bu Throw
Guidebooks
Workbook
Software
Videotape
-------
duction to EPA's
•YouThrow Tool Kit
More and more communities, looking for ways to better manage solid
waste, have found that pay-as-you-throw programs can make a tremen-
dous difference. Instead of being charged indirectly for trash services,
residents under pay-as-you-throw programs pay a direct fee based on the amount
of waste they generate.This creates an incentive for individuals to reduce and
recycle, easing pressure on both municipal budgets and waste disposal facilities.
Pay-as-you-throw programs represent a major shift in the way communities and
their residents pay for solid waste collection and disposal.To be successful, a pay-
as-you-throw program must be carefully considered, designed and implemented.
This Pay-As-You-Throw Tool Kit contains a wide variety of useful products to help
you through this process. It includes tools that will help with specific tasks, like
conducting a public outreach campaign or designing your program's rate structure.
It also offers resources to help you learn about pay-as-you-throw in general.This
Tool Kit has been divided into several main categories to enable you to locate at a
glance the specific tools you need.
Guidebooks
Two important guidebooks have been developed that you can use to help
decide whether to adopt pay-as-you-throw and how to implement and
promote both pay-as-you-throw and other source reduction programs in
your community.
Pay-As-You-Throw:
Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing
This guide provides an in-depth introduction to pay-as-you-throw and explains
how to get a program started. It describes the benefits and potential barriers to
pay-as-you-throw programs, helps you determine what type of system is best for
your community, and provides detailed instructions on how to design and imple-
ment a successful program.The guide is based on proven, practical strategies from
communities with pay-as-you-throw programs in place.
The Consumer's Handbook for Reducing Solid Waste
This guide contains a number of ideas about how to reduce and recycle many of
the items residents often dispose of as trash. Since residents under pay-as-you-
throw will want to learn how to reduce waste, these ideas can be incorporated
into the products you develop as part of your outreach campaign.
-------
This supplement to Pay-As- You-Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing is a user-
friendly, hands-on workbook. It focuses on some of the key steps involved in
developing a pay-as-you-throw program, from convincing elected officials, resi-
dents, and other community stakeholders that pay-as-you-throw can work to designing
a rate structure. It is divided into five sections. Each section contains the tools you
need to research, design, promote, and implement a pay-as-you-throw program in
your community.
Presentation Materials
Planners can conduct a presentation for community stakeholders, such as elected
officials, other municipal employees, and representatives from local civic groups, to
help earn their support for pay-as-you-throw.To help you deliver an effective briefing,
you can adapt and use the sample agenda, pre-meeting survey of attendees, set of
overhead transparency masters with talking points, and other presentation materials
included in this section.
Public Outreach Materials
A pay-as-you-throw program's success often depends on a strong public outreach and
education effort.To help you start developing your public outreach program, this sec-
tion includes a list of outreach ideas, fact sheets and other reproducible products, and
a set of clip art to help you create your own customized outreach materials.
Worksheets
A set of worksheets also are included in this workbookThese worksheets can be used
to guide you through each of the major steps involved in pay-as-you-throw program
development, from deciding if pay-as-you-throw is right for your community to imple-
menting and monitoring the program.
Articles and Newsclippings
This section contains a set of articles to provide you with background information
on pay-as-you-throw and how other communities have planned for and developed
pay-as-you-throw programs. In addition, once you begin your public outreach program,
you can add press clippings to this section to track coverage in the local media.
Bibliography
Turn to this section if you are interested in doing further research on pay-as-you-throw.
It includes an annotated bibliography listing over 50 recent pay-as-you-throw publica-
tions, from articles in solid waste trade magazines to reports from universities and
private institutions.You can also use this section to organize any additional publication
resources you find during your research.
-------
'Software
^^^™wo recently developed electronic tools are included in this section that you can
I use to plan out a pay-as-you-throw program.These software packages can help
I you perform the calculations involved in rate structure design and learn more
about source reduction, recycling, and other solid waste management issues in general.
Pay-As-You-Throw Rates Model
This comprehensive software has been designed specifically for MSW planners to use
in calculating the costs of a community's pay-as-you-throw program and arriving at the
optimal per-container fee. It allows users to enter choices relating to key pay-as-you-
throw program development variables like container types and sizes and complemen-
tary programs. It then totals all of the resulting costs and helps planners assign prices
to their containers that will allow them to cover these expenses completely.
MSW Factbook
This electronic reference manual contains more than 200 screens of useful facts, fig-
ures, tables and information about municipal solid waste. Covering an expansive range
of topics, including waste generation, source reduction, recycling, landfills, and Subtitle D
regulations, this software can serve as a valuable information resource for planning and
implementing a pay-as-you-throw program.
tape
The videotape included in this section can be used to increase the impact of brief-
ings for elected officials, presentations at town meetings, and other pay-as-you-
throw events. Depending on the type of presentation and your audience, you can
run the entire video or just the sections that will help you make your case.
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
Unit Pricing Video
This 30-minute video provides a clear, comprehensive summary of the central concepts
of unit pricing. Focusing on six communities in Iowa that have implemented pay-as-you-
throw programs.it uses interviews with elected officials and residents, solid waste
experts, and economists to describe the economic and environmental benefits of pay-
as-you-throw.The video also shows how these case study communities were able to
overcome potential barriers and implement successful pay-as-you-throw programs.
-------
s You Throw
EPA's Pay-As-You-Throw Tool Kit
EPA is pleased to present its Pay-As-You-Throw Tool Kit. Throughout the final stages of the Tool Kit's develop-
ment, we have been aware of the need to release it promptly to you and the hundreds of others that have
already requested copies. We appreciate your patience and hope you find the Tool Kit helpful.
!
For the past two years, EPA's Office of Solid Waste has led a national initiative to promote an approach to
municipal solid waste (MSW) management called pay-as-you-throw. Under pay-as-you-throw (also known as
unit pricing) programs, households are charged for waste collection based on the amount of trash they
throw away— in the same way they are charged for water, electricity, and other utilities. This gives residents
a direct incentive to reduce the amount of waste they generate. To date, close to 2,000 communities
nationwide have turned to these systems to help reduce waste and control MSW management costs.
At the heart of EPA's outreach initiative is a simple idea: communities considering pay-as-you-throw need
answers to critical questions about how these programs work— and it's the communities that have success-
fully adopted a program of their own that can best provide the answers. In an effort to tap into this
expertise, EPA organized a roundtable discussion bringing MSW practitioners together to discuss the
strategies they used in their communities. The guide Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing, a
comfrtets primer on designing and implementing these systems, was a product of the roundtable meetings.
has since organized other events, including a series of workshops connecting pioneering community
with planners trying to learn more about pay^as-y^iFthrow and a satellite teleconference discussion with
several program experts and community practitioners. A demonstration project also is underway designed
to study the factors Influencing the success of the pay-as-you-throw program in Marietta, Georgia.
Through each of these projects, EPA has sought to inform communities about the full range of options and
best practices: to consider when deciding whether and how to implement pay-as-you-throw.
Over the course of this outreach, EPA has learned a tremendous amount about how these programs
work, fferhaps the biggest lesson is that there is no one "right" way to implement psy-as-you-throw, just
as tfXfre is W Single compelling J-eason for communities to adopt this type of program. Every community
(ovtr)
-------
has a different story to tell, and a different lesson to teach. Some important trends have emerged, howev-
er. Nearly att communities have experienced three specific types of benefits as a result of adopting pay-as-
you-throw:
It's economically sustainable. Pay-as-you-throw is an effective tool for communities struggling to
cope with soaring MSW management costs. WelWesigned programs enable communities to gen*
erate the revenues they need to cover all MSW program costs, including the costs of such comple-
mentary programs as recycling and composting. Residents benefit, too. Communities with pay-as-
you-throw have told EPA that residents often welcome the opportunity to take control of their
trash hilt.
It's envinntnematly sustainable. Because of the incentive it provides residents to put less waste
at the curb, communities with programs in place have reported significant increases in recycling
and reductions in waste amounts ranging from 25 to 45 percent, on average. Less waste and
more recycling means that fewer natural resources need to be extracted.
Ws fair. Communities also have told us that the most important advantage of all may be the fair-
ness pay-as-you-throw offers to community residents. When the cost of managing trash is hidden
in taxes, or charged at a flat rate, residents who recycle and prevent waste end up subsidizing
their neighbors' wastefulness. Under this kind of program, residents pay only for what they throw
away.
The Tool Kit you have just received is based on lessons like these, offered by the pioneering communities
that have implemented and perfected pay-as-you-throw systems. EPA is proud to present this compendium
of real-world information as a way to give communities access to the experts—to learn from their trials and
triumphs in the search for economically and environmentally sustainable solutions to today's solid waste
management challenges.
EPA's pay-as-you-throw outreach initiative is ongoing. As more artd more communities Introduce their own
programs, new and better practices are sure to emerge. 0W> hopes to continue its role as an outreach
clearinghouse, enhancing communities' ability to share and use critical information about pay-as-you-throw.
If you would like to order additional copies of this Too) Kit or request further Information about pay-&s-
you-throw programs, please call the Pay-As-You-Throw Helpline toll-free at 1-88tMcffe4feYT.
Sincerely, ^
Jan Canterbury ^y
-------
Pay-As-You-Throw:
Lessons Learned
About Unit Pricing
The Consumer's
Handbook for
Reducing
Solid Waste
' \^A
ti
-------
&EPA
United States EPA530-K-92-003
Environmental Protection August 1992
Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OS-305)
The Consumer's
Handbook for
Reducing Solid Waste
Printed on paper that contains at least 50 percent recycled fiber.
-------
The Cat's Out of the Bag
• Reuse4
Recvclc • Respond
This booklet describes how people ran help solve a ^rowini> prob-
lem...i;arbai;e! Individual < onsumers < an lu-lp alleviate America's
mounting trash problem In making cnviionmentallv awaie derisions
ahoul ever vdav things like shopping and ( arint; for the lawn. Like
the stoi v that savs rals ha\e nine li\cs, so do mam ol the items we use
ever\- da\. 1- ni])I\ (<• naiisloi nu-d into a bird feeder.
1 \ entuallv, the milk jiii^ i an be i ei \< lc
-------
The Problem Is Too
Much Trash
Kach vear, Americans generate
millions of tons of trash in the form
of wrappings, bottles, boxes, cans.
grass dippings, furniture, clothing,
phone books, and much, much,
more. Over the years, we have got-
ten used to "throwing it awav." so
it's easy to understand why now
there's too much trash and not
enough acceptable places to put it.
In less than 30 years, durable
goods (tires, appliances, furniture)
and nondurable goods (paper, cei-
tain disposable products, clothing)
in the solid waste stream nearly
tripled. These now account for
about 75 million tons of garbage
per year. At the same time, con-
tainer and packaging waste rose
to almost 57 million tons per vear,
making packaging the number one
component of the nation's waste
stream. Container and packaging
material includes glass, aluminum,
plastics, steel and other metals, and
paper and paperboard. Yard trim-
mings such as grass clippings and
tree limbs are also a substantial part
ol what we throw awav. In addition,
many relatively small components
of the national solid waste stream
add up to millions of tons. For
example, even 1 percent of the
nation's waste stream amounts
to almost 2 million tons ol trash
each vear.
Source Reduction:
A Basic Solution
As a nation, we are starting to
reali/e that we can't solve the solid
waste dilemma just bv finding new
places to put trash. Across the coun-
trv. main individuals, communities,
and businesses have found creative
ways to reduce and better manage
their trash through a coordinated
mix of practices that includes
source reduction (see box on
page 4).
Simply put, source reduction is
waste prevention. It includes many
-------
What*s In America's Trash?
Vinl 11 iiiimin;.;s. 1 , i
.' I , million ions
IM.lMics. S.I)1,
I I.I million ions
Total Weight = 179.6 Million Tons
(1988Figun
Olhci. II. I/,
20.8 million tons
iiililk'i. Ifdl/ti-t.
miscellaneous i
-,i'{i<,i
'_' million tons
actions that reduce the
amount or loxicitv of'waste created.
Source reduction can COIIMM \v
resources, reduce pollution, and
help cut waste disposal and han-
dling costs (it avoids the costs <>l
lecvcling, composting, landlllling.
and comhusiion).
Source reduction is a basic solu-
tion to the garbage glut: less waste
means less ol a waste problem.
Because source reduction actualh
prevents the gcneiation of waste
in the lit si placi-, it comes before
other management options that
deal with trash after it is alreadv
generated. After source reduction.
recycling (and composting) are
the preferred waste management
options because thcv reduce the
-------
Integrated Waste Management
Integrated waste management refers K» the complementary use of
a vai iet\ of practices It) safcK .UK! effec lively handle niiinicipal solid
waste. I'hi1 following is KI'A's preferred hiciari hv ol approaches.
1. Source reduction is tin- design, manufacture, purchase, or us.
ol materials (such as prodiu is and packaging) to reduce the
amount or to\icii\ of trash generated. Source reduction can
help reduce waste disposal and handling costs because ii avoids
the costs ol iec vcling. municipal composting, landfilling. and
combustion, ll also consei \es resources and reduces pollution.
2. Recycling is the process bv which mate-rials are collected and
used as raw materials lor new products. Theie aie four steps in
recycling: collecting the recyclable components of municipal
solid waste, separating materials In tvpe (before or attei c ollec-
tion), processing diem into reusable forms, and purchasing
and using tbe goods made with reprocessed materials. Recvcli:
prevents poteniialK useful materials from being landfilled or
combusted, thus preserving our capacity for disposal. Recu ling
often sa\i-s energ\ and natural resources. Composting, a form
of rccu ling, can play a kev role in diverting organic wastes from
disposal facilitii
3. Waste combustion and landfilling pla\ a ke\ role- in managing
\s
-------
amount of waste going to landfills
and i onserxe resources.
Making Source
Reduction Work
Putting source reduction into
practice is likely to require some
change in our dailv routines.
( hanging habits does not mean a
return to a more difficult lifestyle.
however. In fact, just the opposite
ma\ happen. If we don't reduce
waste, the economic and social costs
of" waste disposal will continue to
increase, and communities—large
and small, urban and suburban-
ill face increasingly harder deci-
sions about managing their trash.
All parts of society need to work
together to change current patterns
of waste generation and disposal.
fhe federal government develops
and provides information and looks
tor incentives to create less waste. It
also helps communities plan and
carry out source reduction mea-
sures. State, local, and tribal
gou-i nments can create the most
appropriate source reduction mea-
sures for their areas. For example.
some communities already are
using lee systems that require
households and businesses to pay
lor trash disposal based on the
amount they toss out.
Large c onsumers—manufac-
turers, retailers, restaurants, hotels.
schools, and governments—can
prevent waste in a variety of ways,
including using products that cre-
ate less trash. Manufacturers also
can design products that use fewer
ha/ardous components, require
less packaging, arc- recyclable, use
icevcled mate-rials, and result in
less waste when thev are no longer
useful.
Individuals can evaluate their
daily waste-producing activities to
determine those that are essential
(such as choosing medicines and
foods packaged for safety and
health), and those that are not
(such as throwing away glass or
plastic jars that could be- re-used or
locally recycled). This booklet sug-
gests manv practices that reduce
waste or help manage it more efle<
tivelv. Adopt those that are right for
you and add others that you think
-------
oi yourself. Discuss vour ideas with
neighbors, businesses, and other
members of vour communitv It's
important to remember that all
actions will have some effect on the
emironment. If reusable products
nerd to be washed, for example.
tlu-re mav be- an increase in water
use. Individual consumers, however.
ran substantially rednee solid waste-
by following tlu-se basic principles:
I
REDUCE the amount of "trash discarded.
REUSE containers and products.
RECYCLE, use recycled materials, and composi.
RESPOND to the solid \\aste dilemma by reconsidering
waste-producing activities and bv expressing preferem es
for Ic-ss waste.
-------
Tips £>r Reducing
Solid
REDUCE
1. Reduce the amount of
unnecessary packaging.
1J. Adopt practices that
reduce waste toxic it\.
REUSE
.''). Consider reusable products.
1. Maintain and repair durable
products.
f>. Reuse bags, containers, and
other items.
I). Borrow, rent, or share items
used infrequently.
7. Sell or donate goods instead
of throwing them out.
RECYCLE
8. Choose- recyclable products and
containers and recycle them.
9. Select products made from
recycled mate-rials.
10. Compost yard trimmings
and some- food scraps.
RESPOND
1 1. Educate others on source reduction
and recycling practices. Make-your
preference's known to manufactur-
ers, merchants, and community
leaders.
12. Be creative—find new ways to reduce
waste quantity and to\icit\.
-------
Reduce the amount of
unnecessary packaging.
can
am c
Packaging serves main purposes. Its primal
pose is to protect and contain a product. It als
prevent tampering, provide information, and
serve hygienic integritv and freshness. Some
packaging, however, is designed largely in enli
a product's attractiveness or prominence on the
store shelf. Since packaging materials account fora
large volume of the trash \\e geneiale, tlie\ provide
a good opportunity for reducing wasie. In addition,
keep in mind that as the amount of product in
,i container increases, the packaging \\astc per
serving or use1 usually decreases.
• When choosing between two similar prodm Is
select the one with the least unnecessar
packaging.
• Remember that wrenches, sciewdrivcrs, nails,
and other hardwaie are often available in loose
bins. At the grocerv. c onsidcr whether it is necessarv (o purchase ilems MK li
as tomatoes, garlic, and mushrooms in prepackaged containers when the\
tan be bough I nupax k.iged.
• When appropriate, use products \ou alread\ have on hand to do household
chores (see Appendix A). I sing these products can save on the packaging
associated with additional products.
• Recogni/e and support store managers when they stock products with no
packaging or reduced packaging. 1 .et c lerks know when it's not necessary to
double wrap a purchase.
• Consider large or cconomy-si/c items for household products that are used
trecjuentlv, such as laundrv soap, shampoo, baking soda, pet foods, and cat
litter. These sixes usually have less packaging per unit of product. For food
ilems, choose' the laigest si/e that can be used before spoiling.
• Consider whether concentrated piodut is are appropriate lor your needs.
The\ often require less packaging and less energy to transport to the store,
saving money .is well as naiui al rcsoun es.
* Whenever possible, select grocei v. hardware, and household items thai art-
available in bulk. Bulk merchandise also mav be shared with friends or
neighbors.
• It is important to choose food servings that are appropriate to vour needs.
()ne altei native to single food servings is to choose the next largest sei v ing
and store am leftovers in a reusable container.
9
-------
Adopt practices that reduce
waste toxicity.
In addition to reducing tin- ammml of matci i.iK in thr solid waste- slrrani,
reducing waste toxicitv is another important t omponcni of source re-due lion.
Some jobs around ihr home inav require tlir usr of products containing ha/-
ardous components. Nevertheless. t<>\i< itv reduction can lie achieved l>\ following
simple guidelines.
Like actions thai use nonha/ardous or less ha/ardous «ini])onents io
a< 11 miplish the task at hand. Kxamples include choosing reduced nuTcurv
batteries, or planting marigolds in the garden to ward off < ei tain pests rather
than using pesticides. In some cases vou inav be- using less toxic chemicals to
do a job and in others \ou ma\ use some- phvsic al method, such .is sandpaper,
scouring pads, or just a little- more elbou grease, to achieve the same results.
Learn about altci "natives to household items containing ha/ardous
substances. In some' cases, produc is ih.it you ha\c around the house can
be- used to do the same' job as products with ha/ardous components. (Sec-
Appendix A or check with local libraries or bookstore's for guidebooks on
nonhazardous house-hold practices, i
If you do need to use- products with ha/ardous components, use- onlv the
amounts needed. I.elto\ei materials ( an be shared with neighbors or
donated to a business, e liar itv or gou-rnment agency, or, in the case- of used
motor oil, rec\cled at a participating
ser\ice station. Never put leftover
products with ha/ardous components
in lood or bc\erage containers.
1 For produc is containing ha/ardous
components, read and follow all
direc tions on product labels. Make
sure- the- containers are alwavs
labelled properly and stored safely
awa\ from children and pets. When
vou are finished with containers that
aie partially full, follow local
community polic\ on house-hold
ha/ardous waste- disposal (see box
on "Household Ha/ardous Waste
Collection" on the- ne-xi page). If at
any time you have questions about
potentialh ha/ardous ingredie-nts in
products and their impacts on human
health, do not hesitate to call vour
loe al poison control centci.
-------
Household Hazardous Waste Collection
l-Oi lei lover products ( on lain ing hu/aidons components, check with
tlic local environmental agcncv or ('.hambcr of (^onnncrce to sec il tin-re-
al r an\ designated davs in vour area for collection ol waste materials such
as leftover painls, pestit ides, soKents, and batteries. ()n such davs. (nulli-
fied professionals collect household ha/ardous wastes ,\\ a centr.il location
t« > ensure sale management and disposal. Sonic ( < Mtimnnitics ha\e |>ei nia-
nent household ha/ardous waste collection facilities that accept wastes
\eat-K >und. Some (ollections also include exchanges of paints, solvents,
< ei lain prstii ulrs. < leaning and automoti\e products, and other materials.
Kxchanges allow materials to he used In someone else, rathci than heing
thrown awa\-.
RECYCLING
10
-------
Consider reusable products.
Main products arc designed lo
be used more iluui once. Reusable
piodiu is and (oiitaineisoften
result in less waste. This helps
reduce die < ost <>f managing solid
\\.isie and often consci \rs materials
and resources. I Remember, reus-
able containers tor lood must be
caielulh (leaned to ensure proper
hygiem
" A siurdv mug or dip can be
washed and used time and
again. Main people bring their
own mugs to work, meetings.
and coiilerciu es.
• Sturdy and washable utensils
and tableware < an be used at
home and tor pii nics. ouldooi
))arties. and potlucks.
• At wot k. see it "recharged"
( artridges lor laser pi inteis.
< opiers. and tax machines are
available. The\ not only reduce
waste, but also upkallv save
money.
• Cloth napkins, sponges. 01
dishcloths can be used around
the bouse. These can be
washed over and over again
• Look lor items that are available in reiillable (ontainers. Foi example, some
bottles and jugs loi beverages and detergents are made to be iclilled and
reused, eiihei b\ the < onsumer or the nianutac liner
• \\heu possible, us.- K-. liargeable battei ies to help reduce garbage and to
keep toxic metals found in some batteries out of the waste stream. Another
alternative is to look for batteries with reduced toxic metals.
When using single-use items, remember to take onl\ what is needed. For
example, take onh one napkin or ketchup packet it more are not needed.
Vmemhei. if \oiir goal is to i educe solid waste, think about reusables.
-------
Maintain and repair
durable products.
II maintained and repaired propcih.
products sue li as long-wearing clothing,
tires, and appliances arc- less likelv to wear
out 01 break and will not have to he-
thrown out and replaced .is frequently.
Although durable products soinelimes
cost more iuitialK, their extended life
span iua\ <>tlset the higher cost and
e\cn save monc\ o\ei the long term.
• ('.onsider long-lasting appliances
and electronic equipment with good
w.u ramies. (:heck reports for pro-
ducts with a record of high consumer
satisfaction and low breakdown rates.
Also, look for those products that aie
easily repaired.
• Keep appliances in good working
order. Follow manufacturers'
suggestions for proper operation
and maintenance. Manufacturers'
service departments may have-
toll-free numbers; phone
toll-free directoi \ assistance
at 1-800-555-1212 to find out.
• High-quality, long-lasting tires foi
cars, bicvcles. and olhei vehicles are
available. Using them reduces the rate .it which tires are replaced and
disposed of. Also, to extend tire life, check tire pressmc once a month, follow
the manufacturer's recommendations tor upkeep, and rotate tires routinelv.
In addition, retread and remanufactured tires can reduce tire waste.
• Mend clothes instead of throwing them aw.iv \Vhei e possible, repair worn
shoes, boots, handbags, and briefcases.
• Whenever intended for use over a long period of time, choose- turn it me.
luggage, sporting goods, toys, and tools that will stand up to vigorous use.
• Consider using low-energy fluorescent light bulbs rather than incandescent
ones. They'll last longer, which means fewer bulbs are thrown out, and cost
less to replace over time.
12
-------
Reuse bags, containers,
and other items.
Main e\e-r\da\ items can have- more than
one use. He-lore- discarding bags. (ontaineis.
and other items, consider it it is hvgie-nic and
practical to reuse diem. Reusing products
cxte-nds their lives, keeping them out of the
solid \\asie siieam longer. Adopt the ideas that
work foi \ou. add some of vour own, and then
hallenge others in vour school, office, and
, omnnmilv to trv the-se ideas and to come- u|>
with otlieis.
• Reuse paper and plastic bags and l\\ist
lies. II it's practical, keep .1 supplv ol'bags
on hand to use on the next shopping
trip. 01 take a string, mesh, or canvas tote
bag lo the store. \Vhen a reusable bag is
not on hand and onl\ one or two items arc
being purchased, consider whether von need a bag at all
• Reuse sc tap paper and em elopes. I'se both sides of a piec e ol paper lor
writing notes bc-loie i ecu ling it. Sa\e and reuse- gill boxes, ribbons, and
larger pieces of wrapping and tissue- paper. Sa\e packaging, colored paper.
egg c.u tons, and olher items lor reuse 01 for arts and crafis projet is at da\-
< are lacilities. si hools. \oulh lac ilitic-s. and senior cili/en cc-nteis. Find other
uses or homes lor old draperies, bedding, clothing, towels, and cotton
diapers. Then cut up what's led lor use as patchwork, rags, doll clothes.
rag rugs, or oilier projects.
• Reuse- ncwxpapei. boxes, packaging "peanuts." and "bubble- wrap" to ship
package's. Brown papei bags ate e-xce-llenl for wrapping parcels.
• Wash and reuse- einpu glass and plastic jars, milk jugs, i oitee ( ans. daii v tubs.
and other similai coniaine-rs ilial otherwise get thrown oul. I hese containers
can be used to stoic- lelio\eis as well as buttons, nails, and thumbtacks. An
empl\ iollee ( an makes a line (lower pot.
• Turn used lumber into birdhotise-s, mailboxes, compost bins, or ollier
\\< icdworking projec'is.
( \l I H )\: Do not re-use- containers dial oi'iginallv he-Id products sue h as
motor oil or pesticides. These- containers and their potentialK harmful ic-sidia-s
should be dist ai (led (following manufacturers' instructions on the labe-l) as soon
as then are empt\. When \ou no longer have- a use for a lull or partiallv lull con-
tainer, take- it to a eommunitv house-hold ha/ardoiis uaste (ollee lion. Also. m-\ei
stoic amthing polenti.illv harmlul in containe-rs designe-d for food 01 bexei.i
.\lwa\s labe-l containers and stoic them out ol the- reach of children and pe-ts.
13
-------
Borrow, rent, or share items
used infrequently.
Seldom-used items, like certain posset tools and pai t\ goods, often ( olle< I dusl,
rust, take up valuable storage spare, and ultitnatclv end up in the trash. Consider
renting or borrowing these items the next time thevYe needed. lull equcnth used
items also might he shared among neighbors, friends. 01 latniK. Boi rowing, icnt-
ing. 01 sharing items saves both moiiev and natural resources.
• Rt in 01 bornnv parts' decorations and supplies such a> tables, chairs,
( enierpieces, linens, dishes, and silver\vaie.
• Rent or borrow seldom-used audios isual e<|uipmen[.
• Rent 01 borrow tools such as ladders, chain saws, floor hulk i s.
i'ujf cleaners, and »arden tillers. In .ipai tment
buildings or co-ops, lesidents can pool resources
v N. Xx**^ \\^v a°d form "banks" to share tools or other equipment
^NW ^^^TOv^ fL/ used or needed infre(|uentl\. In addition, some
X.^ \\t^f\ communities have "tool libraries" where residents
^^^t IJ^R.' ' •») bonou equipment as needed.
v /Ab\ \ • Before discarding old tools, camera equipment,
or other goods, ask friends, relatives.
neighbors, or community groups if the) can
use them.
• Share newspapers and maga/ines with
others to extend the lives of these
items and reduce the generation
of waste paper.
14
-------
Sell or donate goods instead
of throwing them out.
<)nc | MM siin\ I rash is another prison's treasure. Instead <>l discarding;
unwanted appliances. took, or (lollies. n\ selling or donating them. Opting loi
used and "irregular" items is anodici IM >od \v.i\ to pi act ice SOUK e reduction. Such
prodiu Is aie often less expensive than neu ot "fii si-qnalitv" items, and tisini; them
will keep them from being thrown awa\.
• Donate or resell items to thrift stoics 01 oilier oi^ani/ations in need. Donors
sometimes receive tax. deductions i >i e\en cash. These or^ani/alions i\pi( all\
lake e\(M \llnni; from clollies and textiles i< > appliances and furniture. All
should he i lean and of respectahle <|iialil\.
• Sell secondhand items al lairs, ha/aai •>. s\\ap meets, and t;ai ai;e sales.
• (.i\e hand-me-do\Mi (lollies to lamih nuMiihei s. neighboring families, or (he
need\. Consider a«|uirini; used (lothin<4 at tin ill or consignment shops. I he
condition of used clothing in these stores is st u-ened: « lollies are t\|)icall\
laundered and cannot ha\e teal's oi siains.
• ( oiisider conducting a food or clothing drive to help others, \\heie
appropriate, encoiua^e area merchanis to donate damaged »oods or food
items dial aie still edihlc to food hanks, shelteis. and other groups that ( ar<-
for the needv
15
-------
Choose recyclable products and
containers and recycle them^,
When YOU vi' done all von can to axoid
waste, recycle. Producing goods lioni recy-
cled materials tvpicallv consumes less
energy and consrr\cs raw materials. Yri.
our landfills ate parked with mam pac k-
agcs and products that can be let u led.
( onsider products made oi mateiials
that are collected for recu ling
loially: in main communities, this
includes glass, aluminum, steel, some
paper and cardboard, and certain
plasms. Check with appropriate
community offn iaK \olunteei
groups, or recAcling businesses
to determine what matei ials are
collected for recycling. If a svstem
is not in place to lelurn a certain tvpe
<>l material, that material is not easily "rccu lahl'e."
• Participate in cominimii\ iec vcling drives, curbside programs, and drop-oil
collections. Call community officials, the local in \eling ceutei. or .1 neai h\
iet \clin_y business to find out if and how materials should be separated, hu
e\ani|)le. SUIIK- communities require that
-------
The Degradables Debate
One- <>f tin- hiuoesi debates in solid uasie lias ( entcied on t l.iinis that
certain products siu h .IN sonic plastic bai^s. paper products, and other
iM.ods .n't- deoi.ulalile. Aie such products helpful in soKin^ ilu- solid waste
dilemma? Do tlie\ sa\e landfill spat e:
In truth, deijiadalion oc< ins ver\ slowlv in modem landfills. Sunlight
can't penetrate, so photodegradation can't (><•( in. Furthermore. research-
ers have unearthed cabbages. carrots, and readable newspapers (hat lu\<
been in landfills lot :;n \C.HS 01 moie. It is unlikeK that products marketed
as des;radahlf would achieve heller results. K\en if biode^iadable prod-
ucts do pertot in exacth as llte\ aie supjjosed to, thev still list-
up resources that could be reel, timed tlnon^h tecvcling.
Biodegradabilit) of naimal matt-rials such as lawn trimmini>s and
some foods does ha\c a plate in solid waste management. I'hal |.)lac<- is
composting (sec ti|> #10). Whether in the bai k\ard or in coinmunit\ facili-
ties. composting can take ad\. intake of det;radabilil\. 1 his is nalure's \\a\
of ret \t lino ot<;anit material into humus that emit lies soil and leturns
nutrients to the earth.
17
-------
1. The life
of a peanut
butter jar begins
on the supermarket
shelf, filled with your
favorite brand. When emptied
and cleaned out, you and
your family can use it in
many practical ways.
[PI
2. It's a perfect container for displaying
a prized marble collection.
9. When you collect too many
peanut butter jars, be sure to
recycle the extras. They may
be used to manufacture new
peanut butter jars or other
containers.
8. Then use it to show
off the beautiful flowers
you picked for the
dinner table when the
fishing is done.
-------
4. And to mix a batch
of concentrated juice.
3. It can be used to
store leftovers...
5. It can be taken back
to the store to buy
foods in bulk, such as
honey, maple syrup,
and even more peanut
butter.
BUI
-IOW/
7. Take the jar on your
next fishing trip to
carry live bait.
6. The jars also make
great cookie cutters.
-------
Select products made from
recycled materials.
Participating in a local or regional recvcling program is onlv pan ol the iee\-
( lint; process. For rec \cling to succeed, recyclable materials iniisi he proc essed
into new products, and those products must be purchased and used,
• Look for items in packages and c imiaincrs made of rccv< led materials. Manv
bottles, cans, paper wrappings, hags, cereal bo\<-s. and othci cartons and
packages are made from recycled materials.
• I'se produe is uith leeuled content whenevei von can. For instance, main
paper, glass, metal, and plastic products contain recovered materials. Some
examples are siationei \. wrapping paper, computer paper, and main
containers. Manv of these items are available in gioi er\. drug, and other
retail stoi es. Mail-order catalogues, stationers, and print shops also ma\ stock
these- and other rec u led items.
• \\hen checking products for rcc\i led content, look lot a statement that
i ecu led materials were used and, it possible-, choose the item with the largest
percentage ol ice u led conlenl, if known. Yon can also call diivcioi \
assistance at 1-SOo V..V1212 to obtain manufacturers' SOO numbeis [o Jnul
out how much rec w led material their products contain.
• Encouiage- state- and local government agencies, local businesses, and others
to purchase rec vclcd products such as paper, le-ieiine-d oil. and retread dies.
For the federal go\ernment. guidelines alrcad\ exist that mandate' the
purchase of these- and otln i pioducts.
PLACE
BOTTLE6
HERE
L'O
-------
Reducing Unwanted Advertising Mail
Each veai, millions of Americans make OIK- or more pun liases through
tlir mail. When people make these mail-order purchases, their names
often are added to a list and marketed to other companies that do busi-
ness through the mail. While inanv people eujov the catalogues thev
ic( eive as a result of these lists, those who would like to receive 1<
national advertising mail can ask companies not to rent or share theii
names with other mailers. People who choose not to shop at home can
also write to:
Mail Preference Service
Direct Marketing Association
P.O. Box 9008
Farmingdale, NY 11735-9008
The Mail Preference Service is a no-charge service that removes names
from main national mailing lists. Individuals who would like to use this
service are requested to provide their names and addresses (including /ip
( ode), and any spelling variations ilu-v have noticed on mailing labels,
to the Mail Preference Service.
It may take a few months before there is a noticeable decrease in the
amount of national advertising mail delivered. In addition, local adveitis-
ing mail, such as store flyers, will not be affected. In these cases, people
can write directly to the mailer and request that their names be removed
from the mailing list.
