  retains all revenue from  the  sale of
                                               material it  collects  and  has  created  stable
                                               employment  for  residents   in its  processing
                                               facility.
 PROGRAM  SUMMARY
Tons Per Year
   Disposal
   Diversion
Percent Diverted
   Recycled
   Composted
Average Ibs./HH/day
   Disposal
   Diversion
 1991
3,450
 3,450
    0
 6.10
 6.10
 0.00
1996
2,711
1,300
1,411
52%
 20%
 32%
 4.51
 2.16
 2.35
Annual Disposal Fees
   Disposal
                      $32,912
           $16,641
Net Program Costs/HH    $71.94       $68.71
   Disposal Services       $71.94        $24.64
   Diversion Services         $0        $44.07
Notes: 3,100 households served in 1991; 3,293 in 1996. 1991
  dollars adjusted to 1996 dollars using the GDP deflator.
  Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
                                                                          DEMOGRAPHICS
                                                                          POPULATION: 8,300 (1996)
                                                                          HOUSEHOLDS: 3,293(1996);
                                                                             2,834 in SFDs and
                                                                             duplexes, 459 in MFDs
                                                                          BUSINESSES:  564(1996)
                                                                          LAND AREA:  6.29 sq. miles
                                                                          HOUSEHOLD DENSITY: 523
                                                                             households/sq.  mile
                                                                          AVERAGE PER CAPITA
                                                                             INCOME:  $9,801 (1989)
                                                                          MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
                                                                             INCOME:  $15,720(1989)
                                                                          COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
                                                                             Rural city in the Piney
                                                                             Woods of East Texas
                                                                             bordering National Forest
                                                                             to the east.  One major
                                                                             employer with
                                                                             manufacturing and
                                                                             corporate offices in
                                                                             Crockett is Northcut
                                                                             Woodworks
                                                                          COUNTY: Houston

-------
CROCKETT. TEXAS
                  WASTE  REDUCTION
                                            Tons (1996)
                 Recycled!                          532
                    Scrap Metal and White Goods        160
                    Mixed Paper                      141
                    Glass?                           91
                    Steel Cans3                       66
                    Plastics^                          48
                    Corrugated Cardboards              41
                    Aluminum                         6
                    Out-of-Town Drop-off6              -21
                 Composted/Chipped
                    Yard Debris7
 879
  879
                 Total Waste Reduction
                                                  1,411
                 MSW Disposed
                    LandfilledS
1,300
1,300
                 Total Generation
                                                  2,711
                 Percent Reduced
                                                 52.1%
                 Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day
 4.51
                 Notes:
                 1 Represents tons marketed. Reject rate of 3% by weight subtracted.
                 ^Crockett reported 93 tons of glass recycled with 2% originating in the
                    commercial sector.
                 ^Crockett reported 73 tons of steel cans recycled with 10% originating in
                    the commercial sector.
                 Crockett reported 50 tons of plastics recycled with 3% originating in the
                    commercial sector.
                 ^Crockett reported 273 tons of corrugated recycled with 85% originating in
                    the commercial sector.
                 6Crockett reported 416 tons of material delivered to its drop-off facility 5%
                    of which was delivered by residents and businesses from outside
                    Crockett city limits.
                 ^Crockett estimated tons from 8790 cubic yards at 10 cubic yards/ton.
                 8ILSR calculated disposal tonnage based on information provided by city.
                    In 1996, two 25-cubic-yard trash trucks were filled each week with
                    residential trash.  Disposal was charged by cubic yard and was
                    converted to tons using the conversion of one cubic yard of compacted
                    MSW = 1,000 pounds (from the EPA document Measuring Recycling: A
                    Guide for State and Local Governments). Crockett estimated each 25-
                    cubic-yard truck truck to weigh eight tons rather than the 12.5 tons
                    used by  ILSR. Using Crockett's tonnage estimates, waste disposal drops
                    to 832 tons in 1996, the waste reduction level jumps to 62.9% and per
                    household generation drops to 373 pounds per day.
                State and Local Policies
                     In 199I.Texas set a state goal to recycle 40% of
                municipal solid waste  (MSW) by January  1,  1994.
                The Legislature revised the goal  in  1993 to a 40%
                reduction  in  MSW  disposal using  1992  as  the
                baseline year and adjusting for population growth.
                This new goal has no specific target date.
                     Crockett's  local ordinance,  effective  February
                1993,  requires residents to use clear bags for  trash,
                most recyclables, and yard trimmings. The ordinance
                requires residents to separate paper, glass, plastics, tin,
                aluminum, cardboard, leaves, brush, grass trimmings,
                and other yard debris from trash.  The city  can levy
                fines up to $2,000 for each violation.
Source Reduction
     While Crockett has instituted no specific source
reduction initiatives, residential waste generation per
household   is   below   other    record-setting
communities. This low  generation  may be due to
Crockett's smaller than average household size  and
local conditions.  Average household size in the U.S.
is 2.69 persons; Crockett's average household size is
only 2.52 persons.  Per capita disposal of MSW in
the  Deep East  Region of Texas is only 3.5 pounds
per person per  day, 54% of the average for the entire
state. 1   Crockett's per capita total  municipal solid
waste generation of 4.51  pounds per person per day
is above  the regional  average.   Furthermore, food
discards account  for  10.2% of the MSW stream in
Texas, and Crockett residents discard very little food
in their municipal waste. 2  Many  residents in  this
rural community  keep animals  and feed  them their
unwanted  food.   Crockett's  Solid Waste  Director
reports trash collected in Crockett is very dry  and
contains very few food scraps.

Recycling Program
     In 1996, Crockett recycled  20% of its residential
waste.   The  Department of Sanitation collects  20
items  at  curbside  for  recycling  (one  additional
category, oil filters, is collected at the drop-off only).
Residents  are  required  to place  newspapers  and
other paper in a paper or clear plastic bag, to flatten
and  bundle corrugated cardboard, and to commingle
other recyclables in clear bags. The clear bags allow
collection crews to easily see contaminants mixed
with recyclables.  Collection  crews tag improperly
prepared materials to  explain why they  were  not
collected and leave them at  the  curb.
     Two-person collection  crews gather residential
recyclables and yard debris weekly, year-round,  on
the same truck. Collection crews  place  recyclables
at the  front of the truck  and yard debris at the rear.
Upon arrival at Crockett's recycling center, which is
less  than a quarter of  a  mile from the city center,
crews  unload yard debris at the compost site then
deliver recyclables to the Center's  processing area.
Local  residents can also  deliver recyclables to  the
recycling center.
     Crockett's  Department of Sanitation  provides
trash and recycling services  to the city's commercial
sector  too.  Commercial establishments recycle glass,
plastics, steel cans, and corrugated cardboard.

-------
                                                                                                                 CROCKETT. TEXAS
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:
             Mandatory:
      Households Served:
     Materials Accepted:


   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:

      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
City of Crockett Department of Sanitation
August 1992
Yes, local ordinance became effective February 1993
All 3,293: 2,834 in SFDs and duplexes, 459 in MFDs (with three or more units)
All paper items including corrugated cardboard, paperboard, newspaper, magazines, mail, office paper, and phone books, steel
and aluminum cans, aerosol cans, aluminum foil and plates, glass bottles and jars, scrap metal, all plastics, white goods not
containing freon, used motor oil
Weekly
Newspaper,  paperboard, magazines, and mail in clear plastic or paper bags, cardboard flattened and bundled, mixed recyclables
in clear plastic bags, white goods and scrap metal set at curb beside recyclables,  used oil set out in plasticjugs
Two-person city crews collect recyclables and yard debris on the same 11-cubic-yard dump truck. Collectors place bagged and
bundled recyclables near the front of the truck and bagged and bundled yard debris at the rear of the  truck.  Jugs of oil are
placed on racks fitted on the side of the trucks.
Estimated at 80-90%
Mandatory with potential fines of up to $2,000 for non-compliance
Improperly prepared materials not collected, ordinance allows for a fine of up to $2,000 per day to be issued for "the commission
of any act prohibited [by the ordinance and] the failure to perform any act required [by the ordinance]." No fines have been issued.
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
August 1992
City of Crockett Department of Sanitation
All 3,293
Yes
Brush, leaves, grass clippings, other yard debris
Weekly
Brush bundled, other yard debris in clear plastic bags
Collected with recyclables.  See collection method for recyclables.
-100% in fall; about 20-25% in "off" months
Free finished compost for Crockett residents
Same as recyclables
DROP-OFF  COLLECTION
        Number of Sites:
               Staffing:
        Service Provider:
     Materials Accepted:
 Participation Incentives:
         Sectors Served:
One
Staff always present when facility open  (7:30 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday)
City of Crockett Department of Sanitation
All materials collected in the curbside program, plus used oil filters
Mandatory recycling with possibility of fines
Anyone is welcome to use the recycling center.  Crockett estimates 5% of the eight tons delivered weekly to the drop-off center
are delivered by out-of-town residents

-------
CROCKETT.  TEXAS
                  Item
                                                         Costs
                  Ford Dump Truckl                       $20,737
                  2 Conveyor Systems2                     $31,614
                  Filter Crusher?                           $2,050
                  Fork Lift?                              $18,300
                  Front-end Loader?                       $39,500
                  Hobbs-end Dump Trailer?                 $10,550
                  Self-Dumping Hoppers?                   $4,450
                  Maxigrinder3                          $194,982
                  Balerl                                  $7,900
                  2 25-Cubic-Yard Compactor Trucksl        $176,200
                  2 Ford Dump Trucksl                     $45,772
                  Glass Crusher*                               $0
                  Plastics GranulatoH                           $0
                  Mack Truck?                            $40,200
                  Notes:
                  1 Purchased out of the city's General Fund
                  ^Purchased from grant funds
                  ^Purchased using combination of grant and city funding
                  4Gifts from local businesses
                                                                                     Use
                                                                                                        Year Incurred
      Trash/Recycl i ng/Com posti ng
             Recycling
             Recycling
             Recycling
            Composting
             Recycling
             Recycling
            Composting
             Recycling
              Trash
      Trash/Recycl i ng/Com posti ng
             Recycling
             Recycling
             Recycling
1997
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1990
                     The  city owns and operates  its own recycling
                processing   facility,   converted   from   a   lumber
                enterprise. The next nearest recycling center is fifty
                miles  from  Crockett.    Crockett's decision  to
                implement  recycling was taken in order to reduce
                the  waste being  hauled  to the  landfill, 55  miles
                distant.   The  establishment of its  own recycling
                center allowed  the city to institute recycling and
                decrease  hauling  distance.  Paper is kept separate
                from the  other recyclables and is baled on-site.  A
                mechanical sorter removes steel cans, the remaining
                materials  are manually sorted. Plastics, steel cans, and
                aluminum cans are  baled.  The  MRF  also  has a
                                granulator to process plastics.  Glass
                                is  crushed.   The  reject  rate  for
                                materials processed at this facility is
                                approximately  3%  by  weight.
                                Crockett's  Solid  Waste  Director
                                markets the materials directly to end
                                users.

                                Composting Program
                                   In   1996,  Crockett  composted
                                32% of its residential waste such as
                                yard debris and brush,  which  are
                                collected the same day as recyclables
                                on the same truck.
     City staff compost leaves, grass clippings, and
other  yard  debris in piles, and grind  brush  into
mulch.  A  front-end loader  turns compost  piles.
Mulch and compost are given away to residents.

Education, Publicity, and Outreach
     Crockett uses radio,  newspapers, and written
materials to  publicize its waste reduction programs
and  to  educate  residents on  how to properly
participate.  When the city's recycling program was
first  initiated, the city Solid Waste Director appeared
on a local call-in radio program to explain the new
system and  answer residents' questions.   Crockett
periodically  encloses pamphlets on waste reduction
programs in  residents' water bills. The tags left with
uncollected  materials also serve as an educational
tool. The tag explains why material was left at the
curb and how the resident should have prepared the
material for collection.
     Staff at City Hall answer inquiries about proper
waste  preparation over  the  telephone.   At the
beginning of the recycling program, the staff fielded
around 80 calls per day. By 1997,  only one or two
calls a day were received.

Costs
     Prior   to   implementing   recycling   and
composting  programs  in  1992,  Crockett  paid  a

-------
                                                                                                                          CROCKETT.  TEXAS
private company to collect and dispose  of its  trash.
In  1991, the cost (in 1996 dollars)  to the city  was
$223,000  or  $72   per   household   for  residential
service.    In  1996,  total  solid  waste  costs  were
$250,254 but were  offset by $24,000 in  revenues
from   the  sale   of   recyclables.     Net  solid   waste
management costs were  $69  per household.
     In 1996,  net waste  reduction costs were  $103
per ton,  trash  collection  and  disposal were  $62.
                     Personnel costs and related overhead costs  such as
                     benefits   are    Crockett's   largest   expenditures.
                     Therefore, the labor intensive  processing center adds
                     significantly to the  gross per ton recycling cost.   In
                     1996, material revenues partially offset this  cost.  Net
                     recycling costs were $144 per ton.  Composting costs
                     were  $78  per  ton  and trash costs, $62 per ton.   In
                     1991, prior to  the start of recycling and composting,
                     trash collection and disposal cost $65  per ton.
  WASTE REDUCTION COSTS (1996}
                                                  Cost
                                                                     Tons
  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                             $169,129
                       1,411
                                                                                        Cost/Ton
$119.84
                                                           Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costs
Collection
Recycling Processingl
Administration/Overhead/Depreciation2
Composting Gross Costs
Collection
Processing3
Administration/Overhead/Depreciation2
$100,554
$7,256
$53,325
$39,9973
$68,575
$11,981
$18,665
$37,929
532
532
532
532
879
879
879
879
$188.91
$13.63
$100.18
$75.10
$78.02
$13.63
$21.23
$43.15
$30.54



$20.82



$51.36
  Materials Revenues4
($24,000)
                                                                    1,411
($17.01)
($7.29)
  Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                             $145,129
                       1,411
$102.84
$44.07
  Note: Figures may not total due to rounding. ILSR pro-rated personnel, administrative, and overhead costs, by using the following distribution of personnel as
    reported by Crockett's Solid Waste Director: The city has 14 total FTE staff who receive average yearly compensation of $13,839; eight employees spend
    80% of their time on trash services, 5.8 FTE staff work collecting and processing recyclables, and 1.8 FTE staff work collecting and composting yard trimmings.
    The staff time was split among commercial and residential sectors based on the percent of total tonnage handled in each sector. ILSR pro-rated vehicle and
    equipment costs based on the percent of usage time spent in each waste management function.
  1 Represents labor costs, equipment and vehicle costs, and half of the rent of the recycling center site costs are pro-rated based on percent of total material
    processed  that originated in the residential sector.
  ^Overhead includes fringe benefits, insurance, utility costs, travel, training, and uniform expenses.
  ^Represents yard trimmings collection and processing labor costs, equipment and vehicle costs, and half of the rent of the recycling center site.
  Crockett's Solid Waste Director estimated material  revenue for residential recycling. Total  Crockett revenues for 1996 were $30,868.
                                                  Cost
                                                                     Tons
  SWM Gross Costs
                                             $250,254
                       2,711
                                                                                        Cost/Ton
 $92.30
                                                           Cost/HH/YR
Disposal Gross Costs
Trash Collection1
Hauling2
Landfill Tip Fees3
Adm i n istration/Overhead4
Waste Reduction Gross Costs
$81,125
$24,878
$20,866
$16,641
$18,742
$169,129
1,300
1,300
1,300
1,300
1,300
1,411
$62.40
$19.14
$16.05
$12.80
$14.42
$119.84
$24.64




$51.36
$76.00
  Materials Revenues5
($24,000)
                                                                    1,411
($17.01)
($7.29)
  Total SWM Net Costs
                                             $226,254
                       2,711
 $83.45
$68.71
  Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding. ILSR pro-rated personnel, administrative, and overhead costs, by using the following distribution of personnel as
    reported by Crockett's Solid Waste Director: the city has 14 total FTE staff who receive average yearly compensation of $13,839; eight employees spend
    80% of their time on trash services, 5.8 FTE staff work collecting and processing recyclables, and 1.8 FTE staff work collecting and composting yard trimmings.
    The staff time was split among commercial and residential sectors based on the percent of total tonnage handled in each sector. ILSR pro-rated vehicle and
    equipment costs based on the percent of usage time spent in each waste management function.
  1 Crockett residents receive twice weekly trash collection.
  2Trash hauled to Angelina County landfill, 55 miles from Crockett.
  ->Tip fees at Angelina County landfill are $6.40 per cubic yard. Crockett tipped 2,600 cubic yards of residential trash in 1996.
  40verhead includes fringe benefits, insurance, utility costs, travel, training, and uniform expenses.
  ^Crockett reported revenues of $87,000 from the sale of its recyclables in 1996. The figure above represents 68.7% (the proportion of material recycled
    generated in the residential sector) of $87,000.

-------
CROCKETT. TEXAS
                      PER TON  OPERATING COSTS FOR
                    RESIDENTIAL WASTE  MANAGEMENT
                $120
                $100
                              1991
                                            1996
                          Trash
                                    Gross Waste
                                    Reduction
Net Waste
Reduction
                    Crockett currently employs 14 staff members in
               its solid  waste  management program.  The  average
               wage of  these employees is $14,000 per year.

               Funding &  Accounting Systems
                    A $13 monthly waste management fee charged
               to each household's utility bill and state grant money
               fund the Department of Sanitation residential waste
               management programs. This revenue is deposited in
               the  city's general  fund.   The  Department  of
               Sanitation is fully funded at  the  start  of each  year
               from the general fund.  Revenues from the sale of
               recyclables are held in a special fund  intended for
               capital  equipment  purchases.    Crockett  tracks
               expenditures using cash flow accounting.
                    The  Texas Natural Resources  Conservation
               Commission (TNRCC) provides grants to support
               local and  regional  solid waste  projects  consistent
               with regional  plans and to  update and maintain
               plans.  In fiscal year  1996, $10.2 million in TNRCC
               funds were allocated to regional governments who
               pass grants along to  local programs.
                    The  state's Solid Waste Assistance Partnerships
               (SWAP)    program   provides   consultation   and
               technical assistance to Clean Cities 2000 partners on
               solid waste management  needs.  Clean Cities 2000
               includes  57 municipalities which have implemented
               comprehensive environmental   programs,  report
               significant reductions in landfill disposal and related
               cost savings,  and get  revenue  from  the  sale  of
               recyclables. Crockett is a Clean Cities 2000 partner.
               This membership  has resulted in Crockett receiving
               bonus grant funds from the regional government.
Future Plans and Obstacles to
Increasing Diversion
    Identifying markets  for materials has proven to
be a barrier to expansion of the city's programs. In
mid 1997, Crockett  had stockpiled over 30  bales
(-10 tons) of #3-7 plastics for which the Solid Waste
Director had been unable to find a market. A market
was  located  in late 1997.  The  Director  has also
considered  adding  polystyrene   to  the  recycling
collection program  but  is  first trying to  locate a
market for the material.
    Crockett  has  considered   decreasing  trash
collection frequency from twice a week to once a
week but the Solid Waste Director describes this as
part of  a "very  long-term" plan.    He  believes
residents would resist the change and, if it occurred,
it would need to be implemented slowly.

Tips for Replication
       Secure  the  best  possible   markets  for
recyclables.   Crockett staff engage  in a  constant
process  of re-evaluating markets  in  an  effort to
balance high revenues with  long-term stability.
       Use  clear bags to make  evident to crews
contamination of recyclables and  failure to separate
recyclables from trash.
       Be creative.   Crockett   has  developed  a
successful program on limited resources.
       Allow  residents   to  set   out  commingled
materials. They like convenience.
       Build positive relationships with the public.
Crockett's  Solid Waste   Director  is  accessible to
residents,  who respond  through  consistent quality
participation in the solid waste programs.
                  Notes:
                  1 "Municipal Solid Waste Management in Texas: Status Report," Texas
                    Natural Resource Conservation Commission, April 1997, p. 41. Very little
                    recycling and waste recovery occurs in this region of Texas so waste
                    disposal figures can be assumed to approximate waste generation.
                  2R.W. Beck and Associates, "1991  Recycling Rate and Market Research," Texas
                    Water Commission, January 1993.
                    Buddy Robinson
                    Solid Waste Director
                    City of Crockett
                    200 North Fifth
                    Crockett, TX 75835
                    PHONE: 409-544-5156 (office) 409-544-4025 (center)
                    FAX: 409-544-4976

-------
                                                   RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION
                                                       PER HOUSEHOLD PER DAY
                                                                  1990
                                                                          1996
                                                           Trash
                                                                     Recycling
                                                            I Composting
   In  response  to  escalating  costs  of  trash
   disposal  and citizen pressure, the  City of
   Dover opened a drop-off recycling center in
1990.1   In  September 1991  it began weekly
curbside recycling service followed by a pay-as-
you-throw  (PAYT)  system for trash  the next
month.     Dover   contracts  with  Waste
Management  of New Hampshire, Inc. (WMI)
to  provide  trash,  recycling,  and  fall  leaf
collection and  to  service  the city's  drop-off
center.  WMI also  processes and  markets the
recyclables  and yard  debris.   The  curbside
programs collect  20  categories of  materials
(including mixed paper, juice  and milk cartons,
and scrap metal);  the drop-off site accepts 25
categories.  In 1996 Dover diverted 52%  of its   Source: institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
residential waste; 35% through recycling and 17% through composting.
    Convenient curbside residential  recycling  service on the same day as trash collection is
critical  to Dover's  program  success.   The curbside program accounts  for  about 80%  of the
recyclable materials diverted.  PAYT trash fees further encourage residents to divert as much waste
as possible from disposal.  The drop-off site accepts materials not collected at the curb and
provides a free, regular outlet for residents' brush  and other yard  debris.  Most yard debris is
collected via the drop-off site; seasonal leaf collection represents about a quarter of the  yard debris
collected. The state yard  debris landfill ban helped  spur Dover to compost.
    Dover's  waste  management system  is  more  cost-effective than  it was before curbside
recycling and PAYT trash were implemented.   The  savings are due  to the low  cost of both
                                               recycling and composting compared  to disposal
                                               and a reduction in total waste generation.  In
                                               1996, per  ton costs for recycling were $75.  Per
                                               ton composting costs were  $27.  In contrast,
                                               trash collection and disposal costs averaged $115.
                                               In  addition, as a  result of the  PAYT system,
                                               Dover produced less total waste in 1996 than in
                                               1990, even though the  number of households
                                               served increased by more than 10%.   On a per
                                               household basis, waste generation  decreased  by
                                               24% and costs decreased by 40%  (from $122 per
                                               household in  1990 to  $73  per  household  in
                                               1996). The combination of using cheaper waste
                                               management  alternatives than  disposal and
                                               producing less waste,  reduced  Dover's  net
                                               residential waste management budget from over
                                               $1.1 million in 1990 to $798,000 in  1996.
 PROGRAM SUMMARY
 1990
10,838
 10,496
   342
Tons Per Year
   Disposal
   Diversion
Percent Diverted
   Recycled
   Composted
Average Ibs./HH/day
   Disposal
   Diversion
Annual Disposal Fees
   Disposal
Net Program Costs/HH  $121.55
   Disposal Services      $121.28
   Diversion Services
   3%
   0%
  6.18
  5.98
  0.19
1996
9,462
4,541
4,921
 52%
 35%
 17%
 4.71
 2.26
 2.45
           $193,561
            $72.53
             $43.78
             $28.75
Notes: 9,611 households served in 1990; 11,000 in 1996. Dover
  also serves 210 small businesses in its residential waste
  programs. 1990 dollars adjusted to 1996 dollars using the
  GDP deflator. Numbers may not add to total due to
  rounding.
                                                                           DEMOGRAPHICS
                                                              POPULATION:  25,042 (1990);
                                                                26,094 (1996); 27,000
                                                                (1997)
                                                              HOUSEHOLDS:  11,315
                                                                (1996); 5,641 SFDs
                                                                (dwellings with four units
                                                                or less), 5,674 MFDs
                                                              BUSINESSES:  275 (est.)
                                                              LAND AREA:  28.3 square
                                                                miles
                                                              HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
                                                                400/sq. mile
                                                              AVERAGE PER CAPITA
                                                                INCOME: $15,413(1989)
                                                              MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
                                                                INCOME: $32,123(1989)
                                                              COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
                                                                Small  rural city,
                                                                manufacturing economy.
                                                                Principal businesses
                                                                include Textron, Liberty
                                                                Mutual, and Heidelberg
                                                                Web Press
                                                              COUNTY:  Strafford

-------
DOVER. NEW HAMPSHIRE
                  RESIDENTIAL WASTE  REDUCTION
                                               Tons (1996)
                 Recycled/Reused
                   Mixed Paper
                   Commingled Containers
                   Corrugated Cardboard
                   Light Iron/White Goods
                   Batteries
                   Office Paper
                   Beverage Glass
                   Aluminum/Steel Cans
                   HDPE/PET
                   Textiles1
                   MRF Rejects?
3,308
 1,891
 1,193
  227
  218
   57
   30
   18
    7
    6
   NA
 -338
                 Composted/Chipped                 1,612
                   Leaves and Other Yard Debris (Drop-off) 1,155
                   Leaves and Other Yard Debris (Curbside)   450
                   Clean Wood                         7
                 Total Waste Reduction
                                                  4,921
                 MSW Disposed
                   Landfilled
                   MRF Rejects
4,541
4,203
  338
                 Total Generation
                                                  9,462
                 Percent Reduced
                                                 52.0%
                 Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day             4.71
                 Note: Figures above represent generation and recovery by 11,000
                   households and 210 small businesses in downtown area of city.
                   Generation rate calculated using 11,000 as household figure. All
                   businesses can use drop-off center but the non-residential materials are
                   considered a negligible portion of total recovery. Numbers may not add
                   to total due to rounding.
                 1 Goodwill bin for collection of textiles at drop-off center, fons collected
                   not reported to town.
                 ?Based on 10% reject rate on 3,371 tons of material (light iron and
                   batteries excluded) as reported by WML
               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
               State and Local Policies
                    Effective 1993, yard debris and wet-cell batteries
               were  banned from  disposal  in  New  Hampshire
               landfills and incinerators.
                    New Hampshire has a goal to reduce per capita
               solid waste disposed 40% by weight by the year 2000
               as compared to  1990.  The goal is to  be achieved
               through  "source  reduction,  recycling,  reuse,  and
               composting, or any combination of such methods."2
                    The  centerpiece of Dover's waste management
               policy is its PAYT  system for  trash.   The  city's
               "Integrated  Waste  Management  Plan"  states waste
               collection   and  disposal  costs   should  be  the
               responsibility of  the generator, while the  costs of
               recycling services  are  borne  by the  city.   Local
               ordinance codified this policy through establishment
               of the city's  per-bag fees for trash disposal.
     All municipal trash customers must place trash
in orange city bags or tag oversize items. Trash set
out in other containers or untagged is not collected.
Local stores carry the bags and receive 2
-------
                                                                                                        DOVER. NEW  HAMPSHIRE
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:
             Mandatory:
      Households Served:

     Materials Accepted:
   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:

      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Waste Management of New Hampshire (
September 1991
No
All residential structures eligible for service; 11,000 households are in program, 5,641  units in buildings with four or fewer units,
5,359 units in buildings with five or more units. Approximately 210 businesses in the downtown area are also served.
Newspaper, corrugated cardboard, paperboard, magazines and catalogs, mail, office paper, phone books, glass (brown, clear,
green, and blue) food and beverage containers, metal food cans, #1 and #2 plastic bottles,juice boxes, milk cartons, aluminum
foil and beverage cans. Large appliances and scrap metal collected separately by appointment.
Weekly, same day as trash
Buildings with one to  eight dwelling units:  Paper in a reusable bin or in brown paper bags; corrugated, tied in bundles; other
materials commingled in any bin that is clearly distinguishable from trash containers.
MFDs (nine or more dwelling units): 65- or 95-gallon toters, one for paper, one for containers
Recyclables collection: Side-loading 40-cubic-yard split packer trucks with single-person crew.  Same truck used for SFDs and
MFDs. Appliances and scrap metal collection:  local contractor with pick-up truck
A 1994 count by collection crews found 74% of residents were recycling at curbside
Reduced trash disposal costs through increased recycling
Stickers attached to any unacceptable materials, which are not collected.  WMI estimates four or five bins stickered in Dover each
day.  If two violations are reported in 30 days, the recycling contractor has the right to discontinue recycling services to the offender.
WMI has discontinued  service to about 100 units, all in MFDs.
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:

   Collection Frequency:

        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
1992
Waste Management of New Hampshire (
All Dover households eligible, all material set out at curbside in kraft and/or biodegradable plastic bags are collected
No
Leaves and other soft yard debris (including grass clippings, garden plants, pine needles but excluding brush and woody debris),
holiday trees
1996: two weeks in spring and two weeks in fall, each household has collection once each week. Starting in 1997, leaf collection
is offered fall only and holiday tree collection was discontinued.5
Leaves and other soft yard debris bagged in bags provided free by city, holiday trees set at curb
Collected by single-person crew in 40-cubic-yard front-end load packer truck
NA
Free biodegradable bags provided to residents, reduced trash fees through increased diversion
None
DROP-OFF COLLECTION
        Number of sites:
                Staffing:
        Service Provider:
     Materials Accepted:

 Participation Incentives:
           Sectors Served:
One, at DPW yard.  Opened May 1990.
Recycling coordinator staffs site when open (Tuesdays 2-5 PM, Wednesdays 8 AM-12 PM, and Saturdays 8 AM-2 PM)
Site operated by Dover Department of Community Services, serviced by Waste Management of NH
All materials collected at curbside except milk andjuice boxes plus holiday trees, brush, tires, household and automotive batteries,
construction and demolition materials, wood, empty aerosol  cans, textiles, and oil filters
Reduced trash fees through increased recycling and composting
Residential  and  small commercial enterprises, users must  have vehicle permit stickers obtained  free upon proof of Dover
residency or business

-------
DOVER.  NEW HAMPSHIRE
                  ill
                Item
                                                     Costs
                                                                                Use
                                                                                                      Year Incurred
                2 Roll-off Containers!
                5,500 Recycling Bins?
$7,500
$8,400
1997
1991
                140 cubic yards each. Roll-off containers also used to haul sand and salt during winter months
                ^Purchased using state grant funds.
               Source:  Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
               hand  sorting  for  the remaining materials.  The
               current contract extends  from March  1, 1995, to
               June 30, 2000, and is a flat fee contract under which
               Dover receives  no  revenue  from the  sale  of
               recyclables.  The MRF reports a  10%  by  weight
               reject rate for recyclables.

               Composting Program
                   Dover diverts  17% of its residential waste from
               disposal through its voluntary composting programs.
               Residents can deliver leaves, brush, and  other yard
               trimmings to the city's drop-off site. In addition, the
               city  contracts  with  WMI for  seasonal curbside
                                          collection  of  bagged
                                          yard debris.
                                                 Dover  distrib-
                                          utes free bags through
                                          local  stores for  the
                                          curbside    collection
                                          program. In 1996, the
                                          collection   programs
                                          operated    for   two
                                          weeks in  the  spring
                                          and   fall  with  each
                                          residence   receiving
                                          four  annual   collec-
                                          tions. As a cost-cutting
                                          measure,  starting  in
                                          1997, collection is only
                                          offered the last week in
               October and the second full week in November on
               the same day as residents' trash collection.
                   Under a separate city  contract, WMI processes
               the materials collected in both Dover's curbside and
               drop-off collection programs. WMI uses an in-vessel
               compost  system adjacent to its Turnkey  Landfill to
               process the material  along with  biosolids.   (The
               compost  site is about six  miles from the drop-off
               site.)  Finished compost is sold commercially in the
               Northeast under the trade name "All Grow."
               Education, Publicity, and Outreach
                   The Dover Community Services Department
               produces fliers and  newsletters  about recycling and
               waste reduction.   A  city  newsletter  also  covers
               program  information,  and   city  staff  provide
               information at special community events.

               Costs
                   In   1996,   Dover's  $798,000  solid  waste
               management costs consisted primarily of contractor
               costs  for  trash  collection  and  disposal  (49%);
               recycling collection,  processing,  and  marketing
               (31%); leaf collection (2%); and composting (1.5%).
               The city-purchased trash and leaf  bags  account for
               nearly  10% of  the  total  solid  waste  budget;
               personnel, administration, and education costs make
               up the rest.  The city employs two people full-time
               to  track and administer  the  waste management
               system including contractor oversight.
                   Per  ton trash  costs  have  remained relatively
               constant  since  instituting  the   recycling  and
               composting programs and switching to a PAYT trash
               system.  Per ton costs  for  trash were $111 in 1990
               and  $115 in 1996.   Overall  budget savings have
               resulted from significantly lower per ton costs for
               waste reduction  ($60 per ton in 1996) and reduced
               generation both for the city  as a whole  and per
               household.   Dover's  net residential solid waste
               management costs  dropped from $1.1  million in
               1990  to  $798,000 while  adding more  than 1,000
               customers.  Per household costs were reduced from
               $122 in 1990 to $73 in 1996. These costs take into
               account the cost of inflation.

               Funding & Accounting  Systems
                   Dover's trash budget is operated as an enterprise
               fund, separate  from  other  waste  management
               services.  Revenues are raised for the enterprise fund
               through the sale of trash bags and tags.
                   Dover's recycling and  composting programs are
               financed through the tax base.

-------
                                                                                                     DOVER. NEW HAMPSHIRE
     Dover  tracks  the costs  of  all  its solid  waste
programs using cash flow accounting.
     In   1989,  New  Hampshire  instituted  the
Governor's  Recycling   Program  (GRP),   which
initially  made  $1.5  million  in grants available to
municipalities for  capitalizing recycling  programs.
Grants are no longer awarded but the program still
provides  waste  reduction  technical  assistance,
tracks  data, promotes markets  for  materials,  and
supports  innovation in  waste  reduction systems
                and  technologies.    In  1991,  Dover  received
                funds  from the  GRP, which it used to  purchase
                recycling bins.

                Future Plans and Obstacles to
                Increasing Diversion
                     A small increase  in illegal  dumping  occurred
                when  the  bag-and-tag  system  was  instituted.
                Prosecution  of  offenders  is  difficult  because  it
                requires  eye-witness testimony.
                                              Cost
                                                               Tons
                                                                                 Cost/Ton
                                                    Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costs
Curbside Collection and Processingl
Drop-off Collection2
Administration/Overhead/Depreciation3
Education/Publicity
Composting Gross Costs
Curbside Collection4
Leaf Bags
Drop-off Collections
Processing/Hauling6
Administration/Overhead/Depreciation7
Education/Publicity
$272,340
$230,000
$16,000
$23,840
$2,500
$43,900
$13,500
$16,900
$0.00
$12,000
$1,000
$500
3,646
2,985
661
3,646
3,646
1,612
450
450
1,162
1,605
1,612
1,612
$74.69
$77.05
$24.20
$6.54
$0.69
$27.23
$30.00
$37.56
$0.00
$7.48
$0.62
$0.31
$24.76




$3.99






 Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                         $316,240
                  5,259
$60.14
$28.75
  Materials Revenues8
($0.00)
                                                              5,259
($0.00)
($0.00)
  Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                         $316,240
                  5,259
$60.14
$28.75
  Note: Tonnage does not agree with table on page 84 as figures above include material rejected at MRF. Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
  1 Contract cost with WMI of NH for weekly collection, processing, and marketing of recyclables from 11,000 households and 210 small businesses.
  ^Contract cost with WMI of NH for weekly collection, processing, and marketing of recyclables from drop-off center.
  -"Includes cost for 57% of salary for two full-time employees. Overhead costs for these employees borne by the Community Services Department.
  Contract cost with WMI of NH for collection of leaves in spring and fall.
  5Drop-off for yard debris is unattended.
  SRayments to WMI for collection of yard debris from drop-off and processing of all materials at its compost site.
  'Includes cost for 2.5% of salary for two full-time employees. Overhead costs for these employees borne by the Community Services Department.
  SDover receives no revenue from materials marketed as per its contract with WMI.
                                              Cost
                                                               Tons
                                                                                 Cost/Ton
                                                    Cost/HH/YR
Disposal Gross Costs
Trash Collection1
Bag/Tag Purchase
Landfill Tip Fees2
Adm i n istration/Overhead3
Education/Publicity
$481,606
$201,000
$60,370
$193,561
$1 6,075
$10,600
4,203
4,203
4,203
4,203
4,203
4,203
$114.58
$47.82
$14.35
$46.05
$3.82
$252
$43.78





 Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                         $316,240
                  5,259
$60.14
$28.75
 SWM Gross Costs
                                         $797,846
                  9,462
$84.32
$72.53
  Materials Revenues
($0.00)
                                                              5,259
($0.00)
($0.00)
 Total SWM Net Costs
                                         $797,846
                  9,462
$84.32
$72.53
  Note: Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
  1 Contract cost with WMI of NH for weekly collection of trash.
  ^Dover pays tip fees to WMI based on actual tons disposed.
  ^Includes cost for 40% of salary for two full-time employees. Overhead costs for these employees borne by the Community Services Department.

-------
  DOVER. NEW HAMPSHIRE
WMI collector loading recyclables into side-loading 40-
cubic-yard split packer truck
White goods collected via on-call curbside collection
service and stored on city property
    The  recycling  co-
ordinator would like to
add   food    discards
collection  in order to
increase diversion. The
in-vessel   composting
system  used   at  the
Waste Management fa-
cility makes this feasible
but a collection strategy
needs to be developed.
    Dover   plans   to
continue an aggressive
waste  diversion  pro-
gram  not just  to  save
the city money in the
short  term  but also to
cushion  itself  against
future  costs.    Dover's
municipally-owned
former landfill is on the
Superfund    National
Priority  List and  the
city has  been  assessed
70%   liability   for  its
clean-up.    Dover  city
planners believe aggres-
sive waste diversion de-
creases the potential for
future  public   liability
for the current  disposal
site.
                                                                                     PER  TON  OPERATING COSTS FOR
                                                                                  RESIDENTIAL WASTE MANAGEMENTS
                   Tips  for Replication
                           Institute a user-fee based program.
                           Research the  bags to be used in a bag-and-
                   tag  system.   It  is  important to  have  bags  of the
                   correct strength and size.  Color is also important but
                   could add unnecessary costs.  (Dover's orange bags
                   are  distinctive but  cost a few cents  more per bag
                   compared to blue or yellow.  In retrospective, Dover
                   would have  chosen an alternative distinctive color
                   that did not add unnecessary costs.)
                           Talk  about  waste  reduction  plans  to  all
                   groups who will listen, including civic  groups, the
                   League  of  Women  Voters,  and  Chambers  of
                   Commerce.
                           Include   low-income  residents   in   the
                   program.   Dover's low-income  residents receive an
                                                                               $160
                                                                               $140
                                                                                                  1990
                                                                                                               1996
                                                                                         Trash
                                                                                                    Gross Waste
                                                                                                    Reduction
                                     | Net Waste
                                      Reduction
allowance   included   in   welfare    checks   to
accommodate the cost of purchasing trash bags.
        Establish  a  newsletter to  regularly remind
residents about the program and update them on any
changes.
        Track data.
Notes:
1 Dover paid landfill tip fees of $16/ton in 1985; the fees rose to $65/ton in
  1990.
?The state waste reduction goal is complemented by a requirement that
  waste disposed at state landfills be reduced at least 20% by weight
  through "removal of recyclable materials, composting, resource recovery,
  or any other method approved by the division of waste management, or
  any combination of such methods."
^Based on 4.4 Ibs of MSW per person per day, 2.69 persons per household,
  and 60% of MSW generated in residential stream. See U.S. EPA,
  Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S.:  1996 Update, May
  1997.
4The Community Services Department provides public works services (i.e., water,
  sewer, snow removal, solid waste management, street and drain
  maintenance) and maintains community facilities (i.e., playgrounds, ice rink,
  swimming pools, ball fields).
Wter fiscal year 1996, spring leaf collection was discontinued as a cost-
  cutting measure.
^Dover's 1990 recycling costs were under $10 per ton largely because the
  program was drop-off only and staffed by volunteers. WMI provided
  roll-offs and collected materials free of charge and retained the revenue
  from material  sales.
                                JHfll
                               Jeff Pratt
                               Solid Waste Coordinator
                               Dover Community Services Department
                               Municipal Building
                               288 Central Avenue
                               Dover, NH 03820
                               PHONE: 603-743-6094
                               FAX: 603-743-6096
                               WEB SITE: http://www.ci.dover.nh.us

-------
                                                  RESIDENTIAL  WASTE GENERATION
                                                      PER  HOUSEHOLD PER  DAY
                                                   13.0
                                                           FY90
                                                                    FY94
                                                                             FY97
                                                                                  Composting
     Falls  Church  made  a commitment  to
     recycling in 1989 when  it hired its first
     Recycling  Coordinator.   The  position
was  originally intended to be temporary but
eight years later, the  same person holds the
position and the program has grown under her
leadership.  Effective 1991, city code  required
the city to provide curbside recycling  and yard
debris services to all  residents receiving city
trash service.   As a result, the  city  provides
weekly trash  and curbside recycling  services,
and  brush, fall leaves, and bagged yard debris
collection  services  to  its residents.   Falls
Church's  waste reduction rate increased from
39% in FY90 to 65% in FY97 (25% through
recycling  and 40% through composting).  The
biggest gain was  in recycling, which rose from
10% to 25%.   During the same  period,  per
household trash disposal was cut nearly in half.
     Drivers for Falls Church's waste diversion
program  are  curbside collection of  a  wide
variety of materials, year-round  yard debris collection (especially the fall leaf program which
accounts for 45% of the city's  total waste diversion), and community  involvement in education
programs. The city provides curbside  collection of 14 types of recyclables and four types of yard
debris. 1  Falls Church is an old  community with mature  lawns and  trees and yard debris is a
significant component of its waste stream. The cornerstones of the city's education program are
the  Recycling and  Litter Prevention Council  (RLPC) and the "Recycling Block Captains"
program in which over 100 citizen volunteers participate.
     The city's waste reduction program is cost-effective due to a reduction in trash routes made
                                               possible by decreased  trash generation, and a fee
                                               structure whereby increased recycling does not
                                               increase costs because the recycling contractor
                                               is paid per household served.  Falls Church
                                               reduced trash collection  from twice to once
                                               weekly in  1991, less than one year after the city
                                               started multi-material curbside recycling.  As a
                                               result, the  city  cut the number of trash crew
                                               members from ten to  seven.2 Unlike recycling,
                                               trash and yard debris costs grow as these streams
                                               increase because of tonnage-based tip fees the
                                               city pays for their management.  In the 1990s,
                                               the greatest increase in the city's diversion rate
                                               resulted from recovery of trash for recycling. As
                                               a  result   of these   factors,   Falls  Church
Tons Per Year
  Disposal
  Diversion
Percent Diverted
  Recycled
  Composted
Average Ibs./HH/day
  Disposal
  Diversion
Annual Disposal Fees
  Disposal
Net Program Costs/HH
  Disposal Services
  Diversion Services
  6,956
   4,259
   2,597
   39%
   10%
   29%
  13.23
    8.10
    5.13

$124,576
$372.21
 $194.43
 $177.78
                                   FY97
  6,655
   2,316
   4,339
   65%
   25%
   40%
  12.45
   4.34
   8.12

$110,654
$215.21
 $104.30
 $110.91
Notes: 2,880 households served in FY90; 2,928 in FY97. FY90
  dollars adjusted to FY97 dollars using the GDP deflator.
  Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
                                               experienced a  decrease  in  its solid  waste
                                               management budget  from  $1.05  million in
                                               FY90 to $630,000 in FY97.
                                                                            DEMOGRAPHICS
                                                                            POPULATION:  9,578 (1989),
                                                                              10,000(1996, estimate)
                                                                            HOUSEHOLDS:  4,637 (1996);
                                                                              2,194 detached single-
                                                                              family homes, 1,441 multi-
                                                                              family units, 431
                                                                              town homes, 571
                                                                              condominiums
                                                                            BUSINESSES:  1,200, 300 of
                                                                              which are home-based
                                                                            LAND AREA:  2.2 sq. miles
                                                                            HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
                                                                              2,108 households/sq. mi.
                                                                            AVERAGE PER CAPITA
                                                                              INCOME:  $26,709(1989)
                                                                            MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
                                                                              INCOME:  $51,011 (1989)
                                                                            COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
                                                                              Small suburban city in
                                                                              metropolitan area of
                                                                              Washington, DC
                                                                            COUNTY:  Independent city,
                                                                              not in a county. The city is
                                                                              bordered by Fairfax County
                                                                              and Arlington County.