To keep voui name off
unwanted mailing lists, contact
mail-order companies (and other
organizations) to let them know
that \ou do not want your name
and address shared with other
businesses and organizations. Iii
ihis wav. \ou can still order bv
mail and belong to charitable
organi/anons without woi rving
that the amount of unsolicited
mail von receive' will increase.
21
-------
Compost yard trimmings
and some food scraps.
H.u k\ard composting of certain food scraps and yard trimmings can
siguificantlv reduce the amount ol waste that needs to he managed In the- local
government or put in a landfill. When properlv composted, these waste's can he
turned into natural soil additives lor use on lawns and gardens, and used as pot-
ting soil for house plants. Finished compost can impro\e soil texture-, increase (In-
ability of the soil to absorb air and water, suppress need giowth. decrease eiosion.
and reduce (he need to applv commercial soil additives.
• Learn how to compost lood scraps and vard trimmings (sec- the guidelines on
lhe next page i. For more information, consult reference materials on
composting, or check with local environmental, agricultural, 01 park sc-i \ic c-s.
( oniposting foods in highh populated areas is noi recommended because it
c an attract rodents and other pests.
• Participate in local or regional programs thai collect compostable materials.
If no program is in place, contact public officials and community leadeis
about setting one- up.
• If there's in, loom lor a compost pile, oltei coinpostable materials to
c i iimmmitx composting programs or garden pi < >je< is neai vou.
• II'you have a \arcl. allow mown grass clippings K> lemain on the lawn to
decompose- and i eiuni nutrients hack to the soil, rather than bagging and
disposing of them.
-------
Composting Is Easy!
A compost pile can he- set up in a corner of the \ard with lew supplies.
Choose a le\cl spol .ihoiii 3-tO .VI eel square nrai .1 water SOUK e and pielei-
ably out of direct sunlight. ( le.u the area of sod and grass. When building ,i
compi >sting bin, such as with chicken wire, scrap wood, or cinder blocks, be
sure to leave enough spa< e l< >i .111 to reach the pile. One removable side
makes it easiei to tend the pile.
Many foods can be composted, including vegetable trimmings, <
shells, coffee grounds with tillers, and tea bags. In addition to lea\es. gi .INS.
and yard clippings, vacuum < leaner lint, wool and cotton i ags. sawdust.
shredded newspaper, and fireplace ashes can be composted. DO NOT
compost meats. dair\ foods. 01 am t.us, oil, or grease because- the\ can
aurac t pexis.
Start the pile- with a l-iiu h laver of leaves, loose soil, or olhei < oai se \ard
n immings. If you are going to compost food scraps la slightlv more
involved pioc ess>. \ou should mix them with \ard trimmings when adding
them to the pile. Alfalfa meal or clean cat liner tnav be added to the pile to
absorb odors. In di \ weather, sprinkle water on the pile, but don't get it too
s<>ggv- Ini n the pile everv lew weeks with a pitchfork Jo circulate air and
distribute moisture evenh. Don't be surprised by the heat ol the pile or if
you see worms, both ol which are part of the decomposition process. Make
sure children do not play in the < omposting pile or bin.
In most climates, die < ompost is done in 3 to (i months when it becomes
a dark crumblv material that is uniform in texture. Spread it in the garden
or vard beds or under the sin ubbei \. The ( omposi also ( an lie used as
[Kitting soil.
-------
Educate others on source
reduction and recycling practices.
Make your preferences known to
manufacturers, merchants,
and community leaders.
Shan- information about source reduction. i en-
ding, and composting with othei v
Spie.ul the word to family, friends, neighbors.
local businesses, and decision-makers. Kncouiagc
them in learn more about solid waste issues and
to work toward implementing and promoting
SOUK e ledm lion, rec\cling. and t omposiing. Ue
all have the power to influence others and help
create the upc <>l world in which we want to li\e.
• Consider writing lo i
-------
Be creative — find new ways to
reduce waste quantity and toxicity.
I heie .lit- manv ways lo reduce tlic amount and the toxic m ol solid waste. By
thinking creatively, inanv new uses for common items and new possibilities for
source reduction and recycling can be discovered. Here are just a few ideas. Now,
I! \ Mime ol'vour own!
• Turn a giant cardboard box into
a child's playhouse.
•Transform a plastic ice cream
tub into a flower pot.
• Give pet hamsters or get bils paper
towel and toilet paper cardboard
tubes with which to plav. I Tse an
egg carton to plant seedlings.
• Turn used tires (not steel-belted)
into children's swings or other
playground equipment.
• Select nontoxic inks
and art supplies.
• Combine source reduction
techniques. For example,
trv storing coffee bought in
bulk in empty colfee cans.
• Choose beverages Mich
as \\ater or milk in
reusable containers,
where appropriate.
• Place an order through the mail
willi .1 group of people in
order to save money and
reduce packaging waste.
25
-------
It's l;ir hettci to rcdiK c the loxiciu .nul amount of solid \\aste in the
iirst place th.ui to « <>|>r \\itli it alter it has IK-CD < ic.ttcd. Thiough source
it diu li
-------
Success with Source Reduction
People hum sin.ill towns and big cities, across America arc- implementing
innovative SOIIK r i eduction programs and an- leali/ing ee onennu as we'll as
environmental benefits.
^u i can encourage and support these- changes in voui < ommunitv In working
with e ivie groups. |o< al mere hants. and countv hoards. Through coiisuiner educa-
tion campaigns, school curricula, economic incentives, and other legislator,
financial, and educational measures, \our coinmunitv can set the pace lor new
wa\s to reduce solid waste. I leie aie a lew example's of how ((immunities and
businesses are reducing \\asie.
Model Communities
In a growing number of Illinois communities, lac ilities ranging liom industries
to schools are practicing source reduction by following the lead ol'comimmm
role models. I he (ientral Stales Fdm a lion ('.cnte-r i( :SF('.), a nonprofit
en\ iioninental group, has dcxeloped a Model ( oinmuniu Program to help
ommtmilies find w.i\s to tediut- waste, eliminaie toxins. re< \( !<-. ,md purcbase
^loducts that contain iccvcled materi.ils. lliidugli ibis program, businesses.
organizations, and other groups serve as source reduction role models in their
communities. The facilities institutionalize various source reduction strategies
through in-house committees and on-going educational programs.
Seveial schools, industries, churches and other organizations participate in this
program. In a model industrv, lor example-, solvent recvcling machines are used
to make solvents last three times longer. Model supermarkets ha\e a shelf-labeling
progi am to highlight pioducts with less pac kaging. Additional model facilities
iiu Iude churches, banks, librai ies. a i adio station, a ulilitx compam. nc-\\s|)apei v.
a theatci. a sorori(\, and i-\i-n a c it\ hall. At present there- are over 70 model facili-
ties in eight different Illinois ((immunities.
\s a result < >f ihese model fac ilitic-s. less waste is generated in the participating
communities, and much of what is generated gets muted to the- communiu ie< \-
cling (cnier. rather than the landfill. For example, one model school reduced
cafeteria waste b\ 1<> percent. Interest in the program is growing nationwide as
communities use the model program to educate citi/eiis and get them invoked
in reducing their solid waste-.
-------
Berkeley—Doing It Right from the Start
In 1989. Berkeley, California, implemented a citvwide campaign to help con
SUIIKTS make cmironmentalh sound dec isions. The- Cit\ uses catdu slogans. su< h
as "do it right from the start," "be pick\ about packaging," and "overcome o\ei-
packaging." to urge shoppers to think about how products are packaged and
ultimately disposed of. Consumers tell manufacturers which prod-
ucts thev want to use and which products ihev
don't want bv leaving them on store shelves.
Since I9S9. the initiames under this
program have grown as businesses and
residents have embraced the concept.
The program now includes an educational
campaign directed at elementary schools.
An environmental education curriculum
has been developed, as well as a training
program, to help teachers incorporate
rending and other environmental
messages into their science lessons.
Other recent initiatives involve city
supermarkets, which have printed
i ccvcling tips on their grocery bags.
Some supermarkets also offer a
discount to shoppers who bring
their own bags or containers.
Finally, a composting program
offers subsidi/ed composting bins
to Berkeley residents to encourage
home composting.
-------
Source Reduction—Savings for Business
More and more businesses, lariat1 and small, art- rcali/ing thai source reduction
ran mean a big pavotf in it-iliued \\.IMC and costs. Kor example, a small news-
paper in (irand Rapids. Minnesota, the Hrnild /iVr/Vic. has reduced ils waste by
almost ;W.OOO pomuls annualh. which sa\es over SIS,000 per veai. r \ei \one joins
in io rediu e waste, lioin leporteis suite him; to nariow-rnied notebooks to sase
papei. lo photographers saving film In phinnin^ llie nnmbei ol'exposmes ihev
need betoi e shooting.
In the- oilier, people reuse mailing labels, rebuild loner cartridges foi com-
puter pi mieis, and print on both sides ol the paper. A ( eramii s p,u ka^int; linn
h.is e\cn be«-n loiind to puichase the paper left over from the printing pioi ess.
This "waste e\( bailee" beiietiis both coinp.tnies. I he newspaper also has found
\va\s to reuse waste ink. film-developing chemicals, and paste-up sheets. These
innovative ideas reduce both the amount and the loxuitv of the < on i pa m s
wastes.
\lso. a large furniture manufacturer. Merman Miller, Inc. (MMII of /<'eland.
Mil big.in, lias reaped savings of SI. 1 million annualh through wasie prevention.
It de\iscd packaging containei s that can be reused SO to 100 limes and that are
made From recycled detergent and milk containers.
\noihei approach HMI uses is carionless packaging. This means just placing
cardboard edges on the ( orners of some furniture and wrapping the t'urnituie
with plasiie film ralhei ihan boxing it. I In- cardboard edges are reused and the
)lastic film is i ec \cled. This pi actice has saved 11 \11 >'_'.")().0(10 a \ear l
-------
What Have You Come Up With?
\\e want to he,u \our innovative ideas
on how to prac tire MHIU <• it-due lion. Send
us .1 SOUK <• irdm lion lip, and we'll send
von a magnet that can be used lo slick a
shopping list to the refrigeratoi and to
distinguish bimetal and sleel i .ins hom
aluminum cans (magnets arc not
amactfd to aluminum). Quantities arc-
limited. Send \otir name, address, and
tip to Source' Redue lion lip. the RC.RA
Docket (OS-:*I).'»>. U. S. 1 luironmental
Protection Agcinc\. 101 M Street. S\V..
Washington, E»C 20K")().
-------
Appendix A
Source Reduction Alternatives Around the Home
Manv consumers look foi wavs K> reduce the amount and loxicilv oi vv.isic
.iiomul the house. I his can be done, in some ( ases. bv using altei native methods
or products without ha/ardous (•onstiiuents (o .u eomplish a cei tain task. Ileie aie
jusi a leu ideas to gel von started.
1 )i ain cleaner
( Ken (leaner
(ilass cleaner
loilel l)o\vl cleaner
l-'ui iiiture polish
Rug deodorize)
Silver polish
Plain spravs
Mothballs
Flea and tick
products
I 'se a plunger or plumber's snake.
('.lean spills as soon as the oven cools using s
wool and baking soda: lor tough stains, add salt (do
not use (his method in sell'-i leaning or
continuous-cleaning ovens).
Mix 1 tablespoon of vinegar or lemon juice in 1 quart
of water. Spra\ on and use newspaper to wipe drv.
I se a toilet brush and baking soda or vinegar.
i. I his will clean but not disinlect.)
Mix 1 teaspoon ol lemon juice in 1 pint ol mineral or
vegetable oil. and wipe furniture.
Deodor i/e drv carpets b\ sprinkling liberalh with
baking soda, Wait at least lf> minute-sand vacuum.
Repeat i! necessai \.
l'» >il L' li i '.'• inches ot water in a shallow pan with 1
teaspoon ol salt. 1 teaspoon of baking soda, and a
sheet of aluminum foil. Totallv submerge silver and
boil lor '2 to .') HUH e minutes. Wipe awav tat nish.
Repeat if uccessarv (Do not use this method on
antique silver' knixes. lire blade will separate Iron) the
handle.) Another alternative is to use nonahrasive
toothpaste.
Wipe leaves with mild soap and water; rinse.
I'se cedar chips, lavender Mowers, losemarv mint.
or white peppercorns.
I'm brewer's \easi (>i garlic in \oiir pet's lood:
sprinkle lennel. rue. roscmaiv 01 eiual\|)tus
seeds 01 leaves around animal sleeping areas.
Although the suggested mixtures have less ha/ardous ingredients than main
commercial cleaners and pesticides, they should be used and stored with similar
caution. Please follow these guidelines lor am household cleaner or pesticide.
• IX ) \() 1 mix amthing with a commercial c leaning agent.
• Il'vou do store .1 homemade mixture, make sun- it is properly labelled and
do not store il in a container th.it could he mistaken lot a food 01 beveiagc.
• When preparing alternatives, mix only what is needed for the job at hand
and mix them in clean, reusable containers. This avoids waste and the need
to store am (leaning mixture.
31
-------
Appendix B
Reusable Vocabulary
Bimetal -Typicalh refers lo he\ciage containcis \\ilh steel bodies and .ilniiiinnm
lops. Steel companies do ret \i le bimetal cans. l>nl tlu-\ are handled differcnth
in the iccvcling stream from aliiniinuin cans.
Combustion - The controlled burning of municipal solid waste lo i cdm e \olunic.
and. commonly, to ret OUT encigv
Composting -The t on trolled microhial dct -om posit ion of organic inattci i MH li
as food s( r.i]»s and yard trimmings) in tin- presence ol o\vgen into a humus-
01 soil-like material.
Curbside collection - A method ol collecting ivc\elahle materials at individual
homes or places ol'business In municipal or private parties lor transfer
to a designated collection sile or recycling lacililx.
Drop-off-A method of collecting readable materials where individuals transpor
the materials to a designated collection site.
Household ba/.ardous waste - Products containing ha/ardous substances thai
are used and disposed ol b\ individual rather than industrial consumers.
These prodiu Is iiu lude some paints. soKeuls. and pesticides.
Integrated waste management - The coinplementai \ use ol a \ariet\ ot |>i .it tices
!•> handle municipal solid waste sateh and el'let li\el\. Integrated \\aste man-
agement techniques hit hide SOUK e rediu lion. rctAcling. composting,
combustion, and landiilling.
Landfilling - The disposal of'solid waste at engineeied facilities in a series of
i ompacted lavers on hind and the frequent daih i o\ering ol the waste with
soil. Fill areas are < arefulK prepared to present nuisances < H public health
ha/aids, and clav and 01 sMithelic lincis aie used lo pre\t-nt release-- n>
gi ound water.
Municipal solid waste (MS\V) - Waste generated in households. commcK lal
establishments, institutions, and businesses. MSW includes used paper.
discarded cans and bottles, food scraps, vard trimmings, and other items
Industrial process wastes, agricultural wastes, mining wastes, and sewage
sludge are not MSW.
Pre-consumer materials - Recovered materials obtained from manufacturers.
Post-consumer materials - Recoxcred materials from a consumer-oriented
ret vcling toilet lion svstcm or drop-off center.
Recyclable - Piodm is or materials thai < an be (ollet ted. separ.it ed. ant I pioi essed
to be used as i.iw materials in the manufacture of new piodut Is.
_
-------
Recycled content - I lu- poi lion of a pioduc t's or package's weight lliai is
composed oC materials thai have hern ie< oveied honi \\aste: this ma\ include
pre-consninei 01 p< >st-
-------
Appendix C
EPA Resources
The following EPA publications are available at no charge through the
Agency's RCRAHotline. Call l-sixi-m-W-Hi Mondav through F.idav. ,X::K> .,.111. to
7:30 p.m. KST. For the hearing impaired, the number is I 1 1) r>3-7<>7i>. In
Washington, DC, call (703) 9L>0-9H10 or Tl)l) (703) 48h\ of 'Municipal Solid Waste Management .\(ternnth>e\ (F.PA r>:i4)-.S\\-X<)-0.~>r>).
A listing of approximately 200 publications available from industrv,
government, and environmental groups.
Churactenzatwn of Municipal Solid Waste in the ('niled States: 1W(> I '(date (EPA/530-
SW-90-042). A report characterizing the national solid waste stream in terms ol
products and materials and examining how these wastes are managed.
Characterization of Products Containing Lead and ( adtninm in Municipal Solid Waste in
tlit -I'nited Staff*. 1970 to 2000 (EPA/530-SVV-S9-OI f)( j. A u-poii chai at ten/ing
the products that contribute to the lead and cadmium found in municipal
solid waste.
Decision-Maker's (,inde to Miinirifial Solid Waste Management ( F.PA ">30-S\V-S9-072).
\ guide book to help policymakers understand and evaluate their curreni
\\aMe management problems and formulate possible solutions.
F.m'irtmmental Fact Slirrt: Yant Wait,- CnHifn>.\{infr(¥.?A :>:'.n-S\V-') l-DD'.l). A lad sheet
defining composting, the composting process, and how comp< >st t an be used.
(Siting at tin-. Sourer: Striitrgii'-* /»' Reducing Municipal SoKd Wti^ti: fc\irnlii'c Summary
(1991). Kxcerpts from a report prepared under an EPA giant bv the World
\\ ildlife Fund i3()-SW-S9-
051A). The summary of a report examining many issues related to plastit s,
including reduction, recycling, degradabilitv, and damage to marine life.
Plastics Fact Sheets. A series of five fact sheets about plastics:
• l>la.\tit\: '/'/»/•/-Vir/s ahmt Production. I'sr. and DiifMMil (EPA/530-S\V-«HM» I
A fact sheet reviewing major uses of plastics and impacts ol disposal.
• Tin /-«
-------
• The Facts on Ray cling Plastics (EPA/530-SW-90-017E). A fact sheet summari/-
ing the opportunities available for recycling plastics, and the current state
of plastic recycling technology.
Recycling (EPA/530-SW-88-050). A concise citizen's brochure on recycling and
its role in solid waste management.
Recycle Todayl A series of five publications aimed at educators and students:
• Recycle Today! An Educational Program for Grades K-/2 (EPA/530-SW-90-025).
A concise pamphlet explaining the goals and objectives of EPA's educational
recycling program and the four resources listed below.
• Ut's Reduce and Recycle! A Curriculum for Solid Waste Awareness (EPA/530-SW-
90-005). A booklet of lessons and activities to teach students in grades K-12
about solid waste generation and management. It teaches a variety of skills,
including science, vocabulary, mathematics, and creative writing.
• School Recycling Programs: A Handbook for Educators (EPA/530-SW-90-023).
A handy manual with step-by-step instructions on how to set up a school
recycling program.
Adventures of the Garbage Gremlin: Recycle and Combat a Life of Grime (EPA/530-
SW-90-024). A comic book introducing students in grades 4-7 to the benefits
of recycling.
• Ride the Wave of the Future: Recycle Today! (EPA/530-SW-90-010). A colorful
poster designed to appeal to all grade levels that can be displayed in conjunc-
tion with recycling activities or used to help foster recycling.
Recycling Works! (EPA/530-SW-89-014). A booklet describing 14 successful state
and local recycling programs in the United States.
Reusable News (EPA/530-SW-90-018). A periodic newsletter covering a diverse
array of topics related to municipal solid waste management, including source
reduction and recycling.
Unit Pricing: Providing an Incentive to Reduce Municipal Solid Waste (EPA/530-SW-91-
005). A booklet describing unit pricing systems in which customers are
charged for waste collection and disposal services based on the amount
of trash they generate.
Used Oil Recycling Publications. A series of three brochures and a manual on ways
to recycle used oil:
• How to Set Up a Local Used Oil Recycling Program (EPA/530-SW-89-039A).
An easy-to-follow manual for local decision-makers, environmental groups,
and community organizations.
• Recycling Used Oil: What Can You Do? (EPA/530-SW-89-039B). A pamphlet
describing how the general public can participate in used oil recycling.
• Recycling Used Oil: 10 Steps to Change Your Oil (EPA/530-SW-89-039C).
A pamphlet describing how citizens can change their car oil.
Recycling Used Oil: For Service Stations and Other Vehicle-Service Facilities
(EPA/530-SW-89-039D). A pamphlet describing how service station
owners can play a key role in facilitating used oil recycling.
35
-------
EPA Regional Offices
Region I
I S. EPA - Region 1
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 575-5720
Region 2
U.S. EPA - Region 2
26 Federal Pla/a
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-3384
Region 3
U.S. EPA- Region 3
H41 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-9801)
Region I
KPA - Region 4
345 Courtland Stieet, N.E.
Atlanta, (iA 30365
i }(>li 317-2091
Region 5
U.S. 1 !'\-Region f>
77 West Jackson Boulevaid
Chicago. II. (.()()(II
i 353-2000
Region 6
U.S. EPA - Region (i
1 11 si Interstate Bank Tower
111") Ross \\rinie
Dallas, TX 75270-2733
• i 655-6655
Region 7
I s 1 I'\-Region 7
72ti Minnesota \\ciuic
Kansas Cnv, KS 66101
(!>I 3) 551-7050
Region 8
t .S. Kl'. A -Region >
l)en\ri 1'l.u e
WJ l.Stl, Street. Suite 50(1
Dt-iivt-i; CO SOL'02-L'
(303)
Region 9
I S. KPA -Region 9
75 llawtlioine Street
San Fraiu isi <>. C \ '>•! 105
(115) 7-1 1-207 I
Region 10
I .S I l'\- Region 10
1200 Si vh Avenue
Seatilr. \VA '.»SI01
M2-27H2
-------
nm£ntal Infection
Office oTSolid Waste
Emergency Response
(5305)
EPA530-R-94-004
April 1994
Pay-As-You-Throw
Lessons Learned About
Unit Pricing
'canola ink on pap
-------
Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing of
Municipal Solid Waste
Prepared by
Janice L. Canterbury
U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste
-------
Acxnow edeements
The following state, county, and local officials and private consultants contributed
their expertise in unit pricing programs to EPA's Unit Pricing Roundtable and to the
development of this guide:
Nancy Lee Newell, City of Durham, North Carolina
Peggy Douglas, City of Knoxville, Tennessee
Barbara Cathey, City of Pasadena, California
Bill Dunn, Minnesota Office of Waste Management
Nick Pealy, Seattle Solid Waste Utility
Jody Harris, Maine Waste Management Agency
Jamy Poth, City of Austin, Texas
Jeanne Becker, Becker Associates
Lisa Skumatz and Cabell Breckinridge, Synergic Resources Corporation
Lon Hultgren, Town of Mansfield, Connecticut
Greg Harder, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Thomas Kusterer, Montgomery County Government, Maryland
Robert Arner, Northern Virginia Planning District Commission
Their assistance is greatly appreciated.
ii
-------
Contents
About This Guide ........... vi
Key to Symbols ........... viii
PART I: Is Unit Pricing Right for
Your Community? I
What Is Unit Pricing? 2
Potential Benefits to Unit Pricing 3
Potential Barriers to Unit Pricing 4
Types of Communities That Can Benefit From Unit Pricing .... 5
Making a Decision About Unit Pricing 6
PART II: Building Consensus and Planning for
Unit Pricing 10
Setting Goals and Establishing a Unit Pricing Team ..... 11
Addressing Barriers 12
Building a Public Consensus 13
Scheduling Your Planning Activities 15
PART III: Designing an Integrated
Unit Pricing Program I 9
The Building Blocks 20
Volume-Based Versus Weight-Based Programs 20
Container Options 22
Pricing Structures . 24
Billing and Payment Systems 26
Accounting Options 26
Program Service Options 27
Multi-Family Housing 29
Residents With Special Needs 30
iii
-------
Putting the Blocks Together 34
Step 1: Estimating Demand 35
Step 2: Choosing Components ......... 36
Step 3: Estimating Costs .......... 37
Step 4: Developing a Rate Structure ........ 37
Step 5: Calculating Revenues ......... 38
Step 6: Evaluating and Adjusting the Program ...... 38
PART IV: Implementing and Monitoring
Unit Pricing 45
Implementation Activities 46
Public Education and Outreach 47
Reorganizing Your Solid Waste Agency's Administration .... 50
Developing a Schedule .......... 52
Program Monitoring and Evaluation 52
APPENDIXES 63
Appendix A: Unit Pricing Roundtable Discussion: Questions and Alternatives . 63
Appendix B: Putting the Blocks Together: Additional Examples ... 79
s
Appendix C: Definitions .......... 83
Appendix D: Bibliography ......... 85
IV
-------
About Tiis Gu
In December 1992, as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
efforts to disseminate information about potential solutions to solid waste
management issues, the Agency organized a gathering of experts and local officials
involved in unit pricing programs. The Unit Pricing Roundtable resulted in a
wide-ranging discussion of the benefits and barriers associated with unit pricing
programs. This guide is based on the insights gained from that meeting.
Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing of Municipal Solid Waste is designed
to help local solid waste administrators and planners, elected officials, community
and civic groups, environmental and business organizations, and others find an
answer to the question, "Is unit pricing a viable option for our community, and, if so,
how do we implement it?"
Since communities differ in size, demographics, governing jurisdiction, and other
factors, this guide presents lessons learned in a variety of communities that have
implemented unit pricing. As such, decision-makers can use the guide to chart a
course through the issues and potential obstacles involved in launching a unit pricing
program and tailoring it to meet the specific needs and goals of the community.
In addition to information drawn from the Roundtable, the guide is derived from
data on dozens of existing unit pricing programs in communities of varying sizes and
demographics. Case studies showcase differences in the types of collection systems.
fee structures, and complementary programs that can accompany unit pricing
programs. The guide also reflects information extracted from available literature, as
well as direct advice from experts in the field.
-------
The process of considering, planning, and implementing a unit pricing program is a
process of moving from general to specific notions of addressing waste management
issues. After considering long-term solid waste goals and options and how unit
pricing might help achieve them, decision-makers must move on to broad system
planning and finally to specific details. This guide is designed to mirror that process
of increasing specificity. It is divided into four parts:
Part I: Is Unit Pricing Right for Your Community?
Part I offers an introduction to the concept of unit pricing, helps readers decide
whether unit pricing holds enough promise for their communities to merit continued
investigation and study, and provides an overview of the organization of the guide.
Part II: Building Consensus and Planning for Unit Pricing
Part II focuses on creating a framework for a successful system. It describes how to
establish goals, build a consensus for change within the community, make a decision
to pursue a unit pricing strategy, and perform basic planning tasks for the new
program.
Part III: Designing an Integrated Unit Pricing Program
Part III introduces solid waste officials to unit pricing program options, including
container type and size, pricing structures, and billing systems. It also presents a
six-step process for selecting options and designing a rate structure that will best
address the community's unit pricing goals.
Part IV: Implementing and Monitoring Unit Pricing
Part IV guides communities through the process of launching their unit pricing
program. While implementation, often requires an ongoing series of tasks, this part
focuses on the central issues: providing public education and reorganizing the solid
waste agency's administrative office. Part IV also discusses ways to collect and
analyze data regarding the performance of the program.
To meet the needs of many decision-makers, this guide has been designed to be
modular in approach. Solid waste officials with little experience with unit pricing will
want to read the entire guide carefully. Decision-makers who are somewhat familiar
with unit pricing might want to skim Part I, while carefully studying the remainder of
the guide. Those individuals with a good understanding of the pros and cons of unit
pricing might proceed directly to the design and implementation guidelines offered in
Parts III and IV.
vi
-------
Lr /~\\ / "T" /*"\ X^ \ / K°V™\ r*\ /**\ f*
i\ey 10 oymoo s
To help readers focus on key issues, symbols are used throughout the guide to
indicate the themes and concepts that are central to unit pricing. These are:
TRADEOFFS
There are no universally applicable guidelines that must be followed when
developing a unit pricing program. All unit pricing options offer their own
set of advantages and disadvantages. When designing a unit pricing
program, decision-makers need to weigh these factors and choose the
course of action that best suits the needs of their communities.
EDUCATION
COSTS
HIERARCHY
BARRIERS
Involving and educating the public is key to the success of any unit
pricing program.
One of the biggest issues associated with unit pricing programs concerns
the costs to design and implement a program. Residents also will be
concerned about waste collection fees.
EPA has established a hierarchy identifying the preferred methods for
managing solid waste. At the top of the hierarchy is waste prevention.
Recycling (including composting) is the next preferred technique, used
for managing the waste that cannot be prevented. Finally, landfilling and
combustion can be used to dispose of the remaining waste.
Decision-makers will need to address some potential hurdles to
implementing unit pricing. These include recovering expenses, increased
administrative costs, perception of increased costs being passed on to
citizens, and illegal dumping.
vii
-------
Is Unit Pricing Right for Your
Community?
ver the past several years, many communities across
the United States have found it increasingly difficult to
effectively and economically manage their municipal
solid waste (MSW). Against a backdrop of steadily
rising waste generation rates, many communities have seen
their local landfills closing, tipping fees rising, and prospects
for siting new disposal facilities diminishing. Other demands on
waste management systems include growing public awareness
of general environmental issues, as well as state and locally
legislated waste prevention and recycling goals.
In response, many communities have begun adopting new
approaches to waste management, such as collecting materials
for recycling; composting yard trimmings and other organic
materials; and conducting education programs intended to help
residents understand the need for waste prevention and
recycling. In addition, recognizing that market-based
approaches are proving to be important tools in dealing with
environmental issues, some communities have turned to
economic incentives to encourage residents to prevent waste
whenever possible and recycle or compost the remainder.
One such incentive system is unit pricing.
IS UNIT PRICING RIGHT FOR YOUR COMMUNITY?
-------
What Is Unit Pricing?
Unit pricing is
not a new
concept.
Berkeley,
California,
began its unit
pricing program
in 1924, and
Richmond,
California,
launched a unit
pricing program
in 1916!
By encouraging residents
to prevent waste and
recycle whenever
possible, unit pricing is
helping communities to
better manage their solid
waste.
Traditionally, many communities in the United States have paid for
waste management services through property taxes or through an annual
fee charged to each household. The cost per residence remains constant
regardless of differences in the amount of waste generated. This creates
the mistaken impression that MSW management is free.
Unit pricing, also known as variable rate pricing or pay-as-you-throw,
is a system under which residents pay for municipal waste management
services per unit of waste collected rather than through a fixed fee. Unit
pricing takes into account variations in waste generation rates by
charging households or residents based on the amount of trash they place
at the curb, thereby offering individuals an incentive to reduce the
amount of waste they generate and dispose of.
Unit pricing programs can take two basic forms. Residents can be
charged by:
• Volume of waste, using bags, tags or stickers,
or prescribed sizes of waste cans.
• Weight of waste, with the municipality
measuring at the curbside the amount of
waste set out for collection.
While they operate differently from one another,
these systems share one defining characteristic:
residents who throw away more pay more.
If the basic concept of unit pricing is
straightforward, however, the decision to adopt
such a program is far from simple. To help
communities considering unit pricing as a solution
to their mounting solid waste management
difficulties. EPA convened a Unit Pricing
Roundtable, attended by representatives from
communities that had implemented unit pricing or
were actively considering it. EPA then organized the resulting wealth of
ideas and advice to produce this guide. EPA designed the guide to help
readers determine whether unit pricing is a viable option for their
community and, if so, which factors to consider when planning and
implementing such a program.
-------
PARTI
Potential Benefits to Unit Pricing
Communities that have adopted unit pricing programs have reported a
number of benefits, ranging from reductions in waste generation to
greater public awareness of environmental issues. These benefits include:
• Waste reduction. Unit pricing can help substantially reduce the
amount of waste disposed of in a community. Some communities with
unit pricing programs report that unit pricing helped their municipality
achieve reductions of 25 to 45 percent in the amount of waste shipped
to disposal facilities.
• Reduced waste disposal costs. When the amount of waste is
reduced, communities often find their overall MSW management
costs have declined as well. (A portion of the revenues previously
spent on waste disposal, however, may need to be dedicated to
recycling, composting, or other diversion activities.)
• Increased waste prevention. To take advantage of the potential
savings that unit pricing offers, residents typically modify their
traditional purchasing and consumption patterns to reduce the amount
of waste they place at the curb. These behavioral changes have
beneficial environmental effects beyond reduced waste generation,
often including reduced energy usage and materials conservation.
• Increased participation in composting and recycling
programs. Under unit pricing, new or existing recycling and yard
waste composting programs become opportunities for residents to
divert waste for which they otherwise would pay. Experience has
shown that these programs are the perfect complement for unit
pricing: analysis of existing unit pricing systems shows that
composting and recycling programs divert 8 to 13 percent more waste
by weight when used in conjunction with a unit pricing program.
• Support of the waste management hierarchy. By creating an
incentive to reduce as much waste as possible using source reduction
and to recycle and/or compost the waste that cannot be prevented,
unit pricing supports the hierarchy of waste management techniques
defined by EPA.
• More equitable waste management fee structure. Traditional
waste management fees, in effect, require residents who generate a
small amount of waste to subsidize the greater generation rates of
their neighbors. Under unit pricing, waste removal charges are based
on the level of service the municipality provides to collect and
dispose of the waste, similar to the way residents are charged for gas
or electricity. Because the customer is charged only for the level of
HIERARCHY
IS UNIT PRICING RIGHT FOR YOUR COMMUNITY?
-------
EDUCATION
service required, residents have more control over the amount of
money they pay for waste management.
Increased understanding of environmental issues in general.
Through unit pricing, communities have the opportunity to explain
the hidden costs of waste management. Traditional waste
management systems often obscure the actual economic and
environmental costs associated with waste generation and disposal.
Once individuals understand their impact on the environment, they
can choose to take steps to minimize it.
Potential Barriers to Unit Pricing
BARRIERS
COSTS
In all unit
pricing
programs,
residents who
throw away
more pay more.
While there are clearly benefits associated with unit pricing
programs, there also are potential barriers. Communities considering unit
pricing should be aware of the costs and possible community relations
implications associated with the following issues:
• Illegal dumping. Some residents have strong reservations about unit
pricing, believing it will encourage illegal dumping or burning of
waste in their area. Communities can counter this fear with an
effective public education program. Since most communities with
unit pricing programs have reported that illegal dumping proved to be
less of a concern than anticipated, providing residents with this
information can help allay their concerns over illegal dumping.
• Recovering expenses. Since unit pricing offers a variable rate to
residents, the potential exists for uneven cash flow that could make it
harder to operate a unit pricing program. To address this,
communities must be sure to set prices at the appropriate level to
ensure that, on average, sufficient funds are raised to pay for waste
collection, complementary programs, and special services.
• Administrative costs. Effectively establishing rates, billing
residents, and collecting payments under a unit pricing program will
likely increase a waste management agency's administrative costs.
Communities need to set waste collection prices at a level that can
cover these costs.
• Perception of increased costs to residents. While a unit pricing
program offers residents greater control over the cost of collecting
their waste, it could initially be seen as a rate increase. An effective
public outreach campaign that clearly demonstrates the current costs
of waste management and the potential reductions offered by unit
pricing will help to address this perception.
• Multi-family housing. Extending direct waste reduction incentives
to residents of multi-family housing can present a challenge. Since
waste generated by these residents typically is combined in a central
-------
location to await collection, identifying the amounts of waste generated
by individual residents in order to charge accordingly can he difficult.
Communities must experiment with rate strut lures and collection
systems to encourage residents of multi-family housing to reduce waste.
Building public consensus. Perhaps the greatest barrier to realizing
a unit pricing program is overcoming resistance to change, both
among citizens and elected officials. Informing residents about the
environmental and economic costs of current waste generation patterns
can help overcome this resistance and build support for unit pricing.
Careful planning and design of a unit pricing program to meet
specific community needs is the best solution to these potential
difficulties. In particular, an effective public education program
designed to communicate the need for unit pricing and address the
potential concerns of residents will help meet these challenges.
(Public education programs are discussed in detail in Fart IV of this guide.)
EDUCATION
Types of Communities That Can Benefit
From Unit Pricing
Unit pricing programs work best when
tailored to local needs. All types of communities
can design unit pricing programs that will help
achieve the goals of reducing waste generation
and easing waste management difficulties: large,
medium-sized, and small communities in every
region of the country have realized these
benefits. Local officials indicate that unit pricing
programs also work well whether solid waste
services are cairied out by municipal or by
private haulers.
As a result, unit pricing has grown
significantly over the last few years. In the
1980s, only a handful of communities in the
United States operated unit pricing programs.
Now, over 1,000 communities have unit pricing
programs in place. By January 1994, over 1,800
programs are scheduled to be in operation. In
addition, laws in 10 states currently mandate
or encourage unit pricing programs.
For .
IS UNIT PRICING RIGHT FOR YOUR COMMUNITY?
-------
Making a Decision About Unit Pricing
After considering this overview of the benefits and barriers to unit
pricing programs, decision-makers who believe unit pricing could
work in their community can turn to Part II of this guide and begin the
planning process. Decision-makers should carefully consider key
factors such as the types of services to offer, the associated costs, the
potential for complementary programs, the level of administrative
change necessary, and the extent to which residents will support or
oppose unit pricing.
-------
PART
Will this guide tell me what system to use and how to
implement it?
No. This guide is intended to provide essential information about unit pricing and
to help you think about how well such a program would work in your community.
It will provide many suggestions borne of successful programs of all types and
sizes around the country. However, final decisions about whether to adopt unit
pricing, what type of system to use, and how to implement it should be made
based on local needs and circumstances.
How expensive is it to implement unit pricing?
The cost of implementing a unit pricing program is directly related to how
complex the selected system is, how it is financed, and how different it is from the
current waste removal system. Many communities have implemented unit pricing
with minimal upfront and ongoing costs. Over the long term, communities with unit
pricing programs have generally reported them to be cost-effective methods of
achieving their waste management goals.
Our community has had significant fiscal problems. Would unit
pricing be appropriate?
A community introducing unit pricing may choose to use fees either to supplement
or to replace current revenue sources. While a community with a tight waste
management budget may choose to use unit pricing fees to supplement current
revenue sources, the public may resist such fees as simply an additional tax. Other
communities stress that local acceptance of a unit pricing program is greater if
current taxes, such as general or property taxes, are reduced by the amount of
the new solid waste fees.
uestions
answers
IS UNIT PRICING RIGHT FOR YOUR COMMUNITY?
-------
Points to
remember
Unit pricing requires residents to pay for each unit of waste that
they dispose of. This billing arrangement is similar to fees assessed on
other essential services (such as water and electricity), where the
charge is based on usage.
Unit pricing has been effective in reducing the amount of solid waste
disposed of in all types of communities across the country.
Communities using unit pricing in tandem with recycling and
composting programs have found these programs increase each
other's effectiveness.
This guide is designed to provide basic information about planning
and operating a unit pricing program. Decisions regarding the actual
program you adopt will be based on your community's unique
circumstances.
-------
Case Studies
All Types of Communities Are Adopting Unit Pricing
Rural areas. Unit pricing is found in a number of rural communities. For
example, it has been implemented in High Bridge, New Jersey, which has a
population of 4,000, and in Baldwin, Wisconsin, which has a population of under
2.000.
Larger communities. While unit pricing is not yet common in the largest
cities, it has been working successfully in Anaheim, Glendale, Pasadena, and
Oakland, California; Aurora, Illinois; Lansing, Michigan; Seattle, Washington; and a
number of other communities with populations over 100,000. In addition, state
laws in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington either currently or soon will
require implementation of unit pricing programs in communities statewide,
regardless of size (with some exceptions).
County-wade. Unit pricing also can be implemented on a county-wide basis.
Tompkins County, New York; Hennepin County, Minnesota; and King County,
Washington all have implemented unit pricing programs.
Unit Pricing Cuts Down on Waste Volume
Unit pricing can result in dramatic declines in the amount of waste set out for
collection. The Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, noted a 30-percent reduction
in waste volume after implementing a unit pricing program. Seattle, Washington,
reported a decline in waste generation from an average of 3.5 waste cans to 1.7
cans per household per week after unit pricing was launched. This amount was
further reduced to just one can per household per week after complementary
curbside recycling and composting programs were introduced (see the discussion
of complementary programs in Part III).
Most communities, however, cannot delineate what percentage of waste
reduction is directly attributable to unit pricing and what percentage is due to
other factors, such as new recycling programs, consumer education, or even
economic recession. Nevertheless, studies conducted over the last few years
indicate consistent waste reductions in unit pricing communities. For example,
a study at Duke University by Dr. Daniel Blume examined 14 cities with unit
pricing. The waste reductions in this study ranged from 18 to 65 percent. The
average waste reduction was 44 percent.
IS UNIT PRICING RIGHT FOR YOUR COMMUNITY?
-------
Building Consensus and Plannin;
for Unit Pricing
nit pricing involves many important decisions
regarding how to perform and pay for solid waste
services. To be sure that their communities are
choosing the best options, many solid waste
agencies have initiated a planning process that helps lay
the groundwork for sound decisions and coordinated
implementation. This process helps clarify the
community's solid waste needs and goals, identify likely
barriers and methods of overcoming them, and inform and
educate residents about unit pricing and how it can
improve solid waste management in the community.
10
-------
Setting Goals and Establishing a Unit Pricing Team
Solid waste management can be a confusing business, with success
measured against standards as varied as recycling diversion rates,
total costs, or even quality of media coverage. For this reason, the first
step when planning for unit pricing is to determine the goals of the
program based on a review of your community's solid waste
management needs and concerns. While goal-setting can at first seem
like an abstract exercise, clearly defined and measurable objectives for
your program are invaluable when deciding which unit pricing options
would work best in your community. Goal-setting can help build
community consensus and facilitate efficient monitoring and
evaluation of the unit pricing piogram's progress.
Although you will want to solicit input from local residents and other
interested parties before coming up with a final list of goals, it is useful to
first examine and prioritize goals internally before introducing them to
the community. Consider holding an internal brainstorming session to
establish a preliminary list of goals. This session could last anywhere
from one hour to half a day, depending on the size and makeup of your
community, the issues that need to be addressed in the session, and the
needs and structure of your agency. A shorter, followup session to
revisit, refine, and prioritize goals also might be useful.
Prioritizing goals also is important since the weight that you assign to
goals now will help you design the rate structure for the program.
(Setting rate structures is described in Part III of the guide.) In addition,
achieving every objective on a community's list can be difficult.
Consider the tradeoffs among program costs, citizen convenience, staffing
changes, and other factors as you prioritize your goals. Circumstances often
require compromise in one area in exchange for progress in another.
Specific goals and objectives can vary significantly among
communities. Examples include:
• Encouraging waste prevention and recycling. A community
should set unit prices at levels high enough to encourage households
to reduce waste generation and to recycle and compost. This helps to
achieve existing recycling goals and to conserve landfill space.
• Raising sufficient revenue to cover municipal solid waste
management costs. A unit pricing program should bring in
enough revenue to cover both the program's variable costs and its
more stable or fixed costs. Variable costs, such as landfill tipping fees,
are the expenses that fluctuate with changes in the amount of solid
waste collected. Fixed costs are costs that change only rarely, such as
rent for agency offices, or that change only after large-scale waste
collection changes, such as the number of collection trucks needed.
TRADEOFFS
HIERARCHY
COSTS
BUILDING CONSENSUS AND PLANNING FOR UNIT PRICING
II
-------
Establishing a
clear set of
goals for your
unit pricing
program is
invaluable when
deciding which
program
options will
work best in
your community.
• Subsidizing other community programs. A community might
wish to generate revenues in excess of the actual costs for solid waste
collection and then use those funds to enforce antilittering or illegal
dumping laws, or to improve its recycling and solid waste infrastructure.
Once your agency has established a list of preliminary goals, consider
setting up a unit pricing team or citizen advisory council to help you
refine and prioritize these goals. A unit pricing team typically consists of
solid waste staff, interested elected officials, civic leaders, and
representatives from affected businesses in the community. Team
members may be solicited through advertisements in local newspapers
and on radio and television stations. Including these individuals in the
planning process gives the community a sense of program ownership.
In addition, team members can help other residents in the community
understand the specifics of the program as it evolves and can provide
your agency with valuable input on residents' concerns about the
program. Members of the team also can serve as a sounding board to help
ensure strong community participation throughout the planning process.
Addressing Barriers
A unit pricing team composed
of residents, civic leaders, and
town officials can help ensure
the development of a
successful unit pricing program.
The team or council also can help your agency identify potential
barriers to implementing unit pricing in your community and consider
ways in which these barriers can be addressed. Illegal dumping and
burning of waste is one of the mostly frequently cited barriers to unit
pricing. Yet participants at EPA's Unit Pricing Roundtable and
communities with unit pricing programs report
that illegal dumping has occurred prior to
implementing a program and tends to persist at
some level, regardless of the way in which
residents are charged for solid waste
management.
The key is to design a unit pricing program
that significantly deters illegal dumping and
burning. Public education and enforcement
policies are the most effective tools in
addressing this barrier. Informing residents of
the experiences of communities with unit
pricing and setting up fair but aggressive
enforcement policies to respond to incidents of
illegal dumping also are essential.
Other potential barriers to unit pricing include recovering
expenses, covering administrative costs, ensuring that unit pricing is
not perceived as a rate increase by residents, implementing unit
pricing in multi-family buildings, addressing physical or financial
difficulties for senior citizens, and overcoming resistance to changing
12
-------
the status quo. (Part III of this guide provides an in-depth discussion of
barriers and specific strategies for overcoming them.)
Once both the municipal solid waste agency and the unit pricing
team or council have evaluated specific goals and barriers, it is time to
unveil the program to the city at large. The team or council might
consider developing a preliminary proposal with several program options.
This proposal can serve as a basis for public discussion and help
illustrate what changes might occur.
Building a Public Consensus
Public education is critical to the planning, design, and
implementation stages of a unit pricing program. In fact, education is the
linchpin holding all of these phases together. While educating the public
might at first seem unnecessary and expensive, the experiences of
communities that have implemented unit pricing programs indicate that
a good public relations program more than pays for itself.
Such a program is effective at developing a
general consensus among residents on the need for
unit pricing. Community support is vital to the
long-term success of a unit pricing program. In
fact, communities that have implemented unit
pricing programs are nearly unanimous in listing
education and community relations as the most
important elements of a successful unit pricing
program. Public education can combat fears and
myths about unit pricing (such as the fear of
increased illegal dumping) and help avoid or
mitigate many potential implementation problems.
When first reaching out to residents during the
planning stage, don't be surprised if many
residents react with skepticism to the idea of unit
pricing. Initial opposition is often related to a perception that unit
pricing will result in an additional financial burden. Opposition also
might be due simply to a natural resistance to change. Resistance to unit
pricing is especially prevalent in communities where solid waste
management fees are hidden in general or property taxes.
To counter this opposition, municipal officials can inform residents of
the current difficulties associated with waste collection and management.
In particular, officials can explain the costs to residents of the current
system of waste management. Next, they could present the goals for
improving the management of solid waste in the community. In this
context, officials can introduce unit pricing, discuss its potential for meeting
these objectives, and address any questions and concerns that residents
have expressed about the new program.
EDUCATION
BUILDING CONSENSUS AND PLANNING FOR UNIT PRICING
-------
At EPA's Unit
Pricing
Roundtable,
panelists
ranked
education and
community
relations as the
most important
elements of a
successful unit
pricing program.
Winning community support for unit pricing often hinges on explaining
how the program can achieve certain critical objectives. Discussions at EPAs
Unit Pricing Roundtable revealed that residents tended to support unit
pricing if the program achieved the waste management principles about
which they cared the most. Residents often develop a sense of civic pride in
programs that meet these objectives. Roundtable panelists strongly
recommended that solid waste officials devote a significant amount of
attention to communicating these basic principles:
• Equity. The program should be structured so that people who
generate more waste pay more, while residents who prevent waste,
recycle, and compost are charged less.
• Waste reduction. The program must significantly reduce the
community's generation of waste, increase the rate of recycling, and,
therefore, reduce the amount of waste requiring disposal in landfills
and combustors.
• Reductions in waste management costs. By helping to alter
household waste generation patterns, the program should help reduce the
cost of collecting and disposing of the community's solid waste.
• Municipal improvements. The program should contribute to
improvements in the quality of life in the community, such as
resource conservation and land preservation.
In addition to deciding what information needs to be communicated,
solid waste officials also should consider how best to reach residents in
the community. An unspecified change in waste management services
scheduled to occur at some future date is not likely to capture a
community's attention. The following activities represent some of the
ways in which officials can explain the benefits of unit pricing:
• Hold public meetings. Interactive public meetings offer solid waste
officials the opportunity to present the case for unit pricing. Such
meetings also give citizens the sense that their concerns are being
heard and addressed in the eventual program.
• Prepare briefing papers for elected officials. As both shapers
and followers of public opinion, elected officials tend to be at the center
of public policy debates. Because well-informed leadership can raise
issues in such a way as to attract residents' interest, solid waste
officials might want to provide elected officials with brief summaries
of the issues associated with solid waste management and the likely
benefits of a unit pricing program.
• Issue press releases. Press coverage of a change in the way that a
community pays for its solid waste collection services is inevitable.
Keeping key radio, television, and newspaper outlets well informed of
the reasoning behind the move to unit pricing can make the press a
valuable participant in the decision-making process and prepare the
community for an upcoming change.
14
-------
• Work with retailers. Grocers and other retailers in your community
can help educate citizens by displaying posters and other information
about the new program in their stores. In addition, retailers can help
customers generate less waste by displaying information about
choosing waste-reduced products.
Part IV of this guide explains additional steps that communities can
take to communicate their ideas to the public.
Scheduling Your Planning Activities
Even before the final decision is made to pursue unit pricing, some
basic planning issues can be addressed. Chief among these are
legal/jurisdictional issues and timing. Generally, states extend to local
jurisdictions the authority to provide waste management services and to
charge residents accordingly. During the planning process, however,
many communities have the unit pricing team research the
municipality's legal basis for implementing a new solid waste service
pricing mechanism rather than risk discovering a problem unexpectedly
during implementation.
Since unit pricing programs often involve a number of steps and some
complex decision-making, consider developing a timeline for planning,
designing, and implementing your program. Based on the experiences of
communities that have successfully implemented unit pricing, planning
for unit pricing should begin at least a year in advance of your targeted
start date. You can establish goals for the unit pricing program and begin
explaining the program to the community from 9 to 12 months before
program implementation. Public education should continue throughout
the months prior to the program and, to some extent, after the program is
underway. You can identify the legal framework for the program at least
six months before the start of a program. A detailed suggested timeline
for a unit pricing program is provided in Part IV of this guide.
BUILDING CONSENSUS AND PLANNING FOR UNIT PRICING 15
-------
PART II
uestions
answers
Everyone agrees we should prevent waste and recycle more. Why
do we need to spend so much time thinking about specific goals
and objectives?
It will probably be easy to get a broad consensus that some things are "good,"
such as saving money or reducing disposal rates. But solid waste management in
general and unit pricing in particular often involve a series of tradeoffs. For
example, a community may decide to sacrifice some convenience for households to cut
costs or to create a stronger waste-reduction incentive. Establishing goals and priorities
early in the planning process can make it easier to make difficult choices as they arise.
Why is public input so important? We have already consulted
with many solid waste experts, who know a lot more about solid
waste issues than residents.
Municipal officials and experts agree—no unit pricing program is going to work if
local residents oppose it. Since improved solid waste management requires a
good faith effort from residents to reduce the amount of waste they dispose of, it
makes sense to include residents as equal partners.
/
16
-------
Points to
remember
maesesssmassx^is
Establish realistic goals for your unit pricing program that address your
community's most pressing waste management needs.
Involve the community in the planning process. Representatives from
community organizations can increase acceptance of unit pricing and facilitate
implementation.
Plan for the possibility of illegal dumping or burning. In addition to
explaining other communities* experiences with illegal dumping, let residents know
about legal alternatives for managing and disposing of solid waste. Also explain that
concrete steps, such as assessing penalties for violators, will be taken.
Public education cannot be stressed enough. Promoting the strengths of unit pricing
and addressing residents' concerns is critical to the success of your program.
A
> 'i * « » *
Provide elected officials with information on the benefits of unit pricing
programs to help them address residents' concerns. Also, keep local officials
informed of decisions made about the program as it evolves.
Be sure to carefully research your legal authority to establish and enforce
a unit pricing program. Based on this research and on the advice of your
municipality's legal counsel, ordinances may be necessary to establish the program.
Plan ahead by establishing a timeline for your program.
BUILDING CONSENSUS AND PLANNING FOR UNIT PRICING
17
-------
Case Studies
Three Cities Report on Illegal Dumping
In Mansfield, Connecticut, officials report that illegal dumping did not
increase significantly with the introduction of unit pricing. To prevent illegal
dumping, Mansfield has relied primarily on public education. When necessary,
however, the solid waste department also has worked with the police department
to track license plates and identify violators.
In Seattle, Washington, unit pricing also has not been associated with an
increase in illegal dumping. In fact, 60 to 80 percent of the illegal dumping incidents
in the city are associated with remodeling waste, refrigerators, and construction
debris-waste that the city suspects comes from small contractors who do hauling on
the side and dump the refuse. Seattle officials are considering licensing these haulers
or requiring remodelers to verify that their material has been properly disposed of.
The city of Pasadena, California, reports similar findings. A survey done at
the city's landfill indicated that Pasadena was disposing of one-third more trash
than was indicated in a waste generation study completed in the city. Pasadena
suspects that this waste is made up of construction and demolition debris
dropped off by small contractors. In the future, instead of contracting with small
individual haulers, Pasadena may require those applying for a building permit to
use licensed haulers to take construction and demolition materials to the landfill.
18
-------
PART III
Designing an Integrated Unit
Pricing Program
o this point, this guide has presented an
overview of the major benefits and barriers to
unit pricing, followed by suggestions on how to
define the objectives of your program and
begin building a consensus for unit pricing in your
community. This portion of the guide introduces
issues relating to the exact structure of your
community's unit pricing program. The first half of
Part III, "The Building Blocks," discusses the
advantages and disadvantages of the specific
program components and service options from which
you can choose. This is followed by "Putting the
Blocks Together," a six-step process to help you
design a successful unit pricing program.
DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM
19
-------
The Building Blocks
While unit pricing is based on the simple concept that households
pay only for the waste they generate, designing a working program
requires that you consider and decide on a range of specific issues. You
may have already examined many of these issues, such as the potential
for complementary recycling and composting programs, the types of solid
waste services to offer, and the means by which you can provide these
services to residents with special needs. During the development of a unit
pricing program, however, viewing these issues in the context of how
they might affect the success of your program is important.
The process of selecting program components and service options can
begin as much as nine months before the start of a program. This part of
the guide points out the kinds of decisions you need to make during this
process, including:
• Choosing a volume-based or weight-based system
• Selecting containers
• Examining pricing structures
• Considering billing procedures
• Determining service options and complementary programs
• Including multi-family buildings
• Accommodating individuals with special needs
Communities also need to consider other factors, such as the
remaining life of existing containers, the cost of container replacements,
the preferences of customers, and the impact of assessing additional taxes
or fees on households. Later in this section of the guide, a six-step
process for designing an actual unit pricing rate structure is presented.
This process should help you tailor a rate structure to local conditions.
Volume-Based Versus Weight-Based Programs
One of the first decisions to be made when designing a unit pricing
program is to determine how solid waste will be measured. Based on your
unit pricing goals, local budgetary constraints, and other factors, you
need to decide whether your system will charge residents for collection
services based on the weight or the volume of waste they generate. The
two systems have very different design and equipment requirements.
Under volume-based systems, residents are charged for waste
collection based on the number and size of waste containers that they
use. Households are either 1) charged directly for waste collection based
on the number of bags or cans set out at the curbside, or 2) required to
purchase special trash bags (or tags or stickers for trash bags) that include
the cost of waste collection in the purchase price.
20
-------
PART III
Under weight-based systems, tin; municipality weighs at the curbside
the waste residents set out lor collection and bills for this service per
pound. Tho program can either
require residents to use standard,
municipally supplied cans or allow
them to continue using their own
cans. Weight-based systems offer
residents a greater waste reduction
incentive than volume-based
systems since every pound ol waste
that residents prevent, recycle, or
compost results in direct savings.
This is true no matter how much or
how little waste reduction occurs.
In addition, residents can easily
understand this type of system and
perceive it as fair. Weight-based
systems also provide a more precise
measurement of waste generation
than volume-based systems.
On Ilii! other hand, weight-based systems tend to be more expensive
to implement and operate than volume-based systems because special
equipment is required and more labor typically is necessary to handle
the more complex billing system. In addition, some oi Hie equipmen
used to weigh the waste, record (be data, and bill the customer is still
experimental. Startup costs for these systems can include
truck-mounted scales for weighing waste and some type of system
(such as bar-coding on waste cans) lor entering this information into a
computer for accurate billing.
While volume-based systems are less costly to set up
'"id operate, a potential disadvantage associated with these
systems is that residents might be tempted to compact their
Waste. SOUK; residents will compact more llian others,
perhaps even using mechanical compactors. This reduces
'lie ability of unit pricing to offer more equitable charges
for waste collection services and complicates the task of
identifying the impact of unit pricing on the community's
rate of solid waste generation. Additionally, depending on
Hie system chosen, there can be less of an incentive to
reduce waste since such reductions might not translate into
direct savings for the resident.
Although over 1.000 communities nationwide have unit pricing
Programs in place, very few have fully implemented weight-based
programs. Accordingly, the remainder of this guide focuses predominantly
»ii the process ol designing and implementing a volume-based unit
pricing program.
•veight-bosed unit
of Fan
has invi
TRADEOFFS
DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM
21
-------
PART III
Austin, Texas, provides
residents with either 30-,
60-, or 90-gallon cans as
part of its unit pricing
program.
Container Options
Communities that decide to design a
volume-based unit pricing program must consider the
type and size of waste collection containers on which
to base their rate structure and billing system. Keep
in mind that choices about containers, rate
structures, and billing systems all go hand in hand. In
some cases, container type will dictate the rate
structure and billing system. In other cases, an
established billing system (that cannot be drastically
overhauled) can govern container type and rate structure.
A unit pricing program can be designed around the following container
options:
Large cans. Under this system, households are provided with
single, large waste cans, often with a capacity of 50 or 60 gallons.
Each household is then charged according to the number of cans that
they use.
Small or variable cans. This system uses a set of standard.
graduated can sizes, often ranging from approximately 20 to 60
gallons in capacity. Typically, these systems operate on a subscription
basis, under which residents choose in advance the number and size
of cans they wish to use.
Prepaid bags. This system uses colored or otherwise distinctively
marked standard-sized trash bags, typically 20 to 30 gallons in
capacity. Residents purchase the bags from the solid waste agency
through outlets such as municipal offices and retail stores. Only
waste that is placed in the bags is collected.
Prepaid tags or stickers. Residents purchase tags or stickers
from the solid waste agency and affix them to their own trash bags.
The tag or sticker specifies the size of bag it covers.
Each system has its own specific advantages and disadvantages related
to such issues as 1) offering a system that residents view as equitable:
2) creating as direct an economic incentive for waste reduction as possible;
and 3) assuring revenue stability for the solid waste agency. Other issues
to consider when weighing the pros and cons of different container types
include simplicity of billing, compatibility with existing waste collection
services, ease of collection for work crews, sanitation and aesthetics,
budgetary constraints, and community solid waste goals.
The primary benefit of a single, large container size is revenue
stability. When communities use large containers, the number of cans set
out each week tends to remain fairly constant, and so do revenues. The
primary disadvantage associated with this container choice is that
households that don't generate much waste have no economic incentive
22
-------
PART III
to reduce waste. Such households are billed the same amount
whether they fill a 60-gallon can halfway or completely.
Conversely, the principal benefit of using variable can sizes
is that even modest reductions in waste generation (for example,
one less 10-gallon waste container) can clearly translate into
savings. A disadvantage of variable cans is that they can be
inconvenient for customers who generate large volumes of waste.
In addition, to realize savings from reduced waste generation,
households must request a change in the number of cans for
which they are being billed. The solid waste agency might need
to establish an inventory and distribution system that could be
expensive to set up and maintain. Additionally, billing for this
method can be more complex in some communities.
Like variable cans, prepaid bags encourage greater waste
reduction than large cans if the bag size is configured so that
residents that generate less waste pay less. Additionally, since
residents pay for waste collection through the purchase of the
bags, there is no billing, which means this type of system is
relatively inexpensive to implement and maintain. The primary
disadvantage associated with bags is that there is greater revenue
uncertainty than with can systems. An individual might, for
example, buy several months' worth of bags at one time and then
none for many weeks. Also, semiautomatic collection vehicles
that require residents to use a rigid container might not be able to
adapt to bag collection. Bags also can tear or be torn open by
animals, resulting in scattered trash.
Prepaid tag or sticker systems offer many of the same advantages as
bag systems. Chief among these is that such systems directly encourage
waste reduction, since different stickers can be used to identify different
amounts of waste "set-outs" (the waste residents set out for collection).
This means, however, that the solid waste agency must establish and
enforce size limits for each type of sticker. As with bags, waste collection
is paid for upfront, so no billing needs to be done. Also like bags, stickers
or tags offer less revenue stability. In addition, stickers can fall off in
rainy or cold weather, and both tags and stickers can be counterfeited or
stolen.
The advantages and disadvantages of each of these container options
are described in more detail in Table 3-2 at the end of this chapter. You
don't have to be locked into one type of system, however, if you plan for
the possibility of change. Some communities conduct a pilot program in
one part of the municipality before implementing unit pricing
communitywide. In this way, difficulties can be worked out early in the
process, when modifications are still relatively easy.
UNLIMITED
SERVICE
Large.
;s and
stickers will help
n and
COll'
DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM
23
-------
TRADEOFFS
While the details of the pricing structures used in unit pricing
programs can vary greatly according to local conditions and needs, four
basic types are currently in use. These pricing structures are described
below.
Pricing Structures
The main consideration in choosing among the types of pricing
structures is their impact on the stability of the community's revenues
and on residents' waste reduction efforts. In addition, some pricing
systems are more complex than others to administer.
1. The proportional (linear) rate system is the simplest rate structure. It
entails charging households a flat price for each container of waste they
place out for collection. This rate structure provides a strong incentive
for customers to reduce waste. It also is easy to administer and bill.
Careful consideration is often required, however, to select a price per
container that avoids cash flow difficulties that can hinder a new
program. While setting too high a price will increase resistance to unit
pricing, setting too low a price may cause periodic revenue shortfalls
(and can lessen the waste reduction incentive). In addition, when setting
rates, decision-makers should assume that some level of waste
compaction will occur. They also should plan for success, since as people
begin to reduce the amount of waste they set out, the solid waste agency
will see a corresponding drop in revenues paid for waste collection.
Weighing the Tradeoffs When Setting Pricing Structures
Decision-makers considering such issues as container choices, rate structures,
and service options quickly realize that all of these choices are closely related.
Decisions in one area will influence, or even determine, how your community
responds to the remaining choices.
When considering container options, for example, a smaller community with
fewer resources might favor a bag-based system because of its generally lower
implementation and administrative expenses. Such systems, however, have the
potential for revenue gaps that the community might not be able to bridge. As a
result, a community might prefer a two-tiered or multi-tiered rate structure,
whose base fee would help prevent such instability.
By contrast, a larger community interested in providing a stronger incentive to reduce
waste might favor a proportional or variable container rate and higher per container
fees. To avoid significant revenue fluctuations, such communities might choose a
can-based subscription system that ensures a steady cash flow.
There is no one best approach to unit pricing. Throughout the design process, you
will need to determine the specific combination of container choices, rate
structures, and service options that will maximize efficiency and enable your
community to meet its solid waste goals.
24
-------
PART III
2. With a variable container rate, a different rate is charged for different
size containers. For example, a solid waste agency might charge
households $2 for every 60-gallon can of waste set out and $1.25 for
every 30-gallon can. While this system creates a strong incentive for
residents to reduce waste, it requires that communities carefully set their
rates to ensure revenue stability. Because different rates are charged, this
system can be complicated to administer and bill.
3. Both of these systems use a per-container fee to cover the fixed and
variable costs associated with a community's MSW management. Other
unit pricing rate structures address fixed and variable costs separately.
Two-tiered rate systems assess households both a fixed fee and a per
container fee. Under this system, a monthly flat fee is set for solid waste
services to ensure that fixed costs are covered; a separate, per-container
charge is then used to cover the variable costs. In Pennsburg,
Pennsylvania, the solid waste agency charges residents a flat $65 per year
plus $1 per 30-gallon bag of waste placed at the curb for pickup. This
system provides more stable revenue flows for the community but offers
less waste reduction incentives than proportional or variable container
rates. Some communities use the two-tiered rate structure as a transition
system. Once decision-makers are able to gauge customers' response to
unit pricing, a proportional rate structure could be introduced to
encourage greater waste reduction.
4. Multi-tiered rate systems charge households a fixed fee, plus variable
fees for different container sizes. For example, a community might charge a
basic $10 monthly service fee plus $2 per 60-gallon can, or $1 per 30-gallon
bag. This rate structure offers similar advantages to two-tiered rates and also
encourage waste reduction. This type of rate structure is the most complex,
however, and could be difficult to administer and bill.
Table 3-1.
Pricing Options
Proportional (linear)
Variable container
Two-tiered
Multi-tiered
Flat rate per container
Different rates for different size containers
Flat fee (usually charged on a monthly basis)
and flat rate per container
Flat fee (usually charged on a monthly basis)
and different rates for different size containers
DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM
25
-------
PART III
COSTS
Billing and Payment Systems
Traditional solid waste programs typically assess households a fixed
fee, raised through property taxes or periodic equal billing of all
households. Unit pricing programs use various billing/payment systems,
such as direct payment for containers, actual set-outs, and payment for
advance subscriptions.
With a direct payment system, residents pay for solid waste services
by purchasing bags or tags from the solid waste agency. Containers can be
sold at the courthouse or city hall, at local retail stores, or at the hauler's
office. Care should be taken to ensure that a sufficient number of easily
accessible outlets are available for residents.
Under subscription systems, residents notify the solid waste agency
of their "subscription level," or the number of containers they anticipate
setting out each collection cycle. The customer is then billed on a regular
basis for these containers. If customers are able to reduce the amount of
waste they generate, they can select a lower subscription level and save
money. In many programs, these subscription fees are set at a level that
covers the purchase of a designated number of additional bags or cans for
any waste that a customer disposes of above their subscription level. This
system offers fewer fluctuations in revenues, although the waste reduction
incentive is lower because residents who reduce their waste generation rate
only receive a reduction in their waste collection bill after requesting the
municipality to change the number of cans for which they pay.
An actual set-out system bills customers based on the actual number
of containers set out for collection. This approach requires the hauler to
count the number of bags, tags, or cans set out and to record the
information so that households can be billed later.
To address citizens' concerns about "hidden" or "double" fees, some
communities that implement unit pricing either reduce the household tax
rate commensurate with the unit pricing fee or decide not to raise the tax
base proportionately with the revenues received from unit pricing. Meet
with the citizens advisory council to work out the details for a pricing
system geared to your local needs and circumstances.
Accounting Options
Regardless of how they collect payment, most communities tend to
manage the finances of their solid waste activities as one item in the
municipal budget. A few communities, however, are using alternative
accounting approaches to complement their unit pricing programs. One
such approach is the use of "full cost accounting." Using full cost
accounting enables a community to consider all costs and revenues
associated with a task such as solid waste management, including
depreciation of capital costs, amortization of future costs, and a full
accounting of indirect costs. This method can help a community
26
-------
establish a unit pricing rate structure that will generate the revenues
needed to cover all solid waste management costs.
Another approach that can be used in conjunction with a unit pricing
program is the development of an "enterprise fund." Also referred to as
special districts, enterprise funds are entities that can be used to
separately manage the finances of a municipality's solid waste activities.
In this way, the costs and revenues of unit pricing are accounted for
under a separate budget, enabling a community to better anticipate;
revenue shortfalls and, when appropriate, invest surplus revenues in
beneficial waste management projects that can reduce the cost of MSW
management in the future.
Program Service Options
The next step is to determine which solid waste services are most
important to residents. Successful programs offer an array of solid waste
services that citizens need and appreciate. The goal-setting process
described in Part II of this guide identifies many of these services.
Offering different services does add layers of complexity to a unit
pricing program, especially to the billing component. Yet providing such
service enhancements greatly increases overall citizen acceptance of the
program. A carefully selected and priced service
array allows a community to offer premium
municipal solid waste services to households that
want them, while generating sufficient revenues to
support core solid waste collection services. The
following sections highlight some of the most
popular service options, many of which are
complementary to basic trash removal.
Complementary Programs
Complementary programs are those that
enhance the unit pricing program and encourage
residents to prevent and reduce waste. The most
common complementary programs are 1) recycling
and 2) collection of yard trimmings for composting.
Providing recycling and composting collection services enables both
types of programs to reach their maximum effectiveness. In fact, in many
cases, recycling and composting are major contributors to the success of a
unit pricing program.
Many communities already have some type of curbside collection or
voluntary drop-off recycling program in place. Linking recycling and
composting with unit pricing provides customers with an environmentally
responsible way to manage their waste. In addition, since the cost of
these programs can be built in to unit pricing fees, communities can
recover these expenses without creating an economic disincentive to
recycle. The extent of the recycling program is an important factor, as
Providing a rec \
program in conji:
Pricing can
m of wast:
DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM
27
-------
PART
* HomMm*; GuMt
"Cycling Yard
Complementary programs can
benefit from a strong public
•on effort.
well. A community will more fully realize the
benefits of offering recycling in tandem with
unit pricing if the recycling program is geared
to collect a wide range of materials (although
the availability of local markets can constrain
the types of materials a community can accept).