-------
FALLS CHURCH. VIRGINIA
                                                 Tons (FY97)
                  Recycled                           1,684
                    Newspaper                         894
                    Corrugated Cardboard/Paperboard       286
                    Glass                             252
                    Mixed Paper/Phone Books             216
                    Cans                              74
                    Ferrous Scrap/White Goods             58
                    Plastics                             23
                    MRF Rejectsi                       _TI9
                  Composted/Chipped
                    Leaves2
                    Brush
                    Yard Trimmings
2,655
2,035
  411
  209
                 Total Waste Reduction
                                                   4,339
                  MSW Disposed
                    Incinerated
                    MRF Rejects
2,316
2,198
  119
                 Total Generation
                                                   6,655
                  Percent Reduced
                                                   65.2%
                  Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day
 12.5
                  Note: Figures include trash and recycling from municipal buildings and
                    2,928 households (single-family detached housing, townhouses and
                    townhouse-style condominiums). An 80-unit condominium complex
                    receives curbside paper service and a 50-unit condominium complex
                    received recycling service in FY97. Recycling tonnages above do not
                    include materials from these complexes. ILSR reduced drop-off tons as
                    reported by Falls Church by 23% to exclude material delivered by non-
                    residents, commercial and institutional establishments and residents not
                    in the city's residential program. The 23% reflects the result of a 1992
                    survey in which recycling center users were polled as to their sector of
                    origin.
                  1 Based on 9% by weight of material processed at MRF rejected as
                    nonrecyclable as reported by BFI.
                  ?Falls Church calculated weight based on scale weight of an average
                    truck load (3.25 tons/load) multiplied by 626 loads.
                State and Local Policies
                     The state has a limited role in community waste
                management. The Virginia General Assembly passed
                state recycling goals of 10% by 1991,  15% by 1993,
                and 25% by 1995.
                     Fairfax  County enacted  disposal  bans  at  its
                facilities on white goods and brush (effective January
                1991)  and all  other yard debris (effective  1992).
                (Falls Church disposes of its trash at Fairfax County's
                1-66 Transfer Station.)
                     Chapter 13 of the Falls Church City Code was
                re-written in 1991. The  chapter title was changed
                from "Garbage  and Trash"  to "Solid Waste" and
                specifies that residents  receiving trash service  must
                also receive  curbside  recycling  and yard  debris
                services. Participation in the programs is voluntary.
                     The Falls Church code requires businesses with
                more than 200 employees or that produce more than
100 tons per year of waste to recycle and all businesses
to file an annual report reporting tons recycled. The
code   requires   apartment   and  condominium
complexes to provide on-site recycling  of newspaper,
glass, and cans at least once every two weeks.

Source Reduction  and Reuse Initiatives
     In 1991, Falls Church began offering its residents
backyard  composting classes. As  of November 1997,
the  recycling coordinator  conducts  classes  when
citizen requests indicate enough demand to fill a class.
For the last few years the city has offered a leaf-cycling
and composting demonstration once a year.
     The  city and the RLPC  co-sponsored a textiles
and  clothing reuse/recycling pilot program in fall
1997, which collected six tons of materials. If a second
collection event is successful, the city may establish an
ongoing, semi-annual program. Falls Church supports
other  source reduction  and  reuse  strategies  in  its
publications  and through referrals to private groups
offering reuse programs.

Recycling Program
     In FY97,  Falls  Church recycled  25%  of  its
residential waste stream.  The  city provided  each
household in the residential program  with a green
bin  for recyclables.3   Under contract, Browning-
Ferris Industries provides weekly curbside collection
of binned and  bagged  recyclables.  BFI processes
collected   materials  at   its   MRF    located  in
Newington, Virginia, 15 miles from Falls Church.
Commingled materials are sorted  with magnets to
remove steel, an air  classifier to  remove aluminum
and plastics,  and a trommel  to remove contaminants.
Aluminum,  plastics,  and glass  are further hand-
sorted. Bags of paper from Falls Church  arrive at the
MRF in  one truck compartment.  Sorters remove
bags of non-newspaper  from the tipping floor and
send it to a manual sorting line. The newspaper is
baled.  About  8-9%  of material  processed at the
MRF is rejected.
     City  DPW crews  collect white  goods  by
appointment as  part of the bulky waste  collection
program. Collected appliances are delivered to USA
Waste  of  Northern Virginia  (formerly  Metro
Recyclers) for recycling.
     The   city  maintains  a  drop-off  center  for
recyclables.  Metro  Recyclers  serviced  this  facility
until June 1997; the contract was then granted to
Capitol Fiber.

-------
                                                                                                        FALLS CHURCH. VIRGINIA
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:

             Mandatory:
      Households Served:

     Materials Accepted:

   Collection Frequency:

        Set-out Method:


      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
 Browning Ferris Industries for weekly recycling collection; Falls Church DPW for white goods collection
 Newspaper recycling began in 1970s. Program expanded to include glass, aluminum, and plastics in December 1990.  Magazines,
 catalogs, and corrugated added in December 1993.  In July 1995, the city added mixed paper, paperboard, and phone books.
 No
 All those receiving city trash service (2,928 households including all  single-family dwellings, townhouses, and townhouse-style
 condominiums) and a 50-unit condominium complex. The city provides paper collection to an 80-unit condominium complex.
 ONP, magazines, catalogs, mixed paper (mail, copier and computer paper, colored and glossy paper, envelopes, folders, and note
 cards), OCC, paperboard, phone books, glass bottles and jars, metal cans, #1 and #2 plastic bottles, white goods
 Wednesdays for commingled materials (residential  trash collection  is performed Monday through Thursday so approximately
 one-fourth of residents get same day recycling and  trash services), white goods by appointment
 Each in own bundle  or paper bag: (1) newspaper, magazines, catalogs, (2) mixed paper, (3)  OCC and paperboard. Bundles set
 next to or in green 18-gallon bin, provided  by the city. Phone books next to or in  bin. Commingled in bin: glass bottles and
jars, metal cans, #1 and #2 plastic bottles and jugs.  White goods by appointment
 Single-person crews collect recyclables in a 34-cubic-yard split side-loader (McNeilus body on a Peterbiltor International truck).
 The truck is split into two compartments, each taking up 50% of the truck volume.  Two-person crews collect white goods and
 bulk trash in either a four-cubic-yard dump truck or a 24-cubic-yard clam  truck
 90% (conservative coordinator estimate)
 Convenience
 Contract requires collection crews to leave unacceptable items in bins with a written notice indicating the nature of the problem.
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
 Leaf and brush collection began in the 1970s.  Other materials added 1993.
 City of Falls Church Department of Public Works
 Those receiving city trash services only
 No
 Grass clippings, brush, leaves, and other yard and garden debris
 Bagged yard debris: Mondays from January through October, leaves collected Oct. 15 to Dec. 15.  Brush is collected year-round
 except during leaf season.  Brush  and leaves collection crews follow routes getting as much done as possible and continuing
 from the ending spot the next day. (The amount of a route the collection crews can cover in a day varies immensely depending
 on number and volume of set-outs).  Usually the brush collection crews cover the city every two and a half weeks.
 Grass clippings, twigs, leaves, and  other yard and  garden debris must be placed in 30-gallon paper bags and have collection
 sticker affixed. Sticker available at City Hall and Community Center for $0.50. Fall leaf collection:  leaves raked to curb. Brush
 stacked or bundled and set at curb.
 Bagged yard debris collected by two-person crews  in 25-cubic-yard Loadmaster packer trucks. Leaf collection by four- to five-
 person crews using vacuum collectors attached to dump trucks.  Brush collected by two-person crews in either 25-cubic yard
 packer truck or a 24-cubic-yard clam truck
 NA
 Free leaf mulch, convenience of weekly collection for most of the year
 Crews leave unacceptable items with a yellow tag indicating the nature of the problem.
DROP-OFF COLLECTION
        Number of sites:
                Staffing:
        Service Provider:
     Materials Accepted:

 Participation Incentives:
         Sectors Served:
One, the site is accessible 24 hours a day.
None
Capitol Fiber
ONP, mixed paper (magazines, catalogs, mail), OCC, paperboard, glass bottles and jars, metal cans, aluminum foil and pie pans,
#1 and #2 plastic bottles, phone books, scrap metal, some household batteries
Large amounts of materials (especially cardboard) are more easily prepared for drop-off than curbside collection
All

-------
FALLS CHURCH. VIRGINIA
                 Item
                                                                Costs
                                                                                        Use
                                                                                                          Year Incurred
                 ODB Vacuum Leaf Collector                       $13,700
                 Peterbilt Truck w/ 25-cubic-yard Loadmaster Packer  $104,000
                 200 18-Gallon Recycling Bins                      $1,840
                 Volvo Truck w/ 25-cubic-yard Loadmaster Packer     $106,000
                 Ford Dump Truck (4 cubic yards)1                  $47,406
                 2 ODB Vacuum Leaf Collectors                     $27,400
                 Ford Dump Truck (4 cubic yards)l                  $38,800
                 CMC Truck w/ 25-cubic-yard Loadmaster Packer     $109,243
                 3,100 18-Gallon Recycling Bins                    $13,622
                 CMC Truck w/ 25-cubic-yard Loadmaster Packer     $107,500
                 GiantVac Leaf Collector                          $10,420
                 Ford Clam Truck (24 cubic yards)                  $45,127
                 Note: Equipment was paid in full at the time of purchase out of city's general fund.
                   fuel, insurance, and depreciation.
                 1 Vehicles also used for non-MSW tasks.
               Composting               1997
              Trash Collection              1997
                Recycling                1996
              Trash Col lection              1996
         Brush and Special Collections        1995
               Composting               1994
         Brush and Special Collections        1990
              Trash Collection              1990
                Recycling                1990
              Trash Col lection              1989
               Composting               1988
         Brush and Special Collections        1988
 DPW pays for use on a per mile basis, the cost of which includes purchase,
                Composting Program
                    In FY97, Falls Church  composted  40% of its
                residential waste. The city encompasses many single-
                family homes with  mature  lawns and trees.  Yard
                debris generation is more  than  five pounds  per
                household per day. Residents must bag yard debris,
                such as grass clippings  and plant materials, in kraft
                bags and affix a sticker, which cost 50t  each. The
                city provides brush and fall leaf collections for  no
                extra  charge to residents.  City crews collect yard
                debris, January through October', loose leaves, mid-
                October through  mid-December; and brush year-
                round except during leaf season.  The city delivers
                yard debris  and  brush to  Fairfax  County's 1-66
                Transfer  Station (10  miles from  Falls Church) for
                processing. The county tub-grinds brush on-site and
                allows free pick-up  of mulch by  county residents.
                                            The  county  transfers
                                            yard  trimmings to  a
                                            county-owned Manas-
                                            sas site operated by  O.
                                            M.  Scott under  coop-
                                            erative agreement.   O.
                                            M.    Scott   windrow
                                            composts yard debris at
                                            the  site  and  sells  the
                                            finished   product  as
                                            commercial compost.
                                                   Falls    Church
                                            hires a  tub-grinding
                                            service   to   process
                                            leaves at the city's leaf
storage area.   The city gives  the  leaf  mulch to
residents on a self-haul or delivery basis.  The city's
free  delivery  service  is  especially popular  among
residents.   The  city gives extra leaves to Potomac
Vegetable Farm, a local organic farm.

Education,  Publicity, and Outreach
    Falls   Church's  multi-faceted  education  and
outreach  program  focuses  on  outreach through
personal contact, written materials, and programs in
schools and community groups.
    Falls Church encourages volunteer participation
through its Recycling and Litter Prevention Council
(RLPC) and "Recycling Block Captain" programs.
The RLPC is made up of a nine member executive
committee and  several task  groups including youth
education, business recycling, and textiles collection.
Recycling block captains are citizens who  distribute
recycling  information in their  neighborhoods and
serve as a  liaison between them and  the city.
    "Operation Earthwatch,"  a program sponsored
by the RLPC's Education Task Group and supported
by  other  local  groups  encourages elementary
students  to  reduce  waste  and  perform  other
environmental activities.  The  RLPC has organized
school field trips to the 1-66 Waste Disposal Facility
(the county trash transfer station, recycling drop-off
site, and yard  debris processing site)  for elementary
students as  part   of  a  comprehensive  education
program on waste.
    Among brochures available to residents are "The
3  R's Directory,"  "The  Recycler"  newsletter,  the

-------
                                                                                                                   FALLS  CHURCH. VIRGINIA
"What's the  Law?" brochure, and the  "City  of Falls
Church  Recycling  and Waste  Reduction  Guide."
Most  brochures  are  available   at  City   Hall,  the
Community Center,   the  Library,  and  some local
                   businesses. Videotapes on recycling-related issues are
                   also available to schools and community groups.
   WASTE REDUCTION  COSTS fFY97)
                                                    Cost
                                                                        Tons
                                                                                            Cost/Ton
                                                           Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costs
Curbside Collection and Processing1
Drop-off Collection?
Special Collections3
Administration/ Depreciation
Education/Publicity
Composting Gross Costs
Brush Collection4
Leaf Collection/Delivery5
Yard Trimmings Collection4
Leaf Processings
Tip Fees7
Administration
Education/Publicity
$111,458
$63,012
$1,961
$8,298
$17,530
$20,657
$213,289
$66,385
$90,065
$24,894
$9,000
$16,698
$2,539
$3,707
1,803
1,321
424
58
1,803
1,803
2,655
411
2,035
209
2,035
620
2,655
2,655
$61.83
$47.70
$4.62
$143.96
$9.72
$11.46
$80.33
$161.36
$44.27
$119.05
$4.42
$26.93
$0.96
$1.40
$38.07





$72.84







  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                               $324,746
                     4,458
$72.85
$110.91
  Materials Revenues
($0.00)
                                                                      4,476
($0.00)
 ($0.00)
  Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                               $324,746
                     4,458
$72.85
$110.91
  Note: Figures may not total due to rounding. FY97 started July 1,1996, and ended on June 30,1997.  Recycling tonnage figure differs from figure in table on
     page 90 as figure above includes MRF rejects. Cost figures above include equipment depreciation and overhead and administration costs for the Recycling
     and Fitter Prevention program. Overhead/administrative costs above this level are not included.
  1 Represents actual contract payment to BFI based on $1.78 per household per month for 2,950 households served. The actual count of households served
  differs slightly with 2,928 single-family homes, townhouses, and townhouse-style condominiums receiving city trash and recycling services. An additional
  50-unit condominium complex receives full curbside recycling service and an 80-unit condominium complex receives recycling of paper only.  Recycling
  tonnage represents material from 2,928 households served  by both city recycling and trash programs only. The city's recycling contract extended from July
  1,1995 to June 30, 1997, with three one-year extension options.  The city has exercised its first option.
  ^Represents payments to Metro  Recyclers. The contractor was paid $50 per pull at the site.  IFSR pro-rated costs to reflect Falls Church tonnage only.
  ^Represents 50% of salaries and benefits for city staff performing bulky waste and white goods collections, and vehicle charges.  Exact split of costs for
  trash versus white goods was not available but city estimates about half of material is white goods.
  City trash crews collect brush and other yard trimmings. IFSR calculated costs by pro-rating trash  crew costs according to amount of time spent on yard
  trimming collection functions.
  5Falls Church provides free home delivery of truckloads of leaf mulch as an extra service for city residents.
  SRepresents flat fee  payment to private company for mulching leaves at city mulch site.
  'Tip fees paid to Fairfax County for tipping of brush and other yard trimmings. FY97 fees were $25 per ton for brush and $30 for other yard trimmings.
  Tip fees cover transport and processing costs.

1 TOTAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS fFY97) 1

Disposal Gross Costs
Trash Collection1
Trash Hauling2
Tip Fees3
Administration/Education/Publicity
Waste Reduction Gross Costs
SWM Gross Costs
Materials Revenues
Total SWM Net Costs
Cost Tons
$305,400 2,198
$190,857 2,198
$11,762 2,198
$98,892 2,198
$3,889 2,198
$324,746 4,458
$630,146 6,655
($0.00) 4,476
$630,146 6,655
Cost/Ton Cost/HH/YR
$138.97 $104.30
$86.85
$5.35
$45.00
$1.77
$72.85 $110.91
$94.68 $215.21
($0.00) ($0.00)
$94.68 $215.21
Note: Figures may not total due to rounding. FY97 started July 1, 1996, and ended on June 30, 1997. Figures above include debt service on equipment and
overhead and administration costs for the trash collection and disposal program. Overhead/administrative costs above this level are not included.
1Two two-person city crews collect trash weekly.
^Represents fees city paid to private hauler.
3Trash disposed at the county-owned I-66 Transfer Station. FY97 tip fee $45 per ton. This facility is 10 miles from Falls Church, in Fair Oaks, Virginia.

-------
FALLS CHURCH. VIRGINIA
                      PER TON OPERATING COSTS  FOR
                    RESIDENTIAL  WASTE MANAGEMENT
                           FY90
                         I Trash
                                       FY94
                                    Gross Waste
                                    Reduction
                                                   FY97
I Net Waste
 Reduction
               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
               Costs
                    In 1996, the city spent about $630,000 for solid
               waste  management —  about $215 per household
               served.  Of this, 48% was spent on trash collection
               and disposal, 18% on recycling, and 34% on yard
               debris collection and recovery. Falls Church receives
               no revenue from the sale of its materials. The city's
               recycling coordinator believes this arrangement  is
               advantageous to  the  city  because it was  able  to
               negotiate a low-cost collection contract (based on
               number of households served) and is cushioned from
               market fluctuations.  On a per-ton basis, trash cost
               $139 and waste reduction  cost  $73 (recycling cost
               $62 per ton, and yard debris recovery, $80).
                    Components   of  the   1996  budget  were
               personnel  costs (54%), tip  fees  (20%), fees paid to
               contractors for  services  (13%), and  equipment costs
               (9%). The city employs seven full-time employees to
               collect trash and yard debris.  Hourly wages average
               $13.68 for crew members.

               Funding  &  Accounting Systems
                    The Falls Church DPW receives its funds each
               year directly from the city's general fund. Revenue
               generated by the sale of yard debris stickers ($7,222
               in FY97) and  a yearly state litter control grant are
               deposited into  the general fund. 4 The city owns the
               equipment used by  the DPW; the Department  is
               charged for its use.    Falls  Church  uses accrual
               accounting techniques to track its expenditures.
Future Plans and  Obstacles to
Increasing Diversion
    The   city   is  continually   exploring   new
opportunities for further waste reduction, such as the
textiles  and clothing reuse/recycling pilot program.
Another program being  planned is an educational
campaign to encourage  vermicomposting of  food
discards.
    The RLPC's Business Recycling Task Group
has initiated a new program aimed at the commercial
sector, the  Business  Recycling Mentor Program, in
which  businesses recycling for a long  time  offer
guidance to businesses just starting programs.
    Central  to  the  city's  future  plans   is  a
commitment to sustain  its strong education  and
outreach programs,  at  least at their current levels.
The recycling coordinator believes the city's current
waste diversion  success is a result  of  the education
program,  and  believes  an on-going program is
necessary to reach new residents and  to keep  long-
term residents involved.

Tips  for  Replication
       Community  involvement and encouraging
volunteers are critical to keeping residents motivated
and participating.
       Educate, especially target children.  Children
can have a  big effect on a household's behavior.
       Recover  yard debris.   In  older, developed
communities, such  as  Falls  Church, yard  debris
comprises a high proportion of waste  generated.
       Make program participation convenient.
                   Notes:
                   1 Three additional material categories are accepted only at the city's drop-off
                     recycling center.
                   ?Trash crews also perform brush, yard debris, and leaf collection. The
                     reduction in trash services to once weekly resulted in the city using two
                     two-person crews four days a week for trash collection as opposed to
                     two three-person crews.
                   ^Residents are provided with a free replacement bin in the event theirs is
                     lost, damaged, or stolen.
                   4The state liter control grant has averaged $3,050 over the last nine years.
                     The FY97 grant was $3,692.
                     CONTACT
                     Annette Mills
                     Coordinator, Recycling and Litter Prevention
                     City of Falls Church, Department of Public Works
                     Harry E. Wells Building, 300 Park Avenue
                     Falls  Church, VA 22046-3332
                     PHONE: 703-241-5176
                     FAX: 703-241-5184

-------
                                                  RESIDENTIAL WASTE  GENERATION
                                                       PER  HOUSEHOLD  PER DAY
                                                           1992
                                                          Trash
                                                                    1994
                                                                    Recycling
                                                                             1996
                                                            I Composting
                                               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
     Fitchburg has a long history of innovation
     in waste  reduction programs.  The city
     instituted the first mandatory  recycling
ordinance and the first multi-family recycling
ordinance in Wisconsin and was the first city in
the U.S. to  implement curbside  polystyrene
collection.
    Fitchburg contracts with Browning Ferris
Industries  to  provide  trash  collection  and
disposal, recycling collection, processing and
marketing, and curbside  collection  of non-
woody yard debris. The city provides periodic
brush collection.  In  1996, Fitchburg diverted
50% of its waste from disposal (29% through
recycling and 21% through composting).
    Fitchburg achieved high waste reduction
through recycling of  many items, composting,
and  pay-as-you-throw  (PAYT)  trash fees.
Residents can recycle 21 types of materials; 17 through their weekly curbside collection program;
two through  monthly collection of reusable  goods (household durable items and textiles); one
material collected  (scrap metal) at drop-off only; and one  material (white goods)  collected by
special appointment.  Yard debris collection and drop-off programs accept leaves, grass clippings,
and other yard and garden debris.  A separate program collects and processes brush. PAYT trash
rates serve as an incentive for decreased disposal. Solid waste disposal per household has dropped
from  four  pounds per household in 1992  (before  PAYT  rates were initiated) to about three
pounds per household in 1996.
    Drivers  for  cost-effectiveness of the  city's waste reduction  programs  include low  costs
associated with composting,  inexpensive collection at drop-off sites, and a decrease in waste
generation by residents. In 1996, per ton waste reduction  costs were $101.  Composting costs
                                               were only $78, well below the $100 per ton cost
                                               of trash collection and  disposal.    Drop-off
                                               recycling collection cost  $7  per  ton compared
                                               to $96 per  ton for curbside collection; drop-off
                                               composting collection (and processing) cost $15
                                               per  ton, curbside  collection (and processing),
                                               $117.  Per household waste generation dropped
                                               4%  from  1992 to 1996, with  trash disposal
                                               decreasing  by a pound  per household per day.
Tons Per Year
   Disposal
   Diversion
Percent Diverted
   Recycled
   Composted
Average Ibs./HH/day
   Disposal
   Diversion
 3,644
  2,379
  1,265
  35%
  24%
  11%
  6.16
  4.02
  2.14
                                   1996
4,147
 2,079
 2,068
 50%
 29%
 21%
 5.89
 2.95
 2.94
Annual Disposal Fees
   Disposal
$71,746
                                  $72,666
Net Program Costs/HH  $126.48      $108.12
   Disposal Services       $72.08       $52.51
   Diversion Services      $54.40       $55.61
Notes: 3,243 households served in 1992; 3,860 in 1996. 1992
   dollars adjusted to 1996 dollars using the GDP deflator.
   Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
As a result, Fitchburg disposed of less waste in
1996 than in 1992 despite a nearly 20% growth
in households.   Fitchburg's  net solid  waste
management budget increased from $398,000
in 1992 to $417,000 in 1996 but per household
costs decreased from $126 to  $108 during the
same period.
                                                                           DEMOGRAPHICS
                                                              POPULATION: 16,254 (1992),
                                                                17,266(1996)
                                                              HOUSEHOLDS: 6,685 (1990);
                                                                3,057 single-
                                                                family households and
                                                                duplexes, 3,628 multi-
                                                                family units. 7,500 (1996);
                                                                3,860 units in buildings
                                                                with 1-4 units
                                                              BUSINESSES: 330
                                                              LAND AREA:  34.67 sq. miles
                                                              HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:  216
                                                                households/sq. mi.
                                                              AVERAGE PER CAPITA
                                                                INCOME:  $17,668 (1989)
                                                              MEDIAN  HOUSEHOLD
                                                                INCOME:  $35,550(1989)
                                                              COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
                                                                Small city in the Madison
                                                                metropolitan area with
                                                                diverse character. The
                                                                sections of the city nearest
                                                                Madison are urbanized,
                                                                other sections within the
                                                                city limits are rural
                                                                farmland.  The city
                                                                maintains an extensive
                                                                park system, giving the
                                                                community a rural flavor.
                                                                Principal employers
                                                                include Certco, Nicolet
                                                                Instrument Corp., Promega
                                                                Corp., Nicolet Biomedical,
                                                                Inc., Placon Corp., and
                                                                General Beverage Sales.
                                                              COUNTY: Dane

-------
FITCHBURG. WISCONSIN
                  RESIDENTIAL WASTE  REDUCTION
                                                Tons (1996)
                 Recycled
                    Newspaper
                    Glass
                    Magazines
                    Mixed Paper
                    Corrugated Cardboard
                    Scrap Metal!
                    Steel/Tin
                    HOPE
                    Aluminum
                    PET
                    Polystyrene
                    Other Plastics
                    Reusable Items?
                    White Goods3
                    MRF Rejects^
1,185
  434
  211
  186
  179
   74
   38
   37
   36
   25
   15
    6
    4
   NA
   NA
  -60
                 Composted/Chipped                  883
                    Yard Trimmings (Drop-off)5             534
                    BrushS                            186
                    Yard Trimmings (Curbside Collection)?     163
                 Total Waste Reduction
                                                   2,068
                 MSW Disposed
                    Landfilled
                    MRF Rejects
2,079
2,019
   60
                 Total Generation
                                                   4,147
                 Percent Reduced
                                                  49.9%
                 Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day
 5.89
                 Note:  Figures include only waste handled by Fitchburg's city-sponsored
                   single-family residential waste programs. Waste generated in
                   residences with more than four units and yard debris handled at county
                   sites are not included.
                 1 Total scrap metal collected was 50 tons.  The Project Manager reported
                   some non-residential scrap was collected but conservatively
                   estimated residential scrap as 75% of total.
                 2fons not tracked. Fitchburg estimates collection was under two tons.
                 3Tons not tracked by city or hauler.
                 4Based on  average 5% by weight reject rate at MRF.
                 ^Estimated tons using 96 10-cubic-yard loads of grass trimmings with
                   an estimated density of 600 pounds per cubic yard and 164 10-
                   cubic-yard truckloads of leaves with an estimated density of 300
                   pounds per cubic yard.
                 6Fitchburg estimated weight using 99 6-cubic-yard loads of chips
                   produced from material collected, at a density of 625 pounds per
                   cubic yard.
                 7Actual scale weights as reported by BFI.
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

                State and Local  Policies
                    In  1989, Dane County banned newsprint from
                its landfill.1  In 1993, the state modeled its laws on
                the Dane County ordinance when  it banned  yard
                debris  from Wisconsin landfills.  Effective  1995, all
                plastic,  steel, glass,  and  aluminum  containers;
                paperboard;  polystyrene   packaging;  corrugated
                cardboard; newspaper and other paper; and tires were
                banned  from  Wisconsin   landfills.    The  state
                subsequently   allowed a  temporary exemption for
#3  through  #7  type   plastics.    Communities
determined  by  the  Wisconsin  Department  of
Natural  Resources to  have an  "effective recycling
program" are exempted from the bans. The state has
no recycling goal.
     Fitchburg's   Solid   Waste   and   Recycling
Ordinance  requires all  occupants of residential and
commercial  property  in  the  city  to  separate
recyclables  from  trash.  The ordinance  specifies  16
categories of  material  as  recyclable, details  proper
preparation  methods  for  the  materials, requires
owners of multi-family dwellings with five or more
units  to  implement  a   recycling  program, and
prohibits delivery  of  recyclables  to any disposal
facility. The Public Works Director or a designated
representative may inspect recyclable materials, trash,
collection  areas  of  multi-family  residences and
businesses, and waste management facilities. The city
can levy fines against anyone who delivers materials
collected for  recycling to  a  solid  waste disposal
facility.   It  can  also  fine  other violators  of  the
ordinance from $10 to $1,000.  To date, fewer than
10 individuals and no businesses have been fined.
     All residents pay an  annual base rate for trash,
recycling, and yard debris  services. The  FY97 fee is
$82 per household and covers collection  and disposal
of up to one 32-gallon trash can per week. Weekly
collection of one 64-gallon container costs an extra
$34.68 per year; a 95-gallon container costs  $60.96
extra.  Approximately  13% of  residents subscribe to
service  above  the  base  level.    Residents with
occasional extra trash can use  trash  tags.2 The city
annually provides households with ten free trash tags,
which can be attached to  an extra container of trash.
Additional  tags  ($1.50 each)  are available at local
retail stores, the utility district  office, or City  Hall.

Source Reduction and  Reuse Initiatives
     After  PAYT  trash  rates  began  in  1994,  per
household  MSW  generation  decreased  4%  by
weight (from 6.16 pounds per household per day in
1994 to  5.89 pounds  in 1996.)
     Fitchburg encourages residents  to  compost at
home. The city sold approximately 400  composting
bins at a reduced price in 1996  and another 50 in
1997.  The city also encourages  residents  to  use
mulching  mowers  through publication of  articles
about mulching  mowers  and their  benefits in  its
recycling newsletter.

-------
                                                                                                           FITCHBURG. WISCONSIN
CURBSIDE  COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:
             Mandatory:
      Households Served:
     Materials Accepted:
   Collection Frequency:

        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
BFI
Voluntary recycling began 1987, mandatory program with weekly collection began 1988
Yes, effective 1988. Requirement includes all materials collected at curbside except household durable goods.
3,860, all units in buildings with four or fewer residences
Glass bottles and jars, steel and aluminum cans, all plastic containers,  #4 plastic container lids,  rigid and foam polystyrene,
newspapers,  white paper, mail, magazines, paperboard, phone books, brown paper bags,  corrugated  cardboard,  reusable
household items (e.g., clothing, books, small appliances, housewares, and toys), and white goods.  Reusable  items must fit into a
32-gallon clear plastic bag and be  in reusable condition.
Weekly, same day as trash. White goods collected by appointment on Thursdays for a $35 fee.  Reusable items once monthly on
special collection days.
Yellow and green stackable 12-gallon bins .  Commingled containers and bagged polystyrene foam  in the yellow bin, newspaper
in the dark green bin, mixed paper  in a kraft bag beside bins, and flattened corrugated cardboard placed under the bins. Even if
they only have cardboard for recycling on a particular week, residents are asked to place the material in or under a bin so the
material will be noticed by collection crews. Reusable  items in clear plastic bags. Additional recycling bins can be used for extra
commingled containers or newspapers.
Single-person crew collects material into a two-compartment 38-cubic-yard side-loading LaBrie truck with an adjustable divider.
Durable goods are collected separately by a single-person crew using a pick-up truck. Single-person crew using a flat-bed  truck
with boom collects appliances.
98% from consultant study reflecting data collected in 1996
Reduced trash fees through decreased disposal, potential fines for non-compliance with mandatory participation requirements
Mandatory program with potential fines up to $1,000 for non-compliance. Fewer than 10 individuals  have received fines for failure
to recycle.  Collection crews leave unacceptable materials and contaminated recyclables in the recycling bin with a card explaining
why they did not collect materials.
CURBSIDE  COLLECTION OF YARD TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
   Collection Frequency:

        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:

      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:

           Enforcement:
1989
Public Works collects brush, BFI collects other yard debris
3,994 for yard debris collection, 7,500 for brush collection
Yes
Leaves, grass clippings, brush, and other yard debris, and holiday trees
Four times yearly for yard debris (once in each of April, May, October, and November) and eight times yearly for brush and holiday
tree collection (once in each of January, April, May, June, August September, October, and November)
Yard debris in bags or cans, brush bundled, bare holiday trees (not bundled or cut)
Single-person crew collects yard debris into a 25-cubic-yard manual rear-load packer truck.  Two-person crews collect and chip
brush using a Ford F350 truck with service body pulling a Vermeer chipper.
NA
Reduced trash fees through decreased disposal, potential fines for non-compliance with mandatory participation requirements,
yard debris not collected if mixed with trash or set out for trash collection
Potential  fines for failure to comply with ordinance, fines have  been issued for piles of unbundled brush in public view
DROP-OFF COLLECTION
        Number of sites:
                Staffing:
        Service Provider:
     Materials Accepted:

 Participation Incentives:
         Sectors Served:
Fitchburg operates a drop-off site at City Hall. Two county sites are also conveniently located for Fitchburg residents.
None
Department of Public Works
Leaves, grass clippings, fruits, flowers, vegetables and other yard and garden debris; mixed paper including  mail, corrugated
cardboard, newspaper, paperboard, kraft paper bags, office paper, and magazines; and scrap metal
Reduced trash fees through decreased disposal
All sectors (note:  commercial/institutional materials are excluded from Fitchburg's 50% diversion level)

-------
FITCHBURG. WISCONSIN
                 Item
                                                      Costs
                 New Holland 675 Spreader^               $900
                 Case 1840 Skid Steer Loader             $17,884
                 400 Composting Bins3                  $13,069
                 Ford Explorer                          $20,051
                 Case 821B Loader                     $127,700
                 Ford F150Truck4                      $13,541
                 Ford F350 Truck with Service Body        $28,517
                 International Dump Trucks               $64,382
                 Vermeer Chipper                      $14,708
                 9,000 Recycling  BinsG                   $45,405
                 John Deere Skid  Steer Loader^            $6,500
                 Case 440 Tractor?                       $4,000
                                                                                      Use
                                                                                    Composting
                                                                                    Composting
                                                                                  Home Composting
                                                                                 Recycling/Composting
                                                                                    Composting
                                                                                 Recycling/Composting
                                                                                    Composting
                                                                                     Recycling
                                                                                    Composting
                                                                                     Recycling
                                                                                    Composting
                                                                                    Composting
                 Notes: Unless otherwise noted, equipment purchased out of capital funds.
                 1 Purchased used.
                 ^Purchased out of operating budget.
                 ^Purchased out of operating budget. The city sold the bins at a 20% subsidy, recovering 80% of this expenditure.
                 ^Retired 1996.
                 5|Jsed for composting until 1997, currently used only occasionally in recycling program.
                 ^Purchased from state loan funds.
                 ?City contact estimated purchase price and date. Before compost program was started, tractor was in storage.
                                                                                                             Year Incurred
                                         1997
                                         1996
                                         1996
                                         1996
                                         1995
                                         1993
                                         1991
                                         1991
                                         1990
                                         1987
                                         1985
                                         1965
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
                     BFI  collects  reusable  household  items  at
                curbside.   Once  a month, the  hauler collects
                clothing, toys, books, tools, linens, small appliances,
                housewares, and any other reusable household item
                residents  place  at the curb in clear  plastic bags on
                their regular recycling day. BFI donates all collected
                items  to the  St. Vincent DePaul  Society charity.
                Fitchburg supports reuse of items not collected at
                curbside, such as appliances,  furniture, or anything
                else  that will  not  fit  into  a  30-gallon  bag, by
                providing residents  information on charities that do
                accept the items.
                Recycling  Program
                    In  1996,  Fitchburg  recycled  29%  of  its
                residential waste. The city provides two color-coded
                                               stackable  recycling
                                               bins   to  all   new
                                               homes.    Residents
                                               can   purchase  addi-
                                               tional  or  replace-
                                               ment bins for  $7.50
                                               each.
                                                    Fitchburg
                                               contracts  with BFI
                                               to provide  residen-
                                               tial   curbside  recy-
                                               cling.  BFI  delivers
BFI uses a 38-cubic-yard split side-loading truck to collect
recyclables.
collected materials to  Green Valley in Waunakee,
Wisconsin, (25  miles from Fitchburg) for processing
and  marketing.   At  Green Valley, staff sort paper
manually.  Magnets and eddy currents remove  steel
and   aluminum  from  commingled  recyclables.
Remaining materials are sorted manually.  The reject
rate  at the  MRF is  5% by weight.  Under its BFI
contract, the city would receive 80% of revenues.3
     Fitchburg does not provide  solid waste services
for apartment  buildings with five  or  more units.
Building owners must contract privately for trash
and  recycling services.   Local  ordinance  requires
residents of apartments to recycle the same materials
as residents of single-family homes.

Composting Program
     In   1996,  Fitchburg  composted  21%  of  its
residential waste stream.  The city contracts with BFI
to provide  curbside leaf, grass clipping, and other
non-woody yard debris collection  four times  a year.
BFI  delivers yard  debris to the  Columbia County
mixed waste composting  facility  (50   miles from
Fitchburg).  Composting facility staff compost  yard
debris with mixed trash in an in-vessel composter.
Finished material is land spread on area farms.
     Residents can deliver non-woody yard debris to
a  drop-off  center located  at Fitchburg City Hall.
City staff remove contaminants and land spread it. 4

-------
                                                                                                            FITCHBURG.  WISCONSIN
     The  city  provides  curbside  brush  collection
seven or eight  times a year to all Fitchburg residents
(including those in multi-family dwellings). Two- or
three-person crews using  pick-up trucks  and  tow-
behind chippers collect and chip the  material. The
chips are  given away to residents.


Education,  Publicity, and Outreach
     The  centerpiece  of Fitchburg's outreach is  the
"Fitchburg   Recycling   Update,"    a  newsletter
              published three or  four times a year.  The newsletter
              contains  information  about  collection  programs,
              changes in program hours, collection  methods, and
              materials accepted.  Every household served by the
              city's solid waste programs receives the newsletter.
                    When   PAYT trash  rates  began,  Fitchburg
              produced and direct-mailed a "Homeowner's Guide
              to  Solid Waste Disposal."
                    The  DPW  Project   Manager  performs  waste
              assessments for businesses and institutions and gives
  WASTE REDUCTION COSTS (1996}
                                                Cost
                                                                  Tons
  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                           $214,660
                2,128
                                                                                    Cost/Ton
$100.86
                                                   Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costs
Curbside Collection and Processing1
Drop-off Collection?
Drop-off Processing and Hauling3
Administration/Enforcement/Depreciation4
Education/Publicity5
Composting Gross Costs
Curbside Collection and Processing6
Drop-off Collection and Processing7
Administration/Enforcement/Depreciation4
Education/Publicity5
$146,096
$98,978
$1,449
$355
$33,581
$11,733
$68,564
$40,900
$8,216
$16,637
$2,811
1,246
1,030
216
1,246
1,246
1,246
883
349
534
883
883
$117.28
$96.13
$6.70
$0.29
$26.96
$9.42
$77.69
$117.36
$15.38
$18.85
$3.19
$37.85





$17.76




 $55.61
  Materials Revenues
($0)
                                                                 2,128
    ($0)
    ($0)
  Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                           $214,660
                2,128
$100.86
 $55.61
  Note:  Tonnages do not correspond with those on the table on page 96, as they represent materials collected and include MRF rejects.  Figures may not total due
    to rounding. Figures above include depreciation on equipment and limited overhead and administrative costs within the Department of Public Works.
    Overhead/administrative costs above the Department level are not included. Source reduction education and publicity costs are not separable from recycling
    and composting costs and are included in those line items.  Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
  1 Represents contract costs with BFI for weekly curbside collection and processing, and staff costs for Fitchburg Project Manager.
  ^Represents salaries and benefits for Fitchburg staff at drop-off site.
  ^Represents salaries and benefits for Fitchburg staff.
  ^Includes salaries, benefits, office supplies, consulting services, equipment depreciation, and staff travel and training costs.
  5|ncludes salaries, benefits, printing costs, and office supplies.
  ^Represents contract costs for collection services performed by BFI, staff salaries and benefits, and equipment costs for city collection and processing.
  ^Represents staff salaries and benefits, and equipment costs for drop-off collection and processing of collected material.
                                                Cost
                                                                  Tons
  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                           $214,660
                2,128
                                                                                    Cost/Ton
$100.86
                                                   Cost/HH/YR
Disposal Gross Costs1
Trash Collection
Landfill Tip Fees2
Administration/Enforcement3
Education/Publicity4
$202,701
$130,035
$72,666
NA
NA
2,019
2,019
2,019
2,019
2,019
$100.42
$64.42
$36.00
NA
NA
$52.51




 $55.61
  SWM Gross Costs
                                           $417,361
                4,147
$100.65
$108.12
  Materials Revenues
($0)
                                                                 2,128
    ($0)
    ($0)
  Total SWM Net Costs
                                           $417,361
                4,147
$100.65
$108.12
  Note: Disposal tonnages do not correspond with those on the table on page 96, as they represent materials collected and exclude MRF rejects. Numbers may not
    total due to rounding. Figures above include equipment depreciation. Overhead/administrative costs above the DPW level are not included.
  1 Contract payment to BFI totaled $202,701 and includes collection and tip fees for disposal.
  2Costs reflect tip fee at Dane County Landfill, which is 12 miles away.
  3\fery little Fitchburg staff time is spent overseeing trash program. All staff time spent on waste programs is included in waste reduction costs above.
  4]rash education and publicity not separable from waste reduction education activities and are included in those figures.

-------
FITCHBURG. WISCONSIN
                      PER TON OPERATING COSTS FOR
                    RESIDENTIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
                $120
                                                   Net Waste
                                                   Reduction
               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
               presentations to  schools  and  civic  organizations
               about waste  management.
                    Fitchburg also promotes its programs via videos
               shown on cable TV and press releases distributed to
               local radio, television, and print media.

               Costs
                    In 1996, the city spent about $417,000 for trash,
               recycling, and yard debris services — about $108 per
               household served. Of this, about 49% was spent on
               trash collection and disposal, 35% on recycling, and
               16% on yard debris collection and recovery.
                    On  a per-ton basis, trash  cost $100 and waste
               reduction cost $101 (recycling cost $117  per ton and
               yard debris recovery, $78). The largest components
               of the 1996 budget were contract costs (79%)  and
               personnel costs (11%).
                    The DPW's budget rose during the  last decade;
               so did the population and number of  households
               served.   When the cost  of  inflation  is taken into
               account,  average  per  household  costs  for waste
               management services have decreased from $126 in
               1992 to $108 in  1996.  During this  same  period,
               landfill tip fees increased 17% in real dollars.

               Funding  & Accounting  Systems
                    Residents pay an annual fee of $82, assessed on
               property tax bills, to fund solid waste management
               services. Subscribers of trash service levels above the
               base  service level of one 32-gallon trash  can per
               week must pay additional fees.  Recycling and yard
               debris services are also funded through state grants.
               The  solid waste  management fees  and grants are
               maintained in an enterprise  fund.  Enterprise fund
               expenditures are tracked using accrual  accounting.
Future  Plans and Obstacles to
Increasing Diversion
    The  Project  Manager  believes the city  is
collecting  everything that can be  cost-effectively
collected, processed,  and marketed.  To  increase its
diversion rate among the homes served, the city must
increase recovery of the materials it already collects.
    As of late  1997, Fitchburg was engaged in a
comprehensive  waste  planning process.   If  state
funding expires, the  city will need to replace  these
revenues with increased fees or decreased costs and is
currently  considering options to maintain a positive
balance in its enterprise fund over  the long term.