Providing for removal of yard trimmings
such as leaves, branches, prunings, and grass
clippings, and promoting backyard composting
and "grasscycling" (leaving grass trimmings on
the lawn), also will enhance the unit pricing
program. For example, the community of
Austin, Texas, mixes the yard trimmings it
collects from residents with sewage sludge to
produce compost called "Dillo Dirt." which is
sold to nurseries as fertilizer, and Durham.
North Carolina, makes landscaping mulch from
brush. Distributing "how-to" materials can help increase the amount of
organic waste residents compost, and some municipalities oven provide
their residents with free compost bins.
In communities where weekly recycling or composting is too costly.
curbside collection can be scheduled every other week or once a month.
In addition, municipalities can encourage haulers to provide recycling
services by including a risk-sharing clause in their contracts. Such
clauses require the municipality to share with the hauler the risk of
fluctuations in the price of recyclable materials. If a recycling company
requires payment to process a certain collected material whose value had
dropped substantially, for example, the hauler and municipality would
bear these costs together. Some communities, however, might not feel
their budget would allow them to incur additional, unexpected costs.
Backyard Collections
Backyard collection of waste and/or recyclables can be considered as
a service enhancement that complements a unit pricing system. With this
service, haulers remove residential waste and recyclables from backyards.
garages, or wherever residents prefer, rather than requiring thorn to haul
the material to the curb. Residents might pay extra for this service. When
setting a price for backyard collection services, a community should
consider costs to collect waste from the curb, transport it, and dispose of
it. The higher charge for backyard waste removal should reflect the added
municipal resources required for such a service.
Curbside Collection of Bulky Items
Curbside collection of large items, such as refrigerators and other
major appliances, is another service that complements basic trash
removal. In some communities with unit pricing, residents pay extra to
28
-------
PART III
have bulky items picked up and disposed of by the municipality. The
disposal of bulky items, which cannot fit into most unit-pricing programs'
cans or bags, can be charged for within a unit pricing system by using
printed stickers or tags that are attached to the item. To establish fair
prices, the solid waste agency can use the same collection, transportation,
and disposal cost considerations that apply to establishing prices for
standard unit pricing waste collections. The price could be set in advance
of collection, based on the owner's description of the item, or after
collection, based on the collection agency's observations.
Multi-Family Housing
One of the biggest challenges for communities implementing unit
pricing is how to include multi-family (five units or more) residential
structures into the program. Such buildings can house a large portion of
the population, particularly in densely populated areas. Because waste often
is collected from residents of such structures per building, rather than per
unit, it might be difficult to offer these residents a direct economic
incentive to reduce waste with unit pricing. To compound this problem,
because many multi-family buildings receive less convenient recycling
services than single-family housing units, residents of multi-family
buildings might have fewer avenues for waste reduction.
There are several possible options to resolve multi-family barriers.
One option is to have the building manager sell bags or tags to each
resident. When households use these tags or bags, those that generate
more waste end up paying more for waste collection. Problems arise
BARRIERS
Tips for Accommodating Residents of Multi-Family
Households
A number of ideas were presented at EPA's Unit Pricing Roundtable to help
extend to residents of multi-family households the direct economic incentives
inherent in unit pricing. One suggestion was to request that building managers
pass on trash collection savings to residents in the form of cash rebates, rent
reductions, or some free building services, although the impact of the
incentive would be diluted since it is spread over all the tenants in the
building.
New technologies, such as a bar code reader to identify the tenant and a
scale at the bottom of the chute to record the weight, also were suggested
as possible solutions. These technologies offer the potential for accurately
recording the exact waste generation for each tenant.
In addition, building codes for new and renovated buildings could be
amended to require the installation of separate chutes for recycling and
for garbage disposal. Residents also could be required to use a trash token
or some type of identifying code to gain access to a garbage chute.
DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM
29
-------
PART III
In some communities,
backyard collection can be
arranged as a service for
disabled or elderly residents.
when households do not comply with this system, however. In many
cases, residents can easily place waste in the building dumpster without
paying for a bag or sticker. Another approach is to modify the system of
placing waste out for collection in multi-family buildings. For example,
dumpsters or garbage chutes could be modified to operate only when a
magnetic card or other proof of payment is used. Such modifications can
be expensive, though. Communities with unit pricing systems in place are
experimenting with other possible solutions to the multi-family barrier. If
extending unit pricing service to multi-family buildings is a concern in
your community, consider contacting other cities or towns that have
addressed this issue for additional ideas. (A listing of these
communities is provided in Table 3-2 at the back of this section.)
Residents With Special Needs
Many communities considering unit pricing arc concerned about the
special needs of physically limited or disabled citizens and those living
on fixed or low incomes. For example, some senior citi/ens and disabled
residents may be physically unable to move trash containers to the curb.
Communities may wish to consider offering such residents backyard
collection services at a reduced rate or at no extra charge. Such special
considerations should be factored in to your unit pricing rate structure.
While the fees associated with unit pricing could represent a potential
problem for some residents, unit pricing systems can be structured to
allow everyone to benefit. To provide assistance to residents with
special financial needs, communities can reduce the per-household waste
collection charges by a set amount, offer a
percentage discount, or provide a credit on the
overall bill. In some cases, communities with unit
pricing programs offer a certain number of free
bags or stickers to low-income residents. Some
communities charge everyone equally for bags
or tags but reduce the base service charge for
low-income households. Assistance also can
be offered through existing low-income
programs, particularly other utility assistance
efforts.
These techniques allow low-income
households to benefit from some assistance while
retaining the incentive to reduce their bill for
waste services by practicing source reduction, recycling, and composting.
Communities will need to determine how to identify the amount of
assistance they will offer based primarily on the program's anticipated
revenues. As a basis for establishing eligibility for assistance, some
communities with unit pricing programs use income criteria such as federal
poverty guidelines.
30
-------
PART III
©retainer Systems
to
£
to
X
CO
c
03
U
Advantages
Revenues are fairly stable and easy to
forecast
Unlike bags, cans often work well with
semiautomated or automated
collection equipment (if cans are
chosen that are compatible with this
equipment).
If residents already own trash cans of
roughly uniform volume, new cans
might not be required.
Cans may be labeled with addresses to
assist in enforcement.
Cans prevent animals from scattering
the waste.
Disadvantages
Cans often have higher implementation
costs, including the purchase and
distribution of new cans.
Customers have a limited incentive
to reduce waste. Since residents are
usually charged on a subscription
basis, there is no incentive not to fill
cans already purchased. In addition,
no savings are possible below the
smallest size trash can.
Relatively complex billing systems are
needed to track residents' selected
subscription level and bill accordingly.
Complex storage, inventory, and
distribution systems are required to
provide new cans to households that
change their subscription level.
A method of collecting and charging
for waste beyond subscription levels
and for bulk waste collections needs
to be established.
At the outset, residents may find it
difficult or confusing to select a
subscription level.
Nonautomated can collections tend
to require greater time and effort
than collecting waste in bags.
Communities
Using This System
Hennepin County, MN
Seattle, WA
Anaheim, CA
King County, WA
(in unincorporated areas)
Marion County, OR
\
Pasadena, CA
Glendale, CA
Oakland, CA
Bellevue, WA
Santa Monica, CA
Duluth, MN
Richmond, CA
Walnut Creek, CA
Santa Clara, CA
Auburn, WA
Hastings, MN
DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM
31
-------
Table
CO
£
CO
cd
CO
Advantages
Residents find bag systems easy to
understand.
Bag systems might offer a stronger
waste reduction incentive than can
systems because fees typically are
based on smaller increments of waste.
Accounting costs are lower than with
can systems, since no billing system is
needed.
Bag systems have lower distribution,
storage, and inventory costs than can
systems when bags are sold at local
retail establishments and municipal
offices.
Bag collections tend to be faster and
more efficient than nonautomated
can collections.
Bags can be used to indicate that the
proper fees have been paid for bulky
items or white goods, since fees for
pickup of these items (above the
subscription level) often are assessed
by communities. Communities can
ask residents to attach a certain
number of bags to the items according
to the cost of disposal (for example,
two bags for a couch and three bags
for a washing machine).
Disadvantages
Communities
Using This System
Greater revenue uncertainty than
with can-based systems, since the
number of bags residents purchase
can fluctuate significantly.
If bags are sold in municipal offices,
extra staff time be will need to be
committed.
Residents might view a requirement
to buy and store bags as an
inconvenience.
Bags are more expensive than tags
or stickers.
Bags often are incompatible with
automated or semiautomated
collection equipment.
Animals can tear bags and scatter
trash, or bags can tear during lifting.
Unlike cans, bags are not reused,
adding to the amount of solid waste
entering the waste stream.
Grand Rapids, Ml
Reading, PA
Lansing, Ml
St Cloud, MN
Darien, IL
Carlisle, PA
Quincy, IL
Oregon, Wl
Fallbrook, CA
32
-------
Container Systems
CO
£
to
CO
U
CO
O
txo
Advantages
Tag and sticker systems are easier and
less expensive to implement than can
systems.
Residents often find tag or sticker
systems easier to understand.
These systems offer a stronger waste
reduction incentive than can systems
because fees are based on smaller
increments of waste.
Accounting costs are lower than with
can systems, since no billing system is
needed.
Selling tags or stickers at local retail
establishments and municipal offices
offers lower distribution, storage, and
inventory costs than can systems.
The cost of producing tags or stickers
for sale to residents is lower than for
bags.
Stickers can be used to indicate
payment for bulky items or white
goods, since fees for pickup of these
items (above the subscription level)
often are assessed by communities.
Disadvantages
Communities
Using This System
There is greater revenue uncertainty Tompkins County, NY
than with can-based systems, since the
number of tags or stickers residents Aurora, IL
purchase can fluctuate significantly.
To avoid confusion among residents,
the municipality must establish and
clearly communicate the size limits
allowable for each sticker,
If tags or stickers are sold in municipal
offices, extra staff time will need to be
committed.
Residents might view a requirement to
buy and store stickers or tags as an
inconvenience.
Tags and stickers often do not adhere
in rainy or cold weather.
Extra time might be needed at curb
for collectors to enforce size limits. In
addition, there may be no incentive for
strict enforcement if haulers are paid
based on the amount of waste collected.
Stickers left on trash at curbside could
be removed by vandals or by other
residents hoping to avoid paying for
waste services.
Tags and stickers are not as noticeable
as bags or other prepaid indicators.
Grand Rapids, Ml
Lansing, Ml
DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM
33
-------
Putting the Blocks Together
Now that you hove identified the components of unit pricing programs in general,
you are ready to design a program that meets your community's specific needs
and goals. "Putting the Blocks Together" presents a six-step process that can
assist you in designing and evaluating your preliminary rate structure. This process
should begin approximately six months before the start of your program.
Performing the Six-Step Process
As you are completing these steps, be sure to keep a few basic objectives in
mind:
• Raise sufficient revenues to cover fixed costs and variable costs.
• Possibly raise revenues beyond the cost of the program to cover other
waste management costs. These revenues might be used for antilittering
campaigns or to discourage illegal dumping.
• Send clear price signals to citizens to encourage waste reduction.
• Charge appropriate fees to cover the costs of 1) recycling and other
complementary programs, 2) providing services (such as backyard
collection) for physically limited or disabled people, and 3) any discount
pricing provided to low-income households.
• Compile accurate MSW baseline data to be used when evaluating your
unit pricing program.
• Design a program simple enough to keep administrative costs low and to
make it easy for people to participate in the program, thereby reducing both
their waste generation and their waste collection bill.
• Also, don't forget to consider your unit pricing goals, community-specific
conditions, and the most promising suggestions from municipalities with
existing unit pricing programs to ensure a program tailored to the waste
management needs and concerns of your community.
-------
PUTTING THE BLOCKS TOGETHER
PART III
^^mm
1
STEP
Demand:
Estimate Total Amount of Waste Generated in the "Steady-State
Because the amount of waste your community generates affects the level of resources
(including trucks, labor, and administrative support) required to manage it, you need
to accurately estimate what the community's waste generation rate will be after your
unit pricing program is fully established. This period is referred to as the "steady-state." In
the steady-state, residents have accepted unit pricing and reduced their waste generation
rates accordingly, and the municipality's waste management operations have adjusted to
new, lower waste collection requirements.
TRADITIONAL
SYSTEM
Planning
TRANSITION PERIOD
Implementation
STEADY-STATE
Program Monitoring
Ensuring that the revenues received under the unit pricing program will cover the
program's costs is a critical factor for most communities. As a result, accurately
estimating the amount of waste collected in the steady-state is an important first step in
determining how much money unit pricing will actually generate. To develop such an
estimate, perform the following calculations:
} Current demand. Using your waste hauling records, estimate the amount of waste
collected from residents last year.
} Community growth. Next, estimate the population growth trends and other
demographic patterns in your community. Use this information to estimate the demand
for waste management services over the next one or two years. This information can
be developed in several ways; the box entitled "Forecasting Community Growth Trends"
on page 36 discusses some different approaches. (Note: If you are planning special
programs for low-income, elderly, or multi-family households, you should estimate the
population trends of these residents or households as well.)
t Impact of unit pricing. Then, estimate the likely impact (i.e., household
responsiveness) of unit pricing on this demand for waste services. Other communities with
unit pricing programs in place might be a good source of information on the degree of waste
generation reduction to be expected. Some communities have achieved 25 to 45 percent
reductions in waste generation rates, depending on such factors as the use of complementary
programs, the design of the unit pricing rate structure, and the effectiveness of the public
education effort. Be sure not to underestimate the potential success of your unit pricing
program, especially if strong public education and complementary programs are planned.
Underestimating waste reduction will cause you to overestimate potential revenues.
DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM
35
-------
Use this information on current demand, community growth, and the impact of unit pricing
to estimate the total amount of solid waste you expect will be generated once the unit
pricing program has been established.
Forecasting Community Growth Trends
Forecasting trends in the growth of a community's population is an important step in accurately
estimating the amount of waste generated under an ongoing unit pricing program. Typically, the
degree of sophistication a community brings to this process will vary with the information and
resources available.
For example, if your community is small and you expect no change in population trends, per capita
waste generation, and commercial or industrial growth, you could use a simple trend analysis to
forecast growth. Your estimation of current waste generation amounts might be based on a waste
characterization assessment, historical records from collection services and disposal facilities, or
estimates based on similar communities' analyses. Extending these trends can provide an
estimate of future demand for solid waste services. If you base your estimates on other
communities' analyses, be sure to choose communities that are similar to yours in size, population,
income distribution, urban/rural distribution, and economic base. In addition, using the most
recent analyses available will increase the accuracy of your estimation.
In contrast, if your community is large and you expect a change in current trends, you probably will
need to use a sophisticated forecasting equation that will account for all the variables you identify. Your
ylid waste agency may have collected data on a number of factors that previously have influenced the
iount of waste generated by the community (such as housing construction, plant closings, household
:ome. economic growth, and age distribution of the population). You could base projections of
ture demand for solid waste services by introducing these data into your forecasting equation.
•••••
STEP
Services:
Determine the Components of Your Unit Pricing Program
After clarifying your community's goals and considering the pros and cons of the unit
pricing program options described earlier in this section of the guide, you will be ready to
determine the methods your solid waste agency will use to collect waste from residents and
other details of your unit pricing program, including:
} Containers. After considering their practical implications, decide whether your unit
pricing program would be most effective using cans, bags, tags or stickers, or some type
of hybrid system. Determine the volume of the containers to be used.
^ Service Options. While most unit pricing programs will include curbside collections,
decide whether your program would benefit from such additional services as backyard
collections and picking up bulky items such as white goods.
36
-------
PUTTING THE BLOCKS TOGETHER
PART
| Complementary waste management programs. If your community is not
already operating programs like recycling or composting, consider whether you might
implement them to enhance the effectiveness of your unit pricing program and to help
meet other community goals.
) Residents of multi-family buildings and low-income residents. Determine how
your community plans to extend the economic benefits of unit pricing to residents of
multi-family buildings and to deal with the needs of low-income residents and the elderly.
^mmm
3
STEP
Costs:
Estimate the Costs of Your Unit Pricing Program
Having determined the structure of your program and the services to include, list all
associated costs. Categories of costs can include:
} Start-up costs. Estimate the one-time costs your community will incur when
implementing the unit pricing program, such as training personnel, purchasing new
containers, and designing and implementing a new billing process.
t Ongoing costs. Estimate the costs your program will incur on an ongoing basis. These
costs include variable costs (such as landfill tipping fees) and more stable or fixed costs
(including rent and utilities for agency offices and office supplies) that remain relatively
constant despite fluctuations in the amount of waste collected. Be sure to consider any extra
costs from providing special services to certain groups. (Some communities might find it
useful to employ full cost accounting procedures to better understand the exact costs of
the different projects planned as part of the unit pricing program.)
•••
4
STEP
Rates:
Develop a Tentative Unit Pricing Rate Structure
Having determined the components of your program, you can now set a tentative rate
structure. At this point, the rates should be considered merely rough estimates to be
revised and refined in light of the overall revenues they will generate and how acceptable
the costs will be to residents. The rates you start with can be borrowed from the figures
used by neighboring unit pricing communities offering similar services or adapted from
price ranges found nationally. As you work through the remaining steps in the process of
setting a rate structure, you can determine whether the rates are appropriate and make
adjustments accordingly. Be sure to specify any lower rates that you plan to make available to
some portions of your community (such as discounts for low-income households).
DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM
37
-------
mm^^m
5
STEP
^^B
6
STEP
Revenues:
Calculate the Revenues From Unit Pricing
You now have the information needed to estimate the revenues that your unit pricing
program will generate once it has been established and residents have adjusted their
waste generation rates accordingly. Divide the total amount of waste generated per
month in the steady-state (estimated in Step 1) by the volume of containers, such as bags
or cans, you established in Step 2. This provides an estimate of the number of containers
of solid waste you expect to collect per month. Then multiply the estimated number of
containers by the unit charge you have tentatively established in Step 4. This yields an
estimate of the total revenues per month generated under unit pricing.
Depending on the number of services offered and the unit pricing structure itself, these
calculations can be simple or complex! For example, communities using cans of varying
sizes and offering additional services (such as backyard waste collection) must estimate
the revenues produced by each component of their solid waste program. In addition, if
low-income households are subsidized under your program, be sure to calculate the size
of the subsidies and subtract from the expected revenues.
Balance:
Evaluate and Adjust Your Preliminary Unit Pricing Program
For most communities, comparing the anticipated costs of their unit pricing program
(Step 3) against expected revenues (Step 5) will provide the critical indication of whether
the program is viable. (In this step you must be able to rely on accurate baseline data for
gauging the viability of your program.) If this comparison indicates that the costs of your
unit pricing program might not be fully covered by its revenues, you need to review both
the design of the program (Step 2) and the rates you plan to charge (Step 4). Several
revisions of program options and rate structures may be required to achieve a unit
pricing program that most closely meets the goals established by the community in
the planning phase (see Part II).
Once you feel that your program strikes a working balance between costs incurred for
services provided and the prices residents will be charged, it might be appropriate to
submit the program design to other municipal officials or community leaders for
additional input. This process of review and comment can continue until a balanced
program agreed upon by community representatives has been established.
38
-------
PUTTING THE BLOCKS TOGETHER
PART III
The Six Steps in Action:
Designing a Rate Structure for Community A
To illustrate the steps in action, we will follow Community A, a hypothetical town, as it designs
a rate structure for its new unit pricing program based on its own particular goals and concerns.
Estimating waste generation rates. Community A's records show that it collected
480,000 cubic yards of solid waste from residents last year. Municipal officials realize that
the population of the town is likely to increase next year after a large multi-use building
complex is completed. Based on population projections prepared by town planners,
officials estimate that, at the current rate, residents will generate nearly 600,000 cubic
yards of solid waste annually two years from now. Within this two-year period, however,
officials hope their unit pricing program will have reached its steady-state, and residents
will be generating less waste. Using data from three nearby, demographically similar
towns that have established unit pricing programs, municipal officials estimate that two
years after implementation of the unit pricing program the community will generate
about 410,000 cubic yards of waste annually.
Establishing rates. At this stage in the design process, municipal officials in Community
A decide to use the median rate of the prices charged by other communities across the
country ($1.75 per 30-gallon bag). In addition, this rate is very close to the price adopted
by the three nearby unit pricing communities for their 30-gallon containers.
Calculating revenues. Dividing the annual amount of solid waste Community A expects
to generate in the steady-state (410,000 cubic yards) by the size of their waste container
(30 gallons or 0.15 cubic yards) shows that the municipality can expect to collect over
2,733,000 bags each year. By multiplying this figure by the price per bag ($1.75), officials
calculated that Community A should receive about $4,780,000 in revenues from its unit
pricing program each year.
Calculating costs. Community A estimates that the annual steady-state cost of its
program will include approximately $1,000,000 in fixed costs, such as public education
efforts, computers and other office materials, and enforcement efforts, and
approximately $2,700,000 in tipping fees and other variable costs. Combining these
figures produces an annual steady-state cost of approximately $3,700,000 for the
program. Additional start-up expenses also would be incurred.
Comparing costs and revenues. While recognizing that their program must cover the
town's waste management costs completely, officials in Community A agreed the town
should cover any start-up costs that exceeded revenues during the initial transition period.
Therefore, when a comparison of the expected revenues against the costs of the unit
pricing program showed that the program would generate excess revenues, municipal
officials decided to lower the price charged per bag to $1.35. This new price would yield a
projected $3,690,000 annually, closer to the town's actual costs of maintaining the program.
DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM 39
-------
PART III
PUTTING THE BLOCKS TOGETHER
Balancing Costs and Revenues
Costs
A community can select from an impressive array of service
options when mapping out a unit pricing program. After estimating
the demand for services in STEP 1, communities can plan for the
services they will offer in STEP 2. Some communities will want to
offer services such as backyard collections, comprehensive
recycling programs, and assistance to residents with special needs.
Bear in mind, however, that while these projects can help promote
source reduction and increase citizen enthusiasm, they also can
increase the cost of your program significantly. Use STEP 3 to help
estimate the costs of the services you are planning to offer.
Revenues
The flip side of costs is revenues. Unit pricing
allows communities to generate the revenues
needed to pay for solid waste management services
under the new program. In fact, when developing a
rate structure in STEP 4 and calculating the
resulting revenues in STEP 5, communities might
decide to set prices at a level above the cost of
their unit pricing program. This would further
encourage source reduction among residents and
ensure that revenues could cover any shortfalls.
Since residents will only support a program they
feel charges a fair price for solid waste services,
however, there are limits to this strategy.
Balance
To be successful over the long term, your unit
pricing program will need to carefully balance the
services you want to include against the revenues
that residents provide. The exact formula will
depend upon local conditions. Use STEP 6 to
help you compare the costs of your planned
program against anticipated revenues. Keep
revising your rate structure until you feel that you
have a program that offers the services you need
at a price residents can support.
40
-------
uestions
& answers
How small should our smallest can or bag be?
Unit pricing communities agree that planning for success is important during the
design process. Some communities have found that cans as small as 10 to 20 ga//ons
are needed! For example, Olympia, Washington, offers residents a 10-gallon can and
Victoria, British Columbia, uses a 22-gallon can as the base service level. A number of
communities using large containers (such as 60-gallon cans) are finding that these
containers are too large to offer customers meaningful incentives, but purchasing and
delivering new, smaller cans later in the program is very expensive. In the short run, a
broader range of service can be provided by using several smaller cans. This also helps
keep the system flexible for future changes.
What pricing rates are communities charging?
For bag systems in the Midwest and Pennsylvania, communities charge about $1
to $2 per 30-gallon bag. For variable can programs in the Northwest and
California, towns charge $9 to $15 for the first level of service (20 to 40 gallons),
with charges for additional cans of service ranging from 304 to $15.
We have an existing variable rate can program. How can we
increase the incentive for waste reduction?
The key change to make is to base your billing on actual set-outs rather than using
a subscription approach. Offer smaller cans to encourage waste reduction, and
consider a bag-based system. Upgrading composting and recycling options
(including plastics collection, for example, if you don't already) also will provide an
incentive for customers to reduce waste. Communities a/so universally state that
education is critical to helping customers understand and work with the system.
Finally, consider a weight-based program. You might find that the cost of
implementing this type of program is not prohibitive and that it can work in
tandem with your existing cans.
How can we improve source separation of recyclable materials?
Some residents may tend to be sloppy about source separation regardless of the type
of solid waste pricing system. As people learn to reduce their costs by recycling more,
however, they may become more inclined to introduce nonrecyclables in their recycling
bins. Many communities have found the best solution is a good education and
enforcement program that creates a sense of"ownership among res/dents, supported
by peer pressure against such behavior. Some also impose a small charge for
recyclable materials in their rate structure design.
DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM
41
-------
PART III
Points to
remember
Remember that container options, complementary programs, rate
structures, and billing systems are all interrelated. As you consider the
different options, keep in mind the need to cover costs, keep the system
simple and convenient, encourage waste reduction, and minimize
administrative burdens on your agency.
Tradeoffs must be considered as you make decisions about rate structures
and program options. Balance, for example, the need to generate revenues
against providing incentives for waste reduction.
Consider complementary programs, such as recycling and collection of
yard trimmings, to increase the effectiveness of unit pricing.
Consider how to ensure that unit pricing's economic incentives to reduce waste
can be extended to residents of multi-family housing in your community.
Design your program to be flexible enough to allow for groups with
special needs. Discount pricing or assistance programs might be necessary
to ensure that the program encourages^aste reduction without imposing
physical or financial burdens on handicapped or low-income members of
your community.
Refer back to your unit pricing goals when making rate structure
decisions. While information from other communities with unit pricing
programs is helpful, your own community's solid waste concerns should be
the overriding factor.
42
-------
Case Studies
Establishing a Rate Structure
A View From Seattle
Unit priding structure. Seattle has established a two-tiered, variable subscription
can unit pricing program. To ensure support for the program from our City Council and
residents in general, we needed to design a program that keeps rates low and revenues
stable. To accomplish this, Seattle chose to adopt a two-tiered rate structure. The
mandatory base charge (called a minimum charge) is $5.85 a month. We also charge
$15 for each standard size (30-gallon) can per week. The Council pushed for this
structure, believing it would keep overall rates down and send a strong environmental
message to the community at the same time. There tends to be broad support for the
single price per can.
We also have introduced smaller can sizes. About 30 percent of our customers use minicans
(19-gallon capacity), which cost $11.50 per week, and we soon will be providing microcan
service (a 10-gallon container) for $9.35 per week. After talking with customers and
observing their waste disposal habits, we found a lot of customers could fit their waste into a
micro can. We expect about 10 percent of all customers to use the micro cans.
CompBemeinitary sen-voces. After electing to collect yard trimmings as part of our
program, we decided to set a flat fee of $3 per household per month for this service,
believing that a more complicated system would only make the program's
administration prohibitively costly. We offer bulky item pick-up for $25 per item. The
price was set to cover hauling and administrative costs.
For waste that is generated above the subscription level, residents must attach a trash
tag, marketed through local retail outlets, to garbage bags. The trash tag system has
been one of our less successful programs, partly because customers just don't know
about it. In addition, our haulers do not always enforce the tag system. Since they get
paid per ton of waste they pick up, they have no incentive to leave the waste at the
curb. We estimate we forfeit anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million dollars a year on
fees not paid on this additional waste.
Tags and Stickers
A View From Illinois
One of the major advantages of tags and stickers is that, since residents pay for them at
various outlets in the community, there is no billing at all. They also are applicable to
different types of services, containers, and waste, and they are easy to purchase and hold
on to until needed. Multiple tags or stickers can be used on bulky waste items, too.
Tags and stickers also are easy for collection personnel to use. Since every second they
spend at a stop costs money, the more data collection or enforcement that a community
DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM 43
-------
requires haulers to perform per stop, the less likely they are to do it. In addition, the
tags and stickers are still useful even in cases where collection personnel can't read or
write.
But tags and stickers are not perfect. The hauler might not be able to find them.
People can steal them off other residents' garbage bags and put them on their own
bags. A special problem for stickers is that they can fall off in rainy or cold weather.
Furthermore, people may buy a large number of tags in January, and then none for
the next several months. Not only does this create an uncertain revenue supply, it also
makes predicting solid waste volume very difficult.
Experience With Weight-Based Systems
A View From Farmington, Minnesota, and Seattle, Washington
In Farmington, Minnesota, we worked for two years to develop and implement a
weight-based unit pricing program for our town of 5,000 residents. Our new system
uses fully automated trucks that require just one person per truck to hoist and weigh
the garbage can. The truck's weighing system reads a bar code on the can that
identifies the resident's name and address. The truck then empties the can and the
information is fed automatically into the billing system through an onboard computer.
This provides a reliable system for charging residents for waste collection by weight.
One issue we have to resolve is establishing an appropriate regulation for the weighing
mechanism used in our system. After Minnesota's Weights and Measures Agency
decided it did not have the authority to verify the scales on the trucks, the state
legislature adopted standardized weight and measure legislation establishing regulations
covering weighing equipment for garbage collection trucks. One issue that remains,
however, is that the degree of calibration required is too precise (the same as that for
grocery store scales). We are now in the process of petitioning for changes to make
the regulation more consistent with practical needs.
In Seattle, Washington, we tested two different weight-based systems: a
hand-dumped weight-based system and a semi-automated weight-based system. The
hand dump system, designed around a "hook scale" and a bar code, was tested over
the course of three months. The collector hung the can on the hook and used a
scanner on the bar code. The weight and number were recorded in a portable
calculator-sized computer and downloaded to a personal computer for calculating anc
mailing mock bills to customers. The second system we tested during a six-week trial
used a retrofitted semiautomated tipping arm and a radio-frequency tag. The weight
and customer identification number were automatically recorded during the dumping
cycle. Both approaches worked extremely well. The first system took about 10 percent
longer for collection; the second system operated exactly as the standard semiautomated
variable can system and took no extra time. Surveys of customers participating in the
hand-dump system trial showed that it was very popular. Participating residents reduced
waste 15 percent by weight over the course of the testing.
In our research, we found that with the weight-based system, there are advantages tc
customers buying their own containers. The cost is lower and, if the garbage is
hand-dumped, you do not need standardized containers. Under a semiautomated
system, however, you might have to require customers to buy specific containers.
44
-------
PART IV
Implementing and Monitorin;
Unit Pricing
H
aving carefully planned and designed a unit pricing
program that best reflects the needs and concerns of
your community, you can now get started.
Implementing a unit pricing program is an ongoing
process, requiring persistent attention to a wide range of
details. This part of the guide focuses on the central issues
concerning unit pricing implementation, including public
education, accounting, and administrative changes.
Suggestions also are included for collecting data and
monitoring the program once it is in place.
There are two distinct schools of thought about the timing of
unit pricing implementation. One maintains that unit pricing
should be implemented within a specified time frame and
that rate adjustments, complementary programs such as
recycling, and any other changes be made all at once. The
other believes that households respond better when they are
asked to make changes in small, manageable increments over
time.
The final decision about which path to follow is a local one
based on the views of your agency, the local government,
community organizations, and the households themselves. In
most towns, residents will prefer to modify their habits as
infrequently as possible. In this case, it might be easiest to
implement a package of changes all at once, rather than ask
for a series of adjustments six months apart.
IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING
45
-------
PART IV
Implementation Activities
Many tasks need to be performed during unit pricing implementation.
While the exact activities vary from community to community based on
program design and local conditions, certain tasks pertain to nearly all
unit pricing programs. These include conducting public relations and
reorganizing your solid waste agency's administrative office. (Both of
these activities are discussed in detail below.) Other common tasks
include:
• Establishing legal authority. Generally, to implement a unit
pricing program, your solid waste agency needs the authority to set
and approve waste collection rates and bill accordingly, establish an
ordinance mandating the use of the waste collection service, establish
penalties for illegal dumping, and spend solid waste agency funds for
activities beyond those associated with traditional solid waste
management services (for example, public education). If your
community lacks the authority to implement and enforce any portion
of the unit pricing program, the first step will be to draft the
necessary ordinances in consultation with your legal counsel.
• Procuring containers. You also will need to purchase the
necessary waste containers, bags, tags, or stickers for the program.
Once the size and design specifications are established, you can seek
vendors for the required materials. In some cases, a request for
proposal (RFP) might be placed to solicit competing bids from several
vendors. This can help you procure the necessary materials at the
least cost to your agency. After a vendor is selected and an order
placed, storage and distribution plans will be needed. In particular,
communities planning to use local retailers to distribute bags, tags, or
stickers should identify and negotiate with local merchants to arrive
at a mutually beneficial arrangement. Communities developing a
can-based system will need to inform residents of the can options,
have residents select the number and size of cans they will use (if a
variable can system is used), and distribute the cans to all residents.
• Assisting groups with special needs. If your community is
planning to assist residents with special needs, such as multi-family,
low-income, physically handicapped, or elderly residents, you will
need to develop a list of qualification criteria. In addition, you might
need to devise special applications and train staff to review cases.
Procedures should be established for resolving any disputes or
complaints that could occur during the review process. If you are
planning to include multi-family residents in your program, consider
planning and conducting a pilot program before you switch to unit
pricing. In this way, different systems and technologies can be tested
prior to launching the actual program.
46
-------
PART IV
Establishing complementary programs. If you
have decided to launch or expand recycling or
composting efforts, bulky waste collections, or
other complementary programs in conjunction with
your unit pricing program, you will need to
coordinate the many steps involved in establishing
these programs. Depending on the resources
available and on local conditions, these steps could
include purchasing or modifying existing
equipment, hiring and training collection staff,
identifying local markets for recyclables, and
contracting with buyers.
Ensuring enforcement. Enforcement procedures
could be established to address the possibility of
illegal dumping or burning of waste, "borrowing" of
tags or stickers from neighbors' bags, or nonpayment
of fees. If necessary, enforcement staff can be hired
and procedures developed for investigating incidents.
In many
-------
PART IV
As par- lie outreach
program, Seattle's Solid Waste
s conveying important
obout unit pricing
es of engaging
pamt
The first step is to determine the scope and content of your
community relations effort. All such efforts need to convey to residents
the exact structure of the new unit pricing program. Be sure to relate all
essential information, including:
• The types and costs of all services offered under the new
program.
• The schedule for collections.
• The means by which fees will be collected.
• The methods or outlets for purchasing cans, bags, tags, or
stickers.
• The penalties for noncompliance.
When imparting this information to the
community, make sure that all instructions
are clear and simple. Explain any unit
pricing concepts that residents might not
understand. If you are producing written
materials, consider translating the text into
more than one language, depending on the
makeup of your community. Use illustrations
whenever possible to convoy key concepts.
Sometimes local copying shops or printers
will donate their services to help produce
these materials.
Also, be sure to discuss the waste
management goals for the community and
show how the new unit pricing program will
help meet those goals. If you had organized a
citizens advisory council or an informal
gathering of community or civic groups to help
you with public outreach during the planning
stage, you might reconvene this group to plan
your implementation outreach efforts. Such a group can help you develop
an effective message and ensure that you reach all segments of the
community.
Offer citizens information on how to alter their purchasing and
behavior patterns to prevent and reduce waste. Tips on waste prevention
options, such as reusing containers, renting seldom-used equipment, and
donating unwanted items, are useful. Encouraging residents to purchase
recyclable items and goods with recycled content also is important. In
addition, the message is likely to have a greater impact if information on
additional benefits, such as saving energy and preserving natural
resources, is provided. If residents make the program's goals their goals
too, they are more likely to make long-term behavioral changes.
48
-------
PART IV
There are many ways to convey the specifics of the program to the
community. While the solid waste agency will need to decide which
methods to use and how often to repeat the message, some avenues to
consider include:
• Introducing the program with a flyer or letter from a local official or
recycling coordinator.
• Enclosing inserts in utility bills that discuss the program and answer
common questions. Direct mailings to households also can be used.
• Developing posters or flyers for distribution in stores, libraries,
schools, and other public places around the community. Retail stores
will be especially valuable if your program uses bags, tags, or
stickers that are distributed though retail outlets. You can leave
flyers, posters, newsletters, and other materials with these stores,
and ensure that the retailers themselves are familiar with the
program.
• Producing newsletters that discuss the need for the program, answer
questions, and provide updates about the program's progress.
• Establishing a telephone hotline to provide residents with immediate
answers to their questions.
• Drafting press releases and developing media spots for radio or cable
television. Through the media, you can reach a broad range of
residents.
Additional outreach techniques can be employed based on your
community's particular conditions. For example, if you feel that a specific
group of residents, such as senior citizens, are not receiving enough
information to participate effectively, you might consider reaching out to
senior centers, local churches, and other institutions to ensure that
everyone is familiar with unit pricing.
Some solid waste agencies opt to conduct public education campaigns
using existing inhouse staff. Others hire one or more qualified
individuals to conduct these activities or pay outside consultants to
perform public outreach. This decision is typically based on the size of
your community, the scope of your program, and the available resources.
Keep in mind that public outreach is an ongoing process. A consistent
flow of information, designed to answer questions, receive input, and
communicate any changes made to the program after it has been
implemented, will help maintain interest in the program. In addition, an
ongoing campaign can continue to inform and educate citizens about new
ways to prevent or reduce waste.
IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING
49
-------
PART IV
Reorganizing Your Solid Waste Agency's
Administration
Depending on their current structure and the scope of the new unit
pricing program, some solid waste agencies will not have to make
significant changes in the way they administer solid waste collection
services. Such communities can switch to unit pricing using only some
overtime work from existing employees. Other programs, however, could
require new administrative and accounting systems and staff to handle
the changes in billing, tracking costs and revenues, managing operations,
and maintaining customer relations. In some cases, larger communities
planning more complicated unit pricing systems have found it
worthwhile to hire analytical, financial, and customer service staff to
handle both the transition and ongoing requirements of the program.
Getting Your New Administrative Office On Line
The keys to transforming your solid waste agency's administration into
an efficient team capable of handling its new responsibilities are:
• Anticipating the level of expertise that will be necessary, both during
program implementation and ongoing operation.
• Giving funding priority to areas that hold the greatest opportunity for
savings or pose the greatest risk of financial problems.
• Meeting temporary needs during the transition with temporary help,
rather than locking in to a level of employment that proves excessive in
the long run.
While the process of reorganizing an administrative system for a new
unit pricing program can seem daunting, performing the switch as a
series of steps with clear objectives in mind will help make the process
manageable. Generally, communities with unit pricing programs have
found that the process of reorganizing the administrative office should
take place between three and six months before the start of the program.
The first step is to define the new responsibilities the administrative
office must assume once the program has reached its steady state, as
described in Part III. Consider all the functions, such as public relations,
customer service, economic analysis, financial management and tracking,
and enforcement, that the office will need to perform. With steady-state
as the goal, try to create a new office that matches these needs rather than
accommodate your goals to the skills that are available. After establishing
50
-------
PART IV
the functions and related skills required of your new administrative
office, you should then begin to reorganize the office to meet these
responsibilities.
During the process of defining new responsibilities, remember that
the unit pricing program will change the administrative office's functions
significantly. The office will be operating a revenue recovery system that
pays for the work of the solid waste agency, rather than justifying funding
levels to the municipality's budget office. The office will find it has an
unprecedented level of influence on customers' behavior through the
price signals it sends. This brings additional responsibility for the proper
design and management of these price signals. Managing these new
functions requires the office to have access to a range of skills, including:
• Economics. Developing the unit pricing rate structure and related
forecasts of revenues, costs, and total community use of waste
collection, recycling, and composting programs.
• Public relations. Developing outreach and education activities and
managing customer service representatives. This function includes
interaction with the general public, as well as local interest groups,
elected officials, and the news media.
• Financial and logistical management. Billing households or
collecting revenues from the sale of bags, tags, or stickers; developing
debt management strategies; managing cash reserves; and developing
a distribution system for the program's cans, bags, tags, or stickers.
• Enforcement. Ensuring that households pay for the level of solid
waste services they receive.
In addition, several important suggestions were offered during EPA's
Unit Pricing Roundtable for organizing your administrative office's
financial operations. Be sure to establish access to a cash reserve to help
the office cover periods of unanticipated revenue reductions. Repeated
instances of revenue shortfalls, however, could signal an imbalance
between the services offered and your program's rate structure.
Preparing existing administrative staff for the changes that will result
from the switch to unit pricing is another important step. While the
change initially might not be viewed positively by all employees,
conveying the positive aspects of the switch might help ease concerns. In
addition to the reorientation of the office away from traditional collection
and disposal services to a new emphasis on waste prevention, recycling,
and composting, employees should be informed of the opportunities for
staff training and development in new areas, such as public relations and
customer service, that the new program will create.
Furthermore, when organizing the new office, communities should be
aware that expanding the administrative office requires a delicate
balancing of resources: while allocating too much funding to the office
could cut into the savings that unit pricing programs offer, underfunding
the office can result in inefficiencies and poor revenue recovery. This is
COSTS
HIERARCHY
TRADEOFFS
IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING
51
-------
PART IV
particularly true during the implementation and transition periods,
before the unit pricing steady-state has been reached. During this period,
using temporary labor or employees on loan from other municipal
agencies might help to cover short-term budgeting, analytical, and other
tasks.
Developing a Schedule
Organizing the many steps involved in planning, designing, and
implementing a unit pricing program into a clear schedule is an essential
step for most communities. While the exact schedule of steps should be
viewed as flexible, establishing an overview of the entire process will
help eliminate the possibility of any serious omissions. Table 4-1 presents
a detailed timeline for your reference. (The dates listed on the timeline
represent the number of months before or after program implementation
each step should be initiated. Program implementation is defined as the
date on which actual service changes begin.)
While the dates have been established based on the experiences of a
number of communities with unit pricing programs in place, local
conditions and needs will inevitably affect the exact timing of your
program's development. Many factors affect how you adapt this timeline
to your community's needs, including equipment changes, contractual
changes, financing requirements, and employment, as well as political
factors (such as the nature and structure of the local political process and
the potential existence of a perceived solid waste crisis). In most cases,
the level of political support is the most important variable, routinely
cited by communities as responsible for either significant delays or rapid
progress in the implementation of their unit pricing programs. Most of
the remaining steps can be conducted fairly routinely in 3 to 12 months,
depending on system choices, size of the community, and types of solid
waste collection and administration systems in place.
Program Monitoring and Evaluation
As solid waste management has grown more challenging in recent
years, local officials are finding that they have greater freedom to develop
and implement new systems for managing waste. At the same time,
however, their efforts also are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. Within
the context of tightening municipal budgets and increasing demands for
city services of all types, local officials must be able to discuss budget
needs and priorities in a compelling way, using reliable data to support
their case. Specifically, a thorough process of collecting and analyzing
data about the performance of the unit pricing program will:
52
-------
PART IV
• Provide the facts about the cost-effectiveness of the unit pricing
program that local officials need to justify the current budget.
• Enable planners to justify future budget
needs by demonstrating that the new
spending on the program could in fact
save money in the long run.
• Help reassure bond rating agencies of
the cost-effectiveness of the unit pricing
program, thereby reducing the cost of
financing it through bond sales.
• Allow planners to accurately compare the
performance of any complementary
programs, enabling them to reallocate
resources among the programs to increase
the overall effectiveness of unit pricing.
• Generate concrete, understandable, and
accurate information that can help other
communities considering unit pricing.
Moreover, this data will enable solid waste agency planners to adjust the
unit pricing program to unforeseen circumstances, ensuring that the effort
and attention paid to planning, designing, and implementing the program
will not be wasted. Typically, program monitoring and evaluation begins
about six months before the date of unit pricing implementation, when
information on the old waste management system is gathered. These data
will act as a benchmark against which the progress of the unit pricing
program can be measured. Monitoring and evaluation begins as soon as the
new program is launched and continues throughout the program.
Data collection is the first step in program monitoring and evaluation.
While the exact types of data a community collects will vary from one
area to another, most municipalities track:
• Changes in the community's waste generation rate
• Costs incurred, both in starting up and in operating the new program
• Revenues received under the program
Communities often begin by collecting data on the amount of waste
disposed of, recycled, and composted before and after the program's
implementation. Estimates of the amount of material illegally dumped can
be calculated as well. To allow for a more comprehensive analysis, the waste
generation rates can be tracked by month and year, and, if possible, by
origin and destination. In addition, the data can be further broken down by
facility, customer group (such as residential, multi-family, commercial, or
industrial), and program (for example, drop-off versus curbside services). To
gain a more accurate picture of the impact of their program, some
communities also estimate the amount of waste that would have been
generated in the absence of the unit pricing program.
The specific costs that a community might want to research include
disposal costs and tipping fees; new administrative costs, including public
date i.
adjust its prog'>
IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING
53
-------
PART IV
COSTS
relations, billing and invoicing, inventory and distribution of bags, tags or
cans, and additional customer service staff; and direct program and service
costs such as wages, supplies, consultant services, and postage. Costs for
monitoring and cleaning up illegal dumping can be included as well.
In addition, to increase the usefulness of cost data, communities
might want to attribute different expenses to specific components of unit
pricing (such as administrative labor or container costs) and track these
separate cost categories by month and year. Be careful, however, to
distinguish between short-term expenses and long-term investments for
needed facilities and equipment. During this process, take care to
separate transition and startup expenses from the ongoing operational
costs of unit pricing. If possible, initial capital costs should be allocated
over time and across programs. Collecting data on the revenues resulting
from unit pricing tends to be simpler. Communities typically track
revenues by type of program and customer category.
To closely track a new unit pricing program, communities also might
want to develop data on the number of subscribers or participants,
broken down into type of service and program; the service and
subscription levels (if a variable can program is used); the inventories of
bags or tags held by distributors or manufacturers; the weight of
containers set out (if possible, through surveys); and the numbers of
phone calls and letters and the issues raised.
Program evaluation can yield misleading results, however. To help
avoid some common data collection and evaluation mistakes, panelists at
EPA's Unit Pricing Roundtable recommended avoiding focusing on
participation rates as a measure of success. While a study of participation
levels can help guide program modifications, they are not useful for
gauging overall progress since they do not address cost issues and tend
not to distinguish between casual and committed participants. Likewise,
panelists recommended that communities also consider factors beyond
overall waste reduction when evaluating a program. For example,
intangible issues, such as dissatisfaction with the program among
residents of multi-family buildings, would not be reflected in an analysis
that focused exclusively on waste reduction numbers.
Tips for Data Collection and Program Monitoring
• Get data from several different angles if possible (for example, waste
quantity generation rates for both collection services and disposal facilities).
• Don't simply accept the numbers as they are generated. Consider the
possibility that factors such as underlying shifts in categories, definitions,
or reporting might affect the accuracy of the results.
• Be sure to carefully track costs. Without accurate and attributable data,
the impact of your cost-effectiveness evaluation will be reduced.
54
-------
PART IV
Table 4-1.
Schedule of Implementation Activities
Implementation Activities
Customer Relations
Months Prior to or Following Program Implementation
Ongoing
Public outreach
[Brief management and elected officials
Conduct focus groups on rate program design
and issues
Develop information materials for council and press
X
X
Hold council hearings and public hearings
Public relations/education
Issue RFP for public relations firm, if needed
Design educational materials, bill stuffers
'< Review/refine educational materials
Produce educational materials
X
X
Distribute educational materials
X
X
X
Customer service staff
'Request customer service representative (CSR)
computers and workspace, if needed
Advertise for CSRs
Obtain and install CSR computer equipment
Hire and train CSRs
Release temporary CSRs
iPlanning and Analysis
iHire rates analyst (part- or full-time)
Determine rate setting procedure and calculate rates
X
X
Refine rate structure
IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING
55
-------
PART IV
Table 4-1 (continued).
Schedule of Implementation Activities
Months Prior to or Following Program Implementation
Implementation Activities
Containers and Enforcement
Ongoing
Bags, tags, or stickers
Set specifications for sticker or bag and design logo
Issue RFP for sticker or bag manufacture
Select manufacturer
Negotiate with retail outlets for sticker or
bag distribution
Finalize sticker or bag distribution plans
Begin selling stickers or bags in stores
Design error tags
Cans
Issue RFP for can purchase and distribution
Decide on can size and purchase containers
Have residents select can size
Distribute cans
Replace lost, stolen, or wrong-sized cans
Enforcement
Establish preliminary enforcement procedures
Request equipment and facilities for inspectors
Finalize enforcement procedures
Train inspectors
Release temporary inspectors
Special Groups
Negotiate with welfare agencies
Develop exemption/discount criteria
Determine responsible office
Create procedures for qualification, disputes, etc.
Finalize criteria and procedures
Train inspectors or qualifiers
Conduct qualifications
X
IT
56
-------
PART IV
Table 4-1 (continued).
Schedule of Implementation Activities
Implementation Activities
Months Prior to or Following Program Implementation
Ongoing
Multi-Family Planning
Evaluate level of multi-family need
Evaluate multi-family pilot options
X
X
Conduct pilot program, if appropriate
Changes to Other Programs
Determine which complementary services to offer
Decide funding source for new and existing
complementary programs
Modify unit pricing program to cover these costs,
j if necessary
Modify diversion program contracts Land_,
procedures as necessary, ., : ? .-:;,;
Ordinances
Draft final ordinances for new program
Draft ordinances, as necessary for illegal dumping
and burning, recycling, and special collections
Enact ordinances
Data Collection
Analyze information needs and design reporting
procedures
Finalize procedures
Conduct baseline data collection
Begin postimplementation data collection
Conduct data analysis and program modification
IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING
57
-------
uestions
& answers
VI
Is it really necessary to explain the new program repeatedly
through so many different avenues?
Not o/l citizens find garbage fascinating, nor will they immediately understand the
reasons for a new waste management program. Explaining a new program more
than once is not rude or insulting—it's a courtesy to people who would like to
participate but have other things on their minds. Also, because unit pricing
requires that residents pay attention to details such as labeling waste containers
with stickers or buying bags from the municipality, hearing the message several
times increases the chance that all residents will get the information they need.
Does unit pricing require us to completely reinvent our solid
waste agency?
It does require a significant review of your agency's goals and structure. But this
examination of new needs and existing employees could lead to the discovery of
some previously untapped skills in your agency.
Do I really need to follow this detailed timeline? Half the items
in it are not likely to come up in our community.
Select what you need from the timeline. The timeline lists the many possible kinds
of new activities that a unit pricing program could require. It is designed to help
solid waste officials think about specific activities, thereby supplementing the
broad concepts that are stressed elsewhere in this guide.
Our municipality is on a tight budget. Do we really need to spend
money on data collection and monitoring?
While many of your unit pricing decisions face budgetary constraints, data
collection is essential for planning and for ensuring cost-effectiveness. The right
kind of information can show which types of unit pricing program and rate
modifications can best meet the community's needs over time.
58
-------
PART IV
Be sure your public education campaign uses a consistent, simple
message that clearly communicates the goals of the unit pricing
program.
To ease the administrative transition, clearly define the
responsibilities of the office, the level of expertise that will be necessary,
and any new staff that need to be brought on.
Give funding priority to areas that hold the greatest risk of financial
problems or hold the greatest opportunity for savings through effective
management of limited administrative budgets.
Establish a flexible schedule for your unit pricing program that reflects
the political, technical, and economic concerns and issues in your
community.
Be sure to evaluate your program's progress periodically, including
collecting and analyzing data on waste generation rates, costs and
revenues, and the attitude of residents toward the program.
To improve your data collection, make providing numbers part of the
contract (or franchise or license agreement) with your haulers. Ask for
monthly reporting, and provide forms and definitions to ensure you
receive the information you require.
IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING
59
-------
PART IV
Case Studies
Public Education
A View From Austin, Texas
While Austin, Texas, is a very environmentally aware community, our
Environmental and Conservation Services staff realized that behavior does not
always correspond to stated attitudes. To give our new unit pricing program a
good chance of success, we realized a strong public outreach program was
needed. Since unit pricing terms such as "variable rates" and "volume-based
pricing" are not particularly user-friendly, our first challenge was to come up
with a name that would convey the nature of the new program to city council
members, customers, and our own solid waste service workers. The name we
came up with was "Pay-as-You-Throw," which has economic as well as
environmental appeal.
Then, we initiated a pilot program beginning with a three-phase marketing plan to
reach out to the 3,000 participating single-family households. In the first phase, the
Preimplementation Phase, we worked very hard to sell the program in the
community. We lined up support from interest groups, asked city council members
to talk about the program, and encouraged the media to write positive editorials.
During the second phase, the Implementation Phase, we had a more specific
challenge. We have had curbside recycling in Austin since 1982 and good
experiences with recycling behavior. With a well-established recycling program,
however, when we brought the program to the pilot households, people were
asking "Why do we need to do this when we're already recycling?" Our biggest
challenge was to inform people about the need to further reduce waste and
encourage them to use our unit pricing program in conjunction with recycling.
After implementation, we learned from both attitudinal surveys and from direct
observation of recycling bins that recycling had increased from 50 to 80 percent
in some neighborhoods when unit pricing was introduced.
The third phase of our public outreach program was the Maintenance Phase.
Once the program was in place, we realized it was important to continue trying
to raise awareness. It was during this phase that we introduced what became our
single best educational tool—a brief, colorful newsletter included with each
garbage bill. Called "Waste Watch," the newsletter contains features on the
garbage collectors, dates of the brush/bulk pickup in each neighborhood,
discussions about our unit pricing goals, and other features. We knew that only
15 to 25 percent of our customers read the usual utility inserts. However, after
we provided more sophisticated information in an appealing format, our survey
results showed a rise in readership.
60
-------
PART IV
Administration Staffing
A View From Dor/en, Illinois
Darien, Illinois, with a population of 21,000, moved (com a franchise flat-fee
system to a franchise sticker system in May 1990. Their administrative staffing
needs were unchanged: one person from the city oversees the activities of the
franchise hauler. City council members and existing staff put in overtime to
develop details of the new system and negotiate with the hauler during the
implementation process. The hauler has reported some increased accounting
complexity but no increased staffing needs. Research indicates that this level of
small, temporary increases in administrative needs during implementation of a
new or revised unit pricing program is typical of many smaller communities.
Administration Staffing
A View From Seattle, Washington
The Seattle Solid Waste Utility, an enterprise fund, operates a variable can
subscription system with recycling fees and other charges embedded in the
collection rates. Billing is performed in cooperation with the Seattle Water
Department at a cost to the Seattle Solid Waste Utility of S1.9 million per year.
To manage this program, the utility employs two rate-setting staff, four finance
staff, and three accountants. Another $15,000 to $20,000 per year is spent on
consulting services, mostly to assist with setting rates. Additionally, Seattle's 22
full-time customer service representatives and 9 refuse inspectors help to meet
the service and enforcement needs of the new program.
IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING 61
-------
APPENDIX A
EPA's UnH: Pricing
Roundtable Discussion:
Questions & Alternatives
his appendix presents a selection of proceedings from
EPA's Unit Pricing Roundtable, held in December 1992.
These proceedings include descriptions of different
programs from around the country, experiences of solid
waste officials who have spearheaded unit pricing programs, and
ideas on managing program costs and challenges. The discussions
provided in this appendix are organized around a number of
specific questions and are divided into four general sections:
• Getting started
• Exploring program options, issues, and experiences
• Integrating unit pricing and complementary programs
• Accommodating groups with special needs
The first section explores issues involved in starting a unit pricing
program, such as education, communication, and changing the
status quo. The second section compares the essential components
of a unit pricing program, including container choices, pricing
models, and billing systems. It then moves on to financial issues,
including cash flow and enterprise funds, and discusses enforcement
issues. The third sect/on focuses on integrating unit pricing and
complementary programs, such as yard trimmings and household
hazardous waste collection programs. The last section shares some
of the Roundtable proceedings on accommodating groups with
special needs, such as senior citizens, large families, and
low-income households.
APPENDIX A 63
-------
APPENDIX A
Getting Started
Changing the Status Quo
How do you convince citizens that unit pricing is a good idea in the first place? That has been
a real obstacle.
Seattle, WA: I think getting some good public support by working on it early is very important.
Contact not only recycling groups but also community councils, people whom you
might not expect to be big advocates of a unit pricing program.
State of fLt The public opposition question comes up for communities that currently pay for their
garbage collection out of general taxes (e.g., property taxes). In a sense, that's a
hidden cost, and people perceive garbage collection as a free service. But if they
have a monthly bill (instead of paying through property taxes, for example), they
know that garbage collection costs something and there's "no free lunch." Then, in
moving to a unit pricing program, they can actually see that the cost of garbage
collection comes down. Whereas if the costs are hidden as property tax or general
Unit Pricing Roundtable Participants
The EPA-sponsored Unit Pricing Roundtable was moderated by Jan Canterbury of the EPA Office
of Solid Waste and attended by over a dozen individuals who have been involved in successful unit
pricing programs. The participants included:
Nancy Lee Newell of the Qty of Durham, North Carolina
Peggy Douglas of the City of Knoxville, Tennessee
Barbara Cathey of the City of Pasadena, California
Bill Dunn of the Minnesota Office of Waste Management
..,> (, ....... . .-. . ....... .. - , .. . _
Nick Pealy of the Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Washington
Jody Harris of the Maine Waste Management Agency
Jamy Poth of the City of Austin, Texas
Jeanne Becker of Becker Associates, Illinois
Lisa Skumatz of Synergic Resources Corporation (SRC)
Lon Hultgren of theTown of Mansfield, Connecticut
Greg Harder of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Thomas Kusterer of the Montgomery County Government, Maryland
Robert Arner of the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission
64
-------
APPENDIX A
revenue, then no matter how far waste collection costs drop, they see unit pricing as
an added cost.
State ofMN: What I have found in Minnesota, and it's true with a lot of waste issues, is that we
have the true believers and then we have the skeptics. The two groups are pretty
much cemented before the discussion even begins. So, how do you get them to move?
I'm not sure. But mandates at either the state, county, or city level can work.
SRC: Maybe one of the ways to help get past public opposition is to work with members of
citizen groups or "green groups" to start a groundswell of support for the program.
Have some success stories from other communities. This con help make it so that the
politicians supporting unit pricing are going with the tide rather than bucking the system.
Citizen Education
Did you use ad hoc citizen advisory groups, focus groups, surveys, and things of that sort
before you got started?
Austin, TX: Yes, in fact, the way we introduced the program (this takes a lot of leg work but is
extremely important) is that we contacted neighborhood and civic associations, as
well as our recycling block leaders. Just coming up with the list of associations was a
task. We produced an eight-minute video on unit pricing and played the video at the
neighborhood meetings. We had real people talking about what was about to
happen. We got a lot of feedback by showing that tape. We carried out two focus
group surveys, including one on larger families, an issue that many people want to
hear more about. We experimented with soliciting feedback that was recorded on a
telephone voice mail system. This is effective because, believe it or not, people are
not that hesitant to record their views. It is also cost-effective, since we use the
telephone answering tree for our other programs as well. The voice mail is a
call-automated system, so the caller presses "7" to find out when our brush pick up
date is or "2" to find out how to exchange carts. Many of the questions asked are
just that simple. As you review your communications and outreach system, it makes
sense to look into voice mail.
Costs of Public Education
How much money was budgeted for unit pricing education? Also, in developing your outreach
efforts in-house, how many staff members did you devote to education and public relations?
Austin, TX: Our educational costs ranged from $6 to $8 per household per year in the early
years. Most of those costs were start-up costs. We saved a lot of money by doing all
of our work in-house—designing a user-friendly name and a regular way of
communicating in our pilot program. However, this in-house approach meant that we
were constrained from using mass media such as TV and radio. We did not have the
capacity to develop a TV commercial that said, "Here is how you participate in the
new program." I really doubt that many communities phasing in their unit pricing
program will find a mass media program useful because unit pricing can require a
complex explanation. Instead, we use mass media only with our generic recycling and
APPENDIX A 65
-------
APPENDIX A
yard trimmings messages—simple messages such as "Either leave it on the lawn or compost
it." We had three full-time staff members for education. One person was assigned to
public relations, another was a graphic artist that participated in many things, and I
was the planner. Also, we utilized volunteers (such as recycling block leaders or
neighborhood association presidents) who provided the leg work in getting the word
out. You would be surprised how interested the- volunteers are in doing something. We
produced our video out-of-house because we didn't have the necessary cameras.
Seattle, WA: Seattle spends $3.25 per household per year on public education, but that is actually
high because a portion of that money goes to educating commercial and transfer
stations. So it's probably under $3. But if you can piggyback some of these things,
you can reduce your costs even further. Postage is very expensive, so if you can tag
postage for the unit pricing message along with something else, it's even cheaper.
Pasadena, CA:
I'd like to emphasize that it is absolutely key to put yourself on the firing line with the
customers. They pay the fees. When we went to the community we assured them,
"We're not taking anything away from you. We are giving you the opportunity to
have more control over your costs. You cut your trash down, you cut your trash bill
down." You need to listen, take the abuse, but then once the people actually
experience the program, they become converts, they don't want to go back. Either
you take the time up front to educate, or you take it later with operational difficulties
once the program is underway.
Getting Ready for Unit Pricing
What about communities that don't have unit pricing now?
Knoxv/i/e, TN:
My fear is that a lot of what's being discussed here may be difficult to apply to most
cities in the South, in Tennessee, for example, we did a needs assessment of all the
counties, and we found, first of all, that the waste composition was very different
from the rest of the country. Only about 25 percent to 35 percent of the total waste
stream was residential. Also, there is no city-wide curbside recycling, very little yard
trimmings recycling, no household hazardous waste collection, and only one regional
materials recovery facility. In addition, our landfill tipping fees average only about
$25/ton even though we have adopted Subtitle D landfill regulations. Our land values
are just a whole lot less than other areas of the country, for now at least. I don't
think Tennessee is a lot different than most states in the South.
EPA: I'm glad that you raised that because one of the goals of the guide is to provide
information for communities that may not yet be at the jumping off point for
implementing unit pricing. Any comments?
Pasadena, CA:
Knoxvif/e, TN:
What do you mean they are not ready? What's your objective?
Well, to answer the first part of your question, in our needs assessment study, we
found that a third of the counties in Tennessee didn't even have co//ection service,
period. So it's hard to talk about unit pricing or recycling. And one of the main
reasons why I wanted to go to unit pricing was to be able to finance some of the
extra municipal solid waste programs. I can't do it right now, because every time I try
66
-------
APPENDIX A
Mansfield, CT:
Durham, NC:
to get city council to increase property taxes to pay for curbside recycling, I'm
competing against stormwater drain programs or something else.
You can start implementation with a drop-off center. Our community used the closure
of the town's landfill to start paying by the bag at the transfer station. Any major
facility or system change could act as a catalyst for a unit pricing system.
Well, some of the South is ready, and it's because we have a very progressive state
legislation package to push us. We have a 25 percent goal for July 1993, which not
many of us are going to reach. And a 40 percent goal by 2001. We have to provide
some kind of recycling for our citizens. That's spurring a lot of interest in our state,
and a lot of people are looking at all the complementary programs. We are trying to
give people as many options as possible (e.g., curbside recycling and garbage
collection once a week, yard trimmings collection, a yard trimmings composting
facility, and a bulky item pick-up). Anything other than sending it to a landfill. Our
landfill is going to close, and our county hasn't been able to site another, so we're
going to be shipping our waste out of the county. So we have a real big incentive to
make sure we dispose of as little as possible. When you do have a crisis situation,
and you have legislation that's pushing you in that direction on a state level, it can
push you into the cutting edge of things, so it could be that you need to knock on
your state legislature's door.
Program Options* Issues, and Experiences
Voluntary Versus Mandatory Programs
What are some of the advantages of voluntary programs?
Northern VA:
There are communities like Plantation, Florida, that have voluntary unit pricing.
Voluntary programs are more compatible with ideals of personal freedom, and the
enforcement costs may be lower. On the other hand, there may be less participation
in voluntary programs. A certain amount of good will is associated with mandatory
programs, since everyone has to participate. Mandatory programs also provide a
greater ability to cover fixed costs and less of an incentive for illegal dumping. If you
have to pay for at least some municipal solid waste service, then you may be less
inclined to dump your waste.
Time Factors
Does it take less time for your crews to go down the street and get their work done with the
unit-based program?
Austin, TX: Yes. We went from manual collection to semiautomated and estimate that the
collection cost savings will be $5.11 per household per year. And we also went from
three collectors to two collectors. That might not sound like much on an individual
household basis, but certainly there is a cost savings. Then, we promote the
APPENDIX A
67
-------
APPENDIX A
educational message of "shore your boundary with your neighbor," so we can make
fewer stops in your neighborhood.
Seattle, WA: I think there are economies when you're collecting mm/cans as opposed to toters.
Toters take 20 to 45 seconds apiece, depending on what you've got. The minican
takes less time than that, so there ore definitely time savings. But, I think that bags
are considerably faster than either toters or minicans.
Bag Programs
What is the largest city with a bag program in Pennsylvania?
State of PA: Probably the largest city in Pennsylvania that has a bag system is Allentown, but it
has a limited per-bag system that is only used for grass clippings. Reading has a
population of 78,000, but it has a voluntary system in which haulers are required to
offer a variable rate option. Wilkes-Barre has a population of around 48,500, but
its program applies only to residents of apartment buildings. The largest mandatory
per-bag system is probably Carlisle, which has a population of around 20,000.
Carlisle is followed by South White Hall Township, with a population of around
18,000. Most per-bag systems in Pennsylvania use standard size 30-gallon trash bags.
And usually they put a weight limit of around 40 pounds on the bags so you can't fill
them up with bricks.
Stickers
How are stickers working out in your unit pricing program?
State oflL The advantage of stickers is that there is no billing at all. They're applicable to
various types of service, types of containers, and types of waste. With a simple,
uniform schedule, stickers could be ordered through the mail. Or somebody could buy
50 stickers at a time from a hauler or from the local grocery store. The stickers are
easy to keep and they are not going to rot. Often times, the haulers can't read and
write, and so stickers are very simple. Since every second they spend at a stop is
money to them, the more data collection or enforcement that you require haulers per
stop, the less likely they are to do it. It's a time limit. But stickers are not perfect.
The adhesive can be a problem. The hauler might not be able to find them.
Stickers can be stolen off of someone else's garbage bag. And maybe the biggest
problem is that people could buy a year's worth of bags in January, and then not buy
anymore for the next several months. It is really hard to have to predict people's
behavior in order to forecast revenue. The largest community in Illinois that has a
sticker program is the City of Aurora, which has 100,000 people.
Durham, NC: Stickers are interesting because you can take a big bag that you got at the store and
put your garbage in it and put a sticker on it. Then you are reusing that bag and not
generating another waste product.
68
-------
APPENDIX A
Pricing Models
What unit pricing models have you used? And how are the variable costs of providing services
kept low?
State of IL: In Illinois, communities tend to charge what their neighbors do. The rates vary from
$1 to $2 a sticker. I really think they just try it and hope that the price is in the right
ballpark.
State of PA: Most Pennsylvania communities use a bag-based unit pricing system because they see
examples in nearby communities. Carlisle adopted one about three years ago, and
people in the neighboring township actually began clamoring for the same. In fact,
they actually sued the township to giVe them a bog-based system instead of a flat-
rate system. People like unit pricing because they see it as being very fair and very
equitable.
SRC: A 30-percent impact on customer costs may be a threshold level at which people
begin responding to unit pricing. In contrast, I've seen some communities offer
90-gallon cans as the smallest size and then charge a quarter or a dollar for each
additional 30 or 60 gallons. That may be unit pricing in one sense, but it certainly
doesn't provide much of an incentive for people to source reduce. You can also use a
fairly simple model and then consider some scenarios that give you an idea of what
your rates should be. You don't have to have a massive rates model; there are
communities working fine with microcomputer spreadsheets.
Subscription Service Changes
How do you handle it when peopie want to change their service?
Austin, TX:
Pasadena, CA:
Do not underestimate how many people will select the smallest cart. Right off the
bat, we went $2,100 in the hole because of all the people who were going to do the
"right thing" and picked 30-gallon carts. In other words, be prepared for your
program to become successful. Secondly, when it comes to cart exchanges, the
start-up costs for this program are really high. You really need to talk to your
politicians and everyone and get it all in a nice spreadsheet and realize that you're
going to bite the bullet for the first three to six months of the program. We offer a
free cart exchange the first time, and then $ 15 subsequently. But we were estimating
that a total of 15 percent ended up changing in Austin. Instead of doing any surveying
up front on the carts, we had to rely on the household size for estimates.
The thing that my staff keeps coming back to me about is the administrative cost of
making changes. Our rule is, you can't change service levels more often than every
six months. Only every six months, however, even with 27,000 customers, means that
there's somebody changing every single day. We don't charge for changing service
right now, but I think that we must begin to charge for changes in order to create a
disincentive. Soon, if you want to change, it's going to cost you $15 to $25 to make
that change.
APPENDIX A
69
-------
APPENDIX A
Billing
What elements are needed in a successful billing system?
Seattle, WA: When you start unit pricing, determine if there are certain reports that you want to
be able to generate from the billing system and make sure you get that capability
integrated in your billing system right away. Later on, this type of modification can be
just horrible and extremely expensive.