Tips for Replication
       Listen to your line employees. Workers know
the system  and its strengths and  weaknesses.   For
example,  a  Fitchburg  staff  member and  farmer
suggested using a  manure spreader to land spread
yard debris from the city's drop-off site.  Doing so
saves both time  and money.
       Get your  hands  dirty.   Management can
sometimes  gain insight concerning  problems and
opportunities by working on  collection routes and
poking around in containers.
       Don't reinvent the wheel.  Talk  with other
recyclers when  faced with problems.  Most likely
someone else has encountered a similar problem and
can offer advice.
       Optimize.   Never  stop  striving to improve;
there's always room for improvement.
Notes:
1 Ferrous metal cans, aluminum cans, OCC, glass bottles and jars, HOPE plastic
  bottles and tubs, PET plastic bottles, large appliances, used oil, grass
  clippings, leaves, brush, tires, and lead-acid batteries were banned in
  1991.
?By appointment, Fitchburg's trash hauler, BFI, will also collect large amounts
  of trash at the rate of $10 per cubic yard, appliances for $35 each, and
  all pieces of furniture that weigh more than 20 pounds for $10 each.
3|n 1995 and 1996, BFI  received no revenue from Fitchburg recyclables. The
  Project Manager believes the company's deal with the processor grants
  them a reduced tip fee rather than a share of revenue from sales.
^Fitchburg owns 27 acres of land surrounding the City Hall.  City staff land
  spread the yard debris on about five acres of this land.
  CONTACT
  Kevin Wunder
  Project Manager
  Public Works Department, City of Fitchburg
  2377 South Fish Hatchery Road
  Fitchburg, Wl 53711
  PHONE: 608-270-6343
  FAX: 608-275-7154
  E-MAIL: kevin.n.wunder@cityfitchburg.wi.us
  WEB SITE:  None

-------
                                                   RESIDENTIAL WASTE  GENERATION
                                                        PER HOUSEHOLD  PER DAY
                                                     1.0
                                                           Trash
                                                                     FY97
                                              | Recycling
                                                | Composting
                                                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliancer 1999.
   In  the  late   1980s,  Leverett  faced  the
   necessary closure of its landfill and the need
   to ship its waste to another disposal facility.
In  1988, Leverett  banned disposal  of paper,
cans, and  glass in  its  landfill  and  began
recycling  these  commodities.    In  1990,
Leverett began  shipping  its  recyclables to  a
state-developed   MRF  in   Springfield,
Massachusetts. Recycling extended the life of
the existing landfill by two years and reduced
hauling and disposal costs to the new facility
after  the landfill closed  in  1993.   In  FY97,
Leverett  residents diverted  53%  of  their
residential waste from disposal — 31% through
recycling and 23%  through yard debris diversion.
     Leverett's recycling system, like its  trash program, operates  on a drop-off basis.  The town's
Recycle/Transfer Station is located on the site of its former landfill. Residents can deliver recyclables
to this facility free  of charge but must pay a per-bag fee for their trash.
     A town yard debris ban, acceptance of 25 materials for recycling and reuse, and the pay-as-you-
throw (PAYT) trash fees have contributed to Leverett's 53% waste reduction level. Yard debris is not
managed by any town program, but it is barred from disposal at the town's Recycle/Transfer Station.
Residents manage their own yard debris materials. The Recycle/Trash Station accepts all materials
processed at the Springfield MRF and provides other programs for the recycling of batteries, textiles,
household durables, paint, and appliances.  Residents are encouraged to divert as much waste as
possible through these programs; otherwise, they must pay per-bag fees for disposal.
     Leverett's current waste management system is cost-effective compared to the costs of operating
its own landfill and disposing of all the town's waste.  Costs to operate the landfill in  FY87, before
the town's expanded waste reduction program began, were nearly $55,000 or $84 per household.
                                               Current costs average only $58 per household ($53
                                               per household when revenues from recyclables are
                                               included). The town's PAYT trash fees, lack of tip
                                               fees  for recycled materials,  and  reuse  programs
                                               contribute to this cost-effectiveness.  On a per-ton
                                               basis, trash costs $91 while net recycling costs are
                                               only $36 per  ton. Part of the difference in trash and
                                               recycling  costs results  because  Leverett pays an
                                               average of $58 per ton to the landfill for trash tip
                                               fees while the town pays no tip fees for recyclables
                                               at the MRF.  The  town's per-bag  trash charges
                                               financially encourage residents to use  the least-cost
                                               method for  their waste management.  Leverett's
                                               reuse  programs  not only divert  materials from
                                               disposal, thereby avoiding tip fees; the programs also
                                               save  residents  the  purchase  price of any  items
                                               reused through the programs.
                                                                           DEMOGRAPHICS
POPULATION: 1,908 (1996)
HOUSEHOLDS:  650(1996);
  all single-family homes
  and duplexes
BUSINESSES:  3
LAND AREA:  23 square, mi.
HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
  28.3 per sq. mile
AVERAGE PER  CAPITA
  INCOME: $19,254(1989)
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
  INCOME: $45,888(1989)
COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
  Rural
COUNTY:  Franklin
  Tons Per Year
    Disposal
    Diversion
  Percent Diverted
    Recycled
    Composted
  Average Ibs./HH/day
    Disposal
    Diversion
  Annual Disposal Fees
    Disposal
  Net Program Costs/HH
    Disposal Services
    Diversion Services
  FY87
    NA~
    NA
     0
   0%
    0%
    0%
    NA
    NA
    NA
$54,986
$84.46
 $84.46
  $0.00
  FY97
   652
   303
   349
  53%
   31%
   23%
  5.50
   2.56
   2.94
$17,372
$52.81
 $41.37
 $11.44
  Notes: 651 households served in FY87; 650 in FY97. 1986
    dollars adjusted to 1996 dollars using the GDP deflator.
    Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

-------
LEVERETT. MASSACHUSETTS
                  RESIDENTIAL WASTE REDUCTION
                                                Tons (FY97)
                 Recycled
                   Mixed Paper
                   Mixed Containers
                   Scrap Metal
                   Swap Shop1
                   Textiles/Clothing
                   Auto Batteries
                   Deposit Containers?
                   MRF Rejects3
200
127
 51
  9
  7
  1
  1
 13
 -8
                 Composted/Chipped
                   Yard Trimmings4
149
149
                 Total Waste Reduction
                                                    349
                 MSW Disposed
                   Landfilled
                   Tires/Oil Burned
                   MRF Rejects
303
293
  3
                 Total Generation
                                                    652
                 Percent Reduced
                                                   53%
                 Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day             5.50
                 Note: Figures may appear not to add due to rounding.
                 ^Tonnage estimated by Swap Shop attendant
                 ^Reflects the weight of deposit containers collected in the town
                   recycling program. Additional materials are redeemed by individual
                   residents but not included in this figure.
                 3Based on 4% by weight of material processed at MRF rejected as
                   nonrecyclable.
                 ^Estimate of tonnage composted at home. Yard trimmings are banned
                   from disposal in  Leverett. Based on an estimate of 156 pounds per
                   person per year used by the recycling coordinator.  This figure is
                   lower than the estimate derived from using the U.S. average per
                   capita yard debris generation of 210 pounds per day (from the EPA
                   report Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
                   States: 1997 Update). Furthermore, Leverett is rural and homes
                   have large yards. Actual generation is most likely higher than the
                   national average.
                State  and  Local Policies
                    The     Massachusetts     Department     of
                Environmental  Protection   has  set   statewide
                municipal  solid waste recycling  goals  of 23%  by
                1992, 34% by  1996, and 46% by 2000.  Massachusetts
                bans lead-acid batteries, leaves and other yard debris,
                white goods, all metal and glass containers, #1 and
                #2 single polymer plastics, and recyclable paper from
                disposal in all  state landfills  and incinerators.  The
                bans were phased in from 1990 to 1994.
                    Waste  disposal facilities  must demonstrate that
                waste equivalent to 25%  of their permitted capacity
                will be recycled either by themselves, the generators,
                or an intermediate handler.
                    Massachusetts' beverage  container deposit law,
                effective January 17, 1983, requires consumers to pay
                a  5 It deposit on containers for "soda water or similar
carbonated soft drinks, mineral water, and beer and
other  malt  beverages."    Consumers can redeem
containers at retailers that sell these products.   A
single  corporation created by beverage distributors
recycles  about  75%  of  redeemed  containers.
Unclaimed deposits become state property; a portion
of  this  money  goes  into  the   state's   Clean
Environment Fund.  Massachusetts makes funds and
equipment  for  source   reduction,  composting,
recycling,  and  market  development available   to
communities, schools, and businesses through this
fund and other  grant and loan programs.
    Leverett  enacted a mandatory recycling bylaw
in 1988.  According to  this bylaw,  residents were
banned from putting recyclable paper, glass, and cans
into the landfill.   Violators  can  be  fined $15 per
offense.  The bylaw was revised in 1993  to  ban  all
materials accepted at the Springfield MRE
    Leverett  charges PAYT fees  for  trash disposal.
Residents  must pay an  annual  $20 transfer  and
recycling station  fee plus a per-bag fee for trash;
recycling is free.  In FY97, disposal fees were $1.50
per 30-gallon bag and 75
-------
                                                                                           LEVERETT. MASSACHUSETTS
  DROP-OFF COLLECTION
         Number of sites:
                Staffing:
         Service Provider:
      Materials Accepted:
   Participation Incentives:
          Sectors Served:
One, on the site of the old town landfill.  Recycling started at this location in 1988.
Yes
Town of Leverett
Newspaper, corrugated cardboard, magazines and catalogues, paperboard, mail, office paper, kraft paper
bags, phone books, other books.juice and milk boxes, glass bottles andjars, metal food and beverage
cans, all plastic bottles, tubs, trays,  andjars, lead-acid batteries, household  batteries, textiles, reusable
goods, white goods, paint, and scrap metal
Mandatory recycling with potential $15 fine for failure to recycle. No fines had been levied as of fall
1997.
Residential only. Residents must obtain and display special stickers in order to use the facility.  These
stickers cost $20 annually and allow holders to use the recycling facility for no extra charge and the trash
transfer station for additional per-bag fees.
putting the items in the charity's donation box located
at the Recycle/Transfer Station.  Also located at the
Recycle/Transfer  Station  is a  Book Shed.  A local
couple manage the shed, a room-sized structure filled
with used books in good condition. Some books have
been  taken and returned several times.  Books that are
not reused are either recycled  or disposed.  Paint is
stored at the Recycle/Transfer  Station in a shed the
state provided for this purpose. The shed serves as a
free paint exchange for town residents.
    The  Leverett  Recycle/Transfer  Station has
instituted a "Looking to Buy, Looking to Sell" listing.
This list provides an opportunity for residents to check
out what's available before they buy something new
and to try to sell items before they throw them away.
    Leverett also collects paper egg cartons, packaging
materials, and kraft paper bags at the Recycle/Transfer
Station.  These items are collected in  response to
residents' special requests.  A local farmer uses the egg
cartons for mulch. In 1998, Leverett started a packing
material reuse project targeting "packing  peanuts"
and  other small  packaging materials for  reuse by
local  businesses. A food grower uses the  paper bags.
    Leverett does not have an organized program for
the management of yard debris but most residents have
traditionally managed this  material on their own. The
town  has   banned   these  items  from  disposal,
institutionalizing home composting and mulching. In
recent  years   Leverett  has  sold   reduced-price
composters made possible through a partial state grant.
As of  the  end   of 1996, the community sold
approximately 120 bins. The city provided residents
purchasing bins with  instruction booklets detailing the
                             proper use of the bins.  Many residents also compost
                             food discards with their yard debris.

                             Recycling  Program
                                 In  FY97,  Leverett  recovered  31%  of  its
                             residential waste stream through recycling and reuse.
                             Residents  must  bring  their  materials  to  the
                             community's  Recycle/Transfer Station.  This facility
                             is open every weekend (Saturdays and Sundays) from
                             10:00 A.M. until 12:55 P.M.  Residents sort materials
                             into roll-off bins  located at the site. When the roll-
                             offs are full, a contractor trucks them to a MRF in
                             Springfield, about 50 miles from Leverett.
                                 The  state developed  the  Springfield  MRF,
                             which  opened in 1990.   The  facility  accepts and
                             processes   recyclables   from   more    than   90
                             municipalities and a  few commercial accounts.  At
                             the Springfield MRF, material  is processed  in two
                             streams: commingled materials  and paper.   Staff
                             remove corrugated cardboard from the paper stream
                             and bale the  cardboard and  remaining mixed paper
                             separately. The sorting of the commingled stream is
                             more  automated,  using  air classifiers,  trommel
                             screens, magnetic separators, and  eddy currents. The
                             facility averages a 4% reject rate of material accepted
                             for processing (MRF staff do not accept obviously-
                             contaminated loads for processing).  In July 1996 the
                             MRF,  under private  operation, started paying towns
                             for their recyclables.
                                 Leverett recycling staff have paid  close attention
                             to the  quality of the  materials going into the roll-off
                             containers from the beginning of the program. Their
                             effort  has  paid  off;  since  the  recycling program

-------
LEVERETT. MASSACHUSETTS
                 Item
                                                          Costs
                                                                                   Use
                                                                                                       Year Incurred
                 3 30-yard Roll-off Containers!
                 Trash Compactor
                 3 Sheds?
                                                           $6,750
                                                          $12,000
                                                           $1,000
           Recycling
             Trash
           Recycling
1990,1994,1996
     1993
     1990
                 Note: In addition to the equipment, Leverett's Recycle/Transfer Station includes four concrete pads upon which the roll-offs and trash compactor sit. These pads
                   cost $1,500 each and were built in 1990,1993,1995, and 1996.
                 iTwo of the containers were purchased with state grant funds.
                 ?Two of the sheds were built by the town, the other was donated in 1992, is in poor condition, and ILSR considered it to have no value. The $1,000 cost
                   represents estimated materials and labor costs for town staff to build two sheds.
               started, only one roll-off container has been rejected
               from the MRF.
                    Availability of the Springfield  MRF and  state-
               provided  equipment have  enabled  Leverett  to
               expand its recycling  program cost-effectively.  From
               1988  to  1990, when the  MRF opened, Leverett
               collected only paper, glass, and  cans  for  recycling.
               The town gave these materials to local parties who
               marketed  them  and received the  revenues.   The
               MRF  accepts  more  materials than  the  town
               originally collected, charges no tip fee for recyclables
               at the facility, and started to pay the town revenue in
               1997. State-provided equipment, especially roll-off
               boxes, allows Leverett to  gather  large shipments of
               recyclables before transferring them  to  the MRF,
               thereby lowering per ton  transportation costs.
                    Refundable  bottles collected  at  the  drop-off
               facility are returned  for their deposit and the  funds
               are used to purchase  a local piece of land for use as a
               preserve. Car batteries are accepted for free.
                    Leverett  sponsors "Large Item  Weekends " six
               weekends per year.   During these  events residents
               can deliver   large items,  such  as  appliances  and
               furniture,  to  the transfer  station.   Other residents
                                              scavenge  the  metal
                                              pile  during   these
                                              events,  recovering
                                              (mainly  for  repair
                                              and   reuse)    items
                                              such as lawn mowers
                                              and    small    farm
                                              equipment.   Metal
                                              items      collected
                                              during  these  events
                                              and  not   taken by
                                              other  residents  are
                                              recycled by  a local
                                              salvager.
Leverett's Take It or Leave It located at the town's
Recycle/Transfer Station
Education,  Publicity, and Outreach
    Leverett  uses  newsletters,  local  media,  and
personal contact to  inform residents about its waste
reduction  programs.   The town  has used some
promotional materials  provided by  the state.  The
town newsletter (published six times a year) includes
an  article  about some  aspect  of recycling  and/or
waste management  in at least every  other issue and
the  columnist answers  questions  about  proper
residential  waste  handling.  Recycling and reuse
program   announcements  are  also   occasionally
included  in the  local  elementary  school  weekly
newsletter. Special events are announced in the local
newspapers.   The  town's recycling  coordinator
answers   residents'    questions   about    waste
management over the telephone.
    Leverett   has  active  recycling  and   waste
reduction  programs in  its schools.   Elementary
school  students  save   table  scraps  from their
lunchroom; local farmers use  these  as  animal feed.
Students also collect deposit containers for recycling
and keep the revenues for school projects. The town
sponsored  recycling contests  for  its  students  in
conjunction  with   America  Recycles  Day  in
November  1997.   These  contests  encouraged
students to learn more  about recycling and awarded
prizes for the best entries.

Costs
    Prior  to  the closing  of the landfill,  residents
annually purchased a $25 dump sticker to pay for its
use. However, most of the actual cost  of operating
the landfill was covered by property  taxes.  In FY87
the cost to operate the landfill was approximately
$55,000 or $84 per  household. 1   Tons  of waste
disposed at this facility  were not tracked.
    In  FY97  Leverett's gross  costs for residential
waste  management were $37,600.   This  figure
includes Recycle/Transfer Station operating costs,

-------
                                                                                                         LEVERETT.  MASSACHUSETTS
material transfer costs, tip fees, salaries, depreciation,
and credit for materials revenues. Of this, about 72%
was spent on trash collection  and  disposal and 28%
was spent on recycling. Materials  revenues reduced
this by $3,200 to $34,300  (or  $53 per  household
served).    On  a per-ton  basis,  trash  cost $91  and
recycling cost $51  ($36 with materials revenues).
     The  town is very small  and  employs no full-
time workers in the solid waste program. The largest
components of the FY97 budget were fees paid to
contracted haulers (23%)  and disposal tip fees (46%).
                   Funding & Accounting Systems
                        The   funding   for   Leverett's   solid   waste
                   management  program comes  from the annual  $20
                   fee the  city charges residents for use  of the Transfer
                   Station,  per-bag  disposal  fees,  large  item  fees,  and
                   revenue  from the sale of recyclables. All revenues are
                   deposited  in the  town's general fund.  Similarly, all
                   costs for waste management are paid  directly out of
                   the  town's general  fund but are  capped  at the set
                   annual Recycle/Transfer Station budget. The town's
                   income  from annual Station use,  per-bag  fees  and
                                                 Cost
                                                                   Tons
  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                             $10,673
                                                                    208
                                                                                      Cost/Ton
                                           $51.29
                                                        Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costs
Collection1
Processing2
Hauling3
Large Item Metal Recycling
Administration/Overhead/Depreciation4
$10,673
$1,706
$0
$5,840
$662
$2,466
208
208
191
191
9
208
$51.29
$7.20
$0.00
$30.66
$73.56
$11.85
$16.42





                   $16.42
  Materials Revenues
($3,237)
                                                                    191
($16.99)
($4.98)
  Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                              $7,436
                                                                    208
                                           $35.73
                    $11.44
  Note:  Figures may not total due to rounding. Recycling tonnage figure above is different than figures in tables on pages 101 and 102 as figure above represents
    tonnage collected including materials rejected at the MRF. Leverett residents must manage their own yard debris; therefore, the city incurs no costs .  Figures
    above include depreciation costs for equipment. Leverett employs no full-time staff in its solid waste programs. Part-time staff do not receive benefits.
    Leverett's recycling coordinator estimated that other city staff, such as administrative personnel, devote time worth $600 annually to the waste management
    program. This cost was apportioned between recycling and trash based on tons handled in each program.
  1This figure represents salaries of town staff who work at the Recycle/Transfer Station. Staff time was apportioned between recycling and trash based on
  the average proportion of time employees spend on each task
  ^Leverett pays no tip fee at the Springfield MRF.
  ^Leverett pays Wickel's Trucking $105 per load for recyclables hauled to the Springfield MRF, approximately 50 miles from the town.
  ^Includes part of the recycling coordinator's wages, Recycle/Transfer Station site utilities, costs to maintain the site (such as snow-plowing and road
  salting), ILSR's estimated depreciation costs for equipment used in the recycling  program, and costs for administrative support of program staff.
                                                 Cost
                                                                   Tons
  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                             $10,673
                                                                    208
                                                                                      Cost/Ton
                                           $51.29
                                                        Cost/HH/YR
Disposal Gross Costs
Trash Collection1
Hauling2
Landfill Tip Lees
Tire Disposal Lees
Administration/Overhead/Depreciation3
$26,891
$2,874
$2,980
$17,127
$245
$3,664
296
293
293
293
3
296
$91.00
$9.81
$10.17
$58.45
$98.00
$12.40
$41.37





                   $16.42
  SWM Gross Costs
                                             $37,564
                                                                    504
                                           $74.59
                   $57.79
  Materials Revenues
($3,237)
                                                                    191
($16.99)
($4.98)
  Total SWM Net Costs
                                             $34,327
                                                                    504
                                           $68.16
                   $52.81
  Note:  Numbers may not total due to rounding. Disposal tonnage figure differs from the figures in tables on pages 101 and 102 as figure above does not include
    MRF rejects. Figures above include depreciation costs for equipment. Leverett employs no full-time staff in its solid waste programs.  Part-time staff do not
    receive benefits. Leverett's recycling coordinator estimated that other city staff, such as administrative personnel, devote time worth $600 annually to the
    waste management program. This cost was apportioned between recycling and trash based on tons handled in each program.
  1 Represents salaries of city staff working at the Recycle/Transfer Station. Staff time was apportioned between recycling and trash based on the average
  proportion of time employees spend on each task
  ^Leverett pays Wickel's Trucking $85 per load for trash hauled to the landfill, 27 miles from the town in Northampton, MA.
  ^Includes Recycle/Transfer Station site utilities, costs to maintain the site (such as snow-plowing and road salting), ILSR's estimated depreciation costs for
  equipment used in the trash program, costs for trash stickers, and costs for administrative support of program staff.

-------
LEVERETT. MASSACHUSETTS
                      PER  TON OPERATING COSTS FOR
                    RESIDENTIAL  WASTE MANAGEMENT
                $100
                 60
                 40
                 20
                         Trash
                                      FY97
                                   Gross Waste
                                   Reduction
| Net Waste
 Reduction
               Large Items Weekends, for FY97, was $32,813. This
               revenue covers most of the costs of waste disposal for
               the town including: salaries, tipping and hauling fees,
               operation and  maintenance costs, special program
               costs as well as most recycling-related and household
               hazardous waste costs.
                   The town  primarily uses cash-flow accounting
               to track its expenditures, including those for waste
               management.

               Future Plans and Obstacles to
               Increasing Diversion
                   Leverett  plans to  focus  on how  to offer the
               community more reuse alternatives,  and provide
               better ways to  get rid of items that are  difficult to
               dispose. For example, the town became involved in
               1998 with a state-initiated plan to reclaim mercury
               from  fluorescent  lamps, thermometers,  and other
               mercury-bearing  items.    The  town  is   also
               considering ways to  implement  building material
               recycling.
                   Leverett's recycling coordinator believes most of
               the   obstacles   to    increasing   diversion    are
               psychological and external to the town. Fluctuating
               markets and bad publicity have raised doubts about
               the validity of recycling among some residents.  In
               addition, Leverett  provides some  services, such as
               hazardous waste collection days, in conjunction with
               other towns. The schedules and procedures for these
               services  have  often  changed  as  the   programs
               expanded and matured. These changes  have resulted
               in confusion among some residents.
                   Furthermore,  Leverett's  recycling coordinator
               believes attention paid to boosting "recycling rates"
               can  actually  distract attention  from  the task of
               reducing waste. Two examples from the community
               concern  construction  debris and reuse  programs.
Construction debris is  not supposed to  enter the
town's trash compactor and is not considered in the
calculation of MSW recycling  rates.   But, if the
attendant does not detect such materials going into
the compactor, the material is counted as MSW and
lowers the town's calculated  waste  reduction level.
(A  resident once disposed  of the  debris  from a
roofing job by hiding the materials in dog  food bags
and bringing it in a little at a time.)   In contrast, the
weights of many  of the materials diverted for reuse
in Leverett are  not measured  or  estimated and
therefore do not contribute to a higher reported
waste  reduction  level.   The effects of  Leverett's
comprehensive reuse program,  which recovers a
wide variety of materials and saves residents disposal
fees  and  the costs  for  many  items   that  would
otherwise be purchased new, are not fully reflected in
waste reduction level figures.

Tips  for Replication
       Find out what other  people are doing and
how they did it; don't  waste time reinventing the
wheel.
       Remember that recycling  may  not be the
center of everyone's life.  People have to  live with
your recycling/reuse program. Make it as easy, and
as useful to them, as  possible.
       Try not to get too caught up  in the numbers
game  (recycling rates); focus  on how to help your
community deal with the waste issues that are or will
be important to them. The recycling rate will take
care of itself.
Notes:
Hhis cost has been normalized to 1996 dollars.
                     JHfll
                     Richard Drury
                     Recycling Coordinator
                     Town of Leverett
                     Town Hall
                     Leverett, MA 01054
                     PHONE: 413-367-9683
                     FAX: 413-367-9611
                     E-MAIL:  rscenrgy@javanet.com
                     WEB SITE: None

-------
                                                  RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION
                                                      PER HOUSEHOLD PER DAY
                                                  7.0
                                                  6.0
   In the early 1990s, Loveland overhauled its
   waste management system in response to
   rising  worker compensation  insurance
rates   and  aging  trash  trucks   needing
replacement.    Specially designed  semi-
automated one-pass trucks with  10-cubic-
yard  trash  packers  and  two   recycling
compartments dual-collect  recyclables and
trash   every  week.    Residents  pay   a
mandatory flat monthly fee for recycling and
composting services plus a pay-as-you-throw
(PAYT) fee for each bag of trash.  They can
subscribe to weekly  curbside pick-up of yard
debris or take the material to a central drop-
off site.  A drop-off site  for recyclables not
collected at  curbside  is  also available.  In
                                                                1989      1996
                                                     Q Trash    Q Recycling     |

                                              Source: institute for Local Se!f-Re!iance, 1999.

1996, the city diverted 56% of its residential waste from disposal; 19% was recycled and 37% was
composted. Average trash landfilled per household dropped from 6.6 pounds per day in 1989 to
2.6 pounds per day in 1996 — a 60% reduction.
    Keys to high diversion are PAYT trash rates, convenient collection of 11 types of recyclables,
and providing several options for yard debris recovery.  PAYT trash fees encourage participation
in curbside and drop-off programs. The curbside program accounts  for 95% of all material
collected for recycling and a  third of the material collected for composting.  About 27% of
households subscribe to the yard debris pick-up service (1997);  most of the  remainder opt for
the drop-off, which is free, or they source reduce via mulch mowing and backyard composting.
    The new system, completed in 1993, results in fewer staff injuries, integrates recycling with
trash collection, and contains costs.  Loveland also considers the PAYT trash fees more equitable
since  customers pay for  services based on their level of usage.   Lower worker  compensation
                                               insurance  ratesl  and  dual-collection   have
                                               helped  minimize costs.   Staffing for  trash,
                                               recyclables,  and  yard  debris  collection  have
                                               remained constant  during  the  changes, due
                                               mostly to increased worker  productivity  from
                                               dual-collection.  Under the former system, each
                                               route  served 450  homes per day.   Now  each
                                               serves 950 homes per day. Per household costs
                                               are expectedly higher under  Loveland's current
  Tons Per Year
    Disposal
    Diversion
  Percent Diverted
    Recycled
    Composted
 1989
15,680
 15,680
     0
   0%
   0%
  1996
17,973
  7,884
 10,089
  56%
  19%
  37%
 Average Ibs./HH/day       6.63         6.00
    Disposal               6.63          2.63
    Diversion              0.00          3.37
 Annual Disposal Fees
    Disposal	$73,861	$78,015
 Net Program Costs/HH    $63.16       $85.48
    Disposal Services       $63.16        $40.36
    Diversion Services          $0        $45.12

 Notes: 12,959 households served in 1989; 16,422 in 1996. 1989
    dollars adjusted to 1996 dollars using the GDP deflator.
    Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
                                               integrated  system than they were  before  the
                                               changes ($63 in 1989; $85 in 1996).  Residents
                                               receive more services than they previously  had
                                               and costs likely would have been higher had the
                                               city chosen an  alternative system.
                                                    Waste reduction may  also  ensure future
                                               cost-effectiveness   for   Loveland's   waste
                                               management system as it  cushions Loveland
                                               against expected increases in landfill tip fees.2
                                                                          DEMOGRAPHICS
                                                                          POPULATION: 37,352 (1989),
                                                                            44,300(1996)
                                                                          HOUSEHOLDS: 17,476
                                                                            (1996); 15,220 single-
                                                                            family households, 2,256
                                                                            multi-family units
                                                                          BUSINESSES:  1,800
                                                                          LAND AREA:  23.5 sq. miles
                                                                          HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:  744
                                                                             households/sq. mi.
                                                                          AVERAGE PER CAPITA
                                                                            INCOME:  $13,345(1989),
                                                                            $18,010(1996), $18,730
                                                                            (1997)
                                                                          MEDIAN  HOUSEHOLD
                                                                            INCOME:  $30,548(1989),
                                                                            $41,556(1996), $43,218
                                                                            (1997)
                                                                          COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
                                                                            Small residential city
                                                                            adjacent to Front Range of
                                                                            Rocky Mountains.  Major
                                                                            industry includes high-
                                                                            tech & mid-tech
                                                                            manufacturing;
                                                                            publishing; the arts,
                                                                            especially bronze
                                                                            sculpture;  agriculture;
                                                                            retail; service; and
                                                                            government
                                                                          COUNTY: Larimer

-------
LOVELAND.  COLORADO
                  RESIDENTIAL WASTE  REDUCTION
                 Recycled
                    ONP
                    Mixed Containers
                    Magazines/Catalogs
                    OCC
                    Mixed Office Paper
                    White Goods
                    Automotive Batteries1
                    Reusable Items
                    MRF Rejects?
Tons (1996)
     3,503
      2,315
      1,079
       122
       121
        46
     2 (est.)
         1
     1 (est.)
                 Composted/Chipped                   6,586
                    Yard Trimmings (Drop-off)3              2,770
                    Yard Trimmings (Curbside)               2,185
                    Wood (Drop-off)*                     1,526
                    HolidayTreesS                     105 (est.)
                 Total Waste Reduction
                                                    10,089
                 MSW DisposedS
                    Landfilled
                    MRF Rejects
     7,884
      7,700
       184
                 Total Generation
                                                    17,973
                 Percent Reduced
                                                    56.1%
                 Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day               6.00
                 Note: Figures include trash and recyclablesfrom 16,422 households served
                    by the city's trash and recycling programs.  ILSR reduced total recycling
                    tonnages by 3% to to account for 500 household receiving city
                    recycling but not city trash services.
                 1 Based on recovery of 50 auto batteries and a density of 39.4 Ibs. each.
                 ?Based on MRF reject rate of 5%.
                 3fonnage estimated by city using periodically checked representative truck
                    weights.
                 ^Loveland estimated tonnage based on 65 tons per hour grinder
                    throughput.
                 5fhe Parks Department collects and mulches the trees, fonnage
                    estimated by Solid Waste Management Utility staff.
                 6Tip fee at landfill is $3.70/cubic yard, fhe city estimates tonnage using
                    750 Ibs./cubic yard based on the compaction ratio of its trash trucks.
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

                State and Local  Policies
                     Colorado has little solid waste legislation; solid
                waste management responsibilities are largely left up
                to local communities. The state has no formal waste
                diversion goal  but, in  a  1993  speech, Colorado's
                Governor challenged  Coloradans to cut their waste
                disposal in half by the year 2000.
                     The  State  Office  of  Energy  Conservation
                supports recycling and waste  reduction through  a
                Community Grant program that has distributed $6
                million during the last six years.3 According to the
                State Office of Energy Conservation, Loveland has
                "led  the  state"  in recycling and waste  diversion,
                rather than state policies leading  Loveland.
                     In  1992,  Loveland  implemented  PAYT  trash
                fees  citywide.   Residents  must either buy a  stamp
(85
-------
                                                                                                           LOVELAND.  COLORADO
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:
             Mandatory:
      Households Served:

     Materials Accepted:

   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
City of Loveland Solid Waste Management Utility
Planning began September 1990; implementation completed March 1993
No
16,922 (1996), 15,220 SFDs, 1,702 MFDs.  All single-family households are eligible to be served by city program.  Managers of
multi-family complexes with four or more units decide whether to use city services or contract privately.
Glass bottles and jars; narrow-necked #1  and #2  plastic bottles; aluminum cans; steel cans; clean aluminum foil, pie, or food
trays; empty aerosol cans; ONP; brown grocery sacks; white goods; and OCC
Weekly
ONP and brown paper grocery sacks in 12-gallon blue container, and other recyclable materials in a 15-gallon green container.
OCC flattened and put under the  bins at curbside.  Residents are asked to only set out full containers to cut labor costs.
Apartments generally have two- to three-cubic-yard dumpsters for trash and 96-gallon carts for recyclables.  The city collects
white goods, which must have the appropriate number of stamps attached, by prior appointment.
SFDs:  two-person crews dual-collect trash and recyclables in dual-side drive Crane  Carrier trucks with 10-cubic-yard EZ Pack
Apollo packers (for trash) and a Western Curbside Collector (for recyclables). The driver empties paper into the 6.9-cubic-yard
semi-automatic side-loading Western Curbside Collector compartment and commingled containers into the other, which is 11.3
cubic yards. The second crew member handles trash. The truck capacity was designed to serve 450 to 500 households before
any one of the three compartments fills. Some OCC is put into the ONP compartment, but this can cause it to fill too quickly.
A spare packer truck  is often positioned along the collection route for the occasional off-loading of OCC.
MFDs: The  dual-collection vehicle has a  16-cubic-yard EZ Pack Apollo packer for trash collection and the Western Curbside
Collector has dual semi-automated cart lifters that can lift and empty 96-gallon carts. The capacity of the compartment for old
newspaper and corrugated cardboard is 6.4 cubic yards, and the capacity for food and beverage containers is 8.6 cubic yards.
The truck is a dual drive Crane Carrier.
White Goods:  Crew using pick-up truck with a tail-gate lifter.
97% monthly participation, 52% weekly set-out rate; based on two-week field observation in 1995, and 1994 data.
Reduced trash fees through increased recycling. Free set of recycling bins given to each household.
Feedback cards are left with uncollected materials to inform the resident why material was not collected.
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Planning began September 1990; implementation completed citywide March 1993
City of Loveland Solid Waste Management Utility
4,200 single-family households (1997)
No, subscription-based
Grass clippings, small branches, leaves, garden trimmings
Weekly, available eight months of year
96-gallon roll carts. Material must be of such a size that the cart lid will close.
One-person crews use 16-cubic-yard New Way (semi-automated side-loaders) mounted on dual drive Crane Carrier trucks
50% weekly set-out rate among subscribers (crew estimate)
Reduced trash fees
Overflowing containers not collected
DROP-OFF COLLECTION
        Number of sites:
                Staffing:
        Service Provider:
     Materials Accepted:

 Participation Incentives:
         Sectors Served:
One recycling site, one yard debris site.  Residents need a pass to use the yard debris site.
No
City of Loveland Solid Waste Management Utility (holiday trees:  Parks Department)
Motor oil, transmission fluid, antifreeze, automotive batteries, fluorescent tubes, OMG, catalogs, phone books, and mixed office
papers at the recycling depot, and tree branches, grass clippings, leaves and garden trimmings at the yard debris site
Reduced trash disposal costs due to increased recycling and composting
Signage indicates site for Loveland residents only, but there is no staff to prevent other users

-------
LOVELAND. COLORADO
                  Item
                                                             Cost
                                                                                  Use
                                                                                                            Year Incurred
                 35,671 Recycling Bins
                 4,278 Yard Debris Collection Carts
                 1 Apartment Dual-Collection Truckl
                 2 Yard Trimming Collection Trucks2
                 1 Roll-off Truck3

                 5 Dual-collection Trucks4
                                                           $142,684
                                                           $222,456
                                                           $120,000
                                                           $152,000
                                                            $95,000
     Curbside Recycling
   Yard Trimmings Collection
 Trash and Recycling Collection
   Yard Trimmings Collection
Trash, Recyclables, Green Wastes,
Compost & Wood Chips Hauling
 Trash and Recycling Collection
  1991-1997
  1991-1996
    1994
    1994
    1995

1992 and 1993
                 Note: Loveland's Fleet Division owns all trucks. The Solid Waste Program pays tor the use ot these vehicles on a per mile basis This tee, reflected in the 1996
                    O&M costs, covers actual expenses incurred tor vehicle O&M and includes a built-in replacement tee, which is set aside tor new vehicle purchase when this
                    becomes necessary.
                 1 Crane Carrier chassis with 16-cubic-yard EZ Pack Apollo packer and a May Manufacturing two-bin Western Curbside Collector.
                 2Crane Carrier chassis, 16-cubic-yard New Way side-loader with dual  semi-automated cart litters.
                 ^International chassis with AmpliRoll hook-lift system.
                 Crane Carrier chassis with 10-cubic-yard EZ Pack Apollo rear-loading compactor and a May Manufacturing two-bin Western Curbside Collector.
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

                (WMI) operates the MRF under contract with the
                county. It processes and markets the recyclables and
                shares the revenues with the county. WMI also pays
                Loveland and other county  haulers for its  sorted
                paper (but not  for the mixed food and beverage
                containers). The July 1997 prices paid were:  ONP,
                $14/ton  loose;  OCC,  $28/ton;  magazines  and
                catalogs, $10/ton; and mixed office paper, $22/ton.
                WMI sets  these prices monthly.
                     White goods, used oil, antifreeze, auto batteries,
                and  paints collected at drop-off are sold or given to
                other recyclers or to the county's HHW center.

                                              Composting
                                              Program
                                                    In        1996,
                                              Loveland    diverted
                                              37% of its residential
                                              waste  through com-
                                              posting   and   wood
                                              chipping.   Its  PAYT
                                              trash  rates  encourage
                                              residents   to   either
                                              subscribe    to    the
                                              seasonal     curbside
                                              service, use the drop-
                off site, or mulch  mow and home compost.  The
                curbside and drop-off programs accept  all  types of
                yard debris as well as holiday  trees.
                     Curbside pick-up costs $4.25 per month (1997)
                and  operates eight months of the year (April through
                November). Participants receive a 96-gallon cart for
                their  yard  trimmings.   Approximately  27%  of
                households subscribe to the service (1997).  About
Two-person crews dual-collect recyclables and trash
using specially designed semi-automated one-pass
trucks.
  one-third of yard debris is collected via curbside; the
  remainder, through the drop-off site.
      The city has found  that its 16-cubic-yard yard
  debris collection  vehicles  are  too  small and  must
  unload  two to  three times  a day.   Because the
  compost facility is 20 miles away,  the trucks unload
  at  the  drop-off  center.    Yard  debris  is  then
  occasionally  reloaded  into  a bigger  truck  and
  transported to the compost facility, which is owned
  and operated by A-l Organics.4
      The city and A-1 equally share all expenses and
  revenues.   Finished  compost from Loveland's yard
  debris is marketed as "Loveland's Own Compost."  It
  sells for $23 to $29 per cubic yard for bulk retail, $7
  to  $13  bulk wholesale,  and in 40-pound bags for
  $3.49 retail, $1.82 to $2.22 wholesale.  All finished
  compost is sold.  A-l also  produces and sells mulch
  for $7.50 per  cubic yard  retail.  In  1996, the city
  earned  an  average   of  $6.37 per  ton  for  yard
  trimmings collected.

  Education,  Publicity, and Outreach
      The city has produced educational  materials on
  mulch mowing, backyard composting, recycling, and
  pre-cycling.   All  residents received  a  set.   New
  residents receive these brochures with  recycling bins,
  a free trash bag, and a free  trash stamp.
      Most of the  city's outreach is targeted  at new
  residents,  who  are required to sign up  with the
  program at the city  utilities office.  There, they are
  given an  information packet.   Recycling bins are
  delivered  free  of charge to new  residents  and to
  current residents who have lost or damaged bins.

-------
                                                                                                 LOVELAND. COLORADO
     Staff give presentations to  community groups
about waste  reduction.  They  also participate  in
Loveland's annual Earth Day activities.  On occasion,
information about  recycling, source reduction, and
trash service,  have  been  included  with  residents
utility  bills,  or  in  advertisements in  the  local
newspaper, usually  in response to contamination or
other problems.  Coupons  for  a discount on  the
price of compost have also been distributed this way.

Costs
     In  1996, the city spent about $1.48  million to
provide trash, recycling, and yard debris services to
the 16,422 households using both the city's recycling
and  trash services   —   about $90  per  household
served.   Of  this, about  45% was spent on trash
collection and disposal, 32% was spent on recycling,
and  24% was spent on yard debris collection and
recovery.   Materials  revenues  reduced  this  by
$81,000  to  $1.4  million  (or  $85  per  household
served).
     On a per-ton basis,  net waste reduction costs
were $72, $14 per ton less than trash services. Trash
costs $86, recycling $128 ($117 with revenues), and
yard debris recovery, $53  ($47 with revenues).
     The  SWM   Utility  employs  16.5  full-time
equivalent workers (12 for residential collection). In
1996, hourly collector wages averaged $14.59 with
benefits  (or $11.23 without benefits).
                                           Cost
                                                           Tons
                                                                           Cost/Ton
                                 Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costsl
Curbside Collection
Drop-off Collection
Processing
Administration/Education/Planning2
Composting Gross Costs
Curbside Collection
Drop-off Collection
Processing
Administration'Education/Planning2
$472,784
$372,133
$42,943
$0
$57,708
$349,282
$187,998
$36,236
$71,819
$53,299
3,697
3,515
182
3,697
3,697
6,586
2,185
4,401
6,586
6,586
$127.88
$105.87
$235.95
$0
$15.61
$53.03
$86.04
$8.23
$10.90
$8.08
$28.79




$21.27




 Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                       $822,066
10,283
$79.94
$50.06
Materials Revenues
Recyclables
Compost
($81,165)
($39,225)
($41,940)
10,283
3,697
6,586
($7.89)
($10.61)
($6.37)
($4.94)
 Waste Reduction Net Costs
                                       $740,901
10,283
$72.05
$45.12
 Note: Figures may not total due to rounding. Recycling tonnage figure differs from figure in table on page 108 as above figure includes MRF rejects and 10 tons
 of used oil. All figures include debt service. Administrative costs to the city external to the Solid Waste Utility are not included.
 1 Recycling costs also include household hazardous waste collection costs.
 ^Administration, education, and planning costs for the entire SW Utility were allocated to functions based on budget share.

1 TOTAL SOLID WASTE COSTS f1 996) 1

Trash Gross Costs1
Collection
Landfill Tip Fees
Administration'Education/Planning2
Waste Reduction Gross Costs
SWM Gross Costs
Materials Revenues
Total SWM Net Costs
Cost
$662,855
$522,041
$78,015
$62,799
$822,066
$1,484,921
($81,165)
$1,403,756
Tons
7,700
7,700
7,700
7,700
10,283
17,983
10,283
Cost/Ton
$86.09
$67.80
$10.13
$8.16
$79.94
$82.57
($7.89)
17,983 $78.06
Note: Figures may not total due to rounding. All figures include debt service. Administrative costs to the city external to the Solid
included.
1frash costs also include spring cleanup and elderly/disabled aid program costs.
^Administration, education, and planning costs for the entire SW Utility were allocated to functions based on budget share.
Cost/HH/YR
$40.36
$50.06
$90.42
($4.94)
$85.48
Waste Utility are not

-------
LOVELAND. COLORADO
                       PER TON  OPERATING  COSTS FOR
                     RESIDENTIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
                            1989
                           Trash
                                        1996
                                     Gross Waste
                                     Reduction
| Net Waste
 Reduction
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
                    Per household costs for solid waste management
                services have increased from  $63 in 1989 to $85 in
                1996.  (These figures take into  account the cost of
                inflation.) The increase was due to new services and
                rising  disposal costs.   The  city estimates it  saves
                $100,000  per  year  through  dual-collection  as
                compared to separate trash and recycling collection.

                Funding & Accounting Systems
                    Loveland's solid  waste management program is
                operated as  an enterprise fund with all  funding
                coming completely from user fees.  Revenue from
                the sale of recyclables and compost, and  residents'
                various user fees  cover the  capital, operating, and
                maintenance  costs  of  the  trash,  recycling,  and
                composting programs.
                    A mandatory flat monthly  fee of $4.60 (1997)
                per single-family  household  funds the  recycling,
                composting, household hazardous waste, and spring
                cleanup programs.  Per bag charges for trash pay for
                its collection and disposal. The $4.25 per month fee
                (1997) for optional yard debris service covers  the
                collection costs.

                Future Plans and Obstacles to
                Increasing Diversion
                    The  city  did not anticipate  the volume  of
                corrugated  cardboard  households  would  recycle.
                Because the cardboard compartments  on the dual-
                collection trucks are  sometimes too small to collect
                all of the routes' cardboard set-outs without filling
                up  too fast, the  dual-collection crews sometimes
                must  off-load  their cardboard  mid-route  into  a
"mother truck"; i.e., a spare packer truck which  is
centrally parked for convenient access by  all four
dual-collection crews.5  As the city adds new routes
or retires and  replaces trucks, it will purchase new
larger capacity trucks to alleviate this problem.