Mansfield, CT:
Seattle, WA:
State ofMN:
Mansfield originally had a private system, with the haulers doing the billing. When we
implemented our unit pricing program, the town took over billing. We find that one of
the side benefits is that we can lien property. The haulers have liked the system very
much because they know they ore going to get paid every month. And that might be
a way to sell it in a community that is also planning to take over the billing.
That's a double-edged sword for us. We do our combined billing with the city's water
department and drainage and waste water utility. We do have the lien authority and
essentially can turn off the water if somebody doesn't pay their bill. The problem is
that we have to deal with a lot of complaints from their customers, and it doesn't
always lead to the best results for us in terms of a quality billing system.
In some places in Minnesota, we are using a two-tiered (fixed plus variable fee)
system that is separate from the garbage collection billing system. The government
coHects some of the fixed costs to offset it.
Cash Flow
How did you project your cash flow over a certain period of time?
Mansfield, CT: We collect quarterly and in advance. That solves a lot of the cash flow problems.
Seattle, WA: If you're tight for cash, you need to know what's coming in and what's going out. It's
very important to build in lags in your billing system. There's going to be some lag
time in how people respond to unit pricing, and that tends to work to your benefit.
You need to be conservative about the rate at which people reduce their solid waste,
particularly customers using the extra con, especially if you have high extra can rates.
And, don't underestimate the portion of the construction and demolition debris in Ihe
waste stream. Look really hard at wood waste. Wood waste typically comes to your
transfer stations in small loads. It can disappear real fast if you don't flow control it
or know what's going on with it.
70
-------
APPENDIX!
Enterprise Funds
What are the key advantages of enterprise funds? Do they help you in tracking costs of
services? Do they make it easier to raise rates than taxes?
Austin, TX: It's never easy to raise rates, enterprise or not, but from a marketing point of view, if
we have a program that may be a little more sophisticated than what a council
member had thought about doing and if we can justify that we can pay for it,
certainly it's easier to get quality proposals for rate changes approved. I think that is
the key: it must be performance-based and used to justify budgets.
Pasadena, CA: It also can be used as a point of leverage, in the sense that we can say we are an
enterprise. We are a business and we have to charge full costs for our operations.
Seattle, WA:
Mansfield, CT:
I think it's easier to get analytical staff, because there is a perception that if you've
got big capital programs and big resource acquisition programs, then it tends to be
easier to support getting people like that. The same is true with computer systems, /t
tends to be easier to support those, which is real helpful.
Our municipal solid waste enterprise fund has grown, matured, and is now supporting
other activities, such as litter control. The downside to this is that policy makers may
look to healthy off-line funds for support in the struggle to fund various other
community programs.
Municipal Versus Private Haulers
Does a municipal program have more of a revenue-cost cushion than a private hauler?
Mansfield, CT: I wouldn't say more cushion, but definitely more control over costs. We took over a
private system and added recycling collection and still kept the rates the same. Our
unit pricing program provided more service for the same price as the "free market"
system. Mansfield contracts with two private haulers to implement its system.
Pasadena, CA:
State of IL:
You can't assume that there are a lot of cushions. In Pasadena, we operate like a
business and must be competitive. Now, if your municipality owns a landfill, you can
find a little subsidy. But, if you do full cost accounting, then you know your true cost
of operation. Then if you decide you need a cushion, that is part of the
decision-making process. Another thing is, don't underestimate the sophistication of
the private haulers. If you work very carefully with them, then you can learn a lot
together. For example, I'm working with my commercial haulers very closely,
because we have commercial recycling requirements. We're planning to adopt unit
pricing in the commercial sector for the same reason—to encourage waste reduction
and recycling. So commercial haulers need some help from us, but they also should
be part of the process of gathering and sharing information.
One of the differences between municipal systems and private haulers is that with the
municipal system, you have a captive audience, and you can reach economies of
scale. This is especially important for some of the programs we've talked about, such
as Austin, Pasadena, and Seattle: all are larger population bases where a hauler can
APPENDIX A
71
-------
APPENDIX A
State of PA:
reach economies of scale. This is not the situation, however, in the Midwest. In
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois, outside of the metropolitan areas, the problem is
that you have much smaller communities of several hundred or a few thousand
people. Second, many of these communities use multiple private haulers. The goal of
some communities is to keep every hauler in business, even if it's only one guy with one
truck.
A few months ago, I talked with a group representing waste haulers from
Pennsylvania. I wasn't sure what their attitudes would be toward unit pricing. It turns
out they actually like the idea, but their great fear was the uncertainty and risk from
having a straight price per bag (proportional) program. They were much more
favorable toward the idea of having a two-tiered system (i.e., fixed rate plus a per
bag fee) that would better allow them to recover their fixed costs.
Ways To Use Local Ordinances
How can your local government, city council, or state legislature help?
Pasadena, CA:
Seattle, WA:
In order to protect business for waste haulers and recyclers, communities can pass
ordinances that require a franchise to do business. In this way, local governments can
help create a level playing field. We designed an ordinance that makes haulers buy
franchises from the city. We put as much flexibility into the ordinance as possible,
but, at the same time, established some sort of guidelines. This assures that everyone's
working under the same terms and conditions, whether it's one person, one truck
hauler, or a bigger hauling firm.
Another way to help smaller haulers is by stabilizing transfer station rates and
disposal rates for reasonably long periods of time. This approach uses authority from
state and local governments to insulate haulers from a lot of risk.
State ofMN: If your goal is to encourage source reduction, you might have to employ mandates.
This is especially important when budgets are tight, since both composting and
recycling cost real money. As an example, in Minneapolis and St. Paul, they enacted
ordinances that require food establishments to have food packaging that is either
returnable, reusable, or recyclable—that's really a cutting edge area. Also, don't
forget to amend your solid waste ordinance to allow for backyard composting and set
up some standards and advertise them to protect against rodents and odor.
Methods of Enforcement
Are you finding that illegal dumping is a big issue?
Pasadena, CA:
I think the key here is not to associate illegal diversion with variable rates. There is
always going to be some amount of illegal dumping, especially in hard economic
times. So you have a multitude of factors that are contributing to what is generally
called illegal dumping. The key here is education and providing alternatives such as
legal diversions (for example, recycling and composting) and constructive source
reduction actions.
72
-------
APPENDIX A
State of ME:
Mansfield, CT:
State of MN:
Enforcement efforts con be made more cost-effective through publicity. It only takes
one enforcement instance along with a lot of big publicity to send a loud message to
people who might be thinking about illegally dumping. In Maine we had a very large
investigation on private haulers who were hauling to other municipal landfills with
lower fees. The investigation was blown up in the press, with nightly TV coverage. It
stopped a lot of the illegal dumping in other communities.
We have a part-time garbage enforcement agent who works a couple days a week on
enforcement and public education.
In all fairness, I want to stress that it's not unit pricing per se that is driving illegal
dumping. It is also driven by growing restrictions on what you can put in the garbage
can. I believe restrictions may have more effect on i//ego/ dumping than unit pricing.
What People Really Do With Their Trash
People say, "My neighbor is the last one who goes to work, and he's going to put his garbage in
my can." I have also had professional people say that they are planning to take their trash to
work. So how do we address these concerns?
Mansfield, CT:
Austin, TX:
Again, / would like to underscore that in our experience, neighbors have not put their
garbage in the cans of other neighbors. We have had some calls—not many—from people
who swore that their neighbor had put additional recyc/ab/es in front of the caller's
bins. We investigated and found out it was the hauler who had put all the bins on one
side of the street so that he could make one stop.
We did a study that measured what households would do with garbage that could
not fit in their subscription cans. Extra trash had to be labeled with stickers that
were purchased for $2 each. We received 554 responses to our survey and got the
following results:
• 32 percent used the stickers and paid for their excess trash disposal.
• 29 percent never had excess garbage and never had to use stickers.
• 14 percent saved their excess garbage until the next trash pickup.
• 11 percent stomped the extra garbage into their carts.
• 5 percent threw their extra garbage out at a neighbor's or friend's.
• 3 percent threw the extra garbage away at work.
We a/so found that most excess garbage came from households that subscribed to
larger, 90-gallon carts. We knew that most 90-gallon carts were purchased by
households with five members or less, so we decided that excess garbage was not a
problem created by large households that might not be able to reduce waste. Instead,
we think some families simply choose not to respond to unit pricing—some families
decide that they would rather pay more for larger carts and extra disposal than
recycle or reduce waste.
APPENDIX A
73
-------
APPENDIX A
Integrating Unit Pricing With Complementary
MSW Programs
Yard Trimmings Programs
What's the most effective complementary program that you've used with unit pricing and
would recommend?
State of/L: Yard trimmings systems (pay-by-the-ba&) can easily be implemented as programs that
are complementary to unit pricing. If the household properly manages its yard
trimmings by composting or keeping grass clippings on its lawns (grasscycling), it can
avoid disposal costs without much effort. Second, a yard trimmings system costs
almost nothing for the community, except relatively low infrastructure costs. And a
yard trimmings system can reduce the total amount of residential waste by up to 30
percent, depending on where you live and how great a quantity of yard trimmings you
have initially. I would say that if you had only one program to go along with unit
pricing, it should focus on yard trimmings. Illinois instituted a ban on yard
trimmings. Everyone thought we'd need a lot of new compost sites and thousands of
bags to pick up yard trimmings. In fact, about 60 percent of all homes started
grasscycling. Overnight, households just stopped picking up grass clippings, and costs
for picking it up plummeted.
Knoxvi/fe, TN:
In our little city, we generate 20,000 tons of large brush and limbs every year, but we
haven't budgeted for composting equipment. Any suggestions?
State of/L- Instead of buying chippers, you can stockpile the brush at the compost site. It doesn't
smell so you can store it for a long period of time. Also, you can rent a big chipper or
tub grinder several times a year and then use your mulch for landscaping.
Pasadena, CA:
State of PA:
Austin, TX:
In Pasadena, 15 to 20 percent of the population has signed up for separate collection
of yard trimmings. They put out an average of 50 pounds per household per year. If I
could increase my participation in this program to 30 percent and everybody put out
50 pounds, then that's a big savings on landfill tipping fees. In addition, yard
trimmings are dense compared with plastic, which is light relative to its volume. If
your ultimate goal is to keep tonnage out of the landfill, then, dollar for dollar, you
have a lot bigger bang for the buck with a yard trimmings program.
In Pennsylvania, many municipalities use their bag system to collect yard trimmings,
too. In Carlisle, residents put the leaves in plastic bags and the hauler dumps them
out of the bags. Then the hauler actually puts the bags back on the curb so that
people can reuse the bags. And, in Allentown, they use paper bags that break down
in the composting process. Some communities use a vacuum system. It varies from
place to place, but plastic bags are pretty widely accepted in Pennsylvania.
Our yard trimmings do not get burned or go into a landfill. We mix them with our
sewage sludge and create a product called "Dillo Dirt" (short for Armadillo). We bag
74
-------
APPENDIX A
ft and sell it at nurseries or use it for our city parks. The Dillo Dirt program is very
popular. People like to know that their grass will be used to deflect program costs.
It's not a big money maker, but it does do a little better than break even.
Seattle, WA: I'm surprised that people are talking about leaving their yard trimmings on their
lawns, because in Seattle that's not a real common phenomenon. Households either
compost or use curbside collection. We distribute free compost bins, which could be
one reason; another could be differences in climate.
Recycling Programs
What about adding a recycling program?
Pasadena, CA:
Mansfield, CT:
Seattle, WA:
State of /L:
If you don't have curbside recycling in place, you might look at other alternatives. It is
extremely expensive to put in curbside recycling.
Well, we found a big increase in recycling participation when we went from drop-off
recycling to curbside pickup, so I don't think our unit pricing program would work as
well without curbside pickup of recyclables.
I think that on the issue of cost of services, you need to know, as best you can, what
services customers ore willing to pay for. Then, if you provide a broad enough range
of services at different prices and levels of convenience, you can best serve the
majority of people's needs. / think people are willing to pay for convenience, and
don't underestimate that.
Also, Seattle has risk-sharing clauses built in to its recycling contract where the
haulers either receive an extra payment or pay us a credit, depending on whether
the economy indices and market prices are good or bad. That actually increased our
financial exposure beyond what we like, but we felt that it was the appropriate thing
to do, given the state of markets right now.
For some very rural communities it is prohibitively expensive to do curbside collection
once a week. In central Illinois, communities have curbside collection of recyclables
once a month, and they found that it's actually working quite well. When they went
to unit pricing, they just offered refuse bag collection once a week and recyclables
collection once a month.
Household Hazardous Waste Programs
Some communities already have household hazardous waste pickup or drop-off. How can these
programs work with a unit pricing program?
Durham, NC:
You may be able to share expenses with other city agencies. In addition to our yard
trimmings, curbside recycling, and bulky item pickup programs, we have a household
hazardous waste program. The payment for this came from our wastewater
treatment department, not from our landfill tipping fee. The waste staff are just as
concerned about hazardous waste going into the wastewater system as we ore about
it going into the landfill. We may have to change that in the future and split it, rather
APPENDIX A
75
-------
APPENDIX A
than let them pay the whole bill. But it was a cushion for some time. We are also
working on a permanent collection system on a regional basis. We hope to get a
four-county region together and see if we can get a price break. We would set up
permanent sites and negotiate with a contractor, saying, "We're going to give you a
million people's worth of household hazardous waste. Can you give us a better price
than dealing with one county, or one city"? Then we can reduce our costs and
provide more frequent service to more people.
Keeping the Message Simple
How do you avoid confusing your customers when you add a program to your unit pricing
system?
Austin, TX: Through moss media we talk about complementary programs such as recycling and
our Dillo Dirt program. But for unit pricing, and specifically how to participate in
"Pay-As-You-Throw," we targeted our audiences more directly by using direct mail, a
newsletter, and doorhangers. In these, we explained how to set out your wheeled
cart, where it should face, and how to share with a neighbor (i.e., go ahead and pull
two carts together on a neighbor boundary at the yard so that it's fewer stops for the
collector). So, we steer topical information to specifically reach the affected
audience. We choose to use easy terms to promote the program. It's important to
keep messages simple and clear.
Accommodating Groups With Special Needs
Older Households
How do you cater to the needs of senior citizens?
Pasadena, CA: Our older population began to have some concerns about their ability to actually
move their trash and pay for their trash. What we came up with seems to be working
well. We sent a note that said, "If you are over 62 years of age or if you are disabled,
call for special rates." Almost 10 percent of our population has called and about 5
percent are on the special rates right now. The special rate for senior citizens is a
fO-percent discount. They con choose ony service option they wont, because we
found that their needs varied.
Durham, NC: What about the people who don't have driver's licenses, or are temporarily disabled;
they broke their leg and it will be six months before they are mobile again? And,
also, do you go back and check to see if the older person has died or if a young
person is now living there and getting this service?
Pasadena, CA: First, if they don't have a driver's license, we ask for some kind of ID card or birth
certificate. People send all kinds of things; they're very good about wanting to show
you that they qualify. Secondly, our eligibility criteria say that if there is a younger
person in the home that can roll the trash for the disabled, then that household does
76
-------
APPENDIX A
not qualify. You have to be disabled, and you can't have a caregiver who is able to do
this. A lot is based on trust, although we do expect that we will do some followup,
depending upon how many people subscribe to the service. As far as people with
temporary needs, our basic message is if your need is less than six months, the
administrative costs of making that change are greater than the actual discount that
we could provide. But we do make exceptions on a one-to-one basis. Our customer
service reps do a tremendous amount of talking, asking a lot of questions and
dissuading people. The idea behind their asking questions is as much to help as to
provide disincentives to taking advantage of the system. So we try to do it in a very
courteous, polite way. After a while, most people get tired of answering the
questions, but if they can answer all the questions then we do try to help them.
How large is your customer service department?
Pasadena, CA: For 27,000 residences, we have three people. One person answers the phones out
front and dispatches on the radio for very basic questions. For more detailed
questions, I have two more individuals who can respond. But, if the question is very
difficult, it goes up to another level.
Low-Income Households
How do folks handle the low-income issue?
Seattle, WA: We don't have any family rates, but we do have a low-income rate. This summer we
qualified low-income, elderly, and handicapped customers for rate assistance. We
include all households who are under the federal poverty line.
Pasadena, CA: I would concur that if you're looking for standards, try to find something that is an
established standard—not something that you create for your city. That's where we
had problems because Pasadena is a more expensive place to live than other places
in the nation. It's difficult to defend a low-income standard if it's not already
established.
Large Households
Could you address the perception that a unit pricing program bashes the family?
SRC: That is a very common question at conferences. I guess to me, that's an education
issue. People who have larger homes pay more for electricity. People who have more
people in the house pay more for water and more at the grocery store. The question
is not so much aren't we going to be hurting these families but rather should small
families continue to subsidize these large families? I think that you need to turn the
question around.
APPENDIX A 77
-------
APPENDIX A
Inner Cities
What about our inner cities?
Seattle, WA:
Mansfield, CT;
Pasadena, CA:
Seattle, WA:
Monthly reports in Seattle show that illegal dumping is more concentrated in certain
areas than others, and it tends to be in lower income areas of the city.
Our toughest enforcement problems are in multi-family housing because of the
transient population and difficulty in communicating with individual tenants, as
opposed to single-family residents.
Pay special attention to any area of more transitory populations. They are going to
have special needs and special demands. We may need more frequent neighborhood
cleanups there.
Also, it is effective to use community groups, and to provide grants to community
councils. Often, they can do it for less money, and there is a lot of community pride
in dealing with the problem. City government is not great at doing it, but community
groups can do it.
Multi-Family Units
What has been your experience with applying unit pricing to multi-family housing?
Seattle, WA: We've had a broad range of problems providing unit pricing to residents of
multi-family housing. These include contract relations, design, enforcement, and
deciding whether the city or haulers will serve these units. Also, if you're going to do
unit pricing in a big city with lots of multi-family housing, you have to have a reliable
billing system that the customer service reps can use. We've got 9 inspectors and 22
customer service representatives, so we've got a big staff. But we have 300,000
collections a week, so even 1 percent of that turning up as phone calls can be a
problem. We get about 650 calls a day from customers, and we can deal with that.
Pasadena, CA:
I have a problem with landlords who call me when their units are empty. They say,
"I'm not using the unit because I'm remodeling it right now, so I shouldn't have to
pay for trash." But I still have to have the same operation; I still have to pass by the
unit. So, when you set up a unit pricing program, be sure to educate your landlords
about this.
78
-------
Putting the Blocks Together:
Additional Examples
n Part /// of this guide, a six-step process for assembling a unit
pricing program entitled "Putting the Blocks Together" was
introduced. The six steps demonstrated how to combine
projections of cost, demand, and service levels in order to
arrive at a tentative rate structure for a unit pricing program. The six
steps provided a general introduction to the process of designing a
rate structure but did not demonstrate how to accommodate the
specific needs of your community when designing a unit pricing
program.
This appendix consists of three examples to assist decision-makers in
tailoring their programs to the specific waste management goals and
needs of their communities. Each of the three examples outlines a
community goal and the modifications to the design and assembly
process considered necessary to meet that goal. The three examples
are:
• A community that wants to keep revenues higher than costs as
it moves from a traditional waste collection program to a unit
pricing program (the transition period).
• A community that wants to provide complementary solid waste
services such as a recycling collection program.
• A community that decides to accommodate citizens with
special needs within its unit pricing program.
APPENDIX B 79
-------
APPENDIX B
Designing a rate structure that meets the particular goals and
concerns of your community is important. Use the three examples to get
a sense of how to customize the six-step process to better meet the
demands of your community.
• Step 1: Demand. Estimate total amount of waste generated in
the "steady-state."
• Step 2: Services. Determine the components of your unit pricing
program.
• Step 3: Costs. Estimate the costs of your unit pricing program.
• Step 4: Rates. Develop a tentative unit pricing rate structure.
• Step 5: Revenues. Calculate the revenues from unit pricing.
• Step 6: Balance. Evaluate and adjust your preliminary unit
pricing program.
Focusing on the Transition Period
During the transition from a traditional waste management program to
a unit pricing program, households gradually adjust their habits to the
new opportunities and costs introduced by unit pricing. The demand for
services from local municipal solid waste agencies might settle to new,
lower levels during this time. The result can sometimes be a drop in
revenues for the local agency. Many communities introducing unit
pricing need to know that revenue shortfalls, however, will not be
excessive during the transition period, nor in the subsequent steady-state.
If a community requires the revenue from its unit pricing rates to
cover costs during both the transition period and the steady-state period,
it needs to focus on Steps 1 and 3 of "Putting the Blocks Together."
During Step 1, the community needs to produce a detailed and accurate
estimate of the degree to which households will reduce solid waste
generation to better anticipate changes in revenues that will result from
the unit pricing program. To acquire reliable estimates for this step, the
community can draw on the experience of other communities that have
introduced similar complementary programs, public education efforts,
container options, and special services.
A detailed estimate from.Step 1 will also help the community
accurately anticipate the rate at which costs will settle downward. In
Step 3, the community needs to look at how a reduction in waste volume
will lower costs, such as transportation and tipping fees. Unit pricing
planners then need to test tentative rate structures to find the correct
balance between decreasing revenues and decreasing costs and to keep
the local solid waste agency's revenues in line with costs during each
quarter of the transition period, as well as the subsequent steady-state.
80
-------
Adding Complementary Services
Communities that have a clear mandate for waste management can
sometimes pursue a program that combines source reduction and
recycling. For example, the citizens of a community might demand a
combined program of unit pricing and curbside pickup of recyclables. To
develop a rate structure that would accommodate a complementary
curbside recycling program, the community would need to accurately
identify all of its waste management costs and carefully weigh all of its
revenue-raising options to determine if such a program was feasible.
In Step 3 of "Putting the Blocks Together," the community can explore
the potential for combining equipment, crews, billing, and routes for
both trash collection and recycling pickup. Careful scheduling or
innovative use of equipment could significantly reduce costs. The
community should also use this step to examine the financial trade-offs
of the two programs; for example, a recycling pickup program could
lower the total amount of waste being landfilled or combusted, reducing
the community's tipping fees to help cover the costs of providing
recycling collection.
In Step 4, the community is presented with-a variety of pricing
options. These should be examined in light of your overall goals for unit
pricing. For example, if one of your primary goals is to significantly reduce
household waste generation, you can consider charging for all collection
services. Setting substantial per-bag charges for both trash and recyclables
will encourage households to reduce waste. If, however, recycling is
provided for free, citizens would have less incentive to reduce the
amounts of recyclables it generates and the municipal solid waste stream
(trash plus recyclables) could actually rise in volume, driving collection
costs up. Another pricing option consists of setting the per-bag charge for
trash higher than the per-bag charge for recyclables. This rate structure
encourages households to separate recyclables from other trash, thereby
reducing the portion of their household waste that the community sends
to the landfill.
These examples show how important it is to treat unit pricing rates as
part of a comprehensive pricing system that takes into account all solid
waste services. Charging citizens for both recycling and waste removal
adds complexity and cost to providing municipal solid waste services.
The alternative, however, a unit pricing rate structure that does not
integrate waste collection charges with those for curbside recycling, can
prove expensive, inequitable, and ineffective at achieving the
community's goals.
APPENDIX B 81
-------
APPENDIX B
Addressing Special Needs
A community that wishes to assist low-income households that might
have trouble paying for unit pricing needs to make several adjustments to
the basic model to develop a rate structure that meets its goals.
In Step 1, the community must first determine how to qualify
households for lower collection charges. To make this decision, the
community should collect information on the number of low-income
households that could qualify for lower charges. The community can use
these numbers to adjust revenue estimates and finally arrive at a rate
structure that provides sufficient revenue. Rates should be set to provide
an incentive for source reduction in both low- and high-income
households. However, the community might anticipate that lower rates
for low-income households will provide less incentive to use source
reduction. If this is the case, estimates of the drop in demand for waste
collection services should be revised to meet the effect of the low-income
rate.
In Step 3, the community needs to examine the potentially greater
costs of introducing a low-income rate. Such a rate not only will decrease
anticipated revenues but also require additional administrative costs to
identify and separately bill low-income households. Administrative costs
can be kept down if an established income cutoff is used or other local
agencies have already identified the low-income households in the
community. Rent assistance or income assistance programs might have
already identified the low-income households in a community.
82
-------
APPENDIX C
Definitions
Bulky waste items - Large items of refuse including, but not limited to, appliances, furniture,
large auto parts, nonhazardous construction and demolition materials, and trees that cannot be
handled by normal solid waste processing, collection, and disposal methods.
Commercial sector - Includes schools, hospitals, retail establishments, hotels, and
restaurants.
Compost - Discarded organic material that has been processed into a soil-like material used as
a soil amendment or mulch.
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris - Includes concrete, asphalt, tree stumps and
other wood wastes, metal, and bricks. (C&D debris is excluded from the definition of municipal
solid waste used by EPA and the National Recycling Coalition.)
Disposal - Landfilling or combusting waste instead of recycling or composting it.
Diversion rate - A measure of the amount of waste material being diverted for
recycling/composting compared with the total amount that was previously thrown away.
Enterprise fund - An independent budget dedicated for a special purpose or activity, such as
a local municipal solid waste program. The local agency becomes reliant on the revenue it raises
through unit pricing or tipping fees and does not receive financial support from the general fund
of the local government.
Flow control - A legal or economic means by which waste is directed to particular
destinations (for example, an ordinance requiring that certain wastes be sent to a particular
landfill facility).
Full cost accounting - The total accounting of all costs and revenues involved in municipal
solid waste management, allowing for a standard treatment of the capital costs, future
obligations, and indirect costs.
Household hazardous waste - Products containing hazardous substances that are used and
disposed of by individuals, not industrial consumers. These products include, but are not limited
to, certain kinds of paints, solvents, batteries, and pesticides.
Integrated waste management - The complementary use of a variety of practices to
handle municipal solid waste safely and effectively. Integrated waste management techniques
include source reduction, recycling (including composting), combustion, and landfilling.
APPENDIX c 83
-------
APPENDIX C
Landfilling - The disposal of solid waste at engineered facilities in a series of compacted layers
on land that is covered with soil daily. Fill areas are carefully prepared to prevent nuisances or
public health hazards, and clay and/or synthetic liners are used to prevent releases to ground
water.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) - Waste generated in households, commercial establishments,
institutions, and businesses. MSW includes used paper, discarded cans and bottles, food scraps,
yard trimmings, and other items. Industrial process wastes, agricultural wastes, mining wastes,
and sewage sludge are not MSW.
Participation rate - The portion of households that take part in a given program. Often
refers to households actively participating in a curbside collection program for recyclable
materials.
Recyclables - Products or materials that can be collected, separated, and processed to be used
as raw materials in the manufacture of new products. The recyclable option should be available
to the majority of residents through curbside recycling programs or fixed recycling centers.
Recycled content - The portion of a package's weight (excluding coatings, ink, labels,
stickers, adhesives, or closures) that is composed of postconsumer recycled material.
Residential waste - Waste from single-family and multi-family residences and their yards.
Source reduction (Waste prevention) - The design, manufacture, purchase, or use of
materials to reduce the amount and/or toxicity of waste. Source reduction techniques include
reusing items, minimizing the use of products that contain hazardous compounds, using only
what is needed, extending the useful life of a product, and reducing unneeded packaging.
Tipping fees - The fees, usually dollars per ton, charged to haulers for delivering materials
at recovery or disposal facilities.
Waste generated - Sum of waste recovered and waste disposed of.
Waste stream - A term describing the total flow of solid waste from homes, businesses,
institutions, and manufacturing plants that must be recycled, burned, or disposed of in landfills;
or any segment thereof, such as the "residential or recyclable" waste stream.
Yard trimmings - The component of solid waste composed of grass clippings, leaves,
twigs, branches, and garden refuse.
84
-------
Bibliography
Blume, D. R. 1992. Under what conditions should cities adopt volume-based pricing for
residential waste collection. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of Management and Budget.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. 1991. Disposal cost fee study: final report.
Boston, MA: Tellus Institute.
Goddard, H. C. 1990. Integrating solid waste management: incentives for reduced waste,
increased recycling, and extension of landfill life. Proceedings from the First U.S. Conference
of MSW Management: Solutions for the '90s. Washington, DC.
Howard, S. 1988. Financing integrated solid waste management systems. Paper presented at
the Seventh Annual Resource Recovery Conference. Washington, DC: Shearson Lehman
Mutton, Inc.
Hsieh, H-N. (No date.) Cost analysis of landfill and its alternatives. Unpublished paper.
Newark, NJ: New Jersey Institute of Technology.
Jacalone, D. P. 1992. Per unit pricing: an overview of operational issues. Paper presented at
EPA's Second U.S. Conference on MSW Management: Moving Ahead. Washington, DC.
League of California Cities. 1992. Financing strategies for integrated waste management
programs: answers for communities. Sacramento, CA: League of California Cities.
Repetto, R., et al. 1992. Green fees: how a tax shift can work for the environment and the
economy. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Discussion and summary of economic
incentives to promote recycling and source reduction. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of
Policy Analysis.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Charging households for waste collection and
disposal: the effects of weight or volume-based pricing on solid waste management. NTIS
PB91-111484. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (No date.) Methods of predicting solid waste
characteristics. Stock no. 5502-0048. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Variable rates in solid waste: handbook for solid
waste officials, Volume 1: Executive summary. EPA530-SW-90-084A. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
APPENDIX D 85
-------
NOTES
-------
Presentation
Materials
Public Outreach
Materials
Worksheets
Articles &
Newsclippings
Bibliography
-------
United States Office of Solid Waste and EPA530-R-96-005
Environmental Protection Emergency Response September 1996
Agency Washington, DC 20460
&EPA Pay-As-You-Throw Workbook
A Supplement to
Pay-As-You-Throw Guidebook
Pnnted on paper that contains at least
20 percent postconsumer fiber.
-------
Acknowledgments
EPA wishes to thank the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
(CONEG) for its assistance in the development of this workbook
and, in particular, for its contribution to the design and development
of the worksheets.
-------
Table of Contents
About This Workbook v
Section Oner-Presentation Materials I
Presentation Agenda 3
Survey of Attendees 7
Evaluation Form 11
Sample Script and Overhead Masters 15
Section Two: Public Outreach Materials 91
Pay-As-You-Throw Fact Sheets 93
Other Outreach Strategies 105
Clip Art 111
Section Three: Worksheets 121
Section Four: Articles and Newsclippings 145
Section Five: Annotated Bibliography 173
in
-------
About This Workbook
T
oday, with waste amounts and disposal costs for many commu-
nities rising, municipal solid waste (MSW) planners increasingly
need to find ways to boost waste prevention and recycling
among residents. Pay-as-you-throw programs, when properly
designed and implemented, can help you meet this challenge. To pro-
vide a source of information about how these programs work, EPA
developed a guide called Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit
Pricing. The guide introduces pay-as-you-throw, discusses its benefits
and potential barriers, and offers guidance on how to consider,
design, and implement a pay-as-you-throw program.
This supplement to the guide is designed as a user-friendly, hands-on
workbook. It is divided into five sections containing tools to help
you plan out your program in detail, convey the results of your
research in convincing presentations, and develop a strong outreach
program that will help you earn the support of community stake-
holders. This workbook also contains reprinted articles and refer-
ence materials that you can use to learn more about these
programs. Each of the tools in this workbook are designed to be
adapted as needed. To get started, review the table of contents or
read the five section introductions to find the specific materials you
need to make pay-as-you-throw successful in your community.
-------
Presentation Materials
T
he first step in any pay-as-you-throw program is to review the
benefits and potential barriers of pay-as-you-throw and learn
how these systems work. MSW planners who have per-
formed this step and decided that such a program can work
in their community will then need to earn the support of key com-
munity stakeholders. In most communities, stakeholders include
elected officials, municipal staff, residents, local civic groups, and, in
some cases, private haulers. A pay-as-you-throw presentation at a
meeting of municipal officials, a town meeting, or a citizens' adviso-
ry council meeting can be an effective first step.
Prior to your presentation, it is important to thoroughly research
pay-as-you-throw and its potential advantages for your community.
(Refer to the guide Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pric-
ing, which can be found in the "Guidebooks" section of this Tool
Kit, for more information about pay-as-you-throw. The worksheets
in Section Three of this workbook also can help with this process.)
Once you have gathered data in support of the program, you can
use the following sample materials to help you organize an effective
pay-as-you-throw presentation:
• A presentation agenda and photocopy master to help you plan
out your meeting.
• A survey of attendees that you can use before your briefing to
better understand your audience and its level of awareness of
pay-as-you-throw.
• An evaluation form to help you gauge how successful your pre-
sentation was and decide whether further work will be needed
to convince your audience about the program.
-------
n A sample script for your presentation and overhead masters
that can be photocopied onto transparencies and used to help
you present the key points concerning pay-as-you-throw.
In addition, be sure to consider whether materials found in the
other sections of this Tool Kit, including the pay-as-you-throw soft-
ware, videotape, or guidebooks, might also help you strengthen
your presentation.
-------
SECTION
Presentation Agenda
A presentation agenda will help you provide your audience
with an overview of the topics you plan to cover in your
talk. It will also demonstrate that
you have carefully planned your briefing.
In addition, preparing an agenda in
advance can be an important exercise,
helping you clearly identify key areas of
your briefing and the approximate
amount of time you should spend on
each. You might want to provide
your attendees with the agenda
ahead of time, perhaps as part of
an invitation to the presentation.
In general, your briefing might
include an overview of the
pay-as-you-throw program,
followed by your analysis of
how it can help your com-
munity. You can refer to
the materials in this sec-
tion (including the Sam-
ple Script and Overhead
Masters, beginning on page
*\5) for more ideas on what to include in
the presentation. Begin by reviewing the sample agen-
da on this page. If you want to structure your briefing around these
topics, you can use the blank agenda template found on the
next page.
-------
Or, if you prefer, you can create you own agenda that focuses on
the specific topics or issues that you think would be of greatest
interest to your audience.
-------
Pay-As-You-Th row
Presentation Agenda
Welcome and Introductions
Overhead Presentation
• Introduction to pay-as-you-throw:
will it work in our community?
• Planning for pay-as-you-throw and
educating residents
• Designing a successful program
• Implementing and monitoring
pay-as-you-throw
Questions and Answers
Pay-As-You-Throw Worksheet
Handouts
• Goals
• Barriers
• Public outreach
• Container and pricing options
Next Steps
Adjourn
-------
SECTION
Survey of Attendees
Your presentation will be more effective if you can address
the specific issues about pay-as-you-throw that are of partic-
ular interest or concern to your audience. If you know who
is likely to come to your presentation, you can prepare and send
out a survey ahead of time to identify their
primary concerns and
what it is they would
like to learn about f*j
your proposed
program.
This section includes a
sample survey form that
you can reproduce and
send out to your atten-
dees. Or you can adapt this
master copy by developing
your own questions, placing
them onto the page below
the title, and reproducing
that, instead. Once you have
the survey ready, distribute it
to your attendees and review
the results carefully. If needed,
you can adapt your agenda and
the content of your presentation
to address directly any trends or
issues you noted in the survey results.
-------
Survey of
Attendees
Thanks for accepting the invitation to attend the upcoming presentation on our
proposed pay-as-you-throw program. To help focus the presentation on the most
important issues, please take a few minutes to respond to the following ques-
tions. Please return this form to the presentation organizers when you are done.
Your name:
Title/position:.
How familiar are you with pay-as-you-throw?
D Very familiar
D Somewhat familiar with the concept and how pay-as-you-throw
works
D Have read about/been exposed to a small amount of pay-as-you-
throw information
D Unfamiliar with pay-as-you-throw
What do you think are the most important advantages of a pay-as-
you-throw program for our community? (Rank the following on a
scale of I to 3, with 3 indicating the most important advantages.)
Reduced waste generation amounts
Reduced waste collection and disposal costs
Greater recycling rates
Greater equity for residents (residents pay only for the waste they
generate)
Increased environmental awareness among residents
Other
-------
Survey of Attendees
Page 2
What do you think are the most significant perceived barriers to a
pay-as-you-throw program in our community? (Rank the following
on a scale of I to 3, with 3 indicating the most significant perceived
barriers.)
Enforcement issues (illegal dumping, burning of waste)
Potential for uneven cash flow
Perception of increased costs to residents
Implementation in multi-family housing
High administrative costs
Extending pay-as-you-throw to residents with special needs
Building public consensus
Other
What specific pay-as-you-throw topics or questions do you want to
see raised at the presentation?
-------
SECTION
Evaluation Form
Once your presentation is complete, it may be useful to per-
form a follow-up survey to generate feedback about the
briefing and the issues that were discussed. While reac-
tions and questions at the presentation
itself will provide a good sense of the
impact of your briefing, an evaluation
form will allow you to gauge in greater
detail the attitudes and responses of
your audience toward pay-as-you-
throw. The results will help you deter-
mine whether follow-up sessions will
be needed and which particular
aspects of pay-as-you-throw were
well received—and which may
require additional explanation.
Review the sample evaluation
form in this section. Prior to your
presentation, you can reproduce
this form. If you prefer, you can
adapt this master copy by
developing your own evalua-
tion questions, placing them
onto the page below the title,
and reproducing that, instead. Then,
immediately after your briefing, distribute the form to your
attendees and ask them to complete it before they leave. Review
the attendees' evaluations carefully and begin planning how to incor-
porate what you learned into future outreach efforts.
ft-SfiSas&iggs^
, P^-as-yo "V'P™'S
do"t. »(.- ""»*
II
-------
Evaluation
Form
Thank you for coming to this pay-as-you-throw presentation. We appreciate
your attendance and participation, and would like your feedback. Please
take a minute to complete the following evaluation, identifying the presenta-
tion's strong points as well as the points that warrant more attention. This
information will help us improve future presentations. It also will help us
learn if we need to provide more information about pay-as-you-throw or
answer any additional questions. When you are done, please return this
form to the presentation organizers.
Please rate your response to the following questions on a scale of 1 to 5.
1: Poor 2: Fair 3: Good 4: Very good 5: Excellent
I. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the presentation?
12345
Comments:
2. How would you rate the presentation format?
1 2
Comments:
3. How would you rate the presentation style of the speaker(s)?
12345
Comments:
!3
-------
Evaluation Form
2
4. How would you rate the handouts/presentation materials?
12345
Comments:
5. Did the presentation meet your goals and expectations?
1234
Comments:
6. How well were your concerns or questions about
pay-as-you-throw addressed?
1 2 3
Comments:
7. What other topics or areas of discussion would you like
to see addressed?
8. Please list any other questions or comments about
pay-as-you-throw or the presentation.
-------
Sample Script and
Overhead Masters
SECTION
Overheads can be very helpful in
conveying information about
pay-as-you-throw to your pre-
sentation audience. This workbook
includes a complete set of overheads
designed to address the main topic areas
related to pay-as-you-throw: what a pay-as-
you-throw program is, what the results have
been in communities with pay-as-you-throw,
how these programs work, and how to
design and implement one in your own com-
munity. On the following pages you will
find a sample script for your overhead
presentation, intended to provide a
starting point for your discussion of the
different pay-as-you-throw topics. The
sample script is followed by a set of
master overheads that can be used to
create your overhead transparencies.
The overhead presentation is
designed to be flexible. You may
decide to revise the order of the
overheads based on the issues
you feel merit particular atten-
tion. You also can remove any
overheads or include your own transparencies to
provide additional information, if needed. In addition, you can adapt
15
-------
the suggested script or even prepare your own to further tailor the briefing to
your audience.
To prepare transparencies from the overhead masters, simply copy each of the
master overhead pages onto blank transparencies (available at office or stationary
supply retailers) using an ordinary photocopier. The transparencies will then be
ready to use.
16
-------
"Pay-As- You-Throw"
Unit Pricing of
Municipal Solid Waste
Pay-as-you-throw programs are incentive-based strategies for reducing
the amount of MSW community residents generate.
This briefing will include an introduction to pay-as-you-throw and a
discussion of how it can help our community better manage MSW.
We also will talk about how to design and implement a program that will
succeed in our community. Many of these strategies have been learned
from communities that have implemented programs of their own.
17
-------
MSW Hierarchy Pyramid
Waste
Prevention
Composting
and Recycling
Landfilling and Combustion
Maintaining control over solid waste in the long term depends on
emphasizing waste reduction.
Landfilling and combustion, while necessary, are the least desirable
management methods. They occupy the bottom of the hierarchy.
Recycling, which reduces the amount of waste we have to dispose of,
is preferable.
Waste prevention, which prevents materials from becoming waste in
the first place, is at the top of the hierarchy.
18
-------
Potential Benefits
• Encourages the Three Rs:
Reduce
Reuse
Recycle
REDUCE
Pay-as-you-throw directly supports waste prevention and recycling.
Because residents pay for whatever they throw out, they tend to work
harder to reduce, reuse, and recycle.
19
-------
Because of this "pocketbook" motivation, it is likely that pay-as-you-
throw will result in less total waste our community has to dispose of.
Increased recycling rates will be a major factor in this.
In addition, when markets for collected materials are strong, greater
recycling rates offer the potential for increased revenues from the sale
of these materials.
20
-------
Potential Benefits
Encourages the Three Es:
• Environment
• Economics
• Equity
The increased reducing, reusing, and recycling leads to further benefits,
called the Three Es.
Environment: Less waste means less landfill space is needed. In addition,
reduced need for manufacturing goods can result in less pollution.
Economics: For the municipality, less waste means lower collection and
disposal costs. For residents, they control their costs. If they throw away
less, they will pay less.
Equity: Waste management costs money, but now the costs are spread
more fairly. Those residents that generate large amounts of waste will
have to take financial responsibility for it.
21
-------
Waste Reduction Results
• Perkasie, PA
• MN Town I
• MNTown2
• Duke University
Study of 14 cities 44%
6 MA Cities
m Before Unit Pricing 1.5 - 4.5 ppd
• After Unit Pricing 0.89 • 1.09 ppd
• Cornell University, 76% of residents
Tompkins County, NY reduced waste
What does the evidence show? In virtually every case, communities
with pay-as-you-throw report that waste generation declined. Here are
some examples.
The average waste reduction reported by pay-as-you-throw
communities is between 25 and 45 percent. (Results may vary,
depending on such factors as current waste collection systems and
options chosen for pay-as-you-throw.)
22
-------
Different Unit Pricing
Programs
*L
Community
Plantation, FL
Perkasie, PA
High Bridge, NY
Illion, NY
Pasadena, CA
Loveland, CO
Austin, TX
Type of
Population Program
64,000 Bags
7,900 Bags
4,000 Stickers
9,500 Bags
119,374 Can
31,000 Stamp
450,000 Can
Dupage County, IL 668,000 Bags
* Data not avalilable
c
Change in
MSW
*
-54%
*
-51%
-21%
-62%
-40%
-53%
1
~~~W
:V"^
Change
in recycling
+21%
+50%
+ 18%
+41%
*
*
*
*
Those communities with existing recycling programs also show
significant increases in the amount recycled.
Studies also show that waste prevention and recycling amounts
increased in all the reporting communities, regardless of size or
geographic location.
23
-------
Deciding Whether to Use
Pay-As-You-Throw
Will the program meet our
MSW goals?
Will residents support the
program?
Will costs and revenues
balance?
Ultimately our community has to decide about pay-as-you-throw based
on three issues:
Will it meet our MSW goals? We need to compare the potential
advantages of pay-as-you-throw to our MSW goals and make a
judgment about whether the program will bring us closer to meeting
these goals.
Will residents support it? They most likely will, if the program is well-
designed and we reach out to educate them about pay-as-you-throw.
Will costs and revenues balance? The only way to determine this is to
perform some detailed rate design work and evaluate the results.
24
-------
Pay-As-You-Throw Goals
(Examples)
Raise sufficient revenues
Encourage MSW reduction through
price signals
Convey a better understanding of social costs
to citizens
Charge for recycling and other
complementary programs
Allow for the needs of special groups
Keep the program simple to use and run
Pay-as-you-throw programs can help a community meet a number of
important goals. These are just a few examples.
Our goals include:
[L»st your community's MSW goals; discuss how well pay-as-you-throw will
meet them]
25
-------
Education and Outreach
Need the support of residents!
Build consensus with an outreach
campaign
Citizens' advisory council
can help:
• Set goals
• Build consensus
If we decide to go with pay-as-you-throw, we must earn the support of
residents. A key lesson from communities with pay-as-you-throw is that
such programs will not succeed without residents' approval.
To achieve this, the first step will be to initiate an outreach campaign.
One goal of the campaign is to inform residents about why the new
program is needed.
A second goal of the campaign is to involve residents in the actual
planning for the program. Setting up a citizens' advisory council that
includes civic leaders and other residents can help accomplish this.
26
-------
The citizens' advisory council can assist in developing goals and in
finding ways to reach out to the community about the new program.
The council also can provide input on important decisions about how
the program will be structured.
27
-------
Building Consensus
• Explain current MSW issues
• Present community's MSW goals
• Explain how Pay-As-You-Throw
can meet these goals
• Residents more likely to support
program when they see tangible
benefits
It is possible there may be some initial opposition to the program, since
residents are going to be asked to pay for a service they may think they
had been getting for free.
To overcome this, our outreach campaign could first discuss the
problem. For example, we can let residents know that the increasing
amount of trash is making MSW management harder and more
expensive.
Then, we could relate these issues as goals. For example, we could say
that a primary goal is to reduce MSW amounts.
Finally, our campaign should explain pay-as-you-throw and discuss how
it can help us reduce trash and achieve other goals as well.
28
-------
Techniques for Building
Consensus ~L®
Hold public meetings
Issue press releases/outreach to
local media
Prepare briefs for elected officials
Work with retailers
Enclose information with utility
bills/other mailings to residents
There are many different ways to structure the outreach campaign.
Presentations could be made at public meetings on pay-as-you-throw
and why it can help.
Involving local news outlets via press releases and invitations to public
meetings is important. Achieving positive press coverage could go a long
way toward easing residents' concerns.
Briefings for elected officials can help them better explain the program
in public appearances.
Retailers can be educated about the program and also can display
materials about it in their stores. Direct outreach to residents through
mailings can be effective as well.
29
-------
Another effective method of generating public support is to reach out
to specific groups, such as the elderly or school children.
Children in particular are an important audience. Children tend to
bring the messages they receive back home to their parents, which can
help pay-as-you-throw gain acceptance community-wide.
30
-------
Rate Structure Container
Options
• Tags
• Bags
Cans
The next step is to design the structure of the program.
Some programs sell tags or stickers to residents to affix to their own
bags. Under this system, the price of the tag or sticker includes the
collection and management costs for the trash. The tag often indicates a
specific size container, and alerts collection crews that the waste has
been paid for.
Bags with some type of distinctive marking or color can be sold to
residents at retail outlets or municipal offices. The price of the bag
includes the collection and management costs for the trash.
Cans also can be used. One option is to offer a large can, and bill
residents for the number of cans they fill up. Smaller size cans also
could be used for any waste beyond the first large container.
31
-------
Bag and tag systems tend to allow for faster collection, and no billing is
needed. Residents tend to find these systems easy to understand.
There can be some revenue uncertainty, however, since residents may
buy bunches of bags or tags at hard-to-predict intervals.
32
-------
Can systems tend to offer greater revenue stability, and won't tear or
scatter trash. Cans also often are compatible with automatic collection
equipment.
A system for billing residents for their can set-outs is needed, however,
which can increase administrative costs.
33
-------
Rate Structure Systems for
Unit Pricing
Proportional
(linear)
• Variable
Container
a
Two-tiered/
Multi-tiered
The next step is to decide how to price the containers.
Under proportional systems, a flat price is charged for each container.
This provides a very simple, clear signal to residents to reduce waste,
and it is easy to administer.
The variable rate is used when different size containers are available.
One price is used for the large container, and different prices are set
for the smaller containers residents might use.
Because revenues may fluctuate with linear and variable rate systems,
some communities use two-tiered or multi-tiered systems. These
options establish a monthly flat fee to cover the fixed costs of MSW
management. Then, a per-container charge is set on top of that. This
lessens the waste reduction signal somewhat, but minimizes any
revenue uncertainty.
34
-------
Because residents have an incentive to reduce waste, it makes sense to
offer additional avenues to accomplish this. These options are called
complementary programs.
For example, nearly all communities with pay-as-you-throw include
curbside recycling collections. Recycling enables residents to divert a
large percentage of the waste they have generated.
35
-------
Complementary Programs
Recycling collections
Yard trimmings collections for
composting
Bulky items pickups
Yard trimmings, which comprise a large percentage of the waste
stream, also can be diverted through curbside collection or by
encouraging backyard composting.
Bulky items will need to be planned for. Because they cost more to
collect and dispose of, many communities have established a special fee
system for "white goods" or bulky items using tags or stickers. Residents
often are asked to put a set number of tags or stickers on these large
waste items to indicate that their collection has been paid for.
36
-------
Designing a Rate Structure
Costs
• Estimate Demand:
cubic yards/tons MSW
• Determine Services
(curbside recycling, low-income
assistance, etc.)
• Estimate Costs:
$ fixed and variable costs
After making the basic decisions about the program, the next step is to
create a rate structure that balances costs and revenues.
The first step is estimating the demand for services, expressed as the
amount of waste you expect to collect annually. This figure should take
into account possible changes in the size of our community and the
waste reduction impact of the new program.
The next step is determining the services that will be offered with the
program. These services might include curbside recycling, a composting
program, bulky waste collection, or assistance to low- or fixed-income
residents.
Next, the cost of collecting the estimated amount of waste and
providing the planned services needs to be calculated.
37
-------
Designing a Rate Structure
Revenues
• Develop Rates: $
• Calculate Revenues:
units MSW x $
Revenues then need to be calculated.
First, an estimated fee per container should be established. Then, this
rate is multiplied by the annual number of containers residents are
expected to fill. These are the revenues that the program will generate.
38
-------
Designing a Rate Structure
$
Balance
• Weigh costs against revenues
• Adjust costs and/or revenues as
needed
Costs
$
Revenues
Now the expected costs and the projected revenues can be compared
and balanced.
It is likely that adjustments will be needed. It may be necessary to cut
back on some services or raise the per-container fee to cover a
shortfall.
On the other hand, if a surplus is projected, then the container fee
could be lowered. A lower price also might help convince residents to
support the program.
39
-------
Challenges and Solutions
Illegal dumping
Multi-family
housing
Low-income groups
Covering costs &
revenue stability
Regressivity &
hidden tax issues
Education, legal
diversions, enforcement
Include charges in
rent, bar code chutes
Rebates, discounts
Two-tiered billing
Appropriate pricing
and refunds
There are a number of potential barriers we need to consider. With
the appropriate planning, these barriers can be overcome.
The most commonly voiced concern when pay-as-you-throw is
proposed is illegal dumping. However, experience from communities
with pay-as-you-throw has shown that illegal dumping typically is less of
an issue than originally feared. The key is educating residents to keep
them from dumping their waste and provide them with significant
opportunities (such as recycling and composting) to divert their waste
legally. Strong enforcement also should be available.
Residents in multi-family housing can be difficult to service, since they
often place their trash in common dumpsters. Possible solutions include
adding the charges to rent or incorporating bar code readers in
garbage chutes to monitor waste generation by residents.
To help low-income groups participate, rebates, discounts, or other
forms of assistance can be provided.
40
-------
(Challenges and Solutions, continued)
If it turns out that a major priority is to ensure that revenues will consistently
cover costs, a two-tiered or multi-tiered rate structure can be used.
Residents also might be concerned about being taxed for solid waste services and
then, under the new program, also being charged the variable fee. Making a point
of lowering taxes by the appropriate amount or redirecting those revenues to
other programs that residents support can help diffuse this issue.
41
-------
"Pay-As-You-Throw"
Unit Pricing of
Municipal Solid Waste
-------
MSW Hierarchy Pyramid
Waste
Prevention
Composting
and Recycling
Landfilling and Combustion
-------
Potential Benefits
Encourages the Three Rs:
Reduce
Reuse
Recycle
-------
-------
Potential Benefits
Encourages the Three Es:
Environment
Economics
Equity
-------
Waste Reduction Results
£ Perkasie, PA
K MN Town I
« MN Town 2
ri Duke University
Study of 14 cities
6 MA Cities
::: Before Unit Pricing
:: After Unit Pricing
us
Cornell University,
Tompkins County, NY
54%
60%
37%
44%
1.5 - 4.5 ppd
0.89 - 1.09 ppd
76% of residents
reduced waste
-------
Different Unit Pricing
Programs
Community
Type of Change in
Population Program MSW
Plantation, FL
Perkasie, PA
High Bridge, NY
Illion, NY
Pasadena, CA
Loveland, CO
Austin, TX
Dupage County, IL
64,000
7,900
4,000
9,500
119,374
31,000
450,000
668,000
Bags
Bags
Stickers
Bags
Can
Stamp
Can
Bags
Change
in recycling
*
-54%
*
-51%
-21%
-62%
-40%
-53%
+21%
+50%
+ 18%
+41%
*
*
*
*
* Data not avalilable
-------
Deciding Whether to Use
Pay-As-You-Throw
Will the program meet our
MSW goals?
Will residents support the
program?
Will costs and revenues
balance?
-------
Pay-As- You-Throw Goals
(Examples)
!;'
" — **-°
Raise sufficient revenues
•?
Encourage MSW reduction through
price signals
Convey a better understanding of social costs
to citizens
S-"
Charge for recycling and other
complementary programs
Allow for the needs of special groups
Keep the program simple to use and run
-------
Education and Outreach
Need the support of residents!
Build consensus with an outreach
campaign
Citizens' advisory council
can help:
'."?
r Set goals 4
Build consensus
-------
-------
Building Consensus
Explain current MSW issues
Present community's MSW goals
Explain how Pay-As-You-Throw
can meet these goals
Residents more likely to support
program when they see tangible
benefits
-------
Techniques for Building
Consensus
Hold public meetings
Issue press releases/outreach to
local media
Prepare briefs for elected officials
Work with retailers
Enclose information with utility
bills/other mailings to residents
-------
-------
Rate Structure Container
Options
Tags
Bags
Cans
-------
-------
-------
Rate Structure Systems for
Unit Pricing
Proportional
(linear)
Variable
Container
\x
i
VV\ *°
Two-tiered/
Multi-tiered
-------
-------
Complementary Programs
m~-,"~\ "-'• »\j> W*.«•! - **- • *' "" ••"•"• ~ •>••— *«Bfi,»£~»»v^ , v
" * - - ** °''*' "" "' "
! -C '
Recycling collections
Yard trimmings collections for
composting
Bulky items pickups
-------
Designing a Rate Structure
Costs
® Estimate Demand:
cubic yards/tons MSW
® Determine Services
(curbside recycling, low-income
assistance, etc.)
Estimate Costs:
$ fixed and variable costs
-------
Designing a Rate Structure
Revenues
; Develop Rates: $ per unit
Calculate Revenues:
units MSW x $ per unit = $
-------
Designing a Rate Structure
Balance
Weigh costs against revenues
i Adjust costs and/or revenues as
needed
Costs *rfs8ffi«« Revenues
-------
>'
"Os U '*'
Challenges and Solutions
Illegal dumping Education, legal
diversions, enforcement
Multi-family Include charges in
housing rent, bar code chutes
Low-income groups Rebates, discounts
Covering costs & Two-tiered billing
revenue stability
Regressivity & Appropriate pricing
hidden tax issues and refunds
-------
Public Outreach
Materials
D
esigning and implementing an outreach and education effort
directed at residents are critical steps in the development of
your pay-as-you-throw program. Achieving a broad level of
public support can help ensure not only that your program
will be successfully implemented, but that residents will begin
responding as hoped: by increasing recycling and taking more
aggressive measures to prevent waste. There is no single model or
solution to this challenge. The extent of outreach necessary to get a
pay-as-you-throw program up and running will vary from community
to community.
This section presents several ideas for outreach materials that can
help you begin to earn the support of your residents. Review the
materials described below with your unique outreach needs in mind
and select the tools that you think will help you effectively deliver
your pay-as-you-throw message to the audiences you need to reach.
The outreach materials and ideas in this section include:
• A set of five fact sheets introducing pay-as-you-throw.
• Other outreach ideas and strategies, including press releases,
public meetings, newsletters, and flyers.
• A selection of clip art to help you create your own, customized
outreach materials.
In general, successful public outreach efforts typically involve two
components. The first component focuses on soliciting input about
the program from community stakeholders prior to implementation.
For example, it may be the case that your community's residents
would support a pay-as-you-throw program if they considered it to
91
-------
be sufficiently convenient. In this case, presenting them with possible
arrangements-such as a system of bags available for purchase at
local retailers versus a subscription-based system using cans—and
asking them which system they would prefer can make a tremen-
dous difference in their ultimate willingness to support the program.
The second type of outreach should take place just before and dur-
ing program implementation. Once you have made a decision about
the type of pay-as-you-throw system that is most appropriate for
your community, you will need to clearly convey detailed informa-
tion to residents about the program and how they can participate.
Residents will need to thoroughly understand how the program
works before they will begin to reduce and recycle more.
Review the materials in this section and decide which products can
best help you solicit feedback and educate your residents about pay-
as-you-throw. In addition, you might consider whether items like the
videotape included in this Tool Kit and the worksheets in the next sec-
tion of this workbook also can help strengthen your public outreach.
92
-------
Pay-As-You-Throw
Fact Sheets
SECTION
Fact sheets can help community decisionmakers introduce pay-
as-you-throw to local stakeholders and begin showing them
why a pay-as-you-throw program might be a good idea. EPA
developed the following five fact sheets to introduce pay-as-you-
throw to what are, for many communi-
ties, their most important audiences.
These are: 1) community residents;
2) MSW planners; 3) local elected
officials; 4) state officials; and 5) mem
bers of civic and environmental
organizations.
A quick and easy way
to raise awareness about
pay-as-yo u-th row,
these fact sheets can be
reproduced and distrib-
uted to target audiences
within your community.
The fact sheets also can be
adapted for your own, cus-
tomized outreach flyers.
(See the flyers and
brochures ideas found on
page 109 of this workbook.)
The text can be revised as needed,
and, in the Clip Art section that
begins on page 111, you will find reproducible samples of
each of the illustrations
93
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OS305)
EPA530-F-96-028
September 1996
4>EPA Pay-As-You-Throw
Throw Away Less and Save
Do you know
how much you
spend per month
on electricity? How
about your gas
utility? The person
who pays the bills
in your household
probably has a
pretty good idea.
But do you know
how much you
spend on garbage?
Each time your city or town
sends a truck down your
street to pick up your waste,
it costs money. It costs
money even if you drop your trash
off at a local dump. Ultimately, you
pay for this service, usually through
your local taxes. And it's not likely
that you have much control over the
amount you pay, regardless of how
much garbage you create.
There is a different system, how-
ever, under which residents are
asked to pay for
waste collection
directly—based on
the amount of garbage they
actually generate. They're called
"pay-as-you-throw" programs, and
nearly 2,000 communities across
the country have begun using
them.
What is
pay-as-you-throw?
Pay-as-you-throw is a differ-
ent way of paying for waste
collection and disposal ser-
vices. In some pay-as-you-
throw communities, it works
on a per-container basis: house-
holds are charged for each bag or
can of waste they generate. A few
communities bill residents based on
the weight of their trash. Either
way, the system motivates people to
recycle more and to think about
ways to generate less waste in the
first place.
For community residents, however,
the most important advantage of
pay-as-you-throw may be the fair-
ness and greater control over costs
that it offers. Do you have neighbors
that never seem to recycle, and
always leave out six or seven bags of
trash? While you may not have
thought about it,
right now , « •
you're • •
-------
helping them pay for that waste. Under pay-as- raised issue. While people often assume that
you-throw, everyone pays only for what they
generate—so you won't have to subsidize your
neighbor's wastefulness anymore. It's only fair.
With pay-as-you-throw, when you recycle and
prevent waste, you're reward-
ed with a lower trash bill.
Because of these potential
cost savings, both you and
your neighbors will naturally
want to reduce the amount
of waste that you generate.
And when people reduce
waste, that can mean lower
costs for your community,
since it costs less to collect
and dispose of everyone's
trash. This might even free
up funding for other munici-
pal services you depend
upon—like schools and fire
and police protection.
In addition, the pay-as-you-
throw incentive to put less
waste at the curb can make a
big environmental difference.
When people generate less
waste and recycle more,
fewer natural resources are
used and there is less pollu-
tion from manufacturing.
Valuable landfill space is con-
served as well, reducing the
need to site new facilities.
illegal dumping will increase once residents are
asked to pay for each container of waste they
generate, most communities with pay-as-you-
throw have found this not to be the case. This is
especially true when communi-
ties offer their residents recy-
cling, composting for yard
trimmings, and other programs
that allow individuals to reduce
waste legally. Others, particular-
ly lower-income residents,
worry about the amount they
will have to pay. In many com-
munities, however, coupon or
voucher programs are being
used to help reduce trash collec-
tion costs for these households.
When people
generate less
waste and
recycle more,
fewer natural
resources are
used and
there is less
pollution from
manufacturing.
What can I do?
Are there disadvantages to
pay-as-you-throw?
While there are potential barriers to a success-
ful program, communities with pay-as-you-
throw report that they have found effective
solutions. Illegal dumping is a frequently
If you're interested in pay-as-
you-throw, talk to your town
planner or local elected repre-
sentatives! Ask them if they
know about pay-as-you-throw,
and whether they would con-
sider using it in your commu-
nity. If you or your town's
officials want to know more
about pay-as-you-throw, EPA
has developed a guidebook
you can use. Pay-As-You-
Throw: Lessons Learned About
Unit Pricing (EPA530-R-94-004)
contains background informa-
tion on the advantages of
pay-as-you-throw and provides detailed infor-
mation on how these programs work. To order
a copy, call the EPA/RCRA Superfund Hotline
at 800-424-9346 or TDD 800-553-7672 for the
hearing impaired. For Washington, DC, and
outside the United States, call 703-412-9810 or
TDD 703-412-3323.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OS305)
EPA530-F-96-030
September 1996
&EPA Pay-As-You-Throw
A Fact Sheet for MSW Planners
MSW programs
today need to offer
more than reliable
waste collection
services. In some
communities, the
issue is rising
collection and
disposal costs.
Other communities
are looking for
ways to extend
landfill capacity.
As an MSW planner, you
know how important it is
to reduce the amount of
waste residents put out
for collection (or bring to the landfill).
In fact, your community probably
started a recycling program to help
divert some of this waste from dis-
posal. Even with a strong recycling
program, however, it's likely that
your residents are steadily throwing
away more each year—pointing to
the need for not only more recy-
cling, but getting residents to gener-
ate less waste in the first place.
For MSW planners in nearly 2,000
communities, a program called "pay-
as-you-throw" is helping them meet
this challenge.
What is pay-as-you-
throw?
Pay-as-you-throw programs, also
known as unit-based pricing or
variable-rate pricing, provide a
direct economic incentive for
your residents to
reduce the
amount of waste they generate.
Under pay-as-you-throw, households
are charged for waste collection
based on the amount of waste they
throw away—in the same way that
they are charged for electricity, gas,
and other utilities. As a result, resi-
dents are motivated not only to
increase the amount they recycle but
to think about ways to generate less
waste in the first place.
Pay-as-you-throw programs can be
structured in several different ways.
Some communities charge residents
based on the volume of waste they
generate. Under volume-based pro-
grams, residents are charged a fee
for each bag or can they fill up.
Communities also can require that
residents purchase tags or stickers
and affix them to their own contain-
ers. Other communities
bill residents based on
the weight of their
trash—although,
because of
the cost of the
equipment needed
to weigh the
waste
-------
and record the amount for billing purposes,
weight-based programs are far less common.
What are the benefits of
pay-as-you-throw?
However it is structured, pay-as-you-throw has the
potential to improve MSW programs in several
important ways. First, there are significant econom-
ic benefits. Because of the incentive to generate
less, communities with programs in place have
reported reductions in waste amounts ranging from
25 to 45 percent, on average. For many communi-
ties, this can lead to lower disposal costs, savings in
waste transportation expenses, and other cost sav-
ings. Pay-as-you-throw communi-
ties also typically report
significant increases in recycling.
In some cases, this can yield
increased revenues from the sale
of collected materials.
In addition, pay-as-you-throw
programs can be designed to
cover the cost not only of waste
collection and disposal, but also
some or all of the community's
complementary MSW programs
(such as recycling, composting, and bulky waste
collections). Of course, there often are new costs
for the community when a pay-as-you-throw pro-
gram is adopted, including expenditures for edu-
cation and enforcement. These costs usually are
not significant, however—and they can be built
into a pay-as-you-throw rate structure to ensure
that they will be covered.
Another advantage of pay-as-you-throw programs is
the greater control over costs they offer to residents.
While they may not realize it, your residents pay for
waste management services. And whether they pay
through their taxes or a flat fee, those residents that
generate less and recycle more are paying for neigh-
bors that generate two or even three times as much
waste. With pay-as-you-throw, residents that reduce
and recycle are rewarded with a lower trash bill.
This incentive to put less waste at the curb also
can make a big environmental difference. When
people generate less waste and recycle more, fewer
natural resources are used, there is less pollution
from manufacturing, and less landfill space is con-
sumed—reducing the need to site new facilities.
Are there disadvantages to pay-
as-you-throw?
While there are potential barriers to a successful
program, communities with pay-as-you-throw
report that they have found effective solutions.
Community officials often raise the prospect of
illegal dumping when they first learn about pay-
as-you-throw. Most communities
with pay-as-you-throw, however,
have found that illegal dumping
in fact did not increase after
implementation. This is especial-
ly true when communities offer
their residents recycling, com-
posting for yard trimmings, and
other programs that allow indi-
viduals to reduce waste legally.
Others, particularly lower-income
residents, worry about the
amount they will have to pay. In
many communities, however, coupon or voucher
programs are being used to help reduce trash col-
lection costs for these households.
How can I learn more about pay-
as-you-throw?
EPA has developed a guidebook for anyone inter-
ested in pay-as-you-throw programs. Pay-As-You-
Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing
(EPA530-R-94-004) contains background informa-
tion on the advantages of pay-as-you-throw and
provides detailed information on how these pro-
grams work. To order a copy, call the EPA/RCRA
Superfund Hotline at 800-424-9346 or TDD 800-
553-7672 for the hearing impaired. For
Washington, DC, and outside the United States,
call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OS305)
EPA530-F-96O31
September 1996
&EPA Pay-As-You-Throw
A Fact Sheet for Elected
Officials
As an elected
official in your
community, you
have many
responsibilities
besides municipal
solid waste (MSW)
management—but
it's an important
service.
Residents in most communi-
ties have come to expect
efficient, reliable trash col-
lection and disposal, and
tend to support those officials that
can get the job done.
This task has been growing more
complicated, however. First of all,
it's likely that your residents are
generating more waste each year,
even if you have a recycling program
in place.
That can mean escalating costs. And
whether your residents pay for
MSW services through a direct, flat
fee or via their property taxes, it's
not a very equitable system: every-
one pays the same amount, no mat-
ter how much (or how little) trash
they actually produce.
What is
pay-as-you-throw?
Fortunately, there is a system out
there that can help your MSW man-
agement personnel meet these chal-
lenges. In nearly 2,000 communities
across the country, a program called
"pay-as-you-throw" is offering resi-
dents a more equitable way to pay for
collection and disposal of their
trash—while, at the same time,
encouraging them to create less waste
and increase the amount they recycle.
Pay-as-you-throw programs, also
called unit-based or variable-rate pric-
ing, provide a direct economic incen-
tive for residents to reduce waste.
Under pay-as-you-throw, households
are charged for waste collection based
on the amount of waste they throw
away—in the same way that they are
charged for electricity, gas, and other
utilities. If they throw away less, they
pay less. Some communities charge
residents for each bag or can of
waste they generate. In a few
communities, households
are billed based on the
weight of their
trash.
99
-------
What are the benefits of
pay-as-you-throw?
Pay-as-you-throw gives residents greater control
over their costs. While they may not realize it, your
constituents are paying for waste management ser-
vices. And, whether they pay through taxes or a flat
fee, residents that generate less and recycle more are
paying for neighbors that generate two or even three
times as much waste. When a few
residents generate more waste, every-
one pays for it. With pay-as-you-
throw, residents that reduce and
recycle are rewarded with a lower
trash bill.
As a result, households under pay-as-
you-throw tend to generate less
waste. Communities with programs in
place have reported reductions in
waste amounts ranging from 25 to 45
percent, on average. Recycling tends
to increase significantly as well. And
less waste means that a community
might be able to spend less of its
municipal budget on waste collection
and disposal—possibly even freeing
up funds for other essential services
like education and police protection.
Because residents stand to pay less (if
they generate less), pay-as-you-throw
communities have typically reported
strong public support for their pro-
grams. The initial reaction from resi-
dents can vary, however—some ;
residents might feel that the program
is no more than an added charge. To
address this, it is important to explain to residents at
the outset how the program works, why it is a more
equitable system, and how they can benefit from it.
Pay-as-you-throw has tended to work best where
elected officials and other community leaders have
reached out to residents with a thorough education
campaign.
Many of the resulting programs have been highly
successful, and have often attracted attention. In
waste they throw away.
helps municipalities eat
tho need to site new
some cases, pay-as-you-throw has worked so well
that the communities have become models in their
region, demonstrating how MSW services can be
improved. And within the community, elected offi-
cials can point to pay-as-you-throw as an example of
municipal improvements they helped bring about.
Are there disadvantages to
pay-as-you-throw?