Tips for Replication
     Loveland's Solid Waste staff believe success of
Loveland's program is due principally to the PAYT
trash fees, dual-collection, and yard debris recovery
components. They  also believe  that municipalities
served only by private waste haulers should consider
franchising or  districting to give them needed clout
to   set   service   requirements   and  establish
community-wide waste reduction programs.
       Be prepared for resistance to change.  Be very
clear about  the  "whys" of  a program  change to
increase client buy-in.  Anticipate likely questions.
       Enact PAYT trash rates; they are a powerful
incentive to recycle and source reduce.
       Do your  own homework to fit program to
your community.  Do not simply attempt to replicate
another community's  program without considering
your community's similarities and differences.
       Sell  program to those active in community
(such as  service and civic clubs)  to build influential
allies.
                    Notes:
                    1 Worker compensation rates peaked at $200,000 per year due to back
                      injuries to trash collectors but were $38,000 per year in 1997.  Injuries
                      have been minimized through semi-automated collection of yard debris
                      and the bag-based trash program.
                    '-Landfill tip fees are expected to increase from the current level of $3.70 per
                      cubic yard (about $10 per ton) to $4.30 per cubic yard in early 1998.
                    3Loveland received grants of $15,000 in 1991 and $50,000 in 1994.
                    ^Originally A-1 operated a composting site within Loveland. The site closed
                      because of odor problems and because it was too small.  This old site
                      now serves as the yard debris drop-off center and transfer facility.
                    ^The city had run the pilot program and collected many data specifically to
                      avoid this type of problem but it had not gathered data on cardboard.
                      The decision to add corrugated was made immediately prior to
                      implementation of the dual-collection program.
                      Bruce Philbrick, Solid Waste Superintendent
                      Mick Mercer, Manager of Streets & Solid Waste Services
                      Solid Waste Management Utility
                      City of Loveland
                      105 West Fifth Street
                      Loveland, CO  80537
                      PHONE: 970-962-2529
                      FAX: 970-962-2907

-------
                                                  RESIDENTIAL WASTE  GENERATION
                                                       PER  HOUSEHOLD  PER DAY
                                                           1988
                                                          Trash
                                                                    1991
                                                                             1996
                                                                    Recycling

                                               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
                                                             \ Composting
   In 1968, Madison became the first U.S. city
   to  curbside   recycle  when  it  began
   collecting  newspapers.   The  city  now
collects  13 types  of recyclables weekly  at
curbside, the same day as trash.  It also offers
seasonal  curbside  collection  of yard debris
(brush, April to October; other materials, five
times  a year).  Drop-off sites  augment the
curbside program and accept yard debris and
large  items such as appliances.  In 1996, the
city diverted 50% of its residential waste; 16%
through   recycling   and   34%   through
composting.
    Yard debris recovery is a key to Madison's
success,  accounting for  67%  of materials
diverted in 1996. Targeting a wide range of
recyclable  materials, requiring participation,
and offering convenient curbside collection are important too. The diversion rate jumped from
18% in 1988  to 34% in  1989, when the city mandated that all  businesses and residents source
separate materials for  composting.  In  1991, when cardboard and containers were added and
recycling became mandatory, recyclables more than doubled from the previous year.
    The net cost of solid waste  services has increased from $163 per household served in 1988
to $175 in 1996.  During the same period, landfill disposal fees  more than doubled in constant
dollars.  Cost-effectiveness is  enhanced  by high diversion levels, low diversion costs for yard
trimmings, the use of large capacity clear bags for recycling, a revenue-sharing contract with the
MRF, and  no drop-off site for commingled materials collected at curbside.
    High diversion levels decreased the number of trash routes and helped to hold landfill tip
fees in check.  Seasonal curbside yard debris collection combined with drop-off collection diverts
                                              these  materials  at a  lower  per-ton cost than
                                              recycling or trash. While per-ton recycling costs
                                              are twice composting costs, the city considers its
                                              program cost-effective and efficient.  Residents
                                              use bags for recyclables set-out thereby avoiding
                                              the cost of purchasing bins, reducing collection
                                              costs,  and increasing  collection  efficiency  by
                                              allowing some  residents to  set out  recycling
                                              only every  other week. The  clear  bags  also
Tons Per Year
   Disposal
   Diversion
Percent Diverted
   Recycled
   Composted
Average Ibs./HH/day
   Disposal
   Diversion
   1988
 71,640
  59,031
  12,608
   18%
     5%
   12%
   8.19
   6.75
   1.44
  1996
88,583
 44,272
 44,311
  50%
  16%
  34%
  8.38
  4.19
  4.19
Annual Disposal Fees
   Disposal
$590,185    $1,475,508
Net Program Costs/HH   $162.55      $174.79
   Disposal Services      $132.97       $103.20
   Diversion Services      $29.58        $71.59
Notes: 47,945 households served in 1988; 57,949 in 1996. 1988
   dollars adjusted to 1996 dollars using the GDP deflator.
   Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
                                               enable collection crews to visually identify bags
                                               not   meeting   regulations;   this   reduces
                                               contamination, educates residents, and increases
                                               diversion.  Under  its  MRF  contract,  the city
                                               receives   80%  of  revenues  from  sale  of
                                               recyclables.   The city also  reduced costs by
                                               closing its drop-off site for recyclables collected
                                               at curbside.
                                                                            DEMOGRAPHICS
                                                               POPULATION: 191,000
                                                                 (1989), 200,920(1996)
                                                               HOUSEHOLDS: 82,949
                                                                 (1996); 40,314 single-
                                                                 family households, 42,635
                                                                 multi-family units
                                                               BUSINESSES: 7,000
                                                               LAND AREA:  66 sq. miles
                                                               HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
                                                                 1,257 households/sq. mi.
                                                               AVERAGE PER CAPITA
                                                                 INCOME:  $15,143(1989)
                                                               MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
                                                                 INCOME:  $29,420(1989)
                                                               COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
                                                                 Urban; college town, state
                                                                 capitol. Major businesses:
                                                                 High tech industries,
                                                                 financial service firms,
                                                                 Oscar Meyer, Rayovac
                                                               COUNTY: Dane

-------
MADISON. WISCONSIN
                 RESIDENTIAL WASTE REDUCTION
                                               Tons (1996)
                 Recycled
                   ONP, OCC, Mags.
                   Mixed Containers
                   Scrap Metal
                   Phone Books
                   MRF Rejects
14,485
  8,721
  5,499
  1,091
    41
  -867
                 Composted/Chipped               29,826
                   Leaves                         14,430
                   Brush and Chips                   7,897
                   Yard Trimmings (Drop-off)            6,179
                   Backyard Composting1              1,320
                 Total Waste Reduction
                                                 44,311
                 MSW Disposed
                   Landfilled
                   MSW Composting2
                   MRF Rejects3
                   Tires4
44,272
 42,055
  1,179
   867
   171
                 Total Generation
                                                88,583
                 Percent Reduced
                                                 50.0%
                 Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day             8.38
                 Note: Figures include 200 small businesses provided with city trash
                   services. These businesses total well less than 1 % of the number of
                   households in the program and are not believed to perceptibly affect
                   the waste reduction rate.
                 1 Tonnage based on a city study which found that on average each
                   household participating in backyard composting diverts 660 pounds
                   of material per year. By 1996, the city had sold and given away
                   more than 5,000 bins and city staff estimated 4,000 of them were
                   used regularly.
                 ^Represents mixed trash mechanically processed and composted. For
                   this study this type of waste is not considered waste reduction.
                 3Based on 6.1% reject rate for material sent to MRF.
                 <171 tons of tires were shredded and burned at Wl Power & Fight.
               State and Local  Policies
                    In 1989, Madison enacted a recycling ordinance
               mandating all businesses and residents of both single-
               and   multi-family   households  source-separate
               designated materials. The law is periodically revised
               to include additional materials.
                    To encourage waste  reduction, in 1989,  Dane
               County banned  newsprint  from its  landfill. 1   In
               1993, the state of Wisconsin modeled its laws on the
               Dane County ordinance when it banned yard debris
               from Wisconsin  landfills.  Effective 1995, all plastic,
               steel, glass, and  aluminum containers; paperboard;
               polystyrene  packaging;   corrugated  cardboard;
               newspaper and other paper; and tires were banned
               from Wisconsin landfills. The state has subsequently
               allowed a temporary exemption for #3 through #7
               type plastics. Exemption to all the bans is allowed for
               communities   determined   by   the  Wisconsin
               Department  of  Natural  Resources  to  have  an
"effective recycling  program."   The  state  has
established no statewide recycling goal.

Source Reduction Initiatives
    In  1992, the Street Division began encouraging
home composting by  distributing, at no charge, 750
Soilsaver  composting  bins.  A study  estimated that
each participating household composted 660 pounds
per year. The following year, the  city gave away 410
more bins, after which it began selling them below
cost for $22.50 to $25 each.  About  2,000 bins are
sold each year.  Recycling program staff offer a free
home composting course  as  well as free  trouble-
shooting  advice.   Residents home-compost an
estimated 1,320 tons of material each year.2

Recycling Program
    Madison recycles 16%  of its residential waste.
With  the  exception of  appliances  and metals
collected  at drop-off,  all recyclables are collected at
curbside.   The  city  stopped  accepting  food and
beverage  containers and paper at its drop-off  site
because  tonnage    delivered   there   decreased
significantly when these materials were added to the
curbside program.
    Most recyclables are  processed  at  Recycle
America of Madison, a MRF owned and operated
by Waste Management Inc. The MRF mechanically
sorts  fiber  and  metals and  manually sorts  other
commodities.  Under its contract  with the facility
(due to end in 2005), the city pays $67.77 per ton for
bagged containers (this includes a $5  per  ton  de-
bagging fee) and $26.58 per  ton for paper.  These
fees  are   adjusted  annually  according  to   the
Consumer Price  Index for  the Milwaukee region.
Revenue  from materials  sales is  shared; Madison
receives 80%, the MRF 20%. The 1996  reject rate
for material delivered to the  MRF was 6.1% by
weight.
    The  city  recycles  only  materials for which
markets  exist.    It  must   negotiate  additional
processing fees for any new  materials.
    Scrap metal, white goods, tires, and used oil are
recycled by private contractors with whom the city
has directly forged agreements.

Composting Program
    Madison's yard debris  recovery program is the
heart of its waste  reduction efforts, diverting 34% of
its residential waste.  Fall leaf collection at  curbside

-------
                                                                                                             MADISON. WISCONSIN
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF  RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:
             Mandatory:
      Households Served:
     Materials Accepted:

   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Street Division, City of Madison Department of Public Works
1968, newspapers; 1991, containers and corrugated cardboard; 1994, magazines and catalogs
Yes, for all materials (1991)
AIISFDsand 17,635 multi-family dwellings (Total:  56,450 in 1994, 57,419 in 1995, and 57,949 in 1996)
Newspapers and inserts, corrugated cardboard, magazines and catalogs, brown paper bags, phone books (January to mid-March),
glass bottles and jars, aluminum cans, tin/steel cans, #1 & #2 plastic containers, appliances, scrap metal, tires
Weekly, same day as trash collection
Clean commingled containers in clear bags; old newspapers bundled or in brown paper bags; corrugated boxes must be flattened
and tied in bundles; magazines must be tied in bundles or placed in a brown paper bag; appliances (a fee up to $20 is charged)
and large metal items set at curb away from trash and recyclables; tires set out with large items
Dual-side drive, 30- or 33-cubic-yard enclosed collection trucks, with two compartments, one for paper products and one for
bagged containers, single-person crew. Each truck averages two trips to the MRF per day and a daily collection of 9,000 to 11,000
pounds of material. Appliances and large metal items collected using truck mounted cranes; tires collected with large items
97%, based on random sample in spring and fall of each year
Enforcement and fines ($200 first and second offense; $400 for additional offenses)
Workers only collect recyclables that meet city guidelines and attach a sticker explaining violations to recycling bags not in
compliance. "Nasty-grams," or notification letters, are sent to those who consistently mix trash with recyclables. City can issue
tickets for failure to recycle but so far has not done so. It has issued tickets for  leaving trash on front terraces as well as for
scavenging and illegal dumping.
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF  YARD TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
   Collection Frequency:

        Set-out Method:

      Collection Method:

      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
1980 for leaves; 1989 for other materials
City of Madison Street Division
All for leaves and yard trimmings, residents not using landscaping contractor for brush
Yes, 1980 for leaves; 1989 for other materials
Leaves, brush, grass clippings, garden and other organic yard debris, holiday trees
Leaves, grass clippings, garden and other organic yard debris, twice in spring, three times in fall; January collection for holiday
trees; brush, monthly April-October
Leaves and other yard trimmings piled loose at curb; if bagged, bags must be left open.  Brush, stacked and bundled, pieces must
be less  than eight feet in length and eight inches in diameter
City trash trucks. Most wood and brush are chipped at the curb using open-bed trucks and tow-behind chippers; leaves and
yard trimmings pushed into rear-loader trucks using plows and front-end loaders
NA
Enforcement and fines ($50 first offense; $100 second offense; $200 additional offenses)
Improperly prepared materials not collected
DROP-OFF COLLECTION
        Number of sites:
                Staffing:
        Service Provider:
     Materials Accepted:
 Participation Incentives:
         Sectors Served:
Seven;  four for used oil (beginning 1978);  three for leaves and other yard trimmings (open April through the first week in
December, start-up 1989).  Two of these sites also accept large items and brush (appliance fee applies  at drop-offs).  City
residents can also drop off leaves and other yard trimmings at the three Dane County Compost sites.  Drop-off sites for other
recyclables discontinued in 1992 after expanding curbside recycling.
Organics sites, one staff member whenever open; oil sites, unstaffed
City of Madison Street Division
Leaves, other yard trimmings, used oil, appliances, other large items
Free compost at county sites
Residential, commercial landscapers serving residences

-------
MADISON. WISCONSIN
                 Item
                                                         Costs
                                                                                     Use
                                                                                                            Year Incurred
                 4 Recycling Trucks1
                 4 Recycling Trucks2
                 13 Recycling Trucks3
                 Morbark Chipper
                 Chippers
                 Soilsaver Composting Bins
                 Trash Trucks
       Recycling Collection
       Recycling Collection
       Recycling Collection
          Composting
         Brush Collection
        Home Composting
         Trash Collection
1997
1995
1991
1985
 NA
 NA
 NA
                 Note: Equipment was paid in full at the time of purchase. Madison's Motor Equipment agency owns and administers the city's trash and recycling fleet; the
                   Street Division purchases their use. All costs related to the purchase, operation, and maintenance of these vehicles are included in the fee the Street Division
                   pays to Motor Equipment, which is reflected in the city's O&M costs for 1996.
                 iTwo International trucks, 2 Freightliner trucks, all with 33-cubic-yard Kann Commingler bodies.
                 2Crane Carrier trucks with 33-cubic-yard Kann Commingler bodies.
                 3Crane Carrier trucks with 30-cubic-yard Crane bodies.
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
                accounts  for  nearly  half  of this; seasonal curbside
                collection of brush, more than a quarter; and drop-
                off sites (available  eight  months of the  year)  and
                backyard composting capture the rest.
                    Most brush is chipped at  the curb using tow-
                behind chippers.  Large piles of  brush and  tree
                trimmings are chipped at a central site.  The  city
                transports larger logs to the Oak Hill  Correctional
                Facility where inmates convert them  to  firewood.
                The city gives away wood chips to area residents, and
                hauls large truck loads to farmers for use as animal
                bedding or as base  for composting.
                    City vehicles  transport  yard  trimmings  and
                leaves  to Dane County's composting site. The  city
                pays no direct tipping fees.  By fall 1997, the county
                will start charging municipalities a fee for  site use.

                Education,  Publicity,  and Outreach
                    Madison's recycling coordinator gives  talks at
                schools, clubs, and neighborhood associations.  He
                also helps produce a quarterly cable TV program
                                               entitled  "Madison
                                               Works."   Every  ot-
                                               her  year,  the  city
                                               produces a  " Recy-
                                               clopedia," a  36-page
                                               booklet describing
                                               the city's waste man-
                                               agement    system.
                                               The  Recyclopedia
                                               lists   recyclers who
                                               accept  material  not
                                               collected by  the city.
                                               The  city sends  this
                                               booklet to residents,
libraries,  realtors,   and   landlords,  and  posts
information from the booklet on the Internet. The
city also runs paid TV advertisements  on  a  local
station and airs public service announcements, called
"Earth Alerts," during children's programming.

Costs
     In  1996, the city spent about $10.7 million  for
trash, recycling,  and yard  debris  services — about
$184 per household served. Of this, about 56% was
spent on trash collection and disposal, 23% was spent
on recycling, and 21% was spent on yard debris
collection and recovery.  Materials revenues reduced
this by  $555,000  to $10.1 million  (or $175  per
household served).
     On a per-ton basis, trash cost $138,  recycling
$160 ($124 with materials  revenues), and yard debris
recovery, $79.
     The largest components  of the  1996  Street
Division budget were  personnel costs  (54%), fees
paid to  Motor Equipment (25%), and disposal  tip
fees (14%).  The Street  Division  employs  126 full-
time employees  and  an  additional  12   seasonal
employees who  receive no benefits  and work full
time 9.5 months per year. Hourly wages average $18
for recycling and trash services.
     The DPW's budget has  risen during the last
decade, but so has the population and the number of
households served.   When the cost  of inflation is
taken into account, average per household costs  for
waste  management  services  have  increased from
$163 in 1988 to $175  in  1996.3  During this same
period, landfill tip fees  more than  doubled in real
dollars.

-------
                                                                                                               MADISON. WISCONSIN
     Madison's recycling coordinator believes landfill
tip fees are now dropping  (after years of increasing)
because  of  over-capacity resulting from successful
recycling.    If  material  recovery  had  not helped
contain  costs, increased tip fees would  have driven
Madison's waste management budget higher than its
current level. Collection routes have changed  from
26 trash routes, served with dual-rear-axle trucks, in
                     1991  to 20  trash routes, served with single-rear-axle
                     trash  trucks,  and  12   recycling  routes   in  1996.
                     Increased  trash  routes  would  have  been  necessary
                     during  this time  because  of population growth.
                     Instead  the  system  was  reconfigured to  integrate
                     recycling.   The  change  to   single-rear-axle  trash
                     trucks saves approximately $10,000 on the purchase
                     price of each truck and decreases maintenance costs.
                                                 Cost
                                                                   Tons
  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                          $4,703,182
                      43,858
                                                                                      Cost/Ton
$107.24
                                                           Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costs
Curbside Collection
Scrap Metal Collection (Drop-off)
Processing
Administration1
Education/Publicity2
Composting Gross Costs
Curbside Collection
Drop-off Collection/Processing
Administration1
Education/Publicity3
$2,457,885
$1,588,187
$171,306
$640,714
NA
$57,677
$2,245,298
$1,955,088
$286,642
NA
$3,567
15,352
14,261
1,091
15,352
15,352
15,352
28,506
18,969
28,506
28,506
28,506
$160.10
$111.37
$156.96
$41.73
NA
$3.76
$78.77
$103.07
$10.06
NA
$0.13
$42.41





$38.75




 $81.16
  Materials Revenues
($554,722)
                                                                43,858
($12.65)
 ($9.57)
  Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                          $4,164,960
                      43,858
 $94.97
 $71.59
  Note:  Figures may not total due to rounding. Recycling and composting tonnage figures differs from figure in table on page 114 as above figures include MRF
    rejects and exclude estimated tonnage backyard composted, figures above include debt service on equipment and overhead and administration costs for the
    Street Division. Overhead/administrative costs above the Division level are not included.
  1 Within the Street Division, administrative costs are allocated to services based on estimated percentage of work spent on each service center and are
  already included in the collection and processing costs presented.
  ^Includes advertising and charges for local cable channel access only.
  -"Includes advertising fees only.
                                                 Cost
                                                                   Tons
  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                          $4,703,182
                      43,858
                                                                                      Cost/Ton
$107.24
                                                           Cost/HH/YR
Disposal Gross Costs $5,980,522
Trash Collection1 $3,899,011
Trash Transfer Station Processing/Hauling2 $603,003
MSW Composting Tip Fees3 $38,91 2
Landfill Tip Fees4 $1,436,596
Administrations NA
Education/PublicityS NA
43,405
43,405
43,405
1,179
42,055
43,405
43,405
$137.78
$89.83
$13.96
$33.00
$34.16
NA
NA
$103.20






 $81.16
  SWM Gross Costs
                                         $10,683,704
                      87,263
$122.43
$184.36
  Materials Revenues
($554,722)
                                                                43,858
($12.65)
 ($9.57)
  Total SWM Net Costs
                                         $10,128,982
                      87,263
$116.07
$174.79
  Note:  Numbers may not total due to rounding.  Tonnage figures above do not include estimated tonnage backyard composted.  Figures above include debt
    service on equipment and overhead and administration costs for the Street Division. Overhead/administrative costs above the Division level are not included.
  1 Trash collected weekly by Street Division, collection separate from recycling collection.
  2Costs include transfer station debt. This facility is in Madison.
  3Tip fee $33 per ton.  This facility is 29 miles away from Madison.
  4Tip fee $36 per ton Jan. through July, then $32 per ton. The landfill is three miles away from Madison.
  ^Within the Street Division, administrative costs are allocated to services based on estimated percentage of work spent on each service center and are
  already included in the collection and processing/hauling costs presented.
  6Trash education and  publicity not  separable from waste reduction education activities and are included in these figures.

-------
MADISON. WISCONSIN
                        PER TON  OPERATING COSTS  FOR
                     RESIDENTIAL  WASTE  MANAGEMENT
                 $160
                 $140
                 $120
                 $100
                             1988
                                         1991
                        | Trash

                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
Gross Waste
Reduction
                                                     1996
| Net Waste
 Reduction
                In addition, the number of employees responsible for
                trash and recycling has not increased as recycling has
                expanded and the city has grown in population.

                Funding & Accounting  Systems
                     The Street Division receives its funds each year
                directly from the city's general fund, where state aid4
                for recycling and waste management is deposited.
                     The Street  Division uses cash-flow  accounting
                techniques.   Within the Solid Waste  Management
                service  center,  employee  and  Motor  Equipment
                costs are  allocated to recycling, trash, or composting
                functions according  to  actual usage.   Revenues
                generated from the sale of recyclables, tip fees at  the
                transfer station  and  brush  site, and  the appliance
                disposal fees  are  not deposited in  the general fund
                but credited against the gross costs  of the function.

                Future Plans and Obstacles to
                Increasing Diversion
                     Currently,  markets  are  not  favorable  near
                Madison for recycling of mixed paper.   Madison's
                recycling  coordinator plans to  add   mixed  paper
                recovery when it becomes economically feasible.
                     The  biggest  obstacle  to  continued  waste
                reduction success has been to maintain recycling and
                composting  among  the  large  transient  student
                population of the University of Wisconsin. The city
                targets   areas   with   high   student   resident
                concentrations. At the beginning of the year, the city
                provides  students  with  information  on  waste
                reduction programs and how to properly participate;
and at the end of the year, the city reminds students
to comply with program requirements as they move.

Tips for Replication
       Know what everything  costs.  Don't fudge
numbers to sell a program or community alienation
may result if higher costs are incurred.
       Know   your   markets.    While  certain
commodities  may  be  present  in  great enough
quantities  to make collection  appear attractive, lack
of markets can disrupt the system.
       Not  collecting  a material is  better  than
collecting  it for recycling and then landfilling it.
       Build  political  support.   While  grassroots
organizing can accomplish many tasks, the process is
much easier with  political  support.   For 20 years,
local  politicians and staff in  the Streets  Department
in Madison have been committed to recycling  and
innovation in the solid waste management system.
Notes:
1 Ferrous and aluminum cans, corrugated cardboard, glass bottles and jars,
  HOPE bottles and tubs, PET plastic bottles, large appliances, used oil, grass
  clippings, leaves, brush, tires, and lead-acid batteries were banned in
  1991.
^Madison's recycling coordinator estimates that 4,000 of the bins distributed
  and  sold  are currently in use and that  each participating household is
  diverting 660 pounds per year.
3Costs were  normalized to 1996 dollars using the GDP deflator for state and
  local government expenditures.
^Wisconsin uses a gross receipts tax on businesses to fund recycling ($200
  million over eight years). From 1992 to 1994, any Wisconsinjurisdiction
  responsible for municipal solid waste management could apply for funds,
  which had to be used for the planning, constructing, or operating of a
  recycling program in compliance with  the state recycling statute. After
  1995, only organizations deemed to operate an "effective" recycling
  program, as defined in the state recycling statute, became eligible for
  funds. On January 1,1995, every municipality in Wisconsin was part of
  an organization with a state recognized "effective" recycling program.
  Funding is scheduled to decline in 1998 and expire in 2000. Madison has
  received  $1.3 million in aid from these funds.
                                     JHfll
                                     George Dreckmann
                                     Recycling Coordinator
                                     Street Division, City of Madison Dept. of Public Works
                                     1501  West Badger Road
                                     Madison, Wl  53713
                                     PHONE: 608-267-2626
                                     FAX:  608-267-1120
                                     E-MAIL:  gdreckmann@ci.madison.wi.us

-------
                                                  RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION
                                                      PER HOUSEHOLD PER  DAY
      Portland's   mandatory    commercial
      recycling program, instituted in 1996,
      and  its  well-established  residential
waste diversion programs complement each
other; the  programs resulted  in  the  city
diverting nearly half its total municipal solid
waste  in  1996.    Portland switched  to a
franchising  system for  residential  waste
management services in  1992.1  Companies
must offer customers volume-based pay-as-
you-throw (PAYT)  trash rates, weekly same-
day collection of 18 recyclable materials and
trash, and biweekly yard debris collection.2
These service requirements, the  state's bottle
bill,  and commercial  recycling  programs
were key elements in Portland reaching 50% municipal solid waste reduction in 1996.
     PAYT trash fees encourage residents to reduce their trash. Portland set the fee for the lowest
weekly service level, the 20-gallon "mini-can," below the cost of providing  the  service.  The
Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES)  reports the city's per household trash disposal
amount is lowest among large American cities.  In 1996, Portland diverted 40% of its residential
waste; 21% through curbside recycling, 17% through yard debris programs, and 2% through the
bottle bill.
     Portland BES  provided businesses assistance  in meeting the city's 50% requirement for
commercial recycling, instituted in 1996. BES helped businesses develop recycling plans. In the
                                                first  year,  businesses  exceeded  the  goal;
                                                recovering 52% of their waste.3
                                                   Cost-effectiveness   of   Portland's   waste
                                                management program  has  been  enhanced  by
                                                reducing haulers' franchise fees (from 5% to 4%
                                                of gross receipts), decreasing operating costs for
                                                trash collection, limiting yard debris collection
                                                to biweekly rather than weekly, and decreasing
                                                average trash can weights at most service levels.
                                                   Net costs households  pay for  residential
                                                solid  waste  management  services decreased
                                                from $241 in 1992  to  $211 per  household in
                                                1996.   Reduced  franchise  fees  resulted  in
                                                savings  for  all  waste   management  services.
                                                Even  though the  amount  of trash disposed
                                                increased, improved  collection efficiency and a
                                                drop in average trash  can weights  produced a
 RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM  SUMMARY
Tons Per Year
   Disposal
   Diversion
Percent Divertedl
   Recycled
   Composted
Average Ibs./HH/day
   Disposal
   Diversion
Annual Disposal Fees
   Disposal
Net Program Costs/HH
   Disposal Services
   Diversion Services
    1992
  136,929
   97,242
   39,687
    29%
     24%
      5%
    6.14
     4.36
     1.78
   1996
172,830
 103,897
  68,933
   40%
   23%
   17%
   7.10
   4.27
   2.83
$6,884,745     $6,407,396
  $240.55
  $186.56
   $54.00
$210.83
 $143.52
  $67.30
Notes: Figures above represent single-family residential sector
  only and exclude self-haul recyclables. 122,245 households
  served in1992; 129,698 in 1996. 1992 dollars adjusted to
  1996 dollars using the GDP deflator. Numbers may not add to
  total due to rounding. Figures represent fees paid to haulers
  by residents, not costs to the City of Portland. 1996 figures
  are actual expenditures, 1992 figures are based on costs
  assuming all households subscribed to weekly 32-gallon trash
  collection service.
11992 generation and diversion may actually have been higher
  as yard debris delivered to drop-off sites was not tracked.
                                               reduction in trash management costs from $187
                                               to  $144 per  household.  Diversion costs have
                                               increased from $54 per household in  1992 to
                                               $67 per  household  in 1996. Costs only  rose
                                               25% while  diversion increased 74%.
                                                                              DEMOGRAPHICS
                                                                                                 POPULATION: 437,319
                                                                                                   (1989), 503,000(1996)
                                                                                                 HOUSEHOLDS: 198,368
                                                                                                   (1996); 130,755 SFDs,
                                                                                                   59,613 MFDs
                                                                                                 BUSINESSES: 50,000
                                                                                                 LAND AREA:  138 square
                                                                                                   miles
                                                                                                 HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
                                                                                                   1,437  households/sq. mile
                                                                                                 AVERAGE PER CAPITA
                                                                                                   INCOME:  $14,478(1989)
                                                                                                 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
                                                                                                   INCOME:  $25,592(1989)
                                                                                                 COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
                                                                                                   Urban city with
                                                                                                   manufacturing economy.
                                                                                                   Principle businesses
                                                                                                   include Fred Meyer, Inc.,
                                                                                                   Tektronix, Inc., and lumber
                                                                                                   and wood manufacturing.
                                                                                                   The city has many parks
                                                                                                   and is nationally known
                                                                                                   for its location near
                                                                                                   numerous outdoor
                                                                                                   recreation areas.
                                                                                                 COUNTY: Multnomah

-------
PORTLAND. OREGON
                  MUNICIPAL WASTE  REDUCTION M996)
                                   Residential   Commercial
                                        Tonsl        Tons?
                                                              Total
                 Recycled               40,040
                   Newspaper            17,911
                   High-Grade Paper       7,617
                   Glass                 4,360
                   Corrugated Cardboard    4,138
                   Aluminum             1,657
                   Other Paper           1,452
                   PET/HDPE               802
                   Metal                    6
                   Deposit Containers3      3,994
                   MRF  Rejects4           -1,897
            310,091  350,131
                 Composted/Chipped      28,893
                   Curbside Col lection     17,793
                   Self-Hauls             7,500
                   Fall Leaf Collections      3;600
            100,000  128,893

            100,000+
                 Total Waste Reduction    68,933
            410,091  479,024
                 MSW Disposed
                   Trash
                   MRF Rejects
103,897
 102,000
   1,897
384,000  487,897
                 Total Generation
                                      172,830
            794,091  966,921
                 Percent Reduced
                                       39.9%
                                                    51.6%   49.5%
                 Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day  7.10
                 Notes:
                 1 Represents dwellings with four units or less. Self-haul recyclables are
                   not tracked and therefore not included.
                 ^Commercial trash and recycling estimated based on information
                   provided to Bureau of Environmental Services by commercial haulers,
                   independent recyclers, and four MRFs serving Portland. Also included
                   is an estimate of material delivered to self-haul disposal and
                   recycling facilities.  Commercial tonnage includes materials from MFD
                   (five or more  units) recycling programs.
                 3ILSR calculated tonnage based on Container Recycling Institute's
                   reported average 40.1 pounds per capita recovery through Oregon's
                   bottle bill, fonnage was split 60:40 between residential and
                   commercial sectors.
                 4ILSR calculated rejects as 5% of material collected in curbside program.
                   Portland's Solid Waste and Program Specialist reported the average
                   reject rate at facilities processing these materials to be 5% or less.
                 ^Portland estimated self-haul tons from data reported by private
                   composters.
                 6Portland's Bureau of Maintenance reports average annual collection of
                   leaves to be 24,000 cubic yards.  ILSR converted this to weight using
                   one cubic yard of compacted leaves = 300 pounds.
               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.


               State  and Local  Policies
                    Oregon's Bottle Bill, enacted in 1971, requires a
               5 It deposit on most carbonated beverage containers.
               Oregon's  1983 Recycling Opportunity Act, the first
               state   law  to   mandate   recycling,  requires
               municipalities with populations  of at least 4,000 to
               provide  curbside collection of recyclable materials.
               Oregon's   Recycling  Act  (1991)  set  a statewide
               recycling  goal of 50% by 2000 and a 45%  goal for
               the  Portland metropolitan area  by  1995.  Portland
               City set its own goals  of 10% reduction in per capita
waste generation by 1997 and 60% recycling of all
solid waste by 1997.4
     State law  requires  each jurisdiction  to offer
weekly  yard  debris  collection   unless   it   can
demonstrate the existence of an alternative  program
that diverts a similar  percent of materials as  do those
jurisdictions  with  weekly  programs.   Portland's
biweekly program meets this requirement.
     State law and  Portland  City  Code  require
owners of rental property to subscribe to and pay for
trash  service  for   their  tenants.    Multi-family
complexes (defined as those with five or more units)
must recycle at least five materials; newspapers  and
scrap  paper  are  two  of these.   The other  three
materials can be corrugated cardboard, magazines,
tin cans, glass containers, or plastic bottles.
     By ordinance  effective January 1996,  Portland
requires its businesses to recycle 50% of their waste.
The ordinance allows the city to levy civil fines of up
to  $500  for  non-compliance although BES  staff
report, as of  December  1997, compliance has been
high and no need to issue a fine has arisen.
     Portland instituted PAYT trash rates in 1992. To
encourage  residents to  reduce waste, a 20-gallon
mini-can service, the lowest level of weekly service
available, is priced below the cost of service at $14.80
per month.  Fees  for 60- and 90-gallon  roll cart
service  and   multiple-can  services  include  a
disincentive premium to discourage high  levels of
disposal.  The city sets all rates for the various levels. 5
(See table on page  122.)

Source Reduction  Initiatives
     Portland   uses  information   resources   to
encourage source   reduction.    Brochure  topics
include shopping  smart and  grasscycling.  Waste
prevention topics will also be addressed on the city's
Web page, under development as of mid 1997.
     Metro offers discounted price  compost bins in
its  service area.   Since  1993  it  has distributed
approximately 5,000 bins a year.

Residential Recycling Program
     Portland   requires  franchised  trash  hauling
companies to provide weekly recycling collection to
all  residences with four or fewer units. Thirty-four
franchised trash hauling companies have formed two
co-ops to provide recycling services  to their trash
customers,  the  remaining 13  trash  franchisees
provide their  own  recycling services.  The co-ops

-------
                                                                                                               PORTLAND. OREGON
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF  RESIDENTIAL RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:


          Start-up Date:
             Mandatory:
      Households Served:
     Materials Accepted:
   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:

      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Geographically franchised private companies, currently 47 residential franchisees for trash; 34 companies have formed two co-
ops serving their trash customers, remaining 13 trash franchisees provide their own recycling services, companies must have an
approved recycling plan on file with the city
June 1987 for citywide program, franchising system began February 1992
Provision of services mandatory but individual participation is not
129,698 in 1996; all SFDs and MFDs with four units or less are eligible
Newspapers, glass bottles and jars, ferrous cans and lids,  corrugated cardboard,  kraft paper bags, aluminum cans, other clean
aluminum, ferrous and non-ferrous scrap (less than 30 pounds and 30" in any dimension; no appliances, bicycles, or car parts),
used motor oil, all plastic bottles, magazines, paperboard, mail, mixed paper, paper egg cartons, milk cartons, aseptic containers,
aerosol cans, and phone  books
Weekly, same day as trash collection
Each recyclable material  must be sorted into separate brown paper bags and placed in 14-gallon yellow city-provided recycling
bin(s).6 Cardboard must be flattened and multiple pieces bundled.  Some haulers allow customers to combine certain materials
but the city discourages this practice.  Portland officials  made the decision to require  source-separation so the participation
instructions would be consistent in all parts of the city and over time.
Varies by contractor,  city requires trucks used to have been originally  manufactured for purpose  of collecting recyclables and
have capacity to serve 3,000 customers per week.
81%, set-outs counted and participation is defined as total  monthly  customer set-outs/customers in program/3 (in this way
participation is counted  as recycling three times per month out of a potential 4.33 opportunities), 65% of households set out
something each week in 1996 study by Waste Matters Consulting for American Plastics Council
Two free recycling containers to every household, reduced trash fees through increased recycling
Improperly prepared materials are not collected and customer is given city-provided notice, log book records  missed set-outs,
recycler retains copy of notice
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF  YARD TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
   Collection Frequency:

        Set-out Method:

      Collection Method:

      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
1992
47 trash haulers, Portland Bureau of Maintenance collects leaves
127,500 in 1996; all SFDs and MFDs with four units or less
Provision of services mandatory but individual participation is not
Yard debris, including leaves, grass clippings, brush less than four inches in diameter and 36 inches long, and other yard debris
Biweekly for hauler programs; usually during November and December for leaf collection, more often if needed to clear storm
drains
Material must be placed in a 32-gallon can marked with city-provided "Yard Debris Only" sticker or in biodegradable bag. Brush
can be bundled. Each extra container of yard debris collected costs $1. Residents push leaves into street for city collection.
Varies by contractor; the city uses various methods to collect leaves including vacuum trucks and manual loading into dump
trucks.  Crew size varies.
NA
Reduced trash fees through increased waste diversion
"We can't haul it" strip attached to improperly prepared materials and left at curb
DROP-OFF COLLECTION
        Number of sites:
                Staffing:
        Service Provider:

     Materials Accepted:
 Participation Incentives:
         Sectors Served:
Approximately 30
Varies
Private companies or regional government. Metro runs two drop-off sites for recyclables at its transfer stations. All yard debris
drop-off sites run by private companies. Deposit containers can be returned for refund to any merchant that sells the product.
Varies by site
Reduced trash fees through increased trash reduction
Residential and commercial/institutional

-------
PORTLAND. OREGON
                 RESIDENTIAL RATE SCHEDULE
                 Waste Can Volume
                                    Collection
                                    Frequency
              Monthly % Customer
               Charge  Enrollment
                 20-Gallon
                 32-Gallon
                 35-Gallon
                 60-Gallon
                 90-Gallon
                 32-Gallon
                 On-Call 32-Gallonl

                 Recycling Only
    Weekly
    Weekly
    Weekly
    Weekly
    Weekly
    Monthly
  Must be more
than 35 days apart
    Weekly
$14.80
$17.50
$18.90
$22.85
$27.85
 $9.95
 $4.00
18.6
48.2
10.5
 8.2
 4.6
 5.6
 1.2
 0.4
                 Note: Rates effective July 1,1996. Unless otherwise noted, customers
                 receive the indicated trash service, weekly curbside recycling collection,
                 and biweekly yard debris collection. Other levels of service are available to
                 residents, for example, residents can subscribe to collection service for two,
                 three, or four 32-gallon cans weekly. These service levels and charges are
                 not listed here because these levels have very few subscribers.
                 TDoes not include recycling or yard debris collection. $5.50 fee is charged
                 per collection, not monthly.
               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.


               allow  the  hauling  companies,  especially  smaller
               companies,  to  share  capital  costs  for  recycling
               equipment, increase collection efficiency, and enjoy
               economies of scale in  processing and marketing  of
               collected materials.  Each company must have an
               approved recycling plan on file with the city.
                    Recycling companies collect 18 materials in the
               weekly program.  Haulers must ensure the materials
               they collect are processed  and  marketed,  not
               disposed.   Source-separation  by  residents  allows
               some haulers to deliver material directly to markets
               without further processing.  Portland diverted  21%
               of its residential waste through this  program.
                    Portland  ordinance   requires   multi-family
               complexes have recycling programs that collect scrap
               paper  and  newspaper  as well as  three  additional
               materials. As of early 1997, the city had sent 5,000
               letters to owners  of rental properties. About 3,000
               new  trash  and   recycling  subscriptions  at  rental
               properties resulted from this effort.7   BES studies
               revealed  the proportion  of complexes  with  no
               recycling program dropped from 10% in 1995 to 2%
               in 1996 as a result of the mandatory ordinance.
                    Most haulers collect materials  source-separated
               and  can deliver  them directly  to  markets.   EZ
               Recycling,  Oregon  Recycling  Systems, Energy
               Reclamation, Inc.,  and  Recycle  America operate
               MRFs  that  process  the majority  of material  that
               need to be processed. The facilities employ a variety
               of sorting techniques, both automated and manual.
    The  Metropolitan  Service  District (Metro), a
regional government agency, owns and operates two
solid  waste transfer  stations in the  Portland area.
Portland residents who self-haul recyclable materials
to these facilities pay no tip fee and can receive up to
a $6 rebate.

Commercial Recycling Program
    All Portland businesses must separate recyclable
materials  from mixed waste, recovering a minimum
of 50% of their waste.  Businesses may recycle any
materials  they choose.  BES staff assisted companies
in devising recycling programs  to  meet  the 50%
requirement.8     BES   conducts   unannounced
inspections of businesses.  If the recycling system
does  not  meet requirements, staff  specify  needed
improvements and offer free technical assistance. To
date, no businesses contacted have refused  to work
toward compliance  and  no  penalties  have  been
issued.  The program has been well received but is
too new  to have reliable, definitive  data  about its
success.  Surveys  of businesses  have shown  29% of
businesses reported they did not recycle in  1993 as
compared to only 7% in 1996.

Composting Program
    According to Portland's franchising agreements,
haulers must  collect  yard  debris from  residential
customers biweekly (in FY94, collection service was
monthly)  and deliver  material to a "City Approved
Processor." Residents place material at the  curb in
reusable cans up to 32 gallons, in kraft paper bags, or
in biodegradable Novonฎ bags.  Residents can also
opt to deliver their  material to privately operated
composting sites or to a Metro transfer station.
    Portland's Bureau of Maintenance collects leaves
from the  streets in the autumn (about 24,000 cubic
yards  of leaves a year.)  In  1996, Portland  diverted
17%  of  its residential  waste   through  curbside
collection, fall leaf collection programs, and private
composters.

Education, Publicity, and Outreach
    Portland  uses a   multi-media approach  to
promote  its waste reduction programs including a
Web page (under  development), a recycling  hotline,
and   a  quarterly  newsletter   for  single-family
households with  recycling service.  The Complex
Recycler  quarterly newsletter is  distributed  to 1,200
multi-family  dwelling   owners and  managers.

-------
                                                                                                               PORTLAND. OREGON
Portland contracts with  a private  company, Master
Recyclers,  to  do  presentations  and  information
booths about the city's waste management programs.


Costs
     Portland BES only incurs costs to administer the
city's waste management programs. The tables below
reflect a  breakdown of  fees  paid  by  residents  to
haulers.  The  city employs nine full-time and one
part-time staff.
     Haulers  must  charge  variable  rates for trash
services as  set  by the BES.9   BES determines rate
           structures  to  allow  haulers to  recover  collection,
           handling, and  disposal costs for trash, recycling costs
           after revenues  are received, yard debris collection and
           handling costs, general and  administrative costs, and
           costs  for  depreciation,  interest,  and  repairs  and
           maintenance on capital equipment.  Service levels
           above weekly  32-gallon trash collection  include a
           disincentive premium  to discourage disposal and the
           20-gallon mini-can service rates include an incentive
           discount. After setting costs to cover actual expected
           hauler  expenditures, an operating margin of  9.5%
  WASTE  REDUCTION FEES PAID  BY RESIDENTS f1996)
                                                         Cost
                                                                                  Tons
                                                                                                  Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costs
Recycling Collection and Processing1
Hauler Admin./Overhead/Operating Margin?
City Administration/Overhead/Education3
Composting Gross Costs4
Yard Trimmings Collection/Processing
Hauler Admin./Overhead/Operating Margin5
City Administration/Overhead/Education3
$7,445,649
$4,705,374
$2,317,154
$423,121
$2,343,537
$1,486,253
$731,903
$125,381
37,943
37,943
37,943
37,943
17,793
17,793
17,793
17,793
$55.84
$17.58
  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                                   $9,789,186
                             55,736
 $73.42
  Materials Revenues6
($815,980)
                                                                                55,736
 ($6.12)
  Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                                   $8,973,206
                             55,736
 $67.30
  Note:  Portland does not measure program effectiveness on a cost per ton basis. Instead the city analyzes cost on a per household basis Figures may not total
    due to rounding. Composting tonnage above differs from figure in table on page 120 as above figure excludes fall leaves. All figures above represent
    cumulative payments by customers to haulers for waste services during 1996.
  1 Recycling charges for 1996 included credit of $0.70 per household for projected recycling revenues. This cost figure represents actual payments to haulers
    plus the credit.
  2ILSR calculated hauler administration and overhead costs by pro-rating total overhead and administration, fees paid by customers by the proportion of
    service fees paid for recycling.
  3ILSR calculated city costs by pro-rating total franchise fees paid to the city by the proportion of tons recycled, composted, and disposed.
  
-------
PORTLAND. OREGON
                  SOLID WASTE SERVICES RATE STRUCTURE
                 32-Gallon Weekly Trash Service   FY921
                                                            FY97
                 Collection Charge             $5.31
                 Disposal Charge               $4.27
                 Recycling Charge             $2.20
                 Yard Debris Charge            $0.55
                 General and Administrative Costs $2.63
                 Operating  Margin             $1.66
                 Franchise Fee
     $3.89
     $2.36
     $0.97
     $3.87
     $1.66
     $0.70
                 Total
                                           $17.50
   $17.50
                 1 Represents rates in effect for the second half of 1992 after rates were
                    adjusted to reflect costs of added yard debris service.
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

                and the franchise fee are added to arrive at the final

                monthly charge to customers at each service level.

                    Since 1992, yard debris collection frequency has

                increased and additional materials have been added

                to the  recycling program.   Rates  have  fluctuated

                slightly because of volatile material  markets but  the

                prices for the various service levels are currently near

                to the prices set in 1992. Average trash can weights

                have dropped, inflation has been low, and tip fees for

                trash and yard debris have remained  constant for  the

                previous few years.  Collection efficiencies for trash

                have  increased while costs  for recycling and yard

                debris services have  grown  at  less than  the  rate of

                inflation. The net result has been that operating costs

                for haulers have remained relatively  stable.


                Funding & Accounting Systems

                    Haulers pay the city franchise fees (4% of their

                gross receipts in FY97).  These funds finance  the

                city's residential trash,  recycling, and  composting

                program   administration,   education  programs,

                publicity, and franchise oversight.
                     PER TON COSTS  TO RESIDENTS FOR
                             WASTE  MANAGEMENT

                             1990

                            Trash
                                         1992
                                       Gross Waste
                                       Reduction
                                                      1996
Net Waste
Reduction
     A $2.80 per  ton  tax on tip fees charged for

commercial  waste disposal  is returned to  the city.

This tax funds the city's cost to promote, administer,

and enforce  business recycling programs.


Future Plans  and Obstacles to

Increasing  Diversion

     The BES  is considering a number of changes

such  as   switching  to  commingled  collection  of

recyclables  in  order  to  increase   convenience,

participation,  and   collection   efficiency.    The

challenge for city planners is to ensure changes will

not add costs or reduce waste diversion.

     According to residential  waste stream analysis,

paper is still  the most predominant material in trash.

Maximizing  paper   recycling  could  significantly

increase  the  city's waste reduction rate.


Tips for Replication

        PAYT  trash  rates encourage  customers  to

reduce waste and increase diversion.

        Know  the public  and  conditions  in  your

jurisdiction and plan  accordingly.

        Be responsive to the public.

        Focus   on    convenience,    striving   to

continuously make participation easier over time.

Notes:
1 Under this system, waste management companies receive exclusive rights
   to provide services within specified areas. Before 1992, waste services
   providers operated in an open market and set their own fees. City and
   state regulations required haulers to offer collection of eight recyclable
   materials but not yard debris.
2The Metropolitan Service District (Metro, a regional government agency)
   offers drop-off recycling and yard debris recovery opportunities.
   Materials recovered by it are not included in the reported recovery rates.
^Portland did not track commercial recycling levels prior to 1996.
4The city recycling goal will probably not be reached, in part due to the
   failure of a mixed organic waste composting facility in which the city
   planned to recover 10% or more of its waste.
5Rates for most service levels increased in fiscal year 1997 to offset a drop
   in market prices paid for recyclable materials.
SThe City of Portland and  Metro split the $3.50 each purchase cost for
   350,000 of these bins in 1992. Portland  has purchased an additional
   95,000 bins, using franchise fee funds, in the intervening years.
7The remaining buildings were either vacant or being referred to the city
   agency responsible for the enforcement process.
3BES allowed businesses a grace period to implement their programs, then
   began enforcement in June  1996.
9The fee for trash, recycling, and yard debris collection of a weekly 32-gallon
   trash can service is $17.50 per month, the same rate households paid in
   1992 when the franchise system began.  In the intervening years, this
   rate has dropped as low as $17.20 and risen as high as $17.60.
                                                                            CONTACT
   Solid Waste and Recycling Specialist
   Portland Bureau oT Environmental Services
   1120 SW 5th, Room 400
   Portland, OR 97204
   PHONE:  503-823-5545
   FAX: 503-823-4562

-------
 RAMSEY
                                NTY.  MINNESOTA
                                            Municipal Solid Waste Reduction
                                                                                         47%
                                                                                                          O
                                                      MSW  RECOVERY
                                            45%
                                           , 25%
                                            15%
                                                           1996
                                                           | Composting
                                         Note: MSW disposed is not measured separately by residential vs.
                                         commercial sources. Therefore pounds per household per day for
                                         residential waste has not been determined.
   In 1996, Ramsey County diverted 47%
   of its  municipal  solid  waste  from
   disposal (8% through composting and
40% through recycling).!  County MSW
activities include providing grants, technical
assistance,  and  educational  resources;
ownership  of a material recovery facility
and a network of yard trimmings drop-off
and processing facilities; and tracking data
about waste management activities.2 The
17  communities  reporting  to  Ramsey
County each  operate their  own waste
management system.3  These vary widely.
Saint  Paul,  the   largest  of  the  17
communities  with over half  the  county
population, for example, contracts with the
Saint   Paul    Neighborhood   Energy
Consortium   (NEC)   and    Macalester
Groveland Community Council to provide
residential recycling services.  The city has an open  trash hauling system in which haulers
compete for customers. These haulers also offer yard trimmings collection at an additional cost.
Residents  can use the county yard trimmings drop-off sites free of charge.
    Ramsey County's waste reduction level is due to commercial sector recycling, pay-as-you-
throw (PAYT) trash fees, state disposal bans (yard trimmings, tires, lead-acid batteries, used oil and
oil filters, major appliances, and rechargeable batteries), and requiring recycling services to single-
and  multi-family  homes. 4   Highlights  of  Saint Paul's  recycling programs are  the  curbside
collection  of 12  materials  (including  mixed paper,  durables, and  textiles)  and  mandatory
commercial sector recycling of at least three materials. 5
                                                According  to a study performed by the
                                           Saint Paul-Ramsey  County  Department of
                                           Public  Health, Ramsey  County  single-family
                                           households spent  approximately $237 in  1996
                                           for  regular  municipal  solid  waste  services.
                                           Equivalent data from previous years are not
                                           available.  PAYT trash rates and low-cost drop-
                                           off yard debris collection help residents  keep
                                           costs in check.
                                                The Saint Paul NEC recycling costs have
                                           remained relatively stable with per  ton  costs
                                           being $115 in 1996 compared to $116 in 1988.
Tons Per Year
  Disposal
  Diversion
Percent Diverted
  Recycled
  Composted
Average Ibs./HH/day
  Disposal
  Diversion
Annual Disposal Fees
  Disposal
Net Program Costs/HH
  Disposal Services
  Diversion Services
483,929
 285,334
 198,595
   41%
   32%
    9%
    NA~
    NA
    NA
                                 1996
673,298
 356,187
 317,111
   47%
   40%
    8%
    NA~
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
Notes: Figures above cover Ramsey County total MSW. Numbers
  may not add to total due to rounding.
                                                                                        RAMSEY COUNTY
                                                                      POPULATION: 496,068 (1996)
                                                                      HOUSEHOLDS: 197,500
                                                                        (1996, est); ~138,250 SFDs
                                                                        (three or fewer units per
                                                                        building), -59,250 MFDs
                                                                        (includes all
                                                                        condominiums)
                                                                      BUSINESSES: 14,417(1996,
                                                                        est.)
                                                                      LAND AREA:  155.8 sq. miles
                                                                      HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
                                                                        1,268 per sq. mile
                                                                      AVERAGE PER CAPITA
                                                                        INCOME: $15,645(1989)
                                                                        $23,862(1995)
                                                                      MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
                                                                        INCOME: $32,043(1989)
                                                                      COUNTY CHARACTER:  Most
                                                                        urbanized and racially and
                                                                        ethnically diverse county
                                                                        in Minnesota. The county
                                                                        contains part or all of 19
                                                                        municipalities.  (See
                                                                        footnote 3.)
                                                                                        SAINT  PAUL
POPULATION:  270,441 (1996)
HOUSEHOLDS:  100,327,
  73,745 in 1-11 unit
  properties, 26,582 in
  apartment complexes with
  12 or more units
BUSINESSES:  7,794(1996,
  est.)
LAND AREA: 52.8 sq. miles
HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
  2,094 per sq. mile
AVERAGE PER CAPITA
  INCOME: $13,727(1989)
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
  INCOME: $26,498 (1989)
CITY CHARACTER:  City with
  strong, historic, and
  diverse neighborhoods.
  Recent development has
  centered on the
  waterfront re-connecting
  the city with the
  Mississippi River.

-------
  RAMSEY COUNTY. MINNESOTA
  WASTE  REDUCTION
 Tons (1996)
    St. Paul
Residential1
Ramsey Co.
Residential2
 Ramsey Co.
Commercial3
Ramsey Co.
Total MSW
Recycled/Reused
Other
Food Discards
Newspaper
Other Metals
Glass
Mixed/Other Paper
Lead-Acid Batteries4
White Goods4
Steel/Tin Cans
Tires4
Corrugated Cardboard
Aluminum
Commingled Plastics
Textiles
Commingled Cans
Magazines
Oil Filters4
Phone Books
19,342


10,496

2,735
2,247


687

1,257
354
117
219

1,191

39
61,630 204,679
2,087 191,887
12,792
23,637
12,460
7,813
3,660
3,036
2,968
1,272
989
975
803
629
410
344
316
231
2
266,309
253,517
12,792
















 Composted/Chipped5
        NA
                 50,802
                                   0
    50,802
 Total Waste Reduction
                           NA
                                    114,123
                             204,679
   317,111
MSW Disposed
Refuse-derived Fuel
Landfilled
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
356,187
232,414
123,773
 Total Generation
                           NA
                                        NA
                                                      NA
                                                               673,298
 Percent Reduced
                           NA
                                        NA
                                                      NA
                                                                47.1%
 Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day   NA
                     NA
 Note: Figures reflect calendar year actual tons unless otherwise noted.
 1 Saint Paul recycling figures include materials collected at curbside by Saint Paul NEC and
    Macalester Groveland Community Council, and plastics collected at drop-off sites, fotal tonnage
    reflects scale weights, fhe Saint Paul NEC estimated the breakdown of material by commodity
    using data from a hauler who sampled random loads and reported percentage of each
    commodity in the sample loads. Using this methodology has resulted in Saint Paul's reported
    residential tonnages for corrugated cardboard, magazines, and phone books to be greater than
    the county's reported recovery for these commodities, although Saint Paul residential recovery is
    a subset of Ramsey County residential recovery.
 2Saint Paul residential recycling is included in the Ramsey County figures.
 3Ramsey County commercial figures include both documented and estimated tonnage. County
    staff have estimated 133,300 tons of recycling based on  previous recycling studies and surveys
    performed in the metropolitan area, coupled with annual updates that are based on surveys of
    haulers, end markets, and some major waste generators in the metropolitan area.
 4Ramsey County recycled tonnage calculated by  using a state-developed estimate of total
    generation and percentage recycled. These figures were  pro-rated based on county population.
 ^Represents the tonnage of yard debris for 1994, the last year for which complete information was
    gathered. Tonnage of leaves and grass clippings, managed at the county sites, by the city of
    Roseville, and by private haulers and sites is included.  Ramsey County staff estimate tons of
    materials delivered to county sites by first estimating material volumes, and then converting the
    figure to weight using conversion factors, which vary by  month, developed by one of the
    county's yard debris handlers.
Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
                   State  and  Local Policies
                        In  1989, Minnesota's  legislature  passed  the
                   Select   Committee   on   Recycling   and   the
                   Environment   (SCORE)  legislation,  which  set  a
                   seven county metropolitan area  municipal  solid
                   waste recycling goal of 35% by December 31,  1993.
                   Amendments  established an additional goal  of 50%
by December 31, 1996, which can include a 5% yard
debris credit and a 3% source reduction credit, based
on  county  program  activities.  The  new  regional
Solid Waste Management Policy Plan for the seven
county  area, adopted  in  October  1997  by  the
Minnesota  Office of Environmental  Assistance,
provides  that this 50% recycling goal is extended
through 2003.
     Minnesota  Statute ง115A.931  effectively bans
leaves, grass  clippings, garden debris, and tree and
shrub waste from state  landfills and incinerators.6
The  state  also  prohibits tires,  lead-acid batteries,
motor   vehicle   fluids,   used  oil  filters,  major
appliances,  phone  books,   fluorescent  and  high-
intensity  discharge lamps, some  mercury containing
devices, and rechargeable batteries from disposal.
     Minnesota  law,  in  effect  since  the  1970s,
requires the seven metropolitan counties to prepare
master  plans  for  solid waste  management.   These
must be in accordance with the regional solid waste
policy plan, which in turn must  be in  accordance
with state legislation  and policy. The state  requires
all  counties  to   provide   its  citizens   with   the
"opportunity to recycle."7
     Ramsey County  directs municipalities to ensure
curbside   recycling  is  available  to  all  residents,
including   provision of   a  long-term   funding
mechanism.8  Since 1990, the county has distributed
$1   million  of   its  state   SCORE   grants   to
municipalities,  based on   population,  to  provide
partial  funding   to   help   establish  and maintain
recycling  programs.   Since  1987, the county  has
distributed  over  $13  million to  municipalities  in
SCORE  grants  and other  funds  for recycling
programs.
     The state and county  require trash haulers to
provide  residential and  commercial  volume-based
trash rates.   Saint Paul passed a similar ordinance,
effective July  1, 1991. Of the 17 municipalities, 12,
including  Saint  Paul, have  open  trash  hauling
systems, in which fees can vary by hauler and by the
neighborhood in  which service  is  offered.   Five
municipalities  have   organized  residential   trash
hauling  in which the municipality  contracts with
one  or  more  haulers  for collection.    Haulers
operating in Saint Paul offer four  levels of service:
low  volume/senior  rate   (price  range  effective
October, 1997:   $8.76414.99 per  month),  one 30-
gallon  can  ($10.83416.25),  two  cans  ($13.80-
$17.33),   and  three   cans/unlimited/full  service
($17.03422.23).

-------
                                                                                   RAMSEY COUNTY. MINNESOTA
     Saint  Paul's  mandatory recycling  ordinance
requires  occupants of all properties in the city to
recycle at  least three materials.  The  requirement
became effective on July 1,  1991, for single-family
dwellings  and January  1,  1992, for multi-family
dwellings  and commercial establishments.  Three
other  municipalities  in  the county also require
residents   to  separate  recyclables,  and another
municipality requires  commercial recycling.

Source Reduction & Reuse Initiatives
     Ramsey County encourages source  reduction
through  PAYT  trash  rates  and yard trimmings
reduction  programs,  promoting shopping practices
that  avoid  waste  and   excess  packaging,  and
encouraging consumers to  buy wisely  and  share
usable but unwanted products to  help  minimize
waste.  Media campaigns highlight reduction and
reuse  opportunities for businesses.   The county's
Business Waste Assistance (BWA) Program provides
technical assistance to help reduce packaging, office
paper, and  other waste  materials.  Ramsey County,
along with the other  six metropolitan counties, also
contracts with the Minnesota Technical  Assistance
Program to  operate  the Metro Area  eXchange
(MAX), a regional materials exchange program.
     The county encourages grass cut-it-and-leave-
it,  backyard   composting,  and  avoiding  over-
fertilization to reduce yard  trimmings.  It spreads
these messages primarily through a contract with the
Extension  Service Master Gardener program.  Saint
Paul  NEC offers backyard composting workshops
and runs two composting demonstration sites.
     Saint  Paul  offers  a unique  product reuse
program to its single-family homes. The project is a
joint effort between NEC and Goodwill Industries.
Residents  simply bag reusable  household durables
and textiles for donation and set them out with  their
recyclables. Super Cycle  and EZ Recycling collect
these reusable items on the same truck as recyclables.
Goodwill  processes the  collected materials along
with its other donations.

Residential Recycling  Programs
     In 1996,  Ramsey County recycled 40% of its
municipal  solid waste.  The  county requires  each
municipality to offer residential recycling services.
Communities operate their own programs.
     Haulers deliver  most, but  not  all,  materials
collected in county  residential curbside recycling
programs to a county-owned MRF  in Saint Paul.
Super Cycle, Inc. operates the MRF through a  lease
agreement, which expires in 1999. The facility also
has a drop-off center. A magnetic separator removes
ferrous  materials.   Other materials  are manually
sorted. The county  and Super Cycle, Inc. share  the
risks and benefits of  recycling  markets.
    Other recycling options include drop-off sites
(operated by municipalities and private firms), which
collect mixed  or single types of recyclables.
    A separate  system for recovery  of lead-acid
batteries, used oil and oil filters, tires, white  goods,
rechargeable batteries, certain  dry cell batteries, and
some items containing mercury has evolved. Private
sector companies run most of the recovery efforts.
The county maintains a list of private recyclers for
these materials.
    Since 1986, the city of Saint Paul has contracted
with the Saint Paul NEC  and  Macalester Groveland
Community  Council  to  administer  residential
recycling programs.  NEC manages the programs for
all of the city except in  the Macalester Groveland
neighborhood. NEC hires two private contractors,
Super  Cycle  Inc. and EZ  Recycling, to  collect
materials.    Macalester  Groveland   Community
Council hires  Eagle Environmental  to  collect
recyclables at curbside in that  neighborhood.  NEC
administers  the  program, conducts outreach, and
runs a hotline.   This program serves  residents  in
single- and multi-family  homes.  Complementing
the residential collection program are a network of
drop-off collection  points  for plastic  containers,
annual neighborhood clean-up days that emphasize
reuse and  recycling, waste  reduction outreach
programs, and public education and  information
programs  that target schools  and  segments  of  the
population with lower-than-average participation.
    Since  1987, Saint   Paul Public  Works  has
coordinated a city-sponsored  neighborhood clean-
up  program through the  city's 17 planning district
councils. Each district offers a  drop-off site for hard-
to-handle household discards (such as tires, furniture,
appliances, concrete, brush) once  per  year  in  the
spring or fall.  Primary objectives of the program are
to minimize trash nuisances in backyards and along
alleys; to offer an inexpensive disposal  option  for
citizens; and to maximize recovery  of the materials
dropped off.  Due to economies of scale and use of
neighborhood volunteers, the 1996 expenditure of
$108,700  was a  fraction  of what residents  would
otherwise have paid on  their  own for  disposal  of
items accepted at clean-ups. The program recovered
over  1,800  tons of  materials in  1996, saving an
additional $75,000 in disposal fees.  NEC helps  the

-------
I ปil M M aWHIUJ fl I IW0] AIM 111 fl 11IWHIJ N 88 11] • NIHTMIU [efl U fOM flil A W
           Population (1996)    Collection Frequency      Funding Mechanism
Arden Hills
Blaine1
Falcon Heights
Gem Lake
Lauderdale
Little Canada
Maplewood
Mounds View
New Brighton
North Oaks
North Saint Paul?
Roseville
Saint Anthony1
Saint Paul
Shoreview
Spring Lake Park1
Vadnais Heights
White Bear Lake1
White Bear Township
9,678
0
5,384
452
2,716
9,469
34,008
12,789
22,584
3,718
12,764
34,014
2,614
270,441
26,118
103
12,895
25,611
10,703
2/month
NA
2/month
2/month
2/month
2/month
2/month
2/month
1/two weeks
1 /month
weekly
1/two weeks
2/month
1/two weeks or 1/week
2/month
NA
2/month
2/month
2/month
Recycling Service Charge
NA
City Utility Bills
Property Tax
Recycling Service Charge
Hauler Bills
Utility Bills
Hauler Bills
Recycling Service Charge
Recycling Service Charge
Recycling Service Charge
Utility Bills
Hauler Bills
Recycling Service Charge
Recycling Service Charge
NA
Hauler Bills
City Bills
Hauler Bills
Notes:
1 These communities are only partially in Ramsey County. The population represents only the proportion of
  population residing in Ramsey County.
2 North Saint Paul increased collection from two times a month to weekly in 1997.
                city  to  coordinate  the neighborhood  clean-up
                program.

                Commercial Recycling  Programs
                    Commercial waste reduction is supported by a
                county-sponsored waste education  and  technical
                assistance  program for  businesses and a mandatory
                commercial recycling ordinance in Saint  Paul and
                one suburb, Arden Hills. Government monies are
                not spent on collection of commercial recyclables.
                    Municipalities   do  not  provide  recycling
                collection services   to  businesses.   The county
                supports  business recycling through the  Ramsey
                County BWA Program, begun in 1991. The BWA
                Program focuses on small to medium businesses but
                provides  on-site and telephone consultation  and
                technical  assistance to  help all  businesses in waste
                reduction and  recycling efforts. It also distributes
                information  at  business expositions, through the
                mail, during door-to-door  visits, and  through the
                mass  media.   The  BWA Program  worked  in
                conjunction  with other metropolitan  counties to
                produce the booklet Resourceful Waste Management: A
                Guide  for Minnesota/Metropolitan  Businesses  and
                Industries.  The first edition was mailed in 1992 to all
                county  businesses  of record.   Through  February
                1997, the county provided  more than 3,800  copies
                in response to requests.  Results of collaborations
                between the BWA Program and  other organizations
                include  establishing  the  Metro  Area eXchange
          (MAX),  promoting  Minnesota's  Waste
          Wise program among area businesses, and
          developing a statewide  networking body
          for government employees working with
          businesses on waste  and  environmental
          issues.
              In   1996,  businesses  in   Ramsey
          County diverted over 12,500 tons of food
          discards for  use by farmers as hog food,
          accounting  for  6%  of recycling in the
          commercial  sector.  The  recovered food
          primarily   comes   from    restaurants,
          supermarkets,  and   food   distribution
          warehouses.  Several farmers in the region
          collect and process the material.
              A Saint Paul city ordinance requires
          all businesses  to  recycle  at  least three
          materials.   As  the  overall  county wide
          recycling goal is being met, the city is not
          enforcing the ordinance  except  on  a
          complaint basis.   Businesses  requesting
technical assistance  from the city are referred  to the
BWA Program.

Composting Programs
    In 1994, the last year for which complete data
were  collected,  50,802  tons  of leaves and  grass
clippings  were  diverted  from  disposal  through
composting in  Ramsey County.  Based on  the
assumption  that recovery has remained constant  at
this level, in 1996, Ramsey County diverted 8% of its
waste through  yard debris  recovery.   Most county
residents  have  four options for recovering  grass
clippings,  leaves, and other garden debris:  backyard
composting, contracting  with a private company for
collection service for an extra charge, delivering the
material to a private company for a fee, or taking it
to a county  site for  free.  One community, Roseville,
offers residents  fall leaf collection as a part of its
residential waste program. Tree and shrub debris is
typically handled by private companies.
    The vast majority  of leaves and grass clippings is
taken to the county's eight yard debris drop-off sites.
During 1996, county  residents made 329,228 visits
to these sites and  delivered 98,752 cubic yards  of
yard debris.  The  county hires contractors  to (1)
windrow  compost  leaves at five  of its  yard  debris
drop-off sites, (2) transfer  some material from sites
that are for collection only to sites with  compost
facilities, and (3) transport some materials to private
processors.  Almost all materials  for  which there is
no processing  space  are hauled  to  out-of-county

-------
                                                                                                RAMSEY  COUNTY. MINNESOTA
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES (ST. PAUL)
        Service Provider:

          Start-up Date:
             Mandatory:
      Households Served:
     Materials Accepted:
   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Super Cycle, Inc. under contract with The Saint Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium (NEC), which is, in turn, a contractor for
the City of Saint Paul
Four neighborhoods began collection in September 1986, program wentcitywide in 1988
Yes.  The city ordinance requires recycling of at least three materials but does not specify which materials.
100,327 total; 73,745 units in dwellings with up to eleven units; 26,582 units in buildings or complexes of twelve or more units
SFDs: Mixed paper (mail, office paper, magazines and catalogs, and paperboard), glass bottles and jars, newspaper, corrugated
cardboard, aluminum cans, steel and tin food  and beverage cans, durable household goods (including textiles, books, working
small appliances, hardware and tools, unbreakable kitchen goods, games, and toys). MFDs: Same materials as curbside program
excluding durable  goods.
Twice a month,  some MFDs receive weekly collection
SFDs: Each unit is  given a 14-gallon blue recycling bin, residents provide additional bins if needed. Materials must be set out in
six categories:  glass, ONP, OCC, mixed paper, cans, and durable goods.  Durable goods go in one or two 30-gallon plastic bags;
one for "clean rags," the other for good clothes and household goods. All other materials must be in separate  recycling  bins or
bags. MFDs: each building gets from six to eight 90-gallon toters. Materials are sorted into six streams: clear glass; green and
brown glass; newspaper, phone books, and kraft paper bags; other mixed  paper; corrugated cardboard; and cans.  Larger
buildings often  get multiple toters for newspaper.
SFDs: Single-person crews place materials into  six compartment trucks: ONP, OCC, cans, mixed paper and, clear, brown, and
green glass. Driver sorts glass into  appropriate compartments. Crews place  durable goods in a cage on the top of the truck.
MFDs: Single-person crews collect materials using semi-automated side-loading trucks to empty toters.
62%, with some neighborhoods as high as 95%
Potential reduction in PAYT trash rates through increased diversion
City staff follow up on complaints with letters explaining requirements
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD TRIMMINGS  (RAMSEY  COUNTY)
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:

      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
    Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Banned from disposal in 1990
Most residential trash haulers offer curbside yard trimmings collection in  Ramsey County.  Only one community provides
curbside yard trimmings collection services; the town of Roseville collects fall leaves at curbside from its residents.
NA
Material cannot be mixed with MSW or disposed in incinerators and landfills per state law.
Varies by hauler
Varies by hauler
Varies by hauler
Varies by hauler
NA
Potential reduction in PAYT trash rates through increased diversion.
No enforcement at individual  residences.  Disposal facility staff report haulers that deliver banned materials to County for
enforcement.
DROP-OFF COLLECTION (RAMSEY COUNTY)
        Number of Sites:
               Staffing:

        Service Provider:
     Materials Accepted:
 Participation Incentives:
         Sectors Served:
Eight yard trimmings sites, open April-November, 38 hours/week
Each yard debris site has at least one county employee present at all times. Extension Service Master Gardeners are also present
at the sites periodically to discuss composting, lawn and other garden-related, and other horticultural questions.
Saint Paul - Ramsey County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section
Grass clippings, leaves, and other soft-bodied yard debris
Free compost and wood chips for residents; illegal to mix yard debris with trash
Ramsey County residents only

-------
RAMSEY COUNTY. MINNESOTA
               processors.  All sites offer residents free compost and
               wood chips. The county also gives compost to cities,
               schools, and nonprofit organizations for use in public
               areas and gardens.
                   Some   lawn  services  provide  yard  debris
               collection services to their customers.  Residential
               trash  haulers  throughout  the  county  offer  yard
               trimmings collection as part of regular service or for
               an extra fee.  All Saint  Paul trash  haulers  offer yard
               trimmings collection for an extra fee.

               Education, Publicity, and Outreach
                   Saint Paul - Ramsey  County  Department  of
               Public  Health, Environmental  Health Section
               contracts with NEC to answer a waste management
               phone line and provide callers with  information on
               how to recover or dispose materials. The county also
               contracts with the County  Extension Service  to
               provide information  on yard debris reduction and
               composting (see Source Reduction section).  It also
               maintains a phone line with recorded messages  in
               three  languages  on  proper  handling  of  yard
               trimmings and household hazardous waste. Written
               information  is  distributed  at public  events,  in
               property tax bills, through mass  mailings, and  in
               schools.
                   The BWA Program provides commercial sector
                                         education and outreach
                                         to businesses (see Com-
                                         mercial  Recycling  Pro-
                                         grams section).
                                                Saint Paul NEC
                                         produces its own edu-
                                         cational  materials in-
                                         cluding   a   recycling
                                         guide in English, Span-
                                         ish, Hmong,  Cambo-
                                         dian,    Chinese,   and
                                         Russian. Many  of the
                                         hotlines  available  also
                                         include  messages   in
                                         these languages.

               Costs
                   Major county budget items for MSW include
               administration,  SCORE grants to  municipalities,
               technical  assistance,  recyclables  processing costs,
               household  hazardous waste management  programs,
               yard debris  management,  education programs, and
               remedial action at the Lake Jane Landfill.
                   The county  paid  $247,320  to Supercycle  in
               1996  to operate the  MRE This cost was offset by
$49,860 in rent which Supercycle paid the city and
revenues from the sale of recyclables returned to the
county  as part of the  county  and Supercycle s
revenue/cost sharing agreement.
    Ramsey County  calculated  1996  estimated
single-family household  costs for trash  collection
and disposal to  be $196  (including a $19  subsidy  of
the Resource Recovery facility paid through the
county  Waste  Management  Service   Charge
(WMSC)). It cost the average household $4 for yard
debris management, $28 for recycling collection and
processing, and  $5 for administration and education.
    Ramsey County employs 17.5 FTE staff:  7.75
for composting, 4.0 for education and outreach, 1.25
focusing  on  hazardous  waste  and   "problem
materials," and 4.5 for planning and administration.
    In 1996, the Saint Paul NEC spent $115 per ton
to  operate and manage  Saint Paul's  recycling
program, compared  to $116 in 1988.  The 1996 per
household cost was $26. Of this, $3 was spent on
outreach  and  publicity,  and $17   on  curbside
collection  and  processing of recyclables. The city
spent $108,700 on community clean-up days.  Trash
collection  and disposal costs are not available due  to
Saint Paul's open trash hauling system.
    The City of Saint Paul incurs the capital costs of
recycling bins. The  city  directly purchases bins used
in the  single-family programs.   SuperCycle and
NEC purchase multi-family bins and are reimbursed
by the city.
    The  Saint  Paul  NEC  employs 10 staff  to
administer programs and provide program assistance.

Funding & Accounting Systems
    In  1996, county waste  program funds  came
from   state  SCORE9   and  Local  Recycling
Development Grant funds (39%); the WMSC levied
on all improved parcels in the county (57%); revenue
from the recycling center (0.4%); and other sources
(including  license fees paid by  waste haulers and
solid waste facilities) 10 (3%). The county maintains
these  funds in dedicated  SWM  accounts  that
generally correspond to each funding source.
    Washington and Ramsey Counties financed the
RDF facility with a $27.7 million bond.  Northern
States  Power  was  responsible  for  repaying  both
principal and interest on the bonds using revenues
from   the  facility.    From  1990  to    1993,
Ramsey/Washington County  Resource  Recovery
project costs were 100% paid by tip fees.   Since that
time, county residents have subsidized the fees. The
county  collects  the subsidy  through the WMSC.

-------
                                                                                        RAMSEY COUNTY. MINNESOTA
  SAINT PAUL WASTE REDUCTION COSTS (1996}
                                           Cost
                                                          Tons
                                                                           Cost/Ton
                                             Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costs
Collection and Processing Contracts
Community Clean-up
Administration
Education/Publicity
$2,450,700
$1,616,000
$108,700
$442,000
$284,000
21,220
19,342
1,878
21,220
21,220
$115.49
$83.55
$57.88
$20.83
$13.38
$25.93




 Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                     $2,450,700
             21,220
$115.49
$25.93
 Materials Revenues
($0)
                                                        21,220
   ($0)
  ($0)
  Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                     $2,450,700
             21,220
$115.49
$25.93
 Note: The Saint Paul NEC supplied ILSR with cost figures. Figures include only NEC's costs. Excluded are recycling costs tor services provided to the 6% ot Saint
 Paul households served by Macalester Groveland Community Council and city costs including program and contract administration and capital costs ot recycling
 bins. Households served were 94,527; 67,945 SFDs and 26,582 MFDs.
Most haulers operating  in  Ramsey  County signed
contracts  with  the  Resource  Recovery facility,
effective June 1996 through December 1998, setting
the tip fee at $38.
     The capital cost of Ramsey County's MRF was
funded with a loan and  state  funds ($277,250 each,
for facility development) and  Ramsey County and
Saint Paul  funds ($61,750 each, for land and building
purchase).
     Saint Paul's state and county mandated recycling
program  is  budgeted  at  $2,317,953  in  1997.
Funding is through a SCORE grant of $551,000 and
a $21 per  household recycling service fee ($13 per
apartment unit)  collected by  Ramsey County and
transferred to the City of Saint Paul.  The service fee
has decreased from $21.26 ($23.35 in constant 1996
dollars) since it was first collected in 1992. Residents
pay  the  service fee directly to the county through
the  property  tax  system.    Saint  Paul  uses  the
modified accrual  method  of accounting to track
expenditures. NEC uses accrual accounting.

Future Plans and Obstacles to
Increasing Diversion
     A Saint Paul Public  Works' recycling and waste
management survey of  700 citizens, completed in
September  1996,  shows strong   support for  and
participation   in   the  city's   recycling    and
neighborhood clean-up  programs.  A  majority of
respondents  (40-64%, depending  on  material or
service)  would be willing to pay  higher fees,  if
necessary,  to  add  materials  or  services to  the
programs.  Survey information will help the city plan
for  or  modify its programs  in  accordance  with
citizens' responses.   Saint  Paul's overall program
objectives  are:  expanding  the program  by adding
materials with favorable cost/benefit ratios, which
will increase tonnage and participation; emphasizing
             source  reduction  in  promotional  efforts;  and
             working   with   district  councils  to   decrease
             neighborhood clean-up disposal costs by increasing
             the proportion of material recovered.
                 Saint  Paul  is  planning  a program  entitled
             "WoodWins,"  which will divert scrap  wood from
             the waste stream. The  project  will include a small
             manufacturing  facility  to   create   value-added
             products from recycled wood  and provide jobs for
             local unemployed and under-employed residents.
                 Ramsey  County  reports  the  two  biggest
             obstacles to increasing  diversion are the  nature of
             recyclables markets  and the cost of collecting small
             quantities  of  recyclables  in the  business  sector.
             MRFs often  will  not  accept  materials for  which
             steady markets do  not exist.    Communities and
             businesses  generally will  not  collect  material  not
             processed  at  the  MRF  to   which  they send
             recyclables.   Market
             program     costs.
             Many    businesses
             choose   to    only
             recycle   materials
             that  have   tradi-
             tionally  generated
             high revenue,  such
             as  aluminum.  Pri-
             vate recyclers often
             do   not   collect
             materials  with low
             or no value.   Busi-
             nesses   also   often
             choose   to    only
             recycle   materials
             that they  produce
             in  large  quantity.
             The cost of collec-
             ting small quanti-
   price fluctuations  also  affect
    Function
                                 Cost per Household
    Trash Collection and Disposal                $176.64
    Recycling Collection and Processing          $28.06
    Yard Debris Management                     $3.70
    Administration and Education                 $4.61
    Resource Recovery 1                        $19.39
    HHW and Problem Materials                  $4.95
    Total
                                           $237.35
    Note: Ramsey County supplied data above. County staff developed
      the cost figures for inclusion in a report to the Minnesota Office
      of Environmental Assistance. Estimated costs are for single-
      family households only and do not include charges borne by
      residents above and beyond regular services (such as separate
      collection of an appliance), state or federal expenditures, and
      possibly some costs borne by cities.
    1 Portion of county WMSC set aside to fund the Ramsey/Washington
      County Resource Recovery Project.
   Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

-------
RAMSEY COUNTY. MINNESOTA
                  ties  can  be  prohibitive, easily  costing  more  than
                  disposing of the same material. Ramsey County staff
                  report businesses  could overcome these  barriers by
                  forming  locally   organized   recycling  collection
                  programs, in shopping plazas for example, but many
                  businesses have been resistant to doing so.
                       Ramsey County is studying ways to  reinforce
                  the benefits of source reduction and recycling. Flow
                  control  had  allowed communities to  set disposal
                  costs  at  facilities  to  which  communities  were
                  required to deliver trash, in such a way that a strong
                  economic message in favor  of waste  diversion was
                  sent to waste generators.  The striking down of flow
                  control has disrupted the  system and  planners  must
                  find another way  to promote waste reduction.


                  Tips for Replication
                         Talk to your customers — solicit input, obtain
                  feedback.    Consider  their  needs  and  constraints
                  when  designing a program.
                         Use consumer data research to keep  abreast of
                  trends in attitudes related to the environment, such
                  as   purchasing,   so  you  can   adjust  marketing
                  approaches.
                         Keep  promotion  simple, targeted  to  your
                  audience.    Use  culturally sensitive  language  and
                  images.
                         Repeat information in a variety of  media.
                         One-to-one outreach is most effective.
                         Reaching  children  can be a way to educate
                  entire  households.
                         Consistent,   dependable,    cost-effective
                  collection service will create loyal recyclers.
                         Give the public  on-going feedback.
                         Volunteers have many skills — recruit  and
                                                   reward them.
                                                   Notes:
                                                   l|n 1996, Ramsey County met
                                                   the 50% recycling goal set by
                                                   state law for counties in the
                                                   Twin Cities metropolitan area.
                                                   Of the total amount of mixed
                                                   solid waste, which by the
                                                   state definition includes
                                                   recycling and disposal but
                                                   excludes yard debris, 42% was
                                                   recycled. The county earned
                                                   additional credits of 5% for
                                                   yard debris recovery and 3%
                                                   in source reduction credits
                                                   because it met certain criteria
                                                   for yard debris and source
                                                   reduction programs. In
                                                   Minnesota, tonnages of yard
                                                   debris managed are no longer
                                                   included in the numerator or
                                                   denominator for purposes of
                                                   calculating recycling
                                                   percentages. For the purpose
                                                   of calculating a waste
  diversion rate for this publication, ILSR used the tonnage of yard debris
  composted in 1994, the most recent year for which figures are available.
^County solid waste services are administered through its Department of
  Public Health Environmental Health Section.
3Ramsey County contains the entirety of 15 communities. Four other
  communities are partly in Ramsey County and partly in a neighboring
  county; two of these report to Ramsey County and two report to a
  neighboring county for data management purposes.
^Minnesota defines "waste reduction" to be equivalent to source reduction.
  In this report, waste reduction reflects recycling and composting too.
5Durables and textiles are collected from single-family homes only.
6The initial ban went into effect on January 1,1990, and was revised to
  incorporate tree and shrub debris effective August 1,1992.
^"Opportunity to recycle" is defined as ensuring there is at least one
  recycling center within the county and that there is curbside monthly
  collection of at least four recyclable materials in all cities in the
  Metropolitan area with a population of 5,000 or more.
8This requirement is not an ordinance but a policy directive  in the county's
  1987 and 1992 Solid Waste Master Plans and its 1988 Recycling
  Implementation Strategy.
9The state has collected funds through a tax on garbage collection, which
  has then been distributed as SCORE funds to counties and for state
  agency purposes. Ramsey County has been allocated about $1,400,000
  each year in SCORE funds.
lOHaulers pay license fees to the county in which they are based. The fees,
  as of the end of 1997, were $50  per truck used. Facilities pay license
  fees based  on the type of waste handled and the facility throughput.
   Cathi Lyman-Onkka
   Program Analyst, Environmental Health Section
   St. Paul-Ramsey County Department of Public Health
   1670 Beam Avenue,  Suite A
   Maplewood, MN 55109
   PHONE:  651-773-4444
   FAX: 651-773-4454
   E-MAIL: cathi.lyman-onkka@co.ramseymn.us
   WEB SITE:  www.co.ramsey.mn.us/pubhlth/
     hp_solid.htm

   Hatti Koth
   Recycling Outreach Coordinator, The St. Paul
     Neighborhood Energy Consortium
   623 Selby Ave.
   Saint Paul, MN 55104
   PHONE:  651-644-7678
   FAX: 651-649-9831
   E-MAIL:  NEC@orbis.net

   Rick Person
   DPW, Solid Waste and Recycling
   800 City Hall Annex
   Saint Paul, MN 55102
   PHONE:  651-266-6122
   FAX: 651-298-4559
   E-MAIL:  rick.person@stpaul.gov
   WEB SITE:  http://www.stpaul.gov/recycling/

-------
                             ALIFORNIA
                                             Municipal Solid Waste Reduction
                                                                      43%
                                                                                                            O
                                               SFD RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENER-
                                               ATION  PER  HOUSEHOLD  PER  DAY
                                                       Trash
                                                                FY93
                                             | Recycling
                                                                        FY97
                                              [Composting
     Prior to  implementation of the Recycle
     Plus Program in 1993  -- part  of San
     Jose's  Integrated Waste  Management
(IWM) Program — residents set out unlimited
trash for  a flat monthly fee and only recycled
five material  categories. 1   Now they can set
out more types of recyclables, multi-family
dwellings   (MFDs)   have   service,  and
contractors are paid per household and per ton
recycled.2 Under  the old recycling program
participation  by single-family households was
66% and the waste reduction level achieved
was 33%. By the end of the  first year of the
new curbside program, these figures increased
to  83%  and  55%,  respectively.   San  Jose
diverted  45% of its residential waste in FY97
and 42% of its commercial waste  in calendar
year 1996. Overall diversion was 43%  (34% was recycled and 9% was composted).
    Key  elements  of the IWM  Program  are weekly residential curbside collection of 19
categories of materials (also available to  all MFDs),3 pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) fees for SFD trash
pick-up,  weekly year-round residential yard trimmings collection, and financial incentives for
businesses to recycle and reduce waste.  To encourage participation, the city's contractors provide
recycling containers to residents of single-family homes and to MFD  complexes.  PAYT trash
fees provide an economic incentive to participate.  Yard trimmings collection accounts for about
two-thirds of material recovered and is available to residents of single-  and multi-family
                                            dwellings.   The  city's "loose-in-the-street"
                                            collection system allows residents  to  set out
                                            more material than would fit in a typical cart.
                                                  The financial arrangements of the IWM
                                            Program are  varied and complex.   There are
                                            numerous funding sources, multiple programs
                                            serving a variety of customers, and oversight of
                                            more then   25  residential  and  commercial
                                            contracts and franchise agreements.  The city's
                                            residential  contracts  have  been  set  up to
                                            maximize recycling.   Its residential recycling
                                            contractors,   for instance,  receive  additional
                                            payments for each ton they actually market to
                                            an end  user.   As  a  result, the city's recycling
                                            costs are $206 per ton, more than twice as high
                                            as per ton trash or yard trimmings management
                                            costs.  However, the net cost of single-family
                                            residential waste services has remained nearly
                                            constant  ($207  per  household   in FY93
                                            compared to  $210 in FY97).
Tons Per Year
  Disposal
  Diversion
Percent Diverted
  Recycled
  Composted
Average Ibs./HH/day
  Disposal
  Diversion
Annual Disposal Fees
  Disposal
Net Program Costs/HHi
  Disposal Services
  Diversion Services
    FY93
 283,000
  188,500
   94,500
    33%
     10%
     23%
     8.61
     5.74
   FY97
433,576
 236,640
 196,936
   45%
   19%
   26%
   8.82
   4.81
   4.01
$5,405,542    $6,527,084
 $206.85
  $142.78
   $64.07
$187.03
  $81.95
 $105.09
Notes: Figures above reflect residential sector only. FY93 tonnage
  data represents 180,000 SFDs only; MFDs were included in
  commercial service at that time. In FY97, 269,340 SFDs and
  MFDs were served. 1992 dollars adjusted to 1996 dollars
  using the GDP deflator.
11n FY97, Net Program Costs/HH for SFD services were -$210.
  Per HH cost for MFDs were lower; $187 is the average for
  all HHs.
                                                                         DEMOGRAPHICS
POPULATION: 873,300(1997)
HOUSEHOLDS: 259,365
  (1993), 269,340(1996);
  188,900 single-
  family households, 80,440
  multi-family units
BUSINESSES: 27,000
LAND AREA:  175 sq. miles
HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
  1,539 households/sq. mi.
AVERAGE PER CAPITA
  INCOME:  $16,905(1989)
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
  INCOME:  $46,206(1989)
COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
  Urban; third largest city on
  the West Coast; 11th
  largest in the U.S. San
  Jose is culturally diverse;
  27% of the population is
  Hispanic, 14% is Asian.
  The city is the center of
  the Silicon Valley's
  commerce and culture.
  IBM, Pac Bell, and Hewlett
  Packard are among its
  largest business employers.
COUNTY: Santa Clara

-------
SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA
                  WASTE REDUCTION  fFY97/CALENDAR YEAR  1996)
                                                   Residential Tons
                                                                           Commercial/lnst. Tons
                                                                                                    Total MSWTons
                 Recycled
                    Newspaper
                    Mixed Paper and Cardboard
                    Commingled
                    Glass
                    Deposit Containers1
                    MRF Rejects?
 84,496
  30,750
  28,440
  15,420
  10,520
   3,786
  -4,420
367,871
452,367
                 Composted/Chipped                   112,440
                    Yard Trimmings (GreenWaste Recovery)     72,330
                    Yard Trimmings (BFI)                   40,110
                                                  112,440
                 Total Waste Reduction
                                                     196,936
                             367,871
                     564,807
                 MSW Disposed
                    GreenTeam SFD
                    GreenTeam MFD
                    Western/USA Waste
                    MRF Rejects
236,640
  75,440
  75,490
  81,290
   4,420
513,989
750,629
                 Total Generation
                                                     433,576
                             881,860
                   1,315,436
                 Percent Reduced
                                                      45.4%
                                                                                   41.7%
                                                                                                        42.9%
                 Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day
   8.82
                 Note:  Residential figures reflect San Jose's FY97 (July 1996 through June 1997) unless otherwise noted; and commercial/institutional figures reflect calendar year
                   1996 (from annual report to CA Integrated Waste Management Board).
                 !|n calendar year 1996, 64,576,400 deposit containers were redeemed at 26 different San Jose locations. City staff converted this figure into tonnage using
                   Jan.-June 1996 state data on the percentage breakdown of redeemed containers by type and using average container weights for each type.
                 ^Represents the tonnage of material rejected as nonrecyclable at GreenTeam of San Jose's and USA Waste's MRFs.
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

                State and Local  Policies
                    California's Integrated Waste Management Act
                of 1989 (AB939)  requires all California jurisdictions
                to divert 25% of  their waste from landfills by 1995
                and 50% by the year 2000.
                    The California Beverage Container  Recycling
                and Litter Reduction Act (AB2020), enacted in 1986
                and  implemented in  1987, requires distributors  to
                pay a 2It deposit on beer and other malt beverages,
                soft  drinks,  wine  and distilled  spirit coolers,
                carbonated mineral water, and soda water containers.
                Consumers pay a container deposit, which they can
                redeem for 2.5
-------
                                                                                                             SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA
RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE  COLLECTION  OF RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:


             Mandatory:
      Households Served:

     Materials Accepted:
   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
            Enforcement:
 USA Waste serves the southern section; GreenTeam of San Jose serves SFDs in the northern section and all MFDs
 Curbside began in 1985 and became citywide by 1986; mixed  paper pilot program began in 1990; the Recycle Plus Program
 started citywide July 1, 1993 (materials added, MFD service, and PAYT trash fees); empty aerosol containers were added and
 plastics collection was expanded July 1997 to include all containers and other plastics #1-7 (e.g., meat trays)
 No
 All:  188,900 SFDs (fewer than four units)  and 80,440 MFDs (four or more units). Condos, townhomes, mobile home parks, and
 apartments with four to eight units can opt for either SFD or MFD service. The  city serves approx. 190 small businesses.5
 ONP and inserts, OCC, mixed paper (OMG, catalogs, bags, phone books, paperboard, colored and white paper, envelopes, mail, egg
 cartons), glass containers,  cans, juice and  milk cartons,  plastic  bottles/jugs and polystyrene packaging, scrap metals (e.g.,
 aluminum foil and plates, small metal appliances, hubcaps,  metal pots), textiles, used motor oil.6 Bulky goods (such as appliances
 and furniture) are collected for a nominal  fee ($18 for three items).
 Weekly, same day as trash collection
 SFDs: Haulers provide residents with three 18-gallon yellow nesting containers.  One is for ONP, one  is for mixed paper, and the
 other is for glass. OCC (no longer than four feet by four feet) is flattened and placed against recycling  bins.  Residents commingle
 cansjuice and milk cartons, plastics, and scrap metals in a 32-gallon conventional trash can (which they provide).  Textiles are
 placed in plastic grocery bags  in with the mixed recyclables container.  Residents place used motor oil  in city-issued recycling
jugs (with screw-on tops) and  set these at the curb.
 MFDs: Haulers provide each complex with sets of three 96-gallon  recycling carts. Each set serves approximately 25 units. Each
 complex determines the number of carts and their locations, typically near dumpsters.  Residents  place  ONP in one cart, mixed
 paper in the second, and commingled materials (the same as SFDs but also including glass) in the third. MFDs do not have
 collection of used motor oil. Bulky goods collection costs  $55.50 for  up to three items.
 USA Waste collects SFD recyclables using one-person crews in various capacity side-loaders.  The average side-loader has a 32-
 cubic-yard capacity and four compartments: 10-cubic-yards for commingled material, four-cubic-yards for glass, eight-cubic-
 yards for ONP, and 10-cubic-yards for RMP  and  OCC.  The collector places motor oil containers on  special leak-proof trays on
 the side and underneath the truck bodies.  The  GreenTeam collects SFD recyclables using one-person  crews in  40-cubic-yard
 capacity side-loaders with six  compartments.  The collector sorts glass by color en  route. Commingled materials go in a  19-
 cubic-yard compartment, ONP and RMP each in seven-cubic-yard bins, and glass in three  bins, 5.5-cubic-yards total. For MFDs,
 one-person crews empty recycling carts into a three compartment 35-cubic-yard front-loader.
 Approx. 83% of households recycle each month,  based on the number of set-outs divided by service recipients?
 PAYT trash fees
 Haulers leave non-collection notices and do not collect incorrectly set out materials.  The notice indicates how to fix error.
RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE COLLECTION  OF YARD  TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
    Collection Frequency:
        Set-out  Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
            Enforcement:
 Pilot began in 1989; citywide by 1991
 GreenWaste Recovery serves southern section and Browning Ferris Industries the northern sections
 All
 No
 Leaves, branches, grass clippings, small prunings, flowers, and holiday trees (clean and green)
 Weekly, year-round
 Residents place yard trimmings loose in street, in a burlap tarp (provided by the hauler), or in resident-provided trash cans labeled
 with a sticker indicating the cans  are for yard trimmings. Piles should be no larger than five feet wide and five feet high, and
 12 inches from curb and five feet  from trash carts.
 Two-person crews collect yard trimmings.  One worker operates a tractor with a claw attachment that places yard trimmings
 into a 32-cubic-yard capacity rear-loading compactor truck, operated by the second worker.  GreenWaste collects tarps on the
 same routes as claw collection.  The rear loader driver collects the tarps. BFI  has one separate tarp route. Both crew ride on the
 rear loader truck and collect the tarps.
 On average, residents set out their yard trimmings for collection 2.5 times per month
 PAYT  trash fees
 Haulers leave non-collection notices when residents incorrectly set out materials.  The notice indicates how to fix  error.

-------
  SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA
                   DROP-OFF COLLECTION
                          Number of sites:
                                Staffing:
                          Service Provider:
                       Materials Accepted:
                    Participation Incentives:
                           Sectors Served:
                          Many private recycling centers operate in the city and three of the four private landfills in San Jose have
                          recyclables drop-off, sorting, and processing facilities. At least 14 gas stations and auto shops accept
                          used oil.  Another 26 San Jose locations (mostly near Lucky Stores and Safeway Stores) accept and
                          redeem deposit containers.
                          Varies
                          Private sector
                          Varies
                          Redemption value of designated containers; PAYT trash fees
                          Residential and commercial
Recyclables set out at curbside in San Jose
    The waste prevention campaign, created in FY96,
included waste prevention kits, brochures, children's
activity  books, public service  announcements, and
television and radio interviews.

Residential Recycling  Program
    The heart  of San  Jose's  successful residential
recycling program  is targeting a  wide  range  of
materials for recycling and offering the service to all
of its  households.  The  city  contracts with two
companies to  provide  residential trash and recycling
services. USA Waste services the south/west sections
of the city, and GreenTeam of San Jose services the
north/east  sections and  all  multi-family  dwellings
that use bin service.
    In FY97, GreenTeam used 30 recycling trucks
and 25 trash trucks for its single-family service. Each
recycling truck  made  about 400 pick-ups per day;
each trash  truck made about  600 pick-ups.  Trash
trucks  unloaded one to  two times, while recycling
trucks unloaded two to three times per day.   For its
                              multi-family
                              dwelling service, the
                              GreenTeam used  13
                              front-loaders    for
                              trash  and  six  recy-
                              cling vehicles. Driv-
                              ers earned $16.50 to
                              $17   per  hour  in
                              union wages.
                                   USA     Waste
                              used  45  recycling
                              vehicles and 35 trash
                              trucks for  its single-
                              family service. Each
                              recycling     truck
made about 530 pick-ups per day; each trash truck
made  about  765  pick-ups.   Recycling  trucks
unloaded twice a day on average, trash trucks once a
day.  Union drivers earned $17.50 per hour in wages.
     Each  contractor  owns  and  operates  its  own
MRF.  USA Waste's  220 ton-per-day capacity MRF
employs 30 full-time equivalent workers (all union).
Sorters earn  $7.95 per hour; equipment operators,
$9.95 per hour; and scale operators, $10.95 per hour.
Worker  turnover is  low.  Trucks empty materials
directly  into  hoppers, which feed two sort  lines
Once  sorted, material is  transferred  to silos  until
ready  for baling.  The first sort  line is for mixed
recyclables and uses  automated and manual  sorting.
A vacuum system removes plastic jugs  and  bags; a
magnet  removes  metal  cans.   Ten sorters  then
manually process  remaining material.  The  second
line  is for mixed  paper.   Two sorters  separate
corrugated   cardboard    from   mixed    paper.
Newspaper, used motor oil, and glass are processed
directly from  the trucks to appropriate containers
such as roll-offs  and  oil tanks. The reject rate at the
MRF  averages 4% by weight.
     GreenTeam uses a relatively low-tech 200 ton-
per-day  capacity  processing system, which relies
largely on  manual sorting.  Glass comes in color-
sorted. The heart of its MRF is a  115-foot vibrating
conveyor,  which is  used  to  sort  commingled
materials during the day shift and mixed  paper at
night.  The reject rate at the MRF is 4% to 7% by
weight,  and  consists  mostly   of  film  plastics.
GreenTeam   employs  50   full-time   equivalent
workers; starting employees earn $5.40 per hour (the
lowest paid permanent employee  earns $9.15 while
the highest paid earns $18 per hour).  Turnover is
also low.

-------
                                                                                           SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA
Residential  Composting Program
    The  city  contracts with two companies  to
provide weekly, year-round curbside pick-up of yard
trimmings. The system is unique.  Residents set out
their yard trimmings in loose piles along the curb in
front of their houses.  Collection crews use a tractor
with a claw attachment to load the piles  into rear-
loading compactor trucks.   Where "loose-in-the-
street" is not  feasible, residents  place  their  yard
trimmings in burlap tarps (provided by haulers) or in
cans (provided by residents and labeled with a sticker
indicating cans are for yard trimmings).
    The city contracts with  two composting sites
for processing:  BFI and Zanker Road Management.
These  facilities grind  materials  into  a  mulch  or
windrow  compost  them.    Finished  mulch and
compost is sold to the  public, nurseries, and farms;
and is used on farms and city  parks.

Commercial/Institutional  Recycling
    The  city   uses  financial  incentives, public
education, and technical  assistance  to encourage
waste  reduction in  the  commercial/institutional
sector. In a 1996 survey, 64% of respondents stated
that their business recycled.  Approximately 17,000
businesses have recycling service. Businesses contract
directly with private  haulers  and  recyclers for  this
service.
    As a financial incentive for businesses to recycle,
the city  used  a fee  structure  that encourages
companies to have materials collected  as recyclables
instead of trash. The city fees on the collection of
commercial garbage in  FY97  were $1.64  per  cubic
yard in franchise fees and  $1.77 per cubic yard in
source reduction and recycling fees.8 In contrast,
there are no fees associated with recycling collection.
The relatively higher  cost of trash service  is a direct
financial incentive  for businesses to  recycle and
reduce  their solid  waste.   City  staff  manage  the
franchises, ensure  that franchised haulers  remit
proper fees, periodically audit haulers, and tabulate
monthly data  from haulers  and  recyclers on  the
amount of materials collected.
    City  staff  also provide technical  assistance  to
businesses  by  helping  them  implement  in-house
recycling programs, performing "waste assessments,"
and identifying end  users  for  recycled  materials.
Businesses  can  receive  a packet that  includes
information on how to  start  recycling, waste
reduction ideas,  waste characterization analysis,  a
directory of recyclers, and a list of commercial solid
waste services.
    The city also runs Recycle at Work, a recycling
program  serving all  city-run  facilities  such  as
government offices, libraries, and the police station.
In June  1997, the city  eliminated  desk-side trash
baskets and replaced these with mini desk-top bins.
Employees are now  responsible  for moving their
recyclables and trash to central containers.

Education, Publicity, and  Outreach
    The city  does extensive outreach for  its waste
reduction programs:   posters, brochures, bill inserts,
direct  mail  pieces,  print  advertisements,  public
service   announcements,   television  and   radio
interviews, and booths at community events.  The
city  has  also  initiated several  interactive  outreach
activities such as:  holiday gift-wrapping tables using
recycled  materials at  malls; "the three Rs" word
scramble  games  at
community  events;
and  shopping cart
"waste   prevention
assessments" at local
supermarkets.    All
outreach is done  in
three    languages:
English, Spanish, and
Vietnamese.
Costs
    In  FY97,  the
IWM Program  cost
a  total   of  $55.6
million.    Of  this,
$50.4 million was for
the residential  pro-
gram,  which  con-
sisted of  five major
categories:  (1)  pay-
ments to two haulers
for SFD  trash  and
recycling    service
(51%); (2)  payment
to hauler for MFD
trash  and recycling
service   (11%);  (3)
payments   to   two
haulers    and   two
USA Waste collector unloading recyclables into side-
loading vehicle

-------
SAN  JOSE. CALIFORNIA
                   processors  for  yard   trimmings   collection  and
                   composting  (20%);  (4)  landfill  fees  to  the  Newby
                   Island  Landfill  for  disposal of residential and civic
                   trash9 (13%); and  (5) overhead  and  administration
                   costs
      Capital  costs for new equipment purchased by
 the city's contractors are included in the fees charged
 by  these contractors.   The  city  did  pay for 1,500
 Can-O-Worms home composting bins at $48 each,
 and 2,000 Biostack  home  composting bins at  $55
 each.
                      RESIDENTIAL WASTE REDUCTION  COSTS (FY97}
                                                                       Cost
                                                                                          Tons
                     Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                                              $28,303,822
197,570
                                                                                                              Cost/Ton
$143.26
                                        Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costs
SFD Curbside Collection/Processing1
MFD Curbside Collection/Processing1
SFD Marketing Incentive Feesl
MFD Marketing Incentive Feesl
Admin./Billing/Education/Publicity2
Composting Gross Costs
Curbside Collection and Processing3
Admin./Billing/Education/Publicity2
$17,561,044
$4,843,585
$468,584
$10,861,570
$834,375
$552,930
$10,742,778
$10,023,969
$718,809
85,130
76,415
8,715
76,415
8,715
85,130
112,440
112,440
112,440
$206.29
$63.39
$53.77
$142.14
$95.74
$6.50
$95.54
$89.15
$6.39
$65.20





$39.89


$105.09
                     Materials Revenues
                                                                         $0
197,570
      $0
      $0
                     Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                                              $28,303,822
197,570
$143.26
$105.09
                     Note: Tonnage figures differ from those on page 134 as deposit containers and MRF rejects are not included above. Figures reflect San Jose's FY97 (July 1996
                        through June 1997) and may not total due to rounding. Costs for collection and processing reflect the city's costs to contract with private haulers and
                        processors. All contracts extend to June 30, 2002.
                     iThe city's contract with Western/USA Waste and the GreenTeam of San Jose is for collection of both recyclables and trash and processing of recyclables.
                     The split between recycling and trash collection costs is based on the average per ton cost of total service.  Contracts, however, are based on two
                     components:  a base $/household rate and a $/ton recycled incentive rate. For USA Waste, the  base rate is $6.64/household and the incentive rate is
                     $60.02/ton; for GreenTeam of San Jose, the base rate is $5/household and the incentive rate is $277.80/ton for SFDs and $100/ton for MFDs.
                     ^Within the Integrated Waste Management Program, administrative costs include staff salaries and benefits, billing services, general fund overhead, direct
                     payments to other city departments for goods and services rendered, and administrative support.  Administration costs for the Integrated Waste
                     Management Program were allocated to the residential waste program based on the percentage of total staff working in residential programs.
                     Administrative costs were further split among recycling, composting, and trash based on tonnage handled in each program. Education and publicity costs
                     are largely borne by contractors. The city's education and publicity costs are included in Administrative costs.
                     3Costs represent tip fees the  city pays to composting site contractors (BFI and  Zanker Road) for  each ton of material delivered by collectors (BFI  and
                     Green Waste Recovery) and the city's contract costs with the two haulers.
                      TOTAL  RESIDENTIAL WASTE  MANAGEMENT  COSTS  (FY97}
                                                                       Cost
                                                                                          Tons
                     Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                                              $28,303,822
197,570
                                                                                                              Cost/Ton
$143.26
                                        Cost/HH/YR
Disposal Gross Costs
SFD Trash Collection1
MFD Trash Collection1
Fandfill Tip Fees2
Admin./Billing/Education/Publicity3
$22,071,195
$9,833,946
$4,217,254
$6,527,084
1,492,911
232,220
156,730
75,490
232,220
232,220
$95.04
$62.74
$55.87
$28.11
$6.43
$81.95




$105.09
                     SWM Gross Costs
                                                               $50,375,017
429,790
$117.21
$187.03
                     Materials Revenues
                                                                         $0
197,570
      $0
      $0
                     Total SWM Net Costs
                                                               $50,375,017
429,790
$117.21
$187.03
                     Note: Figures reflect San Jose's FY97 (July 1996 through June 1997) and may not total due to rounding.
                     TCosts represent the city's costs for contracting with Western/USA Waste and the GreenTeam of San Jose. The split between recycling and trash collection
                     costs is based on the average per ton cost of total service. Trash collection is now automated (previous to 1993, it was manual).  Haulers deliver trash to
                     the Newby Island  Landfill, which is approximately 10 miles away.
                     ^During FY96, the city renegotiated its 30-year contract with International Disposal Corporation, which operates the Newby Island Landfill. The contract
                     now extends to 2020 and no longer includes a put-or-pay clause requiring the city to pay for a fixed amount of tonnage—needed or not. In FY97, the city
                     paid $27.18 per ton for residential and small business commercial waste and $14.88 per ton for disposal of city-facility generated waste.
                     ^Within the Integrated Waste Management Program, administrative costs include staff salaries and benefits, billing services, general fund overhead, direct
                     payments to other city departments for goods and  services rendered, and administrative support.  Administration costs for the Integrated Waste
                     Management Program were allocated to the residential waste program based on the percentage of total staff working in residential programs.
                     Administrative costs were further split among recycling, composting, and trash based on tonnage  handled in each program.  Education and publicity costs
                     are largely borne by contractors. The city's education and publicity costs are included in Administrative costs.

-------
                                                                                          SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA
       PER TON OPERATING COSTS FOR
     RESIDENTIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
 $160
 $140
 $120
 $100
   60
   40
   20
                 FY93
                             FY97
           Trash
                     Gross Waste
                     Reduction
| Net Waste
 Reduction
Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
    On a per-ton basis, trash cost $95, while waste
reduction programs cost $143 (recycling $206, and
yard trimmings recovery, $96).  Recycling costs more
than twice  as  much  as  trash and  yard trimmings
service  due  to how  the city  has structured its
contracts with its haulers and processors, specifically
the  city's  incentive  payments  for  marketing
recyclables.  Trash and recycling collection services
alone range from $54 to $63 per ton on average. Yet,
landfill disposal fees for trash are below $30 per ton,
while the city pays its recyclers an incentive fee  ($60
to USA Waste and $278 to GreenTeam of San Jose)
for each ton of recyclables they actually market to
end users.
    The  Environmental  Services Department's
budget has risen during  the last decade, but  so has
the population and  the  number  of  households
served.  When  the cost of inflation is taken  into
account, average per household costs for SFD waste
management services have remained nearly constant
from $207 in FY93 to $210 in FY97.
    Although   contracts  for  residential  trash,
recycling, and yard trimmings service are not due to
expire  until  June  2002,  the   city  has already
renegotiated existing  contracts  to reduce  costs.
GreenTeam  agreed to a  monthly reduction in fees
for the rest  of  the contract term.  USA Waste will
start revenue sharing with the city July 1, 1999.
    The IWM  Program employs 20 full-time city
employees.
Funding & Accounting Systems
    San Jose's IWM Program provides revenues for
two  funds:  The IWM Fund (a special enterprise
fund established in 1994) and the City of San Jose's
General Fund.  The  IWM Fund's revenues come
from  five  main sources:   SFD rate charges  (60%);
MFD  rate charges (21%); Source  Reduction and
Recycling fees on commercial  businesses  (15%); 10
miscellaneous residential service fees  such as extra
trash  stickers  and bulky  good  collection services
(5%); and  interest earned during the year (1%).
    Revenue  sources from the IWM Program that
support the   General Fund  are  the  commercial
franchise  fees and a  disposal  facility  tax.  (Source
reduction   and recycling  fees support  the  IWM
Fund.) The city uses a volume-based franchise fee,
which, for FY97, was $1.64 per cubic yard of trash
collected  by  haulers.   The city assesses a  Disposal
Facility Tax of $13 per ton on waste landfilled in San
Jose. In FY96, the five landfills in the city paid $17.9
million to the General Fund.
    Residential trash  rates pay for about 82% of the
total $50.4 million cost to provide residential trash
and recycling services.  Fees placed on businesses'
waste provide an additional 14%.
    The General Fund provides $500,000  to cover
costs  of the  Recycle  Plus Special Rate Program,
which provides  reduced
rates   to   low-income
households and  persons
with disabilities.
    The  Environmental
Services Department  uses
accrual accounting tech-
niques to  track its expen-
ditures.
                   Future  Plans and
                   Obstacles to
                   Increasing
                   Diversion
                       The  Environmental
                   Services    Department's
                   long-term   strategy   to
                   meet  and  exceed  50%
                   diversion   focuses   on
                   increased waste reduction
                   efforts  at  businesses and
                   multi-family dwellings.
                                                                               Vibrating conveyor sort line at GreenTeam of San
                                                                               Jose's materials processing facility

-------
SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA
                                                                                      Pilot  programs  and   collect  data  (put
                                                                              reporting requirements in contracts).

                      In  July 1997, the  types  of materials  collected
                 from the SFD and MFD programs were expanded to
                 include all plastic  containers numbered 1-7, foam
                 food packaging, aerosol  cans, and  some  metal car
                 parts.   The city is  adding oil  filters  to  the  SFD
                 program in fall 1998.
                      Increased  emphasis   is   being   placed  on
                 enhancing  the MFD program  to  achieve  a  higher
                 diversion rate.  Technical assistance will  be  provided
                 along with additional tools to  encourage  recycling
                 such as in-house containers.  During summer 1998,
                 sorting  requirements  for  MFD residents  will be
                 simplified from three streams to two streams: paper
                 and mixed recyclables.  GreenTeam and the city are
                 also looking  at adding container options for  MFD
                 complexes with space constraints.
                      As the commercial sector generates 65%  of San
                 Jose's waste, city staff are  evaluating how to increase
                 waste diversion from businesses.
                      Recycle   Plus  staff  are  also  working  toward
                 making the residential program more self-sustaining
                 by cutting costs.  In addition to the City  Council
                 adopting  a cost recovery rate strategy, residential staff
                 have cut  program costs  by  reducing the  outreach
                 budget  by 65% for FY97  and renegotiating the
                 Residential Plus contracts for a savings of $8 million
                 over the remaining period of the contracts.

                 Tips  for Replication
                         Set up  a  cost  structure  that  encourages
                 recycling and waste reduction  (for  households, for
                 businesses, and for contractors).
                         Know customers  and  implement a program
                 that balances  needs of city and customers.
                         Create  a relationship with  haulers  that  is
                 conducive to continuous improvement.
Notes:
iThese materials were newspaper, glass bottles andjars, aluminum and steel
  cans, and PET bottles.
2The contractor serving MFDs is paid per ton, not per household. There is
  also a service level of payment to the GreenTeam (based on the total
  types of bin services that complexes have).
^Multi-family dwellings can recycle the same materials at "curbside" with
  the exception of used oil.
4These rates were in effect as of January 1998.
5To be eligible, businesses much generate less than one cubic yard of solid
  waste per week, must have a waste stream similar to single-family
  residential households, and must be located within the city's contractors'
  service districts. The city must also be able to lien individual parcels in
  case of unpaid bills.  Tonnages collected from these businesses are
  included with SFD figures.
6While collection was expanded to include aerosol cans, drained auto parts,
  and all plastic containers and other plastics #1-7 in July 1997, these are
  excluded from this list as tonnage numbers for FY97 only include the old
  materials targeted.
'The average participation rate is higher (88% or high 80s) for areas served
  by USA Waste than for areas served by Green Team (77% or high 70s).
8Both trash haulers and recyclers compete on a customer-by-customer basis
  citywide, and are  not limited to collection districts. The city does not set
  the rates that commercial haulers and recyclers charge their customers.
9Civic trash is trash the city picks up from municipal buildings such as city
  office and libraries.
lOTrash haulers serving businesses with on-site compactors pay the city
  franchise fees of $4.92 per cubic yard collected. Those businesses using
  on-site compactors also  pay higher source reduction and recycling fees
  (the AB939 fees)—$5.31  per cubic yard.  Commercial waste generators
  pay AB939 fees to the city via their trash haulers, who remit the fees to
  the city along with their franchise fees.  Actual FY97 revenue from
  commercial AB939 fees totaled $8,253,764.
  CONTACT
   Ellen Ryan
   Program Manager
   City of San Jose Environmental Services Department
   Integrated Waste Management Program
   777 North First Street, Suite 450
   San Jose, California  95112
   PHONE:  408-277-5533
   FAX: 408-277-3606
   E-MAIL:  ellen.ryan@ci.sj.ca.us
   RESIDENTIAL WEB SITE: www.recycleplus.org
   COMMERCIAL WEB  SITE: www.sjrecycles.org/business/

-------
                                                   RESIDENTIAL WASTE  GENERATION
                                                        PER  HOUSEHOLD  PER DAY
                                                                 1987
                                                                          1996
                                                           Trash
                                                                     Recycling
                                                                                  I Composting
      Seattle faced a trash disposal crisis in the
      late   1980s  after  two   city-operated
      landfills  closed.   Disposal fees  at  the
county-operated  landfill  were nearly  three
times what city fees had been.  Twice, the city
considered  building a  trash  incinerator  but
citizen  objections overruled the plans.  The
city  opted  to pursue an aggressive  waste
reduction program, setting a goal of recycling
60% of the waste stream  by 1998.  In  1996,
Seattle approached this goal.  It diverted 49%
of its  residential  waste stream, 48%  of  its
commercial waste stream, and 18% of materials
delivered  to  its  drop-off sites.     Overall
diversion was 44% (34% through recycling and
10% through composting). The current system
uses   city-hired contractors to collect trash,
recyclables, and yard trimmings.
     Curbside  recycling and  yard  debris  systems that divert many categories of  materials
(including  mixed  paper),  pay-as-you-throw (PAYT)  trash rates, comprehensive educational
programs,  strong  private sector recycling promoted by financial incentives, and multi-family
recycling service contribute  to program  success.  Seattle's single-family curbside  recycling
program accepts 16 categories of materials; the  apartment program accepts 13.  The yard debris
subscription service collects four additional materials and three additional categories are accepted
at the city's transfer stations.   PAYT trash rates  encourage residents to divert  waste.  Many
companies provide private sector recycling collection in a free-market environment. Strong local
markets  (especially for  paper and glass) provide outlets for collected  materials.  In addition, the
                                               private sector receives financial  incentives to
                                               reduce its trash through a commercial hauling
                                               fee  structure  that  charges less for  source-
                                               separated  recyclables than  trash.  More  than
                                               40% of Seattle households are located in multi-
                                               family units and providing recycling service to
                                               these  households is a critical  element in the
                                               city's efforts to maximize diversion.
                                                     Cost-effectiveness  of   Seattle's  waste
                                               reduction efforts is due to the city's pay-as-you-
                                               throw trash fees  and  lower per  ton  costs for
                                               recycling and composting as compared to  trash
                                               disposal. 1    In  1996,  per  household waste
                                               management costs averaged $155, the same as
                                               in 1987.   On  a per ton  basis, total waste
                                               management cost $154 per ton; trash cost  $173
                                               per ton;  recycling,  $121   per  ton;   and
                                               composting, $142 per ton.
 RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM  SUMMARY
Tons Per Year
   Disposal
   Diversion
Percent Diverted
   Recycled
   Composted
Average Ibs./HH/day
   Disposal
   Diversion
Annual Disposal Fees
   Disposal
                       1987
                     233,230
                     188,800
                      44,430
                        19%
                        19%
                         0%
                        5.61
                        4.54
                        1.07
                                    1996
                                 288,106
                                  146,773
                                  141,333
                                    49%
                                    29%
                                    20%
                                    6.34
                                    3.23
                                    3.11
                  $11,266,099    $6,504,749
Net Program Costs/HH  $155.33
   Disposal Services      $155.33
   Diversion Services      $0.001
                                 $154.93
                                  $101.14
                                   $53.79
Notes: Figures above represent residential sector collection only.
  227,890 households served in 1987, 248,970 in 1996.198?'
  dollars adjusted to 1996 dollars using the GDP deflator.
  Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
^Reported 19% recycling in private sector. The city incurred no
  costs for this recycling.
                                                                                                  DEMOGRAPHICS
                                                                                                  POPULATION: 534,700 (1996)
                                                                                                  HOUSEHOLDS:  248,970 total
                                                                                                    units (1996):  149,500
                                                                                                    SFDs (four or fewer units
                                                                                                    in building), 99,470 MFDs
                                                                                                  BUSINESSES:  45,000
                                                                                                  LAND AREA: 92 square mi.
                                                                                                  HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
                                                                                                    2,706/square  mile
                                                                                                  AVERAGE PER CAPITA
                                                                                                    INCOME: $18,308 (1989)
                                                                                                  MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
                                                                                                    INCOME: $29,353 (1989),
                                                                                                    $28,941  (1995)
                                                                                                  COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
                                                                                                    Urban, major industries:
                                                                                                    computer software and
                                                                                                    hardware, aircraft
                                                                                                    manufacturing, financial
                                                                                                    management, insurance,
                                                                                                    real estate, and tourism
                                                                                                  COUNTY: King

-------
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 44%





1 WASTE REDUCTION M996) 1
Private Curbside Total
Residential! Residential? Residential Self-Haul^ CommerciaH Total
Recycled 17,684 64,709 82,393 5,280 172,443 260,116
Corrugated Cardboard 6,204 5,834 12,038 387 96,653 109,078
Mixed Paper 4,459 19,413 23,872 499 31,254 55,625
Newspaper 3,900 24,171 28,071 143 13,351 41,565
Glass 10 12,338 12,348 206 1,989 14,543
Off ice Paper 303 13,928 13,931
Miscellaneous 687 0 687 149 11,188 12,024
Ferrous Scrap 0 68 68 2,909 1,160 4,137
Aluminum/Non-ferrous 725 877 1,602 54 733 2,389
Scrap
Ferrous Cans 0 1,321 1,321 174 1,495
Plastics 251 635 886 16 693 1,595
Wood 0 0 0 917 1,320 2,237
Textiles 1,445 0 1,445 0 1,445
MRF Rejects NA5 9596 NA5 NA5 NA5
Composted/Chipped 19,607 39,333 58,940 12,323 9,119 80,382
Yard Debris? 17,159 39,333 56,492 12,323 3,783 72,598
Food DiscardsS 2,448 0 2,375 5,336 7,711
Total Waste Reduction 37,291 104,042 141,333 17,603 181,562 340,498
MS W Disposed 0 146,773 146,773 82,240 197,604 426,617
Trash 0 145,814 145,814 82,240 197,604 425,658
Contaminants 959 959 959
Total Generation 250,815 288,106 99,843 379,166 767,144
Percent Reduced 41.5% 49.1% 17.6% 47.9% 44.4%
Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day 6.34
Notes: Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
TData are actual tonnage from 1996 and represent material generated by Seattle residents and recovered through private drop-off and buy- back centers.
Private recyclers report these data to the state, f he state, in turn, reports the tonnages to localities.
2Data represent single-family and multi-family materials collected at curbside.
3Data represent materials delivered in both cars and trucks to drop-off sites, f he material originates in both the residential and commercial sectors but is
not separable.
4Data are actual tonnages from 1996 and represent material generated by Seattle commercial sector and recovered by private recycling companies. Private
recyclers report these data to the state, fhe state, in turn, reports the tonnages to localities.
^Materials are processed at many different facilities and the reject rate is impossible to establish.
6Seattle Public Utilities reported 898 tons of contaminants in the SFD curbside residential programs, based on a sampling of bins at the curbside. General
Disposal reported 62 tons of contaminants from its MFD recycling program. Nuts and Bolts reported recycling tonnages from its MFD recycling program
as marketed, i.e. after rejects were removed, fhe recycling tonnages reported are net of the rejects.
^Private residential yard debris represents an estimate of backyard composting and grasscycling. Seattle Public Utilities estimates tonnage based on the
number of bins in use and an average recovery rate for each household composting. Seattle staff calculated the average recovery rate per household of
562 pounds based on waste composition studies, composting program evaluations, and surveys of bin users. Self-haul yard debris includes material
delivered in cars and trucks. Cars are not weighed and tonnage is estimated based on the number of cars and an average weight of 258 pounds per car.
fhis figure is based on a sampling conducted in 1995.
^Private residential food discards represent an estimate of backyard food composting. Seattle Public Utilities estimates tonnage based on the number of
bins in use and an average recovery rate for each household composting. Seattle staff calculated the average recovery rate per household of 290
pounds based on waste composition studies, composting program evaluations, and surveys of bin users.
State and Local Policies
    In 1989, the Washington State Legislature passed
the "Waste Not Washington Act," which established
a waste management hierarchy:  (1) waste reduction;
(2)  recycling with source separation  of  materials
preferred;  (3)  energy  recovery,  incineration,  or
landfilling of  separated  waste; and  (4)  energy
recovery, incineration, or landfilling of mixed waste.
The Act also set a state 50% recycling goal by 1995.
The state  did  not meet  this goal  but  has made
consistent progress  toward it; the  state calculated
recycling rate was 39% in 1995, up  from 30% in
1989.
    The Act required  county  governments  to
prepare  solid  waste  management   plans  that
incorporated waste reduction and  recycling.  The
state provided local governments over $25 million in
grant funds to revise their waste management plans
and  to  implement  waste reduction and  recycling

-------
                                                                                            SEATTLE. WASHINGTON
programs.   The  Clean  Washington  Center  was
formed to focus on markets for recyclable materials.2
    In  1988, Seattle set a goal to recycle 60% of its
residential  and  commercial  waste  by  1998  with
interim goals of 40% by 1991 and 50% by 1993.
    A local  ordinance, enacted in  1988, prohibits
mixing yard debris and trash at the curb or at transfer
stations.
    Since 1981 Seattle has charged PAYT rates for
residential trash collection  and disposal. (See table
below for rate schedule.)

Source Reduction & Reuse  Initiatives
    The Seattle Public  Utilities promotes home
composting.  From December  1989 to April 1998,
more than  50,000  free  and reduced-price home
compost bins were distributed  to Seattle residents.
The  program  also  sponsors  free  composting
workshops,  trains  volunteers  to  become  Master
Composters,  and  operates  the city's  "Compost
Hotline."
    Seattle began its  Master Composter program in
1986.  Each year city staff choose approximately 25
people  to  train as Master Composters.  Program
volunteers  are  required  to  perform 40 hours of
outreach on composting following their training.
Examples of  outreach performed  include school
programs,    composting    demonstrations    to
community groups, staffing composting information
booths, and  writing articles for publication.
    The    Seattle    Public    Utilities'   Green
Neighborhoods program sponsors  "Less is More"
grants,  which  fund  innovative waste  reduction
projects in Seattle.
    The   Seattle   Public  Utilities   encourages
grasscycling and has worked with local lawn and
garden  care  retailers  to  offer  demonstrations,
discounts, and rebates on mulching mowers.
    The Seattle Public  Utilities and King County
have joined  together  to sponsor  the  "Waste Free
Fridays" program.  On  Fridays only, this campaign
promotes special discounts that area retailers offer on
waste-preventing products and services. Examples of
promotions include a copying company that offered
discounts  on double-sided copies and a shop that
offered  free coffee to customers who  brought their
own reusable cups. The Seattle Public Utilities and
King  County provide education and  publicity  for
Waste Free Fridays.

Residential  Recycling Program
    In  1996, Seattle recycled 29% of its residential
waste.3  The Seattle Public  Utilities contracts with
Recycle America and  Recycle Seattle to provide
                              Collection Frequency
                                                                  Cost
                                   Billing Period
 12-Gallon Micro-Can                  Weekly
 19-Gallon Mini-Can                   Weekly
  32-Gallon Can                       Weekly
  2 32-Gallon Cans                    Weekly
  Additional 32-Gallon Cans             Weekly
 Curbside Yard Debris                  Varies
 Self-Haul Trash, Carload             As Needed
 Self-Haul Trash, Truckload            As Needed
 Self-Haul Yard Debris, Carload        As Needed
 Self-Haul Yard Debris, Truckload       As Needed
            $10.05
            $12.35
            $16.19
            $32.15
            $16.10
            $4.25
            $8.50
            $93.65
            $6.50
            $68.70
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Per Trip
Per Trip
Per Trip
Per Trip

-------
 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON
CURBSIDE  COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:

             Mandatory:
      Households Served:

     Materials Accepted:
   Collection Frequency:

        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
The Seattle Public Utilities contracts with two private haulers to serve residences with up to four units: north section, Recycle
America (RA); south section, Recycle Seattle (RS). Four private recyclers service apartment buildings:  north section, Nuts 'n' Bolts
Recycling (N&B) and General Disposal (GD); south section, West Seattle Recycling (WSR)  and Recycle Seattle II (RSII).  Total
Reclaim collects large items for the entire city.
Curbside program began February 1988: apartment program May 1989.  N&B (May 1989), WSR (January 1991), GD (July 1993),
RSII (July 1993)
No
54,899 average MFDs for  1996:  148,300 SFDs, SFDcurbside  program includes dwellings with up  to four units, remainder in
apartment recycling program. Building management sign up their buildings for participation in the MFD program
SFDs:  ONP, OCC,  RMP (including catalogs, magazines, mail, paperboard,  phone books, paperback books, office paper, and paper
bags), glass bottles and jars, aluminum and tin cans, PET & HOPE bottles, ferrous metals, white goods
MFDs:  Aluminum and tin cans, glass bottles and jars, RMP, ONP, white goods.  GD & RSII also collect #1 and #2 plastic bottles.
SFDs:  North section of city, weekly: south section, monthly.  MFDs: Varies, building works with collector to arrange a schedule.
White goods and other bulky items collected on-call for a $25 per item  fee.
North: Residents set out three 12-gallon bins:  yellow bin for cans, bottles, and jars: dark green bin for newspaper: light green
bin for mixed paper and OCC. A small cardboard box next to the bins can be used for scrap metal.  South: Most materials are
commingled  in 60- or 90-gallon toters with a separate (approximately 15-gallon) bin for glass. MFDs:  Residents served by RSII
and GD commingle  recyclables in a dumpster, with three toters for collection of glass by color. N&B and WSR provide separate
containers for each  material  category. Collection contractors provide all bins, dumpsters, and toters as part of their contracts.
SFDs:  north section of city:  compartmentalized recycling trucks. South:  Rear-loading packer trucks, retrofitted with bins for
glass,  driver sorts glass by color  en  route.  MFDs:  GD and RSII collect dumpsters using an automated truck. RSII collects glass
on the same truck as commingled materials. GD collects glass in a separate three-compartment side-loading truck.  N&B and
WSR collect each material  on its own route in a separate truck. N&B uses flat-bed trucks to collect material in  55-gallon barrels.
WSR collects in a rear-load packer truck.
Proportion of eligible households signed up: >90% of SFDs (estimate).  In 1996, 43% of MFD buildings (56%  of units).
Reduced trash fees through increased diversion
SFDs:  north section of city,  improper materials left in recycling bins with a notice explaining problem.  South section of city,
recyclables in toters with noticeable contamination are not collected, notice explaining left with toter.  Haulers are supposed to
report to the city the number and location of notices given.  On average, the city receives reports of less than  one notice issued
per  day.  MFDs:  Seattle tries to use an  incentive program to encourage  recycling rather than  enforcement. The city  has
sponsored reward programs  for recycling  achievement and maintains an on-going education program about the apartment
recycling program.  In cases of consistently contaminated  recyclables  at an apartment building, recycling  service  has been
terminated as a last resort. Service has been terminated at between 50  and  100 buildings.
CURBSIDE  COLLECTION OF YARD TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
   Collection Frequency:


        Set-out  Method:

      Collection  Method:

      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
1989
Contractors hired by city. North section of city: General Disposal: south section of city:  US Disposal
85,294 subscribers as of December 1996
Yes, banned from disposing with trash
Leaves, grass clippings, prunings, holiday trees, brush
South:  Every other week  March-November,  monthly  December-February:  north:  Weekly March-October, two November
collections,  monthly December-February  No more than twenty 60-pound bags, cans, or bundles will be collected from  a
household in a month, maximum number of units per collection is twenty divided by the number of collections in a month.
All material must be either in a paper or plastic bag, a can separate from trash, or tied with twine. Holiday trees must be trimmed
down to less than 6' long by 4' across and bundled.  Participants must provide their own clearly marked containers.
Rear-loading trash trucks, drivers remove material from plastic bags.  Contractors use one or two person crews and seasonally
change the number of routes.
NA
Reduced trash fees
Trash crews do not collect trash containing yard debris. The crews leave a notice explaining why the material was not collected.
On average, the  city receives reports of less than one notice issued per day.

-------
                                                                                                    SEATTLE. WASHINGTON
  DROP-OFF COLLECTION
         Number of sites:

                Staffing:
         Service Provider:
      Materials Accepted:


   Participation Incentives:

          Sectors Served:
Two public recycling and yard debris drop-off centers at the city's transfer stations.  Numerous other
private-sector drop-off and buy-back recycling centers exist throughout the city.
Always present at transfer station facilities
Seattle Public Utilities
Newspapers,  mixed paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, aluminum and tin containers, plastic bottles,
white goods,  scrap metal, lead-acid batteries, used motor oil, oil filters, brush, clean wood, grass clippings,
leaves, holiday trees (free drop-off first two weeks of January)
Reduced trash disposal fees through increased waste reduction, yard debris and clean wood tip fees are
lower than trash tip fee and recycling is free
All, anyone can use the sites if fees are paid.  Seattle Public Utilities staff believe fewer people come into
the city to manage these materials than  city residents who go out of the city to the county transfer
stations at the city's edge. Prior to January 1,1997, tip fees for trash and yard debris were cheaper for
cars and trucks at the county site.
recycling services to its residents living in buildings
with four or  fewer units.  The  city  contracts with
four   other   companies   to  provide  a  separate
apartment  recycling program serving residents in
buildings with five or more units.
     Seattle is divided into north and south  sections
and its  curbside recycling program  is different in
each  section.      Recycle   America   (a   Waste
Management,  Inc.  owned  company)  provides
curbside recycling  services  in  the  north  section.
Recycle Seattle  (owned by  Rabanco, a local waste
management company) serves the southern  section.
Four private contractors (  Nuts 'n' Bolts Recycling,
General Disposal,  West  Seattle  Recycling,  and
Recycle  Seattle  II)  offer  apartment  recycling
                              collection  services to  buildings with five or more
                              units.
                                   Recyclable materials collected through the city's
                              residential  collection programs are processed at  two
                              private  facilities:   the Rabanco  Recycling  Center
                              and the  Recycle America  Processing Center.  The
                              Rabanco Recycling Center (capacity 500-700  tons
                              per day)  processes recyclables from Recycle Seattle's
                              residential  collection  program,   from  General
                              Disposal's  and Recycle  Seattle Us  MFD recycling
                              programs, and from commercial sources. The facility
                              uses  conveyors, trommel and disc screens, magnetic
                              separation,  air  classification,  and  hand-sorting  to
                              separate materials. The Recycle America Processing
                              Center (capacity 350 tons per day) processes material
       Curbside recycling set-out in north section of
       city.  Residents receive weekly collection of
       materials.

-------
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON
R*!nnffnnR*!3?^^^^^H
Item
14 Busby Truck Chassisl
14 Kenilworth Semi-Trucks2 $
29 Star Trailed $
2.75-cubic-yard Caterpillar Wheel Loader
4 Pettibone Walking Floor Trailers4
2 2.75-cubic-yard Caterpillar Track Loaders
Ace Diesel Fuel Tank
2 Case Bulldozers
7 DeWalt Self-Dumping Hoppers
2 1/4-cubic-yard Toyota Skid Steer Loaders
2 Peterbilt Ecology Trucks
45 Drop Boxes5
2 Amfab Compactors $
2.5-cubic-yard Caterpillar Track Loader
2 Komatsu Clamshell Backhoes
2 1/2-cubic-yard Case Wheel Loaders
2 Ottawa Yard Goats
2 Cardboard Compactors6
2 Cardboard Drop Boxes7
Athey/Broom Street Sweeper
CMC Step Van
Toro Lawn Mower
Ford Flatbed Truck
1 King LowBoy
Ford Flusher Truck
^^H
Cost
$462,000
1,140,000
1,305,000
$150,000
$480,000
$350,000
$13,000
$350,000
$7,000
$40,000
$240,000
$180,000
1,400,000
$175,000
$160,000
$120,000
$130,000
$40,000
unknown
$125,000
$35,000
$19,000
$50,000
$75,000
$110,000
^^^^^^H
Use
Trash Hauling
Trash Hauling/Yard Debris
Yard Debris Hauling
Trash
Recycling/Composting
Trash
Trash/Recycl i ng/Com posti ng
Trash
Recycling
Trash
Recycling/Trash
Recycling/Trash
Trash
Trash
Recycling
Recycl ing/Composting
Trash/Composting
Recycling
Recycling
Transfer Station Site Maintenance
Trash/Recycling/Yard Debris
Transfer Station Site Maintenance
Trash/Recycling/Yard Debris
Equipment Hauling
Transfer Station Site Maintenance
^^^m
Year Incurred
1994-1996
1989-1996
1985-1996
1995
1979-1995
1994
1994
1993
1992
1992
1989,1992
1985-1992
1991
1991
1991
1990
1990
1986,1989
1986,1989
1988
1987
1987
1986
1985
1985
Notes: All costs represent 1 996 replacement costs. Listed equipment is owned by Seattle Public Utilities and is primarily used in the operation of its transfer
stations and for hauling of materials
Hen purchased in 1994; two in 1995; and two in 1996.
2Four purchased in 1989; five in 1991; one in 1992; two in 1994; two in 1995; and two in 1996.
3Three purchased in 1985; nine in 1987; four in 1988; ten in 1990; one in 1995; and two in 1996.
40ne purchased in 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1995.
5Two purchased in 1985; one in 1988; 23 in 1989; and 19 in 1992. Those purchased in 1992 are DeWalt; all others are Capital.
^Marathon Compactor purchased in 1986; Masterpak Compactor in 1989.
^Marathon box purchased in 1986; Masterpak box in 1989.
               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
                                                                     collected by Recycle America from the north end of
                                                                     Seattle.  Paper is hand-sorted and baled.  Magnets
                                                                     and hand-sorting are employed to separate glass, tin,
                                                                     and aluminum.  Nuts 'n' Bolts Recycling and West
                                                                     Seattle Recycling collect materials already separated
                                                                     and deliver them directly to markets.
                                                                         Total Reclaim provides  bulky waste collection
                                                                     to  all  residents who request  the service.  Residents
                                                                     must pay $25 for each item collected. The city pays
                                                                     an additional $10  for each item collected and pays
                                                                     for material processing. Appliances collected by Total
                                                                     Reclaim are recycled.

                                                                     Commercial  Recycling
                                                                         Commercial and institutional waste  generators
                                                                     can self-haul their trash and recyclables to a transfer

-------
                                                                                           SEATTLE. WASHINGTON
station or contract privately for trash and recycling
collection.  Businesses that self-haul recyclables to
city transfer stations can tip them for free.  At city
transfer stations, the per ton tip fee for a load of yard
debris is  25%  lower than the tip  fee  charged for
trash.  Private trash haulers offer their commercial
customers separate recycling  service  for   source-
separated  materials. The rate schedule for recycling
is generally lower than for trash service.  In addition,
trash haulers and recycling companies sometimes pay
businesses  for  high-value  recovered materials.  A
number  of private recycling companies  provide
collection service. These companies range from local
paper companies collecting only high-grade paper to
companies collecting  a  broad range  of materials.
Seattle  excludes   revenues  from  collection  of
commercial recyclables from the city Business and
Occupation Tax  that haulers must pay on  trash
collection revenues. In 1996, Seattle diverted 48% of
its  commercial and  institutional  waste  through
private recyclers, up from 44% in 1989 and 1993.
    The  Seattle  Public  Utilities  and  the  Greater
Seattle Chamber of Commerce sponsor the Business
and  Industry  Recycling  Venture  (BIRV).    This
program encourages waste prevention, recycling, and
purchasing  of  recycled-content  products within
Seattle's business community. BIRV offers businesses
a  hotline, informational  materials,  and technical
assistance; and conducts presentations and seminars.

Composting Program
    Seattle residents can choose to divert yard debris
either  through curbside  subscription  service  (for
which the city charges a $4.10  per month  fee),
through drop-off sites, or by home  composting.  A
local ordinance prohibits disposal of yard debris with
trash.  Residents' trash haulers (General Disposal on
the north side  of the  city and US  Disposal in the
southern portion), as part of their contracts with the
city,  provide the curbside yard  debris service for
subscribers on  the same  day as trash collection.  In
1996, Seattle diverted 14% of its residential  waste
stream  (excluding   self-haul  residential   waste)
through the subscription program and an additional
7% of its waste stream through backyard composting.
General Disposal  delivers collected materials to one
of the city-owned transfer stations.  US  Disposal
transfers material collected  in the curbside and drop-
off programs to the Cedar Grove processing facility
located in rural Maple Valley, 30 miles from Seattle.
Cedar Grove composts both yard and food debris at
this site.  Cedar Grove composts the material  in
mechanically turned windrows. Finished compost is
sold through local retail outlets in the Puget Sound
area.
    The  Cedar Grove  composting  facility  has
experienced  some  odor problems and is facing
potential court action from its neighbors.  In order
to address this problem, Cedar Grove is constructing
a covered grinding area and diverting some materials
(particularly grass clippings)  to small independent
composters.

Education, Publicity, and Outreach
    The  Seattle Public  Utilities  sponsors  the
"Informed  Neighborhoods" programs  aimed  at
spreading information about waste management to
members of the community.  This program has two
main  components, the "Friends of Recycling" and a
school  grant  program.   Friends of  Recycling
provides free  training  to  residents   interested  in
serving   their  neighborhood  for  one  year as  a
community resource  on  Seattle  Public  Utilities'
waste programs.  The volunteers share information
on recycling, waste reduction, and composting. The
school   grants   program  provides   money   to
elementary  through   high  schools   to  fund
development of solid waste class projects.
    The Seattle Public  Utilities has  worked with
King, Pierce,  and  Snohomish  Counties  on  a
grasscycling  campaign.   The  campaign featured
television  advertisements  promoting  grasscycling
and distribution of coupons for rebates on mulching
mowers.
    Twice  a  year  the  Seattle  Public  Utilities
produces  and   direct   mails  to all  residential
                    ,-f '
Yard debris containers set out for collection.

-------
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON
               households  a newsletter, called The Curb Waste
               News.   The  city  also distributes  information
               concerning its waste management programs through
               utility bill inserts.
                   The Seattle Public Utilities maintains a Web site
               with   information   about   waste  management
               programs, such as recycling preparation guidelines,
               transfer station hours, locations, and fees, and the
               numerous  informational and  grant  programs it
               supports.   Also presented  are solid   waste  and
               recycling  data,  market  prices,  waste composition
               data, and other general planning information.

               Costs
                   City contractors perform many public sector
               waste management functions in Seattle.  Seattle pays
               per ton  contract fees for curbside collection and
               processing of recyclable  materials from single- and
               multi-family residences, curbside  collection  and
               processing  of  yard debris,  and  residential  trash
               collection and  disposal.  The city incurs no direct
               capital costs  for these activities, rather  contractors
               pass on capital costs in the form of  fees.  City staff's
               main  functions are operating two  transfer stations,
               performing closure of the city's  old landfill, hauling
               trash  to the railhead,  providing  education  and
               publicity, performing   data  analysis,  providing
               customer service and billing for the  residential waste
               management   programs,    performing   waste
               inspections, and providing contractor oversight.  The
               Seattle Public Utilities  employs  190 people in  its
               waste management programs.
                   The city paid an average of $173  per ton for
               residential  trash  services and  $129 per  ton  for
               residential waste reduction (recycling, $121 per ton;
               composting $142 per ton) in 1996.  Total residential
               waste management cost  over $38.5 million, for  an
               average  per  household  cost of  $155  ($31  for
               recycling services, $22 for the composting program,
               and $101 for trash management). In comparison, in
               1987, the city paid $187  per ton for trash collection
               and disposal,  averaging $155 per household.

               Funding & Accounting Systems
                   Funds  for  Seattle Public Utilities' solid waste
               management programs  are  raised  through   the
               monthly rates paid by residential customers, tip fees
               paid at transfer stations, tip fees paid at  the railhead
               for Institutional/Commercial trash, solid waste taxes,
               and  through state  grants.   The  grants  average
$300,000 per year.   Revenues  from  the sale  of
recyclables can  partially offset  the  per  ton fees
contractors charge the city.
    Seattle Public Utilities uses accrual accounting
techniques to track solid waste management costs.

Future Plans and Obstacles to
Increasing Diversion
    A 1995 study estimated more than 50,000 tons
of  residential  materials and  60,000   tons  of
commercial materials that could  be recycled in the
city's existing programs were disposed.  Most of the
recoverable material was  cardboard  and  other paper.
The study estimated  that residents of multi-family
dwellings could  recycle  nearly half of the material
they disposed and that  self-haulers, single-family
residents, and businesses  could have recycled nearly
one-third.   The  city is planning to initiate  an
intensive educational campaign in the residential and
commercial sectors targeting paper recovery  as a
prelude to  potential  bans  if new sector  specific
recovery goals are not met.
    Obstacles to increasing  diversion in  MFDs
include limited  space in apartments  and common
areas for storing  recyclables and lack of the financial
incentive  of PAYT rates   to  encourage  trash
reduction.
    The Seattle  Public Utilities is currently engaged
in a comprehensive planning process. All of the city's
waste management contracts expire in March 2000
and  city  planners are  considering  adding  small
businesses to the  curbside recycling program and
allowing   contractors  to   propose  innovative
collection systems, such  as dual-collection of waste
streams,  among  many  possible  options.   Other
potential program changes include adding  collection
of food discards, polycoated paper, and all  plastics to
the curbside recycling program.
    The Seattle  Public Utilities may need to find a
new facility to accept compostable materials.  Cedar
Grove  is facing  a class  action lawsuit  brought  by
neighboring residents. Residents want the facility to
close because of persistent odor problems.
    A current focus  of Seattle's source  reduction
program is promotion of the concept of "voluntary
simplicity." The city has contracted with a consultant
for  the development  of  educational  materials
intended to reach diverse audiences.

-------
44% SEATTLE. WASHINGTON

Cost Tons Cost/Ton Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costs $7,815,196 64,709 $120.78 $31.39
SFD Curbside Collection and Processingl $4,926,729 56,41 6 $87.33
Apartment Collection and Processing? $932,542 8,293 $112.46
Administration/Education/Publicity3 $1,955,924 64,709 $30.23
Composting Gross Costs $5,577,806 39,333 $141.81 $22.40
Yard Trimmings Collection $3,109,239 39,333 $79.05
Transfer Station CostsS $170,169 27,491 $6.19
Yard Debris Haulinge $313,947 27,491 $11.42
Yard Trimmings Processing? $479,863 39,333 $12.20
Administration/Education/Publicity3 $1,504,588 39,333 $38.25
Waste Reduction Gross Costs $13,393,001 104,042 $128.73 $53.79
Materials Revenues8 NA NA NA
Net Waste Reduction Costs $13,393,001 104,042 $128.73 $53.79
Key: NA = not applicable
Note: Figures may not total due to rounding.
1 Represents net contract payments by city to contractors. The city paid its contractors on a per ton basis ($93.08 per ton in the north section of the city
and $86.42 in the south section) with per ton offsets based on market prices.
^Apartment recycling collection contracts are based on a per ton rate for collection and include provisions for the contractor to return revenues if
commodity prices rise above a set base price and for the city to pay extra to the contractors if commodity prices fall below a set level. Figures represent
net contract payments by city to contractors.
-"Represents costs of city administration of program based on a 1995 study plus a pro-rated amount of city expenditures for general and administrative
costs, depreciation, and taxes. The cost figures from the study include costs for customer service, education, planning, inspectors, and contract
administration staff only. The general and administrative costs include rent, utilities, departmental overhead, information technology and overhead for
other city government departments including the mayor and council.
^Represents contract payments by city to contractors for collection of yard debris.
^Represents costs for handling yard debris collected from the north of the city at transfer stations. City staff calculated per ton costs in a 1995 study.
SRepresents costs for hauling yard debris collected from the north of the city to the Cedar Grove compost facility located in Maple Valley 30 miles from
Seattle. City staff calculated per ton costs for a 1995 study.
^Represents payments to contractor for processing yard debris at $1 2.20 per ton.
^Contracts include complicated formulae for (1) reducing charges to the city if commodity prices are above a pre-set level and (2) increasing amounts due
if prices fall below a set level. The per ton base rates and commodity prices vary among contractors. Recycling collection costs presented above
represent net contract payments and as such include any offsets from revenues earned or lost.


1 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS (1996} 1
Cost Tons Cost/Ton Cost/HH/YR
Trash Gross Costs $25,180,317 145,814 $172.69 $101.14
Trash Col lectioni $10,909,771 145,814 $74.82
Trash Transfer Station? $1,010,489 145,814 $6.93
Hauling3 $420,647 145,221 $2.90
Farge Item Collection $4,340 NA NA
Railhead Tip Fees5 $6,504,749 145,814 $44.61
Administration/Education/PublicityG $6,330,321 145,814 $43.41
Waste Reduction Gross Costs $13,393,001 104,042 $128.73 $53.79
SWM Gross Costs $38,573,318 249,855 $154.38 $154.93
Materials Revenues NA NA NA
Total SWM Net Costs $38,573,318 249,855 $154.38 $154.93
Key: NA = not applicable
Note: Figures may not total due to rounding. Trash tonnage figure above is different than figure in table, page 141, as figure above excludes MRF rejects.
1 Represents contract payments by city to contractors.
^Represents costs to city for trash handling at city transfer stations. Per ton costs were calculated in a 1995 city study. This study revealed per ton
operation and maintenance costs at city transfer stations for handling trash averaged $6.93 plus $0.97 per ton for capital costs.
-"Represents cost to city for trash hauling from transfer station to railhead. City staff calculated per ton costs in a 1995 study to be $3.79 per ton hauled
from the north transfer station and $2.39 per ton hauled from the south transfer station.
^Represents costs to city for bulky item collection in residential sector. This service is provided by a contractor, Total Reclaim, at a cost of $10 to the city
and $25 to the resident for each item collected. Total Reclaim performed 124 bulk item collections in 1996. Some of this material is recycled,
particularly white goods. Tons recycled versus disposed are not tracked but are included in the recycling and disposal tonnage totals.
5Represents tip fees paid to tip trash at a railhead. Costs include rail transport and tipping at a landfill in Eastern Oregon.
SRepresents costs of city administration of program based on a 1995 study plus a pro-rated amount of city expenditures for general and administrative
costs, depreciation, and taxes. The cost figures from the study include costs for customer service, education, planning, inspectors, and contract
administration staff only. The general and administrative costs include rent, utilities, departmental overhead, information technology and overhead for
other city government departments including the mayor and council.



Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.

-------
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON
                         PER TON OPERATING COSTS  FOR
                      RESIDENTIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
                  $200
                                  1987
                                              1996
                             Trash
                                                        Net Waste
                                                        Reduction
                  Notes:  In 1987, all recycling occurred in the private sector, at no cost to
                    the city.
                 Tips  for Replication
                         Recover mixed paper for recycling.
                         Distribute   bins  to all  participants  when
                 starting waste recovery programs.
                         Institute PAYT rates for trash service.
                         Invest in public education programs.
                         Target educational  messages  to people of all
                 ethnicities.
                         Support education  programs  with  market
                 research to most efficiently target resources.
                         Accept  some  or all  the  risk  of secondary
                 materials  prices by  paying contractors more when
                 market prices are low and less when prices are high.
                         Pay   trash   haulers  partly  based  on  tons
                 collected so as recycling increases, savings result.
                 Notes:
                 1 All of Seattle's waste management contracts are based on per ton fees,
                   therefore each ton of material handled in the recycling or composting
                   programs results in a lower cost than if materials had been disposed as
                   trash.
                 2The Clean Washington Center was initially funded by the state. In 1997, state
                   funding ended but the Center has continued to operate with private
                   funding.
                 3This figure represents residential trash and recyclables handled by private
                   recyclers and city curbside programs.  Some materials self-hauled to city
                   transfer stations are residential in origin but the residential versus
                   commercial split is unknown.
Jennifer Bagby
Principal Economist
Resource Management Branch
The Seattle Public Utilities
710 Second Avenue #505
Seattle, WA 98104
PHONE: 206-684-7808
FAX: 206-684-8529
E-MAIL: Jen ny.bagby@ci.Seattle, wa.us
WEB SITE: http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/util

-------
       Visalia, located in the southern portion of
       the  Great Central Valley  of California,
       began its waste  reduction programs in
order to meet state law requirements.  Today,
Visalia is diverting 50% of its residential waste
from  landfill  disposal      33%   through
composting and 16% through recycling.  The
heart  of  the  program  is  an  innovative
automated dual-collection system that targets
a wide range  of  recyclable and compostable
materials.
     City staff, unhappy  with  the  result  of
several  pilot recycling  programs, decided  to
pursue a fully automated recycling system that
would  mirror the efficiency  of  its fully
automated trash collection  system.   It opted
for  a  dual-collection  system  in   which
recyclables would be  collected at  the same
                                                   RESIDENTIAL  WASTE GENERATION
                                                       PER HOUSEHOLD PER  DAY
                                                    11.0
                                                                FY94
                                                                             FY97
                                                       I	|  Trash    |	| Recycling
                                               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
                                                            \ Composting
time and with the same vehicle as trash. The city teamed with the distributor of its trash trucks
to design a special 110-gallon split container and a dual compartmented automated collection
vehicle. The container and the vehicle have two compartments; one for commingled recyclables
and the other for trash.  Following a successful pilot program, the city switched to the new dual-
collection system citywide April 1996.  At the same time it substituted the previous second day
trash  collection with a "green waste" collection day.  Residents  can recycle  15 categories of
materials including mixed paper, all plastic containers, and milk and juice cartons. All types of
yard trimmings and even scrap wood and lumber are accepted in the green waste program.
    The efficiency of the split container collection is identical to  the old automated system —
                                              it eliminates time-consuming  manual systems,
                                              additional   trucks  and  crews,  and  worker
                                              compensation  claims for back injuries  from
                                              lifting  bins  or bags.   The  system  provides
                                              residents with  an  easy way to recycle virtually
                                              all paper products, all metals, and all glass with
                                              just one wheeled container. The program has a
                                              high diversion rate and a high degree of public
Tons Per Year
   Disposal
   Diversion
Percent Diverted
   Recycled
   Composted
Average Ibs./HH/day
   Disposal
   Diversion
  FY94
45,395
 44,319
  1,076
   2%
   2%
                       10.58
                        10.33
                         0.25
  FY97
50,806
 25,538
 25,268
  50%
  16%
  33%
 10.71
  5.38
  5.33
 Annual Disposal Fees
   Disposal
                   $1,334,479
           $801,810
 Net Program Costs/HH  $190.33      $202.20
   Disposal Services      $190.33      $108.77
   Diversion Servicesl         $0       $93.43
 Notes:  23,500 households served in 1994; 26,000 in 1996 and
   1997. 1994 dollars adjusted to 1996 dollars using the GDP
   deflator. Numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
 TDiversion represents deposit container recovery only in FY94;
   therefore, there were no direct costs to the city.
acceptance because it is easy to use.
      Net solid waste  management costs per
household have increased from $190 in FY94 to
$202 in FY97.  In  FY94,  per  ton trash  costs
were $101 per ton,  now waste reduction and
trash services cost $106 per ton.   Recyclables
processing  and  composting  costs  are  less
expensive per ton  than  landfill tip fees, helping
to contain costs.
                                                                           DEMOGRAPHICS
                                                               POPULATION:  91,314 (1996),
                                                                 92,677(1997)
                                                               HOUSEHOLDS:  28,869
                                                                 (1996); 25,346 single-
                                                                 family households, 3,523
                                                                 multi-family units
                                                               BUSINESSES:  1,200
                                                               LAND AREA: 28.6 sq. miles
                                                               HOUSEHOLD DENSITY:
                                                                 1,009 households/sq. mi.
                                                               AVERAGE PER CAPITA
                                                                 INCOME: $12,994(1989)
                                                               MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
                                                                 INCOME: $35,575(1989)
                                                               COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
                                                                 Urban.  Visalia is the
                                                                 county seat for Tulare
                                                                 County and an economic
                                                                 hub for agriculture,
                                                                 industry, and other
                                                                 government services
                                                               COUNTY:  Tulare

-------
VISALIA. CALIFORNIA
                  RESIDENTIAL  WASTE  REDUCTION
                                               Tons (FY97)
                 Recycled!
                   ONP
                   Mixed Paper
                   Old Corrugated Cardboard
                   Glass
                   Aluminum and Tin
                   PET and HOPE
                   Other Plastics
                   Deposit Containers2
 8,316
  1,801
  2,686
  1,650
   375
   195
   241
    12
  1,356
                 Composted
                   Green Waste (curbside)
                   Green Waste (drop-off)
16,952
 14,435
  2,517
                 Total Waste Reduction
                                                 25,268
                 Waste Disposed
                   Landfilled
                   MRF Rejects
25,538
 24,174
  1,364
                 Total Generation
                                                 50,806
                 Percent Reduced
                                                 49.7%
                 Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day            10.71
                 Note: Figures represent residential waste generated and recovered from
                   26,000 households (single-family households through households up to
                   three units). Visalia's FY97 extends from July 1996 through June 1997.
                 1 Recycled figures represent material recovered and already take into
                   account the 19.6% by weight reject rate of residential recyclables at
                   the MRF.
                 2ILSR calculated bottle bill tonnage using actual pounds per capita of
                   bottle bill recovery in Visalia (figure supplied by the Container
                   Recycling Institute), of which 60%  was counted in the residential
                   sector.
                State and Local Policies
                    In 1989, the  State  of  California  passed the
                Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939).
                The Act  mandates  recycling goals for  all California
                cities:  25% waste  reduction by  1995 and 50% by
                2000. The year 1990 is the base year for all diversion
                calculations.
                    The  California Beverage Container  Recycling
                and Litter Reduction Act (AB2020), enacted in 1986
                and implemented in  1987,  requires distributors to
                pay a 2It  deposit  on beer and other malt beverages,
                soft  drinks, wine and  distilled  spirit coolers,
                carbonated mineral water, and soda water containers.
                Consumers pay a container deposit, which they can
                redeem for 2.5
-------
                                                                                                            VISALIA.  CALIFORNIA
CURBSIDE DUAL-COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES &  TRASH
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:
             Mandatory:
      Households Served:
     Materials Accepted:

   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Public Works Department
First recycling pilot route, 1991. Pilot complete in 1992, began city implementation in 1994.  Citywide, April 1996.
No
Approximately 26,000 households (single-family households through households up to three  units)
Aluminum containers, glass bottles andjars, tins cans, all plastic containers, newspapers, cardboard boxes, gray chipboard boxes,
milk andjuice cartons, mixed paper (including mail and magazines)
Weekly
Residents receive a split 110-gallon container.  They place commingled recyclables on one side (with a green lid). The other side
has a brown lid and holds remaining trash. Outreach materials encourage residents to empty and flatten boxes and cartons and
to remove tops and any solid/liquid residue from glass and metal containers. Newspapers can be loose or in paper bags.
A specially designed dual compartmented 33-cubic-yard truck collects both recyclables  and  trash at the same time (one crew
member). As the split container empties its contents into the truck, the center divider in the container lines up with an inner
divider in the truck. The recyclables drop into  a top compartment while the waste empties into a lower compartment.  The top
compartment (with 40% of the truck's volume capacity) has a packing ratio of two to one; the lower compartment (with 60%
of the truck's volume capacity) has a packing ratio of eight to one.  Trucks serve an average of 900 households per day.
98-100% (drivers turn in sheets on how many containers are emptied)
Convenience
NA
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:

   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:
      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Started in 1992; new program began citywide April 1996
Public Works Department
26,000
No
Scrap wood and lumber  (except for creosote or treated wood), grass clippings, tree trimmings, weeds, leaves, faded blossoms,
fallen fruit and limbs from fruit trees, and other green waste
Weekly, different day than recyclables and trash
Residents place their green waste loose (not bagged) in green 60- or 105-gallon roll-out carts provided by the city (these carts
were previously used for trash collection under the old system). Larger tree limbs and branches should be cut into four-foot
lengths in order to fit into green waste container.
The same dual compartmented truck used for trash and recyclables collection also collects green waste (one crew member).
During winter about 50%, during spring and summer about 95%
Convenience
NA
DROP-OFF  COLLECTION
        Number of sites:
               Staffing:
        Service Provider:
     Materials Accepted:
 Participation Incentives:
         Sectors Served:
Four city-run sites with roll-off bins for recyclables (located at supermarkets and shopping centers); during the fall and from the
week before Thanksgiving to after the New Year, residents can take yard trimmings for free to the Tulare County Compost and
Biomass.  For approximately two weeks following Christmas, the city places roll-off s around town to collect holiday trees.
Unstaffed
City (with help from the Conservation Corps for holiday tree collection)
Same materials as curbside plus holiday trees
none
Residents and businesses (but not commercial contractors)

-------
  VISALIA. CALIFORNIA
                    Item
                                                                   Costs
                                                                                       Use
                                                                                                              Year Incurred
                    12 Dual-collection Vehiclesi
                    26,520 110-Gallon Split Containers?
                    12 Green Waste Collection Vehicles3
                    26,520 90- and 100-Gallon Roll-Out Carts^
    Recycling & Trash Collection
    Recycling & Trash Collection
     Yard Trimmings Collection
     Yard Trimmings Collection
1994,1995
 1994-95
1990,1993
 1986-87
                    Note: Trucks and containers were financed with a lease/purchase agreement over seven years at a 5.5% annual interest rate.
                    Warious Chassis/modified side-loading automated Heil 7000 packers at $164,500 each. They have a life-span of seven years.
                    2The split containers cost $90 each and are expected to have a life-span of 10 years.
                    ^Various Chassis/automated side-loading Heil 7000 packers at $144,500 each. These trucks were previously used for trash collection on the old automated
                      system.
                    4The roll-out carts cost $68 each.
                  Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
                  MRF's overall reject rate is quite high at 20 to 30%
                  by weight.
                       For  Visalia's  residential  recyclables,  residual
                  materials average  19.6%  by  weight.   (The  high
                  amount of mixed paper in each load acts to cushion
                  and protect glass. As a result, less than 2% of the glass
                  collected breaks.)  The 5.5 acre  site and facility cost
                  $3.5 million and has operated since 1994.

                  Composting Program
                       At the same time it unveiled its dual-collection
                  program, Visalia substituted the previous second day
                  trash pick-up with a green waste collection day. The
                  program diverts 33% of the city's residential waste.
                  Residents set  out all types  of yard  trimmings plus
                  scrap wood and lumber in the 60- or 105-gallon
                  roll-out carts they previously used for trash set-out.
                  One-person crews use the regular automated  trash
                  trucks  to collect green waste.  All green waste is
                  taken to a local business — Tulare County Compost
                  and Biomass.  This company, eight miles away  from
                  the  center of town, windrow composts about 1,600
                                                 tons of  material per
                                                 month and sells the
                                                 finished product  for
                                                 $8  per ton.  It em-
                                                 ploys  nine  full-time
                                                 equivalent workers.
                                                 Education,
                                                 Publicity,  and
                                                 Outreach
                                                 During the first pilot
                                                 program in 1991, the
                                                 city  undertook  an
110-split containers are automatically emptied into hopper of  extensive  outreach
split compactor trucks.
                                                 campaign  to  teach
residents how to use the new system as well as the
importance  of recycling  in general.   Staff  held
neighborhood  meetings  to show  off  the  new
container  and  collection  vehicle.   Each resident
received via  mail full instructions for using the new
system in advance  of receiving their split container.
Information was also  attached to each container at
delivery.  Two months  into  the  pilot program, the
city surveyed residents to assess the program. Results
indicated a 98% acceptance rate.  The most frequent
comment was how easy the system was to use.
    The  last  phase  of implementation  outreach
combined local radio  and  television  advertising,
meetings with local service clubs,  seniors' groups,
school  recycling  programs,  and   neighborhood
meetings.  Both before and after  implementation,
staff was always willing  to  meet  with individual
residents to resolve any  issues. This personal contact
with  individuals was  probably the  most important
element in creating a successful program.

Costs
    A $3.5  million  lease/purchase agreement was
arranged  to provide  financing for the  city's  new
dual-collection vehicles and  split containers.  Based
on a seven-year life cycle for trucks and containers,
staff calculated that residential collection rates would
need  to  be increased  $1.20 per month to  fund the
lease/purchase  agreement.    The  city's source
separated  yard  debris  collection  program  cost
approximately  $4 per household per month.  These
increases were offset, however, by savings in tip fees.
Landfill tip fees are $31 per ton, while tip fees for
composting are $15 per ton and recycling processing
fees are $28 per  ton.   The  new program  saved
approximately  $300,000 per  year in tip fees, which

-------
                                                                                                                   VISALIA. CALIFORNIA
resulted in an actual rate increase to each household
of only $3.20 per month.
     The  modified  dual-collection  vehicles  cost
approximately   20%  more  than  the   trash-only
automated trucks.   The  split  containers  cost  32%
more  than   the   old   60-  to   105-gallon   carts.
Maintenance and  labor  costs  for the new fleet  of
dual-collection vehicles  are comparable  to the old
fleet.    In  sum,  the   dual-collection/green   waste
               vehicle system  annual costs are approximately  16%
               above   the   costs   to   provide   twice-per-week
               collection under the old collection system.1
                    The  new system was designed to maintain the
               same   route  productivity  collecting  trash  and
               recyclables as it achieved with collecting trash alone
               —  the same  time, number  of  stops,  number  of
               employees, and number  of vehicles.  It succeeded.
  WASTE REDUCTION COSTS (FY97}
                                                  Cost
                                                                    Tons
  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                           $2,429,251
               25,276
                                                                                       Cost/Ton
 $96.11
                                                     Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costs
Curbside Collection1
Processing2
Administration3
Education/Publicity
Composting Gross Costs
Curbside Collection1
Drop-off Collection
Processing4
Administration3
Education/Publicity
$950,512
$505,285
$242,131
$185,595
$17,500
$1,478,739
$876,237
$21,080
$275,186
$288,736
$17,500
8,324
8,324
8,324
8,324
8,324
16,952
14,435
2,517
16,952
16,952
16,952
$114.19
$60.70
$29.09
$22.30
$2.10
$87.23
$60.70
$8.38
$16.23
$17.03
$1.03
$36.56




$56.87





 $93.43
  Materials Revenues
($0)
    ($0)
    ($0)
  Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                           $2,429,251
               25,276
 $96.11
 $93.43
  Note:  Figures may not total due to rounding.  Recycling tonnage figure above is different than figure in table, page 152, as figure above includes MRF rejects
    and excludes deposit containers. Figures above include equipment depreciation and overhead and administration costs for the Solid Waste Division. Some
    overhead/administrative costs above the division level are included. (See Appendix B for further detail.) fhe city's FY97 extends from July 1st, 1996 through
    June 30th, 1997.
  Wisalia does not track its costs for collection of materials for recycling, composting, and trash separately. Collection costs for all materials averaged $60.70
  in FY97.
  ^Represents contract cost with fulare County Recycling and is based on a tip fee of $28 per ton. fhe contract extends over five years (it expires February
  2000) and includes five one-year renewal options, fhe city receives no revenues from the sale of materials.
  ^Within the DPW, administrative costs are allocated to services based on estimated percentage of total expenses on each service center.
  ^Represents contract cost with fulare County Compost and Biomass.  Contract is based on per ton tip fees: $15 per ton in FY97 and $17.50 per ton
  starting July 1997.  fhe contract expires July 1998, although it's renewable every year.
                                                  Cost
                                                                    Tons
  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                           $2,429,251
               25,276
                                                                                       Cost/Ton
 $96.11
                                                     Cost/HH/YR
Disposal Gross Costs
Trash Collection1
Landfill Tip Fees2
Administration3
Education/Publicity
$2,827,896
$1,467,416
$801,810
$552,170
$6,500
24,174
24,174
24,174
24,174
24,174
$116.98
$60.70
$33.17
$22.84
$0.27
$108.77




 $93.43
  SWM Gross Costs
                                           $5,257,147
               49,450
$106.31
$202.20
  Materials Revenues
($0)
    ($0)
    ($0)
  Total SWM Net Costs
                                           $5,257,147
               49,450
$106.31
$202.20
  Note:  Figures may not total due to rounding,  frash tonnage figure above is different than figure in table, page 152, as figure above excludes MRF rejects.
    Figures above include equipment depreciation and overhead and administration costs for the Solid Waste Division. Some overhead/administrative costs above
    the division level are included.  (See Appendix B for further detail.) fhe city's FY97 extends from July 1st, 1996 through June 30th, 1997.
  Wisalia does not track its costs for collection of materials for recycling, composting, and trash separately. Collection costs for all materials averaged $60.70
  in FY97.
  ^Visalia disposes of its trash at the fulare County landfill; the tip fee $31 per ton. fhis facility is five miles away.
  3Within the DPW, administrative costs are allocated to services based on estimated percentage of total expenses on each service center.

-------
VISALIA. CALIFORNIA
                             PER TON COSTS FOR
                     RESIDENTIAL  WASTE MANAGEMENT
                 $160
                 $140
                 $120
                 $100
                  40
                  20
                                 FY94
                                              FY97
                          Trash
                                     Gross Waste
                                     Reduction
| Net Waste
 Reduction
                    In 1996, the city spent about $5.26 million for
                trash, recycling,  and green waste services  — about
                $202 per household served. Of this, about 54% was
                spent on trash collection and disposal, 18%  was spent
                on recycling, and 28% was spent on green waste
                collection and recovery. On a per-ton basis, trash cost
                $117 and waste reduction programs cost $96 —
                recycling  $114  and  green  waste  recovery, $87.2
                Overall,  net solid waste management  costs   per
                household served have increased from $190 in FY94
                to $202 in FY97. During this same time period, per
                ton trash tip fees increased 10%.  If these fees had not
                risen, per household waste  management costs in FY97
                would have been within 5% of per household costs in
                FY94.
                    The Solid Waste  Division employs 23 full-time
                employees (eight recycling  and  trash  collection
                workers, eight green  waste collection workers, and
                seven  administrative  staff).  Hourly wages average
                $17 (with benefits) for recycling and trash  services.

                Funding & Accounting Systems
                    The Solid Waste Division receives its funds each
                year directly from  an enterprise fund.  Enterprise
                fund revenues come from a per household  flat fee of
                $16 per month for trash, recycling, and green waste
                services.  Charges show up on residents' utility bills.
                (Prior  to  the  new  system, each  household  paid
                $12.80.)
                    The   Division   uses   full-cost  accounting
                techniques to track its expenditures.
Future Plans and Obstacles to
Increasing Diversion
    Visalia plans to continue education in areas of
town where contamination of recyclables has been a
problem.  It also is rewriting its contract  with the
MRF to try and get the reject weight down to 10%
at maximum from  the current level of 19.6%. The
city is looking at adding recycling service at some of
its multi-family dwellings.

Tips for Replication
       Investigate the dual-collection split-container
system and  automated  collection,  especially  when
faced with an aging trash fleet.
       Focus on education to teach residents how to
use the system.
       Seek committed staff and administration to
ensure program success.
       Find processor  willing  to  receive  totally
commingled recyclables.
       Put together Citizen Advisory Group or find
other way to seek resident input and buy-in.
Notes:
!See R.W. Beck, The SWANA  Collection Efficiency Project, Nov. 14,1995.
  Annual costs include truck and cart capital, driver labor, fuel, truck
  maintenance costs, and landfill and MRF tip fees.
?The differences in the per ton costs in these figures is largely a reflection of
  the per ton costs for recycling and composting processing and trash
  disposal. Visalia does not track curbside collection costs for  recyclables,
  yard debris, and trash separately and reports  per ton collection costs for
  all materials as the total  system average curbside collection cost.
                     CONTACT
                      Kathy Onsurez, Conservation Coordinator
                      Tom Baffa, Solid Waste Services Manager
                      City of Visalia Public Works Department
                      336 N. Ben Maddox Way
                      Visalia, California  93292-6631
                      PHONE:  209-738-3531 (Kathy), 209-738-3569 (Tom)
                      FAX: 209-738-3576
                      E-MAIL: none
                      WEB SITE: none

-------
                                                 RESIDENTIAL WASTE  GENERATION
                                                     PER  HOUSEHOLD  PER DAY
                                                 7.0
                                                                  1994
                                                                 J  Recycling

                                             Source: institute for Local Se!f-Re!iance, 1999.
                                   1992
                                  Trash
                                                                           1996
                                              | Composting
   n the  early 1990s, this  urban city faced
   looming state landfill bans for recoverable
   materials  and needed  to  transfer trash
costs from its tax  base to user fees.  As a result,
in November  1993, the city implemented
recycling  concurrently with a pay-as-you-
throw  trash  system.  Within  a  short time,
Worcester's  residential  waste reduction rate
had nearly tripled to  44% in 1994 from 15%
in 1992.  In 1996, during which recycling
collection  increased  from  biweekly  to
weekly, the  residential recycling rate rose to
54%  (27%  through  recycling  and  27%
through  composting).   Pay-as-you-throw
trash fees, collection  of many recyclables at
curbside, the state bottle bill, and diversion of yard debris for composting all contribute to the city's
high diversion rate.
    Worcester provides all residents living in dwellings with six or fewer units with trash and
recycling service. 1  They receive curbside collection of 20 types of recyclables (including mixed
paper,  all  plastic  containers, milk and juice cartons, and scrap metal).  Fall leaves are collected
once  in conjunction with street sweeping.   Per-bag trash fees are a financial  incentive  for
residents to reduce trash  disposal, recycle at curbside, and deliver their yard trimmings to one of
the city's  three yard  debris drop-off sites, open April through November. The state bottle bill
acts as a further financial incentive for material recovery.  Residents receive  5
-------
WORCESTER. MASSACHUSETTS
                   RESIDENTIAL WASTE  REDUCTION
                                             Tons (1996)
                  Recycled                         15,498
                     Mixed Paper                     9,183
                     Commingled Containers           4,093
                     White Goods and Bulk Materials!      693
                     Scrap Metal                        93
                     Deposit Containers2               2,498
                     MRFRejects3                    -1,062
                  Composted/Chipped4
15,500
                  Total Waste Reduction
                                                  30,998
                  MSW Disposed
                     Incinerated
                     Bulk Wastes
                     MRF Rejects
                     Tires
26,575
 24,142
  1,298
  1,062
    73
                  Total Generation
                                                  57,573
                  Percent Reduced
                                                  53.8%
                  Lbs. Waste/HH Served/Day           6.20
                  Notes: Figures above include material from 50,868 households and some
                    schools and municipal office buildings. Excluded are trash and recycling
                    from 12,720 households in buildings or complexes with seven or more
                    units, which are not served by the city.
                  1 Estimated using state conversion for volume to weight.
                  2ILSR calculated deposit container recycling for the residential portion of
                    Worcester's waste stream using 60% of the statewide average per
                    capita refillable bottle usage, and the statewide average per capita
                    residential deposit container recovery multiplied by Worcester's total
                    population. These figures were reduced by 20% to account for the
                    households not included in the city's waste management programs.
                  3BFI staff report 8% by weight of mixed paper and commingled
                    containers are rejected as residuals at their Auburn facility.
                  ^Estimated by weighing representative loads and extrapolating. This
                    figure represents all yard debris recovered in the city's programs.
                    Since any city resident, driving a non-commercial vehicle, is allowed
                    to deliver yard debris to city drop-off sites, some of this material  may
                    have originated from MFDs not served by the city's trash and
                    recycling programs. The DPW Assistant Commissioner, though,
                    believes most households in buildings or complexes with seven or
                    more units are served by commercial landscapers and the amount of
                    yard debris originating in these households that enters the city
                    management program is negligible.
                  5|\leither Worcester nor BFI track the tons of bulk waste disposed.
                    According to the U.S. EPA Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste
                    in the United States: 1996 Update, disposed durable goods consist
                    of approximately 35% metals and 65% other materials. Worcester
                    recovers only metals from its bulk waste stream. ILSR estimated
                    disposal tonnage of Worcester's bulk waste by assuming the 693 tons
                    of material recovered from this waste stream were metals, leaving
                    65% or approximately 1,298 tons of bulk materials for disposal.
                 Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.


                 State and Local  Policies
                     The     Massachusetts      Department     of
                 Environmental   Protection    has   set   statewide
                 municipal solid waste  recycling goals  of  23% by
                 1992, 34% by 1996, and 46% by 2000.  Massachusetts
                 bans lead-acid batteries, leaves and other yard debris,
                 white  goods, all metal and glass containers, #1 and
                 #2 single polymer plastics, and recyclable paper from
                 disposal  in all state landfills and incinerators.   The
                 bans were phased in from 1990 to 1994.
     Waste disposal facilities must  demonstrate that
waste equivalent to 25% of their permitted capacity
will be recycled either by themselves, the generators,
or an intermediate handler.
     Massachusetts' beverage  container  deposit law,
effective January 17,  1983, requires  consumers to pay
a 5 It deposit on containers for "soda water or similar
carbonated soft drinks, mineral water, and beer and
other malt beverages."   Consumers  can  redeem
containers at  retailers  that sell these products.   A
single corporation created by beverage distributors
recycles   about  75%   of  redeemed   containers.
Unclaimed deposits become state property; a portion
of   this   money  goes  into   the   state's  Clean
Environment  Fund.  Massachusetts makes funds and
equipment for  source  reduction,  composting,
recycling,  and  market development  available  to
communities,  schools,  and businesses through  this
fund and other  grant and loan programs.
     Worcester's local ordinance  states "[n]o person
shall dispose of leaves or yard  waste  with the solid
waste collection..."  and "[n]o  person  shall  place
recyclable items in any solid waste bag placed out for
collection." The DPW commissioner is empowered
to define  recyclable items.  The ordinance enables
enforcement starting with a  warning and  allowing
for  fines up to $100  for  violations.   Four staff in
Public Health and Code Enforcement enforce solid
waste regulations.
     Residents must place trash in special yellow bags
or city trash crews will not collect it.  A  30-gallon
bag  costs  50t and a 15-gallon  bag, 25
-------
                                                                                                WORCESTER.  MASSACHUSETTS
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES
        Service Provider:
          Start-up Date:
             Mandatory:
      Households Served:
     Materials Accepted:
   Collection Frequency:
        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:

      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Browning-Ferris Industries
November 1993
Yes. Residents are not allowed to set out designated recyclables in their trash.
50,868: 22,500 residents in SFDs and 28,368 in MFDs with two to six units
Newspaper, corrugated cardboard, paperboard, magazines, office paper, mail, phone books, paper bags, other mixed paper, milk
andjuice cartons and boxes, scrap metal, glass containers, aluminum cans, steel food and beverage containers, aluminum trays
and tins, all plastic containers (except motor oil and anti-freeze containers and pails or buckets), white goods
Weekly same day as trash, metal items (including white goods) by appointment
Corrugated cardboard must be flattened and less than 3'x3!  Other paper products in paper bag placed beside recycling bin. All
glass, metal, and plastics commingled in 14-gallon blue or green recycling bin.  White goods are set out at curb on day of
appointment.
One-person crews use  split compactor trucks with one compartment for mixed recyclables, the other for paper.  Separate crew
collects white goods by appointment from the curb on scheduled bulky material collection days.
NA
Reduced trash fees through increased recycling
Collection crews sticker bins containing inappropriate materials and leave  the non-recyclable items in the bins.
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD TRIMMINGS
          Start-up Date:
        Service Provider:
      Households Served:
             Mandatory:
     Materials Collected:
   Collection Frequency:

        Set-out Method:
      Collection Method:

      Participation Rate:
 Participation Incentives:
           Enforcement:
Leaf collection began in the early 1980s, composting began approximately 1988
City of Worcester Department of Public Works
All
Yes. Residents are not allowed to set out leaves and other yard debris in their trash.
Leaves
Material from each street collected once, program lasts five weeks and usually begins mid-November depending on time of leaf
drop and weather conditions
Leaves can be raked into the street or bagged in paper bags
Crews use front-end loaders and claws to transfer leaves into dump trucks, street sweepers follow. Crew sizes vary depending
on needs.
NA
Reduced trash fees through increased diversion
Same  as recycling
DROP-OFF  COLLECTION
        Number of sites:
               Staffing:
        Service Provider:
     Materials Accepted:
 Participation Incentives:

         Sectors Served:
Three yard debris drop-off sites open April through November on Wednesday,  Saturday, and Sunday
Two or more staff present at each site at all times
City of Worcester  Department of Public Works
Leaves, grass clippings, garden debris, brush  (less than three feet in length), Christmas trees
Finished  compost given to residents free of charge, reduced trash disposal charges through increased diversion,  mandatory
separation of yard debris from trash
All residents, no commercial vehicles permitted to enter drop-off sites

-------
WORCESTER.  MASSACHUSETTS
                  Item
                                                      Costs
                                                                                     Use
                                                                                                            Year Incurred
                  -55,500 Recycling Binsl
                  Dump Trucks2
                  Front-end Loaders/Claws3
                  3 Pickup Trucks4
                  20 Trash TrucksS
                  Wildcat Windrow Turner
                  Willibald Grinders
 $4 each
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
$187,000
$182,000
  Recycling
Leaf Collection
Leaf Collection
    Trash
    Trash
 Composting
 Composting
1993
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
                  Note: Most equipment is purchased outright using city bond funds with a five-year pay-off term. Repayment of bonds is out of city's general fund, f he DPW
                    does not incur financing costs for equipment purchases.
                  lAn initial purchase of 53,000 bins was financed from grant money, fhe city provided each residence with a bin at the start of the curbside program, fhe
                    2,500 bins purchased later were paid for with 50% state grant monies and 50% city funds.
                  2A five-ton dump truck cost $90,000 in 1997.
                  3Each vehicle equipped with claws costs $150,000 in 1997.
                  40ne vehicle costs about $20,000  in 1997.
                  5fhe most recently purchased truck cost $90,000.  fhe trucks are various makes and sizes with compactor volumes in the 20- to-25-cubic-yard range.
                  SRurchased for city as part of state grant program.
                Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
                collect, process, and  market  residential  recyclables.
                Nine  recycling routes  each day  cover  the  city.
                Residents set out their recyclables on the same day
                as their trash.
                     Until June 1997, recyclables were processed at a
                MRF in Springfield, Massachusetts.    BFI  now
                processes  the  materials  at its new Transcyclery™
                facility located  in the town  of Auburn,  seven  miles
                from Worcester.  The Transcyclery™ is a transfer
                station and a MRE Recyclables  are delivered to the
                facility sorted  into  separate fiber  and container
                streams.   Each stream is processed on a separate side
                of the facility.   On  the  fiber  side, cardboard   is
                mechanically separated and the rest of the materials
                are hand-sorted. The  container processing method is
                more  automated.   A magnetic separator  removes
                ferrous material; air  blowers and  trommel screens
                further sort recyclables.  Workers  manually process
                remaining materials.
                     As of December  1997, Worcester had  received
                no revenue from the sale of its recyclables. The city,
                in contract negotiations, has traded the opportunity
                to receive a guaranteed share of revenue in return for
                increased  service  levels.   According  to the  city's
                current  contract, if  paper prices  climb above  an
                index price based on New England markets ($90 per
                ton in mid-1997), the city would receive  a 50% share
                of the revenue in excess.

                Composting Program
                     Worcester   provides   fall leaf  collection  and
                operates   drop-off sites  for other  compostable
                materials. In 1996, these  city programs composted
                    27% of  residential  waste.   Department  of Public
                    Works crews  collect leaves from the street  and in
                    paper bags each fall. Residents can deliver their yard
                    debris, free of charge, to one of three city-run drop-
                    off sites.  The  city has two sites where staff windrow
                    compost  material.   The  city  gives  compost  to
                    residents and also uses the material in city parks and
                    gardens.

                    Education, Publicity, and Outreach
                        When curbside recycling and the pay-as-you-
                    throw  trash  system were  implemented,  Worcester
                    staged  a  media blitz.  The city used 22 billboards,
                    television,  newspapers, and radio  to publicize the
                    upcoming changes.  The city also distributed bumper
                    stickers with the slogan " Pay a little.  Save a lot."
                        The city  relies  on an annual mailing outlining
                    program details,  a  Web  site,  and  an  automated
                    message  system to keep residents  informed.   In
                    addition, the city advertises any up-coming program
                    changes in print.
                        Worcester   invites  state  staff to   conduct
                    educational programs  on waste management in the
                    local schools.   The  city  has distributed  more than
                    50,000 book  covers printed  with information  on
                    solid waste to local school children.

                    Costs
                        In 1996,  the city spent about $3.8 million  for
                    trash, recycling, and yard debris services —  about
                    $75 per household  served.  Of this, about 64% was
                    spent on trash collection and disposal, 20% was spent
                    on  recycling, and  16% was  spent on  yard debris

-------
                                                                                                    WORCESTER. MASSACHUSETTS
collection and  recovery.   On  a per-ton basis,  trash
cost  $96, while waste reduction costs $47  ($54  for
recycling and $40 for yard debris recovery).
     Worcester  executed  its   recycling  contract
during  a  period  of  exceptionally  high  material
revenue.  The  city opted  to renew the  contract  for
                 two additional years, trading revenues for an increase
                 of service  (collection frequency increased  from bi-
                 weekly to  weekly and materials were  added to the
                 curbside  program).  At the time Worcester exercised
                 this  option, BFI  was  charging  more  for   new
                 contracts as a result of the decline in revenues.
                                                 Cost
                                                                  Tons
                                                                                      Cost/Ton
                                                       Cost/HH/YR
Recycling Gross Costs
Recycling Collection and Processingl
Bulky Materials Recycling?
Administration/Overhead/Depreciation3
Education/Publicity4
Composting Gross Costs
Collection
Composting5
Administration/Overhead/ Depreciations
Education/Publicity?
$760,169
$641,124
$45,945
$65,100
$8,000
$623,014
$483,963
$32,522
$104,529
$2,000
14,062
13,369
693
14,062
14,062
15,500
15,500
15,500
15,500
15,500
$54.06
$47.96
$66.30
$4.63
$0.57
$40.19
$31.22
$2.10
$6.74
$0.13
$14.94




$12.25




  Waste Reduction Gross Costs
                                          $1,383,182
                  29,562
$46.79
$27.19
  Materials Revenues
($0.00)
                                                                29,562
($0.00)
($0.00)
  Net Waste Reduction Costs
                                          $1,383,182
                  29,562
$46.79
$27.19
  Notes: Figures may not total due to rounding. Recycling tonnage figure differs from figure in table on page 158 as figure above includes MRF rejects. All costs
    reflect contract payments or salaries for city employees Fringe benefits and overhead not included for city expenditures.
  1 Contract costs with BFI.
  2BFI charges Worcester for bulky waste based on a menu of disposal fees for different classes of materials. BFI made over 17,000 collections in 1996. City
    records show 693 tons of this material was recycled (all of which was metal) but do not contain disposal  tonnages.  ILSR estimated disposal tons
    assuming the 693 tons of materials recovered account for 35% of this waste stream, therefore 65% of the BFI collected items would have been
    disposed. Costs for the collection and disposal were then  pro-rated on a per ton basis for recycling and disposal.
  ->80% of one administrator's salary estimated at $40,000 and  depreciation  costs for recycling bins.
  480% of total recycling/composting education budget of $10,000.
  527% FTE with average Sanitation Division salary of $28,653.
  620% of one administrator's salary estimated at $40,000 and  depreciation  costs for equipment used in the yard trimmings management program.
  '20% of total recycling/composting education budget of $10,000.

1 TOTAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS (1 996} 1
Cost Tons
Disposal Gross Costs $2,449,221 25,513
Trash Col lection! $793,122 24,142
Trash Bag Purchase $382,166 24,142
Large Item Collection and Disposal? $86,055 1,298
Incinerator Tip Fees3 $740,244 24,142
Tire Disposal $11,004 73
Ash Disposal $76,587 NA
Administration/Overhead/Depreciation4 $360,043 25,513
Education/Publicity $0.00 25,513
Waste Reduction Gross Costs $1,383,182 29,562
SWM Gross Costs $3,832,403 55,075
Materials Revenues ($0.00) 29,562
Total SWM Net Costs $3,832,403 55,075
Cost/Ton
$96.00
$32.85
$15.83
$66.30
$30.66
$150.74
NA
$14.11
$0.00
$46.79
$69.59
($0.00)
Cost/HH/YR
$48.15








$27.19
$75.34
($0.00)
$69.59 $75.34
Note: Figures may not total due to rounding. All costs reflect contract payments or salaries for city employees. Fringe benefits and overhead not included for
city expenditures.
1 Eleven two-person city crews collect trash five days of the week. Each household is served once a week. Costs reflect collector salaries vehicle fuel, and vehicle
repair costs only.
2See note 2 in above table for explanation of tonnage and cost estimate.
3The city delivers trash to the Wheelabrator incinerator in Millbury approximately two miles from Worcester.
^Salaries for two FTE administrators at $40,000 each and depreciation costs for trash trucks.
Source: institute for Local Seif-Reiiance, 1999.

-------
WORCESTER. MASSACHUSETTS
                      PER TON OPERATING COSTS FOR
                    RESIDENTIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
                $120
                $100
                  60
                  40
                  20
                                      1996
                       | Trash

               Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1999.
Gross Waste
Reduction
| Net Waste
 Reduction
                    Trash collection  crew size has changed from
               three-person to two-person crews.  The number of
               trash routes per day  decreased from  11  to nine,
               effective November 1997.  Since recycling  began,
               trash crews service the same  number of houses but
               do  so  with  one-third  less labor  costs.   SWM
               employees dropped from 58 in  1993 to 46 in 1996.
               City composting and trash program employees earn
               average hourly wages of $13.

               Funding  &  Accounting Systems
                    Worcester's general  fund  and trash bag  sales
               support  solid  waste  management  activities.   The
               general fund fully funds the solid waste management
               program at the beginning of each fiscal year.  Bag
               revenues are returned to the general fund. The price
               of  trash  bags  has   been  set  so   sales   cover
               approximately  half of the total SWM  budget. 2  If
               sales revenues drop below this level, the city plans to
               adjust the price accordingly.
                    Expenses  within  the DPW  are  tracked using
               modified accrual accounting.

               Future Plans and Obstacles to
               Increasing Diversion
                    Worcester is home to many colleges and has a
               large transient student population.  Many students
               are  not familiar with  the city's waste management
               program. Getting students to actively and properly
               recycle has proved a challenge for the  city.  The city
               distributes brochures about the waste management
               programs to each college in mid-August.
                    Worcester is considering the addition of more
               materials to   its  recycling  program,  particularly
textiles,  and  added recycling  drop-off  sites in
October 1997.

Tips for  Replication
       Implement a pay-as-you-throw trash system.
       Collect as wide a  variety  of  materials as
possible.
       Make program participation as convenient as
possible.
       Never  add  a  material  to  the recycling
program and then take it away, especially if the trash
system is pay-as-you-throw.   Residents don't like
being  told  they  have  to  pay for  the  disposal of
something  that had been free.
Notes:
1 Some schools and municipal buildings are also in the program. These facilities
  must pay for and use the city trash bags the same as residential customers.
?The DPW had planned for the sale of trash bags to cover the total SWM
  budget but the City Council, due to local political conditions, lowered the
  price so that the bag fees only cover half of SWM costs.
                                   JHfll
                                  Robert Fiore
                                  Assistant to the Commissioner
                                  Department of Public Works
                                  20 E. Worcester Street
                                  Worcester, MA 01604
                                  PHONE: 508-799-1430
                                  FAX: 508-799-1448
                                  E-MAIL:  NA
                                  WEB SITE: http://www.ci.worcester.ma.us/
                                    services/dpw/i ndex. htm I

-------
  APPENDIX  A:    DENSITY  FACTORS
    Wot all communities track actual scale weight data for materials collected in their waste management
programs. Below is a list of conversion factors used by ILSR or the communities to estimate material
weights from other available information.

Trash
    1  cubic yard = 500 pounds (Ann Arbor, unti! September 1995, after which actual weight data available)
    1  cubic yard = 1000 pounds (Crockett, ILSR used this figure from the  U.S.  EPA document Measuring
        Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments. Crockett uses its own conversion factor of 1
        cubic yard = 640 pounds. ILSR used the EPA figure because it was more conservative.)
    1  cubic yard = 750 pounds (Loveland, based on truck compaction rate)

Mixed yard debris
    1  cubic yard = 500 pounds (Ann Arbor, until September 1995, after which actual weight data available)
    Loveland and Worcester both weigh representative loads of yard debris and calculate weight by multiplying
        by the number of loads,  ILSR did not obtain the source data used in making these calculations.
Grass clippings
    1 cubic yard
    1 cubic yard

Brush
    1 cubic yard

Leaves
    1 cubic yard
    1 cubic yard
    1 cubic yard
    1 cubic yard
    1 cubic yard
    1 truck load
    1 cubic yard
    1 cubic yard
 250 pounds (Chatham)
•• 700 pounds (Chatham)
•• 400 pounds (Clifton, loose leaves)
: 700 pounds (Clifton, vacuumed leaves)
•• 1,000 pounds (Clifton, compacted leaves)
•• 200 pounds (Crockett)
 626 pounds (Falls Church)
: 300 pounds (Fitchburg)
•• 300 pounds (Portland, EPA figure)
Mulch or wood chips
    1 cubic yard = 625 pounds (Fitchburg)
    1 hour of grinder throughput = 65 tons (Loveland)

Lead-acid batteries
    1 battery = 39.4 pounds (Loveland, EPA figure)

White goods
    Worcester:  White goods estimated using state conversion for volume to weight.

-------
APPENDIX  B:   COST  DETAIL
               Details on cost categories included in the cost calculations for each community are presented below,  Bergen
               County and Ramsey County costs were not calculated therefore those counties are not included here.
               Recycling program costs for Saint Paul, located in Ramsey County, are included.
               Ann Arbor, Ml
               Recycling:    Contractor  performs  collection.   City
                   incurs costs for  administration, education,  and
                   contract oversight only. Total administration and
                   education costs for the Solid Waste  Department
                   were  allocated  to  each function  based  on
                   percentage of budget share.  These costs include
                   staff costs for the relevant staff and ancillary staff
                   including  salaries and  wages,  leave, insurance,
                   and  retirement  benefits, and taxes.    Office
                   supplies costs are included but not utility, building
                   insurance, or building costs for the office space
                   occupied  by  city  staff.   Furthermore,  city
                   personnel, legal,  payroll, and billing  department
                   functions relating to the Solid Waste  Department
                   are  carried  by  other departments  and  not
                   included here.  Costs for city administration staff,
                   such as the mayor and city council, are also not
                   included.
                       Ann  Arbor owns a  MRF and recycling trucks
                   which are leased to contractors. We assume the
                   lease payments cover the capital  costs  of these
                   investments and  include neither  these capita!
                   costs nor the lease payment revenues in our  cost
                   calculations.
               Composting:    City  crews perform collection  and
                   processing.   The  city incurs costs for  staff
                   collecting and processing yard debris, vehicles and
                   equipment   used     in    these   processes,
                   administration, education, and  overhead.  Total
                   administration and education costs for the Solid
                   Waste  Department  were  allocated  to each
                   function  based  on percentage  of  budget share.
                   Staff costs include costs for  salaries and wages,
                   leave, insurance,  and  retirement  benefits,  and
                   taxes for composting collection and  processing
                   crews, administrative and educational staff,  and
                   ancillary   staff,  such  as dispatchers,  clerical
                   support, and customer service staff.  Vehicle  and
                   equipment costs  include vehicle  maintenance
                   labor and materials, vehicle fuel,  insurance,  and
                   annualized capital costs (calculated by the city).
                   Office supplies costs are included but not utility,
                   building insurance, or building costs for the office
    space occupied by city staff.  Furthermore, city
    personnel, legal, payroll, and billing department
    functions relating to the Solid Waste Department
    are  carried  by  other  departments  and not
    included here. Costs for city administration staff,
    such as the  mayor and city council, are also not
    included.
Trash:  City crews perform collection.  The city incurs
    costs for staff collecting  and processing  trash,
    vehicles and  equipment used in these  processes,
    administration, education, and overhead.   Total
    administration and education costs for the Solid
    Waste  Department  were  allocated  to  each
    function based on percentage of budget share.
    Staff costs  include costs for salaries and wages,
    leave,  insurance,  and  retirement benefits, and
    taxes for collection  crews, administrative and
    educational  staff, and ancillary  staff, such  as
    dispatchers, clerical support, and customer service
    staff.   Vehicle  and  equipment  costs  include
    vehicle maintenance  labor and materials, vehicle
    fuel,  insurance,  and  annualized capital  costs
    (calculated  by the city).  Office supplies costs are
    included but not utility, building  insurance,  or
    building  costs for the office space occupied  by
    city  staff.   Furthermore,  city  personnel,  legal,
    payroll, and billing department functions relating
    to the Solid  Waste Department  are carried  by
    other departments and not included here.  Costs
    for city administration  staff, such as the mayor
    and city council, are also not included.

Bellevue, WA
Recycling:   Contractor  performs collection.   City
    incurs costs  for  administration,  education, and
    contract oversight only.   City staff costs were
    apportioned based on the amount of  time staff
    spent on each job function.  Staff costs include
    salaries  and wages,  leave,  insurance,  and
    retirement   benefits,  and  taxes for  program
    personnel and clerical support.  Vehicles  used  by
    recycling program staff are  rented.   Office
    expenses included in  the  presented figures  are
    utilities  and  rent for  office  space and  office

-------
                                                                                                         APPENDIX B
    supplies. The city  is self-insured; therefore, the
    Solid  Waste Administration does  not   incur
    insurance costs.  The Solid Waste Administration
    is charged  based on  usage for services provided
    by    the  motor  pool,   information  systems
    management,  graphics, copy center, and word
    processing  departments but does not pay directly
    for services provided by the legal,  personnel, or
    finance departments or for services of the  city
    administration such as  the mayor or council.
        Collection and processing costs reported in
    the tables  on page 57  reflect costs  of providing
    services as  reported by  the city's contractor.
Composting:  Same as recycling.
Trash:   Same as recycling.

Chatham, NJ
Recycling:  Contractor provides  collection services.
    Borough staff  incur costs  for  administration,
    education,  and overhead  only.  Borough staff
    estimated  costs for  administering  the program
    and a limited education  program  at $500 for
    1996  although the  borough does  not  directly
    track  these costs.   This  figure  includes staff
    salaries  only  for  time  spent  by the  Town
    Administrator  and  his   secretary.   Benefits,
    overhead,  and  time spent by  other  borough
    personnel are not  included in this figure.  ILSR
    estimated depreciation  costs of borough-owned
    equipment used in the  drop-off program.
Composting:    Department of Public  Works staff
    collected fall leaves at a cost of $95,000 in 1996.
    This  cost  includes  labor  only.   Truck and
    equipment insurance  and   operating  and
    maintenance costs are paid out of the general
    fund.  Furthermore, the  trucks and equipment are
    used for other functions during the remainder of
    the year.   The borough  does  not track these
    expenditures by function.  Costs for the borough
    drop-off facility for yard debris represents staff
    labor  only.  The borough pays contractors to turn
    its  leaf  windrows  and to process its  brush.
    Borough staff estimated costs for administering
    the program and its education program at $3,000
    for 1996 although  the  borough does not directly
    track  these costs.   This  figure  includes staff
    salaries  only  for  time  spent  by the  Town
    Administrator  and   his   secretary  and  for
    production of educational materials.   Benefits,
    overhead,  and  time spent by  other  borough
    personnel are not included  in this figure.  ILSR
    calculated annualized costs for capital equipment
    used in the curbside leaf collection program and
    equipment used at the  borough drop-off facility.
Trash:    Contractor  provides  collection  services.
    Borough staff incur costs  for administration,
    education,  and overhead only.   Borough  staff
    estimated costs for administering the program at
    $1,500 for 1996 although the borough does not
    directly track these  costs.   This figure  includes
    staff salaries only for  time  spent by the Town
    Administrator  and  his  secretary.    Benefits,
    overhead,  and time spent  by  other borough
    personnel are not  included in this figure. Borough
    staff  estimated education costs  for the trash
    program at $2,500 in 1996.  This figure included
    costs  of educational materials and staff salaries
    only for time spent by the  Town Administrator
    and his secretary.  Benefits, overhead, and time
    spent  by  other  borough  personnel  are  not
    included in this figure.

Clifton,  NJ
Recycling:    Department  of Public Works  crews
    perform collection.    Collection  costs  include
    salaries for curbside collection crews and staff at
    the drop-off facility  (including payroll taxes and
    overtime), expenses for vehicle parts and repairs,
    and office and other supplies.  Costs related to the
    recycling  program  for  staff benefits; ancillary
    staff;  vehicle  fuel  and  other fluids;  vehicle
    insurance; facility utilities, insurance, and capital
    costs;  and  other  city  departments  such  as
    personnel,  legal,  payroll, and  the  mayor  and
    council  are   not  included.    ILSR  estimated
    annualized costs  for capital equipment used in
    the collection program. The recycling coordinator
    estimated  the annual  cost  of producing  and
    distributing educational materials  to be $45,000.
    This cost was divided among  the recycling  and
    composting programs according to budget share
    of each program.  Administration costs represent
    one-third of the  recycling coordinator's and  a
    clerical staff  member's  annual salaries (including
    payroll taxes) only.
Composting:    Private contractors  collect  some
    materials;  city crews  collect  other  materials.
    Collection costs presented include contract costs
    and labor for the city  brush  and  leaf collection
    crews.  Grass clippings processing costs represent

-------
APPENDIX B
                    payments  to  Nature's Choice for transport  and
                    processing  of collected  materials.    Processing
                    costs for leaves and  brush  represent labor costs
                    for city  crews.  ILSR  estimated  annualized costs
                    for capital equipment used  in the program.  The
                    recycling coordinator estimated the annual  cost
                    of  producing  and   distributing  educational
                    materials to be $45,000. This cost was divided
                    among the recycling and composting  programs
                    according  to  budget share  of each  program.
                    Administration costs  represent one-third of the
                    recycling  coordinator's  and  a  clerical  staff
                    member's annual salaries (including payroll taxes)
                    only.  Costs  related  to the  program for  staff
                    benefits;  office supplies, ancillary staff; vehicle
                    and  other equipment  maintenance,  fuel  and
                    other fluids,  and insurance;  facility  utilities,
                    insurance,  and  capital  costs;  and  other  city
                    departments such as personnel, legal, payroll, and
                    the mayor and council are not included.
               Trash:  A contractor collects trash.  Collection costs
                    represent    payment   to   the    contractor.
                    Administration costs  represent one-third of the
                    recycling  coordinator's  and  a  clerical  staff
                    member's annual salaries (including payroll taxes)
                    only.  Costs  related  to the  program for  staff
                    benefits;  office supplies, ancillary staff; facility
                    utilities,  insurance, and capital  costs;  and  other
                    city departments such as personnel, legal, payroll,
                    and the  mayor and council are not included.

               Crockett TX
               Recycling: City crews collect and process materials at
                    a city-operated  MRF.   Reported costs include
                    regular and  overtime salaries (including payroll
                    taxes) for crews and ancillary staff; employee life
                    insurance  and retirement  benefits;  uniforms;
                    workers'  compensation  insurance;  vehicle  and
                    equipment insurance, repairs and  maintenance,
                    and  inputs such  as gas, grease, and  oil;  office
                    supplies; facility rental payments for the recycling
                    center;  building  maintenance  and  repair  and
                    utilities;  legal department services; and payment
                    for  city  building space used  by the recycling
                    program staff. Costs for other city departments
                    are not included.  The annualized cost of capital
                    for trucks  is represented in truck lease/purchase
                    payments.  ILSR  calculated annualized cost of
                    capital for other equipment used in the program.
Composting:  City crews collect and process materials
    at a city-operated facility. Reported costs include
    regular and overtime  salaries (including  payroll
    taxes) for crews and ancillary staff; employee life
    insurance  and  retirement benefits;  uniforms;
    workers' compensation  insurance;  vehicle and
    equipment insurance,  repairs  and maintenance,
    and inputs such as gas, grease, and  oil;  office
    supplies; facility rental  payments for the recycling
    center  (where  compost is processed); building
    maintenance   and   repair  and  utilities;  legal
    department  services;  and  payment  for city
    building space  used by the program staff.  Costs
    for other city departments are not included. The
    annualized   cost  of  capital   for  trucks   is
    represented in  truck  lease/purchase  payments.
    ILSR calculated  annualized cost  of capital  for
    other equipment used  in the program.
Trash:  City crews  collect and  transport trash to the
    landfill  for disposal.    Reported  costs  include
    regular and overtime  salaries (including  payroll
    taxes) for crews and ancillary staff; employee life
    insurance  and  retirement benefits;  uniforms;
    workers'   compensation   insurance;   vehicle
    insurance,  repairs and maintenance, and inputs
    such  as gas,   grease,  and  oil;  office  supplies;
    building maintenance and repair  and utilities;
    legal department services;  and payment for city
    building space  used by the program staff.  Costs
    for other city departments are not included. The
    annualized   cost  of  capital   for  trucks   is
    represented in truck lease/purchase payments.

Dover, NH
Recycling:    A contractor  collects  and  processes
    recyclables.  Reported costs  include contract fees,
    equipment rental costs, and city expenditures for
    administration and  publicity. Administrative costs
    include  staff  salaries  and  benefits,  including
    insurance benefits, retirement, uniforms, and payroll
    taxes for program staff and clerical support.  Also
    included are office  supplies, educational materials
    design  and  production, permit fees, vehicle and
    equipment  maintenance  and   insurance  (the
    recycling program staff use vehicles from the city
    motor  pool and pay for the usage and a share of
    insurance and  city  garage costs), public  liability
    insurance,  and  office  telephone  charges.   ILSR
    calculated  depreciation costs  for recycling bins
    purchased by the city and distributed to residents.

-------
                                                                                                           APPENDIX B
    Reported costs do not include office space rental or
    purchase  costs, utilities other  than telephone,
    overhead  costs  above the   Recycling  and Waste
    Management Division including payroll, personnel,
    legal, or billing departments, or costs for the city
    mayor and council.
Composting:    A  contractor services  the  drop-off
    facility and collects  and processes yard  debris.
    Reported  costs include  contract  fees,  leaf  bag
    costs,  and city expenditures  for  administration
    and publicity.   Administrative  costs include  staff
    salaries and benefits, including insurance benefits,
    retirement, uniforms,  and  payroll taxes  for
    program staff and clerical support.  Also included
    are office supplies, educational  materials design
    and  production,  permit  fees,   vehicle   and
    equipment  maintenance  and  insurance  (the
    program staff  use vehicles  from the city motor
    pool  and  pay for the  usage  and a  share of
    insurance and  city garage  costs),  public liability
    insurance, and  office telephone charges.   ILSR
    calculated  depreciation   costs   for   roll-off
    containers purchased by the city and used for the
    collection of yard  debris.  Reported costs do not
    include office  space rental or purchase  costs,
    utilities other  than  telephone, overhead  costs
    above the  Recycling  and  Waste  Management
    Division  (which administers  the yard  debris
    management    program)   including   payroll,
    personnel, legal, or billing departments, or costs
    for the city mayor and council.
Trash:  A contractor collects and disposes residential
    trash.  Reported costs include contract fees, trash
    bag   costs,   and   city    expenditures   for
    administration  and publicity. Administrative costs
    include  staff  salaries  and  benefits,  including
    insurance  benefits,  retirement, uniforms,   and
    payroll taxes  for  program staff and clerical
    support.   Also  included   are  office  supplies,
    educational materials  design  and production,
    public liability insurance, and  office telephone
    charges.  Reported  costs do  not  include office
    space rental or purchase costs, utilities other than
    telephone, overhead  costs  above  the Recycling
    and  Waste   Management  Division   (which
    administers the trash  management program)
    including  payroll,  personnel,  legal, or  billing
    departments,  or costs for  the  city mayor  and
    council.
Falls Church, VA
Recycling:     One  contractor  collects  curbside
    recyclables  and  another services  the  recycling
    drop-off facility.  Presented costs reflect contract
    fees, salary  and fringe benefits  for the time the
    recycling coordinator spent on  the  program,
    educational   materials   production,   outreach
    efforts, office  supplies,  and telephone charges.
    Other   utilities  and office  rental  or  capital
    expenditures and insurance costs are not included.
    Costs borne by other city departments such as the
    personnel, legal,  payroll,  and billing departments
    and the city  mayor and council  are not included.
    ILSR calculated depreciation costs for recycling
    bins purchased by  the  city and  distributed  to
    residents.
Composting:  City crews collect yard debris, delivering
    all  materials except  leaves to processors.  A tub-
    grinding service processes leaves for the city and
    then city crews deliver material to residents free
    of  charge.    Reported  costs  include salaries,
    benefits, and uniforms for city crews; the salary
    and benefits  for the portion  of  the  recycling
    coordinator's time  spent on administrative and
    educational tasks for the  composting program;  tip
    fees; contract fees; vehicle charges paid to the city
    motor  pool  (which  include  fluids,  repair and
    maintenance, insurance,  and depreciation  costs),
    and office  supplies.   Utilities,  office  rental  or
    capital  expenditures, and insurance costs are not
    included.  Costs borne by other  city departments
    such as the  personnel,  legal, payroll, and  billing
    departments and the city mayor and council are
    not included.
Trash:  City crews collect and transport trash to a
    transfer station. A contractor hauls material from
    the transfer  station  to  the  disposal facility.
    Reported costs  include  salaries,  benefits, and
    uniforms  for city crews;  tip fees; contract fees;
    vehicle charges paid to the city motor pool (which
    include fluids, repair and maintenance, insurance,
    and depreciation  costs), and  office  supplies.
    Utilities and  office rental or capital expenditures
    and insurance costs are not included. Costs borne
    by  other city departments such as the personnel.
    legal, payroll, and billing departments and the city
    mayor and council are not included.

-------
APPENDIX B
               Fitchburg, Wl
               Recycling: A contractor collects materials at curbside
                   and delivers them to a processor.  ILSR calculated
                   depreciation costs for recycling bins purchased by
                   the city and distributed to residents for free at the
                   beginning  of the curbside program.  City  costs
                   represent costs for operating the  recycling drop-
                   off   facility   and   for  program   planning,
                   administration, and  education.    These  costs
                   include staff salaries and benefits  (retirement;
                   health, life, dental, and disability insurances; and
                   payroll  taxes),  hourly charges for  vehicle  use
                   (these  charges  include  depreciation  costs,
                   insurance,  maintenance and repair materials and
                   labor, fuel, oil,  and  other fluids),  office supplies,
                   and production of educational materials. Utilities,
                   insurance,  and  building costs for  use  of city
                   offices and land are not included in the presented
                   figures.  Overhead  above the department  level,
                   such as costs for the city personnel, legal, payroll,
                   and  billing departments  and for the  mayor and
                   city council are not included.
               Composting:   A contractor collects soft yard debris
                   materials at curbside and  delivers them  to a
                   processor.  City  costs represent costs for operating
                   the drop-off facility, collecting and processing
                   brush  at curbside,  and  for program planning,
                   administration, and  education.    These  costs
                   include staff salaries and benefits  (retirement;
                   health, life, dental, and disability insurances; and
                   payroll taxes), hourly  charges for equipment and
                   vehicle  use (these charges  include depreciation
                   costs,   insurance,   maintenance  and   repair
                   materials and  labor, fuel, oil, and  other fluids),
                   office  supplies, and  production  of educational
                   materials.  Utilities,  insurance, and building costs
                   for use of city offices and land are not included in
                   the  presented  figures.   Overhead  above  the
                   department  level, such  as  costs  for  the  city
                   personnel,  legal, payroll,  and billing departments
                   and  for the mayor  and city  council  are  not
                   included.
               Trash:   Trash  costs  presented are  payments to
                   contractors only.  Administration,  education, and
                   planning costs  are included  in the recycling and
                   composting costs.

               Leverett, MA
               Recycling:   City costs  reflect  wages paid to  the
                   recycling coordinator and  a  transfer  station
    attendant. The transfer station attendant's wages
    were divided based on percentage of time spent
    on  recycling.   Both positions  do  not include
    benefits  but costs do  include  payroll  taxes.
    Hauling  costs reflect contract payments.  Large
    item  recycling  costs include wages for transfer
    station staff based on percentage of time spent
    on this task, contract payments  for hauling, and
    costs to the  Highway Department for assistance.
    The  Highway Department costs include hourly
    charges  for  use of a bucket  loader  and staff
    wages.  The hourly rate for the bucket loader is an
    average  based  on  equipment depreciation, fuel
    and  other inputs,  and  repair and maintenance
    costs.   Administration/Overhead/Depreciation
    costs include ILSR-estimated depreciation costs
    for Recycle/Transfer Station equipment,  a portion
    of  the   recycling  coordinator's  wages,  and
    overhead costs of $4.40 per ton.  The  overhead
    costs include site utilities, site maintenance costs
    (for  snow plowing, etc.), and costs for clerical
    support  of   Recycle/Transfer   Station  staff
    (estimated at $600 per  year for  both  recycling
    and trash).
Composting: NA
Trash: City  costs reflect wages paid to two transfer
    station attendants  based on the percent of time
    they  spend on trash  program related functions.
    These positions do not include benefits  but costs
    do  include  payroll taxes.   Trash  hauling costs
    reflect  contract  payments.  Tip  fees  and  tire
    disposal  fees reflect  payments  to the  disposal
    facilities.   Administration/Overhead/Depreciation
    costs include ILSR-estimated depreciation costs
    for Recycle/Transfer Station  equipment, cost of
    trash stickers  sold to residents,  and  overhead
    costs of $4.40 per ton.   The  overhead  costs
    include site utilities, site maintenance costs  (for
    snow plowing, etc.), and costs for clerical support
    of Recycle/Transfer  Station staff (estimated  at
    $600 per year for both recycling and trash).

Loveland, CO
Recycling:   City costs  include recyclables collection
    and  transfer and  program oversight, education,
    and  planning. Presented costs include staff costs
    (leave, insurance, and retirement benefits; payroll
    taxes; uniform  allowances; and replacement and
    ancillary staff costs); vehicle and equipment debt
    service;   vehicle  and   equipment  insurance,

-------
                                                                                                           APPENDIX B
    maintenance labor and materials, and  fuel,  oil,
    and  other fluids.   Also included  are payments
    made  by  the Solid Waste Utility to other city
    departments   for   services   rendered    for
    information  systems  management,  telephone,
    insurance,  the  budget department, finance and
    accounting,   billing,  legal   services,   human
    resources, and facilities maintenance.  The Solid
    Waste Utility also pays a  share of city expenses
    for collection agency fees and bad debt. The Solid
    Waste Utility does not make any payment to  the
    city for rent  of office space but it does transfer
    3% of revenue (-$50,000 in 1996) to the city's
    general fund as a payment in lieu of taxes.  The
    Solid Waste Utility makes no payment for the city
    mayor and council expenses.
Composting:    City  costs  include yard  trimmings
    collection  and  transfer and  program oversight,
    education, and planning. Presented costs include
    the same categories  as listed for the recycling
    program.
Trash:  City costs include trash  collection, transfer,
    and disposal, and program oversight, education,
    and planning. Presented costs include the same
    categories  as listed for the recycling program.

Madison Wl
Recycling:     City Department  of  Public  Works
    employees   collect   materials   at   curbside.
    Reported  costs  include  costs  for  labor  and
    benefits, workers'  compensation insurance, office
    supplies, education  and  advertising programs,
    uniforms, facility  repair and  maintenance, and
    use  of vehicles  and  equipment.   Labor  costs
    include costs for  line workers,  administrative
    staff, and ancillary staff.  The use  of vehicles and
    equipment is paid through a charge levied by  the
    city's  motor Equipment  Division  and  includes
    vehicle depreciation,  labor  and  materials  for
    maintenance, and fuel, oil, and other fluids.  Costs
    for office space, utilities, and services provided to
    the  DPW  by other city  departments  are  not
    included.
Composting:    City  Department of  Public  Works
    employees collect materials at curbside, service a
    drop-off facility,  and   haul  some materials to
    processors.   Reported costs  include the  same
    information as for recycling.
Trash:  City Department of Public Works employees
    collect  trash  at  curbside, operate  a  transfer
    station,  and  haul  materials  to disposal  sites.
    Reported costs include the same information  as
    for recycling, with the exceptions that trash costs
    include  no  education  or publicity  costs  and
    transfer station debt is included.

Portland, OR
Recycling:   Reported costs  represent fees paid  by
    customers.  City expenditures are represented  by
    franchise fees paid to the city by its franchisees,
    not by actual expenditures.
Composting:   Reported  costs represent fees paid  by
    customers.  City expenditures are represented  by
    franchise fees paid to the city by its franchisees,
    not by actual expenditures
Trash:    Reported  costs  represent fees  paid  by
    customers.  City expenditures are represented  by
    franchise fees paid to the city by its franchisees,
    not by actual expenditures

Saint Paul, MN:
Recycling: Reported costs reflect data from the Saint
    Paul Neighborhood  Energy Consortium and are
    for the provision of recycling  services  to  most
    residents of the city of Saint Paul. The Saint Paul
    Neighborhood Energy  Consortium  is a private,
    nonprofit enterprise and  costs  are assumed  to
    represent its full cost of providing services.  City
    costs  for   administration,   education,   and
    depreciation of recycling bins are not included.
Composting:  Not applicable.
Trash:  Not applicable.

San Jose, CA:
Recycling:  Contractors collect  and process recyclables.
    The  city's Integrated Waste  Management  (IWM)
    program  division incurs two  main types  of costs:
    program  and general fund. Program costs include
    contract payments, administration costs, and utility
    billing services costs.  Administration costs include
    staff salaries and  benefits  (including payroll taxes,
    leave,  and  insurance).   General fund  payments
    included  payments made to  the General Fund  to
    pay directly for services of other city departments
    and  a  lump sum payment for  indirect overhead.
    Direct general fund payments are made for services
    provided by the General Services Department (for
    purchasing services and office rent and utilities), the
    Streets and  Traffic Division for debris  hauling, the
    Information Technology Department, and the City

-------
    Manager's  Office.    The  lump  sum  payment
    represents the IWM program's share  of costs for
    other city departments, such as the legal, human
    resources,  and   payroll  departments.     Total
    administrative costs for the IWM  Program were
    allocated among the residential,  commercial, and
    city buildings programs according  to the number of
    staff working  in each program.  The costs were
    further  divided   for  the  residential   waste
    management program according to the tonnage of
    materials handled  by  recycling,  composting, and
    trash programs.
Composting:  Same as recycling.
Trash: Same as recycling.

Seattle,  WA:
Recycling:   Seattle  Public Utilities  maintains an
    enterprise  fund  for  solid waste  management
    expenses.   Contractors  perform  most  waste
    management  tasks.   Recycling  costs  represent
    payments  to contractors  for  collection  and
    processing   of   residential   recyclables   and
    education,  publicity,  and  administrative costs.
    Seattle Public Utilities staff  calculated  per ton
    costs  for customer service, education,  planning,
    inspectors,  and  contract  administration  staff
    (including benefits) to be $2.90  in a 1995 study.
    General and administrative costs,  depreciation,
    and taxes were allocated to the recycling program
    based  on a  percentage  of the total  Solid Waste
    Utility budget spent on  these services.   The
    general and  administrative costs include  rent,
    utilities,  supplies,   departmental   overhead,
    information technology,  and  overhead for other
    city  government departments  including  the
    mayor and  council.
Composting:  Composting costs represent payments
    to contractors for collection and  processing of
    yard debris, city costs for transfer of yard debris at
    the city-owned  transfer stations,  the  costs for
    hauling  yard debris  to  processing facilities,
    administration and  overhead costs, and the  cost
    of education and outreach  programs.    Cost
    calculations for handling material at the transfer
    stations represent O&M costs only (including staff
    salaries and  benefits and  equipment  costs for
    operation and maintenance). City staff calculated
    these costs to be $6.19  per ton.  Hauling costs
    include  labor  costs  (for  staff,  benefits,  and
    supervisory  and  administrative  staff),  and  fuel
    and maintenance costs for equipment.  City staff
    estimate these costs to be $11.42  per ton.  In a
    1995 study, Seattle Public Utilities staff calculated
    per ton  costs  for  the  composting  program
    customer service, education, planning, inspectors,
    and  contract  administration  staff  (including
    benefits) to be $7.00.  General and administrative
    costs, depreciation, and taxes  were allocated to
    the composting program based on a percentage
    of the total Solid Waste Utility budget spent on
    these services.  The general and administrative
    costs include rent, utilities, supplies, departmental
    overhead, information  technology, and overhead
    for other city government departments including
    the mayor and council.
Trash:  Trash costs represent payments to contractors
    for collection  of trash, city  costs for transfer of
    trash at the city-owned transfer stations, costs for
    hauling trash to the railhead, tip fees paid at the
    railhead for hauling to and disposal at the landfill,
    and administration and overhead costs, and costs
    for education and outreach programs.  Collection
    costs and rail hauling and disposal costs represent
    actual  payments to contractors for these services.
    Cost calculations  for  handling  material at the
    transfer stations represent  O&M  costs only
    (including  staff  salaries  and  benefits  and
    equipment costs for operation and maintenance).
    City staff calculated these costs to be $6.93 per
    ton.  Hauling costs include labor costs  (for staff,
    benefits,  and  supervisory  and  administrative
    staff),  and fuel  and  maintenance  costs for
    equipment. City staff estimate these costs to be
    $3.29  per  ton.  In a  1995 study, Seattle Public
    Utilities  staff calculated per ton  costs  for the
    trash   program  customer  service,  education,
    planning, inspectors, and contract administration
    staff (including benefits) to be $4.40. General and
    administrative costs, depreciation, and taxes were
    allocated  to  the trash program based on  a
    percentage of the total Solid Waste Utility budget
    spent  on  these  services.   The  general  and
    administrative  costs   include  rent,   utilities,
    supplies,  departmental  overhead,  information
    technology,  and  overhead   for  other  city
    government  departments including  the  mayor
    and council.

-------
                                                                                                            APPENDIX B
Visalia, CA:
Recycling:  City crews collect recyclables, yard debris,
    and trash.  The city does not track collection and
    program administration  costs for each material
    separately. The Solid Waste Division incurs three
    main types of costs:  collection costs, payments
    for services, and administration costs.  Collection
    costs   include   salaries,   benefits,  uniforms,
    professional memberships, licenses,  and training
    for collection  crew  staff.   Also  included  are
    Division expenses for office supplies  and postage.
    Visalia  divided  total  collection costs by tons of
    total materials collected to obtain an average per
    ton collection cost for all materials.  Payments for
    services represent tip fees  paid by  the  city for
    processing of recyclables  and yard debris and
    landfill  disposal of trash.   Administration costs
    include vehicle  and  equipment costs including
    depreciation, fuel, oil and other fluids, insurance,
    and repair; labor and benefits  for  Solid Waste
    Division administrative and clerical staff;  Division
    telephone  service   charges;   legal   services;
    payments to other city departments for services
    provided to the Solid Waste Division;  a building
    occupancy charge; and an in-lieu payment to the
    city's general  fund.    The Solid Waste  Division
    transfers funds to the Purchasing, Utility  Billing,
    Personnel,  Public Works,  and Street  Departments
    for services provided to the Solid Waste Division.
    The building  occupancy  charge  covers costs for
    rent,  electricity,  and taxes  on  city  facilities
    occupied by the Solid Waste Division.  The Solid
    Waste Division  makes an  in-lieu payment to the
    city general fund to cover costs for vehicle license
    fees  and  fuel  taxes.   Visalia  allocated total
    administration  costs  among  the  recycling,
    composting, and trash programs  based on  the
    proportion of the budget spent on each waste
    stream.
Composting:  Same as recycling.
Trash:  Same as recycling.

Worcester, WA:
Recycling:   The city pays  a contractor  to  collect
    recyclables.   The  city  also incurs  costs  for
    administration  and  oversight  and education.
    These costs are represented by salaries of city staff
    based on the portion of time the staff spend on
    recycling and  a portion  (80%) of the  education
    budget for all solid waste management programs.
    ILSR   estimated   and   included   costs   for
    depreciation of recycling  bins  purchased by the
    city and  distributed to residents.  No other costs
    are included.
Composting:   City Department  of Public Works
    employees collect and process yard trimmings.
    Collection  and  processing  costs  represent
    collectors' salaries, vehicle  fuel,  and vehicle repair
    costs only.  Administration costs are represented by
    salaries of city staff based on the portion of time
    the staff spend  on composting.  Education costs
    are 20% of the total  city education budget for
    solid  waste programs.    ILSR  estimated  and
    included depreciation  costs for equipment  used
    for collecting and  processing  yard  debris.   No
    other costs are included.
Trash:  City  Department of Public  Works employees
    collect and haul trash. Costs represent workers'
    salaries, vehicle fuel, and vehicle repair costs only.
    Administration costs are represented by salaries of
    city staff based  on the portion of time the  staff
    spend  on composting.    ILSR  estimated  and
    included depreciation  costs for equipment  used
    for collecting and hauling trash.  No other costs
    are included.

-------