While there are potential barriers to a
i successful program, communities
with pay-as-you-throw report that
they have found effective solutions.
Illegal dumping is a frequently raised
issue. While it is often assumed that
illegal dumping will increase once
residents are asked to pay for each
container of waste they generate,
most communities with pay-as-you-
throw have found this not to be the
case. This is especially true when
communities offer their residents
recycling, composting for yard trim-
mings, and other programs that allow
individuals to reduce waste legally.
Others, particularly lower-income res-
idents, worry about the amount they
will have to pay. In many communi-
ties, however, coupon or voucher
programs are being used to help
reduce trash collection costs for these
households.
How can I learn more
about pay-as-you-throw?
EPA has developed a guidebook for anyone interested
in pay-as-you-throw programs. Pay-As-You-Throw:
Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing (EPA530-R-94-004)
contains background information on the advantages
of pay-as-you-throw and provides detailed informa-
tion on how these programs work. To order a copy,
call the EPA/RCRA Superfund Hotline at 800-424-
9346 or TDD 800-553-7672 for the hearing impaired.
For Washington, DC, and outside the United States,
call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OS305)
EPA530-F-96O29
September 1996
&EPA Pay-As-You-Throw
A Fact Sheet for State Officials
Like most state
environmental
officials and
planners, you've
probably been
emphasizing the
MSW management
hierarchy:
recommending that
communities
prevent waste and
recycle as much of
the remainder
as possible.
Today, the MSW management
hierachy is the focus of solid
waste planning in most
states. This has helped recy-
cling programs to spread quickly,
and recycling markets have been
developed to purchase and process
the collected materials.
Source reduction, however, has fallen
behind this pace. While the rate of
increase is slowing, individuals in
this country are continuing to gener-
ate more waste each year—and, as a
result, waste management is growing
more difficult. Communities in your
state need programs that will do
more than increase recycling: they
need to encourage residents to pre-
vent waste, too.
For growing numbers of communi-
ties, "pay-as-you-throw" programs
are being used to achieve this goal.
While fewer than 200 programs were
in existence as recently as the mid-
1980s, today, nearly 2,000 communi-
ties across the country are using
pay-as-you-throw to better manage
solid waste.
What is
pay-as-you-throw?
Pay-as-you-throw programs, also
known as unit-based pricing or vari-
able-rate pricing, provide a direct
economic incentive for individuals to
reduce the amount of waste they gen-
erate. Under pay-as-you-throw,
households are charged for waste
collection based on the amount of
waste they throw away—in the same
way that they are charged for
electricity, gas, and
other utilities. As a result,
residents are motivated not
only to recycle more but to
think about ways to generate
less waste in the first place.
tot
-------
Pay-as-you-throw programs can be structured in sev-
eral different ways. Some communities charge resi-
dents based on the volume of waste they generate.
Under volume-based programs, residents pay for
each bag or can they fill up. Communities also can
require that residents purchase tags or stickers and
affix them to their own containers. Other communi-
ties bill residents based on the weight of their
trash—although, because of the cost of the equip-
ment needed to weigh the waste and
record the amount for billing pur-
poses, weight-based programs are far
less common.
What are the benefits of
pay-as-you-throw?
However they are structured, all pay-
as-you-throw programs share impor-
tant benefits for both communities
and their residents. First, households
under pay-as-you-throw have more
control over their solid waste man-
agement costs. While they may not realize it, resi-
dents pay for the waste management services they
receive. And whether they pay through their taxes or
a flat fee, those residents that generate less and recy-
cle more are paying for neighbors that generate two
or three times as much waste. With pay-as-you-
throw, residents that reduce and recycle are rewarded
with a lower trash bill.
In communities with pay-as-you-throw programs,
this incentive has resulted in reported average reduc-
tions in waste amounts ranging from 25 to 45 per-
cent. Recycling tends to increase significantly as
well, further cutting down on the amount of waste
requiring disposal. This can mean lower disposal
costs, savings in waste transportation expenses,
potentially greater revenues from the sale of recov-
ered materials, and other cost savings.
And less waste and increased recycling at the local
level translates into an improved solid waste man-
agement picture statewide. Increased amounts of
recovered materials will become available to proces-
sors and remanufacturers, encouraging the develop-
ment of increased recycling capacity and other
102
investments in the infrastructure of recycling. The
potential for lower costs can help increase the long-
term economic stability of your communities' MSW
programs. And less waste means fewer natural
resources will be depleted, less energy used, and less
landfill space consumed, helping preserve your state's
environment. Because of these kinds of advantages,
pay-as-you-throw has received bipartisan support at
both the state and local levels. The use of pay-as-you-
throw also has been endorsed
by the National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL).
Are there disadvan-
tages to pay-as-you-
throw?
While there are potential barri-
ers to a successful program,
communities with pay-as-you-
throw have found effective
solutions. Local officials, for
example, often assume that ille-
gal dumping will increase once residents are asked to
pay for each container of waste they generate. Most
communities with pay-as-you-throw have found this
not to be the case, however, especially when they
offer their residents recycling, composting for yard
trimmings, and other programs that allow individuals
to reduce waste legally. Others, particularly lower-
income residents, worry about the amount they will
have to pay. In many communities, however, coupon
or voucher programs are being used to help reduce
trash collection costs for these households.
How can I learn more about
pay-as-you-throw?
EPA has developed a guidebook for anyone interested
in pay-as-you-throw programs. Pay-As-You-Throw:
Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing (EPA530-R-94-004)
contains background information on the advantages
of pay-as-you-throw and provides detailed informa-
tion on how these programs work. To order a copy,
call the EPA/RCRA Superfund Hotline at 8(XM24-
9346 or TDD 800-553-7672 for the hearing impaired.
For Washington, DC, and outside the United States,
call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OS305)
September 1996
xvEPA
Pay-as-you-throw
programs
encourage people
to save money by
recycling and
preventing
waste.
Imagine—a solid
waste solution
that's good for
the wallet and
helps the
environment.
Pay-As-You-Throw
A Fact Sheet for Environmental
and Civic Groups
When it comes to man-
aging solid waste, the
goal for the past 10
years has been to
reduce, reuse, and recycle. Today,
thousands of community recycling
programs are diverting millions of
tons of valuable materials—materials
that would otherwise be thrown
away—for remanufacturing *
into useful products.
Despite the tremen-
dous growth in recycling,
however, waste genera- *
tion rates among individu-
-------
What are the benefits of
pay-as-you-throw?
Pay-as-you-throw programs have environmental and
economic advantages, and are often more equitable for
residents—a combination of benefits called the
"Three Es." Communities with programs in place have
reported reductions in waste amounts ranging from
25 to 45 percent, on average. This results in several
important environmental benefits. Less waste and
greater recycling means that fewer natural resources
are used, less energy is consumed, and less pollution
is created. In addition, landfill space is
used at a slower rate, reducing the
need to site additional facilities.
Pay-as-you-throw also can send an
important source reduction signal to
product manufacturers. When indi-
vidual consumers begin to under-
stand that their trash costs money,
they are likely to adjust their pur-
chasing habits to favor products that
will result in less waste—and, there-
fore, cost less—when discarded. As
more communities adopt pay-as-you-throw, manufac-
turers will have an incentive to redesign their prod-
ucts to appeal to this growing consumer preference.
There also are potential economic advantages, both
for communities and their residents. Because they
often have more recovered materials and less waste
to dispose of, many communities with pay-as-you-
throw find their disposal costs go down. Pay-as-you-
throw also can yield savings in waste transportation
expenses and potentially greater revenues from the
sale of collected recyclables.
In addition, while they may not realize it, residents pay
to throw away trash. And whether they pay through
their taxes or a flat fee, those individuals that generate
less and recycle more are paying for neighbors that
generate two or three times as much waste. Pay-as-you-
throw is more equitable: residents that reduce and recy-
cle are rewarded with a lower trash bill.
Are there disadvantages to
pay-as-you-throw?
While there are potential barriers to a successful pro-
gram, communities with pay-as-you-throw have found
effective solutions. Local officials, for example, often
assume that illegal dumping will increase once residents
are asked to pay for each container of waste they gener-
ate. Most communities with pay-as-you-throw have
found this not to be the case, however, especially when
they offer their residents recycling, composting for
yard trimmings, and other programs that allow indi-
viduals to reduce waste legally. Others, particularly
lower-income residents, worry about the amount they
will have to pay. In many communities, however,
coupon or voucher programs are being used to help
reduce trash collection costs for these households.
How can our
organization help?
In many cases, local officials either
are not aware of pay-as-you-throw or
haven't considered how it might
work in their community. While pay-
as-you-throw may not be appropriate
for all communities, municipal plan-
ners can benefit from learning about
such programs. Your organization can
work with local, regional, or state
government officials to make them aware of the ben-
efits of pay-as-you-throw and how any potential bar-
riers might be overcome.
And, once communities in your area begin to plan
pay-as-you-throw programs, your organization can
assist in development and implementation. By help-
ing municipal officials plan programs that are rea-
sonable and equitable, and educating people about
the benefits of the new system, your organization
can play a role in improving the way we manage
solid waste in this country.
How can I learn more about
pay-as-you-throw?
EPA has developed a guidebook for anyone interested
in pay-as-you-throw programs. Pay-As-You-Throw:
Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing (EPA530-R-94-004)
contains background information on the advantages
of pay-as-you-throw and provides detailed informa-
tion on how these programs work. To order a copy,
call the EPA/RCRA Superfund Hotline at 800-424-
9346 or TDD 800-553-7672 for the hearing impaired.
For Washington, DC, and outside the United States,
call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323.
-------
SECTION
Other Outreach Strategies
This section presents a number of other ideas for reaching out
to residents in your community. As you review these products,
keep in mind your community's
specific public outreach goals and think
about which combination of the follow-
ing strategies might best help you
meet them.
Press Releases
**»,
•**^
«*»
*'**>»,
="««*
"*»rc
"-**»,
S^S^a^
*^*>C:"«-
2«5S?3?
^^•>-
****.
•*•*•«*£-• -
fSSa.^
*>*:,.
-5^=5»%s5te^
As you begin to develop and pub-
licize your pay-as-you-throw pro-
gram, coverage by local radio
and print media outlets is likely.
For MSW planners, this
should be considered a public
outreach opportunity. At this
point, you can provide local
reporters, editors, and
other news professionals
covering your community
with the key facts con-
cerning pay-as-you-
throw. This will help ensure
that they understand the issues surrounding
solid waste management in your municipality and why local
officials are considering a pay-as-you-throw program-before they
begin to develop their stories.
<=SS»
v«
'««,
coifcirt.
—=icr pfr.-^ ^Wfiofi d
-tr^^^'^
"*•«>«/
"^•^sSsi-
'*^^.1**
•^r>^.
*3^«>
"•>n,
*>*.,
tan ..
***^2**I
K^*»o
^^^.ir-^^
^^^* Hlfl fc.
•"'fco
•«•*,
S«S5S5??i^
—-^v^SU
*wijw2**ts^a***
>^. i
H""*-i^i*
«^^:T-- '"^w:^
***»
•*^$-
^-^r^C"
•••»•.
*«»»«
«**
*«*»
105
-------
The most common way to accomplish this is to develop and submit
press releases to local media outlets. The press release should
briefly describe the essential information about your program: what
pay-as-you-throw is, why a change in the way residents pay for trash
collection and disposal is being proposed, and how residents can
participate—and, if they reduce waste, save money—under the new
program. Additional press releases can be developed later to
announce other news, such as town meetings on pay-as-you-throw
or any changes in the program.
You might also consider other ways to provide information to the
local media, including developing more comprehensive press kits (in
addition to press releases, these can include items such as back-
ground reports and newsclippings from other pay-as-you-throw
communities in your county or state) and conducting news confer-
ences or briefings for residents about your program.
106
-------
Public Meetings
Town meetings and other public gatherings offer a good opportunity
to introduce residents to pay-as-you-throw, discuss how it can help
the community, and answer any questions that people might have. If
you are planning such a presentation, you might want to develop an
invitation flyer to promote the
event. (See Section One of this
workbook for more information
on planning a presentation on
pay-as-you-throw.)
The meeting invitation can
include information describ-
ing the concept of pay-as-
you-throw and its
advantages and letting res-
idents know that their
community is consider-
ing such a program. It
also can indicate that
the meeting is being
called not only to
present the pro-
posed program
but to hear what
residents think—
emphasizing
that this input will
be seriously considered before
decisions about the final program are
made. Be sure to include space on the invitation to list
the date, time, and location of the meeting, and invite residents to
come ask questions and learn about the program.
107
-------
Newsletters
Many communities planning for pay-as-you-throw have developed
newsletters to publicize their program. Creating and distributing a
small (two- or four-page) monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly newslet-
ter offers a chance to provide more information about your pro-
gram than you are likely to get in the media. Newsletters also allow
you to provide periodic updates as the program is developed—in
many communities, the newsletter is launched well before program
implementation—and help ensure that all residents are thoroughly
aware of the program. You also can provide ongoing information
about your program directly to the specific stakeholders you want
to target.
Your newsletter can be used to introduce residents to pay-as-you-throw
and clearly describe how the program can help both residents and
the municipality to reduce waste and save money. You
also can use the newsletter to ask residents
for their input and provide
them with infor-
mation about how
to participate
before and during
implementation. To
effectively reach your
audience, be sure to
write the newsletter
articles in clear, everyday
language. In addition, resi-
dents will be more likely to
pick up and read a visually
attractive newsletter. Refer
to the Clip Art section, begin-
ning on page 111 of this work-
book, for a set of illustrations
and mastheads that you can use
when creating your newsletter.
*** itf**""*.**>*,*,'*"«
•+Szx£***£**i
Sf3'^^
^Rsfe?
**»«*
108
-------
Flyers and Brochures
Flyers and brochures are another way to provide pay-as-you-throw
program information directly to households in your community. You
can create a general flyer to introduce residents to pay-as-you-throw
and its advantages or develop more specific versions that each focus
on one particular aspect of your program (for example, procedures
for purchasing bags or tips on how residents can reduce waste). Like
newsletters, flyers and brochures can be used to deliver specific
ideas about pay-as-you-throw to target audiences within your
community.
An advantage to flyers and brochures is that they can be distributed
through a number of different channels. They can be posted around
town to advertise an upcoming pay-as-you-throw meeting or event,
placed in stores and municipal
offices, or direct mailed to resi-
dents individually with utility
bills or in other periodic
mailings. To help get your
message across, try to
design flyers that will
attract the attention of
your audiences. You
can use the illustra-
tions in the Clip Art
section, beginning
on page 111 of
this workbook,
to help create
and assemble
effective fact
sheet
designs.
109
-------
SECTION
Clip Art
Outreach and education
materials often need to
do more than provide the
facts about pay-as-you-throw. To be
effective, they need to be graphically
interesting. Providing eye-catching
fact sheets, newsletters, posters,
brochures, and other materials can
help you attract the attention of your
audiences and get your message
across. This section includes a set of
over 40 clip art illustrations that you
can use to help simplify the task of
putting together well-designed
outreach products.
Once you have decided which public out-
reach products you would like to develop,
turn to the clip art that follows. Select the
illustrations and icons you want (be sure
to photocopy the original page or pages so
the masters can be used again), clip them out, and use glue
or clear tape to lay out your own newsletters, flyers, or other publici-
ty materials. If you plan to develop outreach materials on a computer
and have access to a scanner, you might scan the images you want to
use. The scanned clip art then can be electronically added to your
computer-designed outreach materials. Or simply refer to these illus-
trations for ideas and develop your own clip art images-be creative!
When your design is ready, use a photocopier to make as many
copies as you need and distribute them to the target audiences in
your community.
III
-------
Pay-As-You-Throw Clip Art
\»
\\
NT- fc,
REDUCE
113
-------
Pay-As-You-Throw Clip Art
i
115
-------
Pay-As-You-Throw Clip Art
117
-------
Pay-As-You-Throw Clip Art
119
-------
SECTION
Worksheets
lanning and implementing a pay-as-you-throw program requires
careful research and consideration. In the guide Pay-As-You-
Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing (found in the "Guide-
books" section of this Tool Kit), the key steps involved in
pay-as-you-throw program development are explained in detail. The
worksheets on the following pages are designed to help you apply
this information to your own planning efforts. These worksheets
correspond to the guide's four program development steps:
• Deciding if pay-as-you-throw is right for your community
(Worksheets 1 and 2).
• Planning for pay-as-you-throw and conducting an outreach
campaign (Worksheet 3).
• Designing a rate structure (Worksheets 4 and 5).
• Implementing and monitoring the program (Worksheets 6 and 7).
Completing these worksheets will help you make and record the
critical decisions concerning your program's goals, the messages you
will deliver in your public outreach, and the kind of container and
pricing options you will use. The worksheets also will help you
determine your specific program costs and the price you will need
to charge per container to recover these costs. As you complete the
worksheets, refer to the Pay-As-You-Jhrow guide as needed for more
information on each of these program development steps.
The completed worksheets also can be used in presentations and
other public outreach events or products to help you make your
case for pay-as-you-throw. In a briefing for your elected officials, for
example, you can use the figures developed in Worksheet 5 (Rate
121
-------
Structure Design) to help convince them that a well-designed pro-
gram will not result in additional costs for the community. Some of
the worksheets, such as Worksheet 1 (Program Goals) and Work-
sheet 2 (Program Barriers), also could be used during a presenta-
tion to obtain valuable feedback from attendees about how they feel
the program should be designed.
122
-------
Worksheet
PROGRAM GOALS
Use this worksheet to identify and prioritize the specific goals of your pay-as-you-throw program.
Begin with the goals listed below, ranking each goal on a scale of 1 to 5. A ranking of 5 means it is critical that your
program meets this goal. A ranking of 1 means the goal is of minimal importance. List any other program goals that
come to mind, and rank them as well.
As you think about goals, consider other stakeholders in your community—to be successful, your program also will
need to have their goals in mind. To help you identify the issues other stakeholders will want addressed, copy the
back of this form and use it to solicit more ideas about goals during pay-as-you-throw meetings or presentations.
Reduce the amount of solid waste generated/increase recycling rates
Notes:
12345
Reduce the total cost of solid waste management
Notes:
12345
Remove solid waste management costs from the tax base entirely (by raising sufficient
revenues to cover all solid waste management costs)
Notes:
12345
Subsidize other solid waste programs (such as recycling)
Notes:
12345
Increase equity by asking residents to pay only for the waste they generate
Notes:
12345
Increase understanding among residents of solid waste issues/environmental issues
Notes:
12345
123
-------
Worksheet 1
Program Goals: List below the different goals for the pay-as-you-throw program and rank them on a scale of 1 to 5. A
ranking of 5 means it is critical that the program meets this goal. A ranking of 1 means the goal is of minimal importance.
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
124
-------
Worksheet
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Use this worksheet to identify barriers that might affect your program and consider how they can
be overcome.
Begin by reviewing the potential barriers on the matrix below. As you review these potential barriers, be sure to dis-
tinguish between perceived problems—challenges that have solutions or do not apply in your community—and real
barriers that might actually prevent you from achieving your pay-as-you-throw goals. For example, illegal dumping
often turns out to be a perceived barrier. It usually can be overcome with a strong education and outreach program
and effective enforcement. Multi-family housing, by contrast, may be a real barrier for some communities. A high con-
centration of population in multi-family housing might prevent a community from extending pay-as-you-throw to these
residents.
Then, on the following page, list the barriers that you feel might apply to your community's program. For each of
these, consider the ways in which you might overcome them. The second page of this form can be copied and used
during pay-as-you-throw meetings or presentations to solicit other potential barriers from attendees and to brain-
storm more solutions.
Sample Barriers and Solutions
Potential Barriers
Illegal dumping/burning
Uneven revenues/revenue shortfalls as
residents generate less waste
Multi-family housing
Perception that waste collection is
free/pay-as-you-throw is a tax increase
Pay-as-you-throw is regressive/low-income
residents feel greater impact
Overstuffing of containers
Lack of support from private waste haulers
Possible Solutions
- Educate residents about pay-as-you-throw
- Provide several legal diversion options
- Develop enforcement plan
- Use multi-tiered pricing
- Plan for reduced waste amounts in steady-state when setting prices
- Include charges in rent
- Under a bag-based system, have tenants purchase bags
- Use bar code readers on building garbage chutes
- Educate residents about pay-as-you-throw
- Set prices at levels residents will accept
- Offer these residents rebates, coupons, or discounts
- Offer free bags to recipients of general assistance
- Set weight limits on containers
- Involve haulers in the planning process
- Pass ordinance mandating haulers offer variable rates
125
-------
Worksheet 2
Potential Barriers: List below potential pay-as-you-throw barriers and consider whether each is actually relevant to your
community. For each potential barrier you feel may impact your program, list any possible solutions that come to mind.
Potential Barriers
Possible Solutions
126
-------
Worksheet
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Use this worksheet to identify specific public outreach goals for your program and consider ways
to achieve them. This worksheet will help you plan for the two distinct parts of public outreach: A) soliciting feed-
back about pay-as-you-throw during the planning stage and B) educating the community during implementation about
the program's final design and informing residents about how to participate (for example, where to buy bags and
how to handle bulky items). (Refer to the "Public Outreach Materials" section beginning on page 91 of this work-
book for more ideas on how to generate feedback and educate your community.)
Part A
Soliciting Feedback
Using this table, consider how you will obtain input during the planning stage about the proposed pay-as-you-throw
program. Begin with the audiences from whom you are seeking feedback. Then, consider possible methods of achieving
this. In the last column, list when you should begin each of the different strategies for gathering input.
Audience
EXAMPLE:
Retailers/other businesses
Outreach Methods
- Direct visits to local retailers to discuss the
program and ask them about distributing or selling
bags in stores
- Invite retailers to public pay-as-you-throw
meetings
- Include retailers in your citizens' advisory council
or other planning organization
Schedule
About 6 months before
program implementation
EXAMPLE:
Residents
- Develop a pay-as-you-throw fact sheet introducing
the program and asking for feedback
- Issue press releases to the local media to get
media coverage
- Hold public meetings on pay-as-you-throw
- Invite community residents to join your citizens'
advisory council or other planning organization
About 6-9 months before
program implementation
EXAMPLE:
Elected officials
• Hold a briefing for elected officials to Introduce the
program and ask for their input
- Include elected officials In the citizens' advisory
council or other planning organization
About 6 months before
program Implementation
127
-------
Worksheet 3
Soliciting Feedback: For each of the audiences listed below, consider possible outreach methods and a schedule of
when to begin these strategies. Copy this page as needed to consider ways of reaching additional audiences.
Audience
Retailers/other businesses
Outreach Methods
Schedule
Residents
Elected officials
Media
Solid waste staff
Private haulers
Other:
128
-------
Worksheet 3 (C
Part B
Educating the Community
Use the table below to consider how to educate your community about pay-as-you-throw. Begin by considering which
audiences you will need to reach. For each audience, list the specific goals of the outreach effort and the message you will
use to reach that group. In the last column, indicate what products you could develop to accomplish this.
Audience Goal
EXAMPLE:
Residents
- Show residents that
pay-as-you-throw \s
needed
- Convince residents the
program is fair and not
an added tax
- Explain how to use the
new bag-based system
Message
- The current MSW program
ultimately is not sustainable
- The program will save you money,
if you reduce waste (include
details about how to reduce
waste)
- Participating \s easy—just buy
bags for your trash at area
retailers (include details on
prices, recycling, etc.)
Products
- Flyers posted around town
- Public meetings
- Press releases
- Invite participation through
the citizens' advisory council
- Brochure mailed to all
households
EXAMPLE:
Media
- Generate positive media
coverage of pay-as-you-
throw
- Convince media that the
program Is needed and
will work
- The current MSW program
ultimately is not sustainable
- Pay-as-you-throw has multiple
benefits: it will give both
residents and the municipality
money, reduce waste, and is
fairer to residents
- More and more communities are
adopting pay-as-you-throw
- Press release/press kit
- Briefings for reporters
- Invite reporters to town
meetings/other pay-as-you-
throw presentations
EXAMPLE:
Civic groups
- Convince community and
business leaders that
pay-as-you-throw is
needed and will work
- Show that the
municipality's long-term
financial health will be
compromised if no
change is made
- Involve these leaders in
the development of the
program and In selling It
to residents
- The current MSW program is not
sustainable
- Pay-as-you-throw will help both
residents and the municipality
to save money
- The municipality Is Interested in
getting help from community
groups in developing the program
- Briefings for civic groups at
their meetings
- Public meetings
- One-on-one meetings with civic
group leaders
129
-------
Worksheet 3
Educating the community: For each of the audiences listed below, consider the goals of your outreach effort, the
specific message of your outreach to that audience, and the products you might develop to accomplish this. Copy this page
as needed to consider ways of reaching additional audiences.
Audience Goal
Residents
Message
Products
Civic groups
Media
Retailers/other
businesses
Private haulers
Other:
130
-------
Worksheet
CONTAINER AND PRICING CHOICES
Use this worksheet to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the different container and
pricing choices and select the best system for your program. In Part A, rank in terms of importance the
characteristics of the mam container and pricing combinations: bags or tags/stickers that are sold at retail stores or
municipal offices; cans under a "pay as you go" pricing system (under which residents are billed based on the number
of cans they set out for collection); and cans under a subscription system. (Another pricing option that can be used in
combination with any of the container and pricing choices is a two-tiered system, which uses a per-container fee for variable
MSW costs while retaining a monthly flat collection charge for fixed MSW costs. This helps prevent revenue fluctuations).
After ranking the different container and pricing combinations, review your work and record a preliminary system choice
in Part B. Be sure to consider the overall program goals you established in Worksheet 1 when making this choice.
Part A
Container and Pricing System Characteristics
Consider the different advantages and disadvantages of the container and pricing systems and how relevant they are
to your program. Rank each characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5. (A ranking of 5 means the issue is extremely impor-
tant for your program. A ranking of 1 means the issue is of minimal importance.)
System Advantage/Disadvantage
Bag
Systems
Advantages
Stronger waste reduction incentive than can systems
No billing system needed, so accounting costs lower
Residents find bag systems convenient and easy to understand
Lower implementation costs than can systems
Faster, more efficient collections than cans
Easy to monitor compliance
Easy to adapt for bulky item collections
Disadvantages
Greater revenue uncertainly than subscription can systems
Bags must be purchased and made available to residents in stores or municipal offices
Staff time required for purchasing, storing, and selling bags in municipal offices
Residents might find buying and storing bags inconvenient
Often incompatible with automated/semiautomated equipment
Animals can tear bags, and bags can tear during lifting
Importance
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
131
-------
Worksheet 4 (C
System Advantage/Disadvantage
Tag or
Sticker
Systems
Advantages
Stronger waste reduction incentive than can systems
12345
No billing system needed, so accounting costs lower
12345
Residents find tag/sticker systems convenient and easy to understand
12345
Lower implementation costs than can systems
12345
Cost of purchasing tags/stickers is less than bags
12345
Easily adapted for different size containers
12345
Easily adapted for bulky item collections
12345
Disadvantages
Greater revenue uncertainty than subscription can systems
12345
Tags/stickers must be purchased and made available to residents in stores or municipal
offices
12345
Staff time required for purchasing, storing, and selling tags/stickers in municipal offices
12345
Residents might find buying and storing tags/stickers inconvenient
12345
Municipality must communicate size limits to residents, and collection crews must monitor
size-limit compliance
12345
Tags/stickers can fall off in rainy or cold weather or be stolen by other residents
12345
Can
Systems
(Pay As
You Go)
Advantages
Residents have flexibility to set out as few or as many containers each week as needed
12345
New cans may not be required if residents already own cans of roughly uniform volume
12345
Cans are reusable and prevent animals from scattering waste
12345
Cans can work with automated/semiautomated collection systems
12345
Disadvantages
Greater revenue uncertainty than subscription can systems
12345
Smaller waste reduction incentive if large cans are used
12345
Complex tracking and billing system needed to count set-outs at each stop and bill
accordingly
12345
Billing system creates lag time between collecting waste and receiving payment for the
service
12345
Greater implementation costs if purchase, inventory, and distribution of cans is required
12345
Collection time greater than with bag systems
12345
Alternate system needed for collection of bulky items
12345
132
-------
Worksheet 4
System
Can
Systems
(Subscrip-
tion)
Advantage/Disadvantage Importance
Advantages
Revenues are stable and easy to forecast
Simplified collection process for collection crews
New cans ma/ not be required if residents already own cans of roughly uniform volume
Cans are reusable and prevent animals from scattering waste
Cans can work with automated/semiautomated collection systems
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
Disadvantages
Reduced waste reduction incentive, since residents have no incentive to reduce waste
below their minimum service level
Complex tracking and billing system needed to track residents' subscription level and bill
accordingly
Billing system creates lag time between collecting waste and receiving payment for the
service
Greater implementation costs if purchase, inventory, and distribution of cans is required
Collection time greater than with bag systems
Alternate system needed for collection of bulky items
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
133
-------
Worksheet 4
Part B
Choosing a Container and Pricing System
After ranking the different system characteristics, review your work to see which system offers the most relevant
advantages and the fewest disadvantages. If you are very concerned about revenue instability or uneven cash flow, consider
whether you should use a two-tiered pricing system.
Next, go back to the prioritized list of program goals you created in Worksheet 1. Consider which container and pricing
system would best enable you to achieve your community's goals. If needed, use the table below to help you consider your
options. List your program goals in the first column and consider the impact of each container/pricing system choice on
the goals.
Container/Pricing Systems
Program
Goal
Tags/
Stickers
Cans
(Pay As
You Go)
Cans
(Subscription)
Two-Tier
Pricing
EXAMPLE:
Reduce M5W as much
as possible
EXAMPLE:
Minimize program costs
EXAMPLE-
Achieve revenue stability
&ags tend to be
smaller, creating
& stronger waste
reduction incentive
Low accounting
costs, since no
billing system
needed
Uneven cash flow
possible
Tags/stickers for
smaller containers
create a strong
waste reduction
incentive
low accounting
costs, since no
billing system
needed
Uneven cash flow
possible
Cans tend to be
larger, reducmg
waste reduction
Incentive
Billing system can
increase costs
Uneven cash flow
possible
Cans tend to be
larger, reducing
waste reduction
incentive
Billing system can
increase costs
Steadier cash flow
flat fee in
combination with
variable rate
reduces waste
reduction incentive
Potential for
reduced
administrative
costs
Steadier cash flow
With the different system characteristics and your overall program goals in mind, make a preliminary container and pricing
system choice and record it below.
Container and pricing system:
134
-------
Worksheet
RATE STRUCTURE DESIGN
Use this worksheet to design a rate structure for your program. In Part A, estimate the amount of waste
you will be collecting under pay-as-you-throw. In Part B, estimate your pay-as-you-throw program costs and the cost
of any complementary programs. Then, estimate the per-container price needed to meet your program's costs in
Part C. Complete this worksheet by considering whether this price strikes the right balance between costs and revenues.
Part A
Waste Collection Forecast
Perform the following calculations to estimate the amount of MSW that will be collected from residents under your
pay-as-you-throw program. Begin by estimating the amount of MSW collected in the year before program implementation (the
"base year"). Then, revise this figure to reflect MSW collections two years after program implementation (the "projection
year"). This is also called the steady-state, when residents' reductions in waste generation due to pay-as-you-throw have
stabilized.
Current Waste Collection
Tons of MSW collected in the base
year
2. Community Growth
Tons of MSW per resident in the base
year [from A-1]
Current number of community
residents in the base year
Tons of MSW collected per resident
in the base year
Estimated number of residents in the
projection year
Annual MSW tonnage expected in
the projection year without
pay-as-you-throw
3. Waste Collection Under Pay-As-You-Throw
100 -
Percentage decrease in
MSW expected under
pay-as-you-throw
MSW reduction
multiplier
Annual MSW tonnage
expected without
pay-as-you-throw
[from A-2]
Annual MSW tonnage
expected under
pay-as-you-throw
12
Annual MSW tonnage expected under
pay-as-you-throw
Tons of MSW expected per month under
pay-as-you-throw
135
-------
Worksheet 5 (Co
Part B
Program Costs
In this section, estimate your monthly MSW curbside collection and disposal fixed and variable costs under
pay-as-you-throw in the projection year. Then estimate monthly fixed and variable costs for your new (or existing) recycling
program in the projection year. Be sure to take into account your residents' reduced MSW set-outs when estimating costs.
(For composting/yard waste collections or other complementary programs, copy this page and use it to estimate their
costs.) If you contract out for some or all of these services, enter this cost under the "contractor fees" line. Combine these
costs at the end of this section to estimate the total cost of pay-as-you-throw and any complementary programs.
I. Fixed MSW Collection and Disposal Costs per Month
Physical facilities (e.g., maintenance, mortgage, utilities) $.
Salanes and benefits (labor costs that remain fixed regardless of quantity of MSW $.
collected)
Vehicle amortization $.
Vehicle maintenance (vehicle maintenance costs that remain fixed regardless of quantity of $
MSW collected)
Vehicle operating costs (vehicle operating costs that remain fixed regardless of quantity of $
MSW collected)
Contractor fees (if any) $.
Other fixed costs $.
Total fixed MSW collection and disposal costs per month $
2. Variable MSW Collection and Disposal Costs per Month
Salanes and benefits (labor costs that vary with amount of MSW collected) $
Vehicle maintenance (vehicle maintenance costs that vary with amount of MSW collected) $
Vehicle operating costs (vehicle operating costs that vary with amount of MSW collected)
Contractor fees (if any)
Tipping fees
Other variable costs
Total variable MSW collection and disposal costs per month
3. Total MSW Collection and Disposal Costs per Month
Total monthly fixed MSW collection
and disposal costs
[from B-JJ
Total monthly variable MSW
collection and disposal costs
[from ^2]
Total monthly MSW collection and
disposal costs under pay-as-you-throw
136
-------
Worksheet 5
4. Fixed Recycling Collection and Processing Costs per Month
Physical facilities (e.g., processing equipment amortization, utilities)
$.
Salaries and benefits (labor costs that remain fixed regardless of quantity of recyclables $.
collected)
Vehicle amortization costs $.
Vehicle maintenance costs (vehicle maintenance costs that remain fixed regardless of $.
quantity of recyclables collected)
Vehicle operating costs (vehicle operating costs that remain fixed regardless of quantity of $.
recyclables collected)
Contractor fees (if any) $.
Other fixed costs $.
Total fixed recycling costs per month $.
5. Variable Recycling Collection and Processing Costs per Month
Salaries and benefits (labor costs that vary with amount of recyclables collected) $.
Vehicle maintenance costs (vehicle maintenance costs that vary with amount of recyclables $.
collected)
Vehicle operating costs (vehicle operating costs that vary with amount of recyclables $.
collected)
Equipment costs (e.g., baler, compactor, Bobcat operations) (equipment costs that vary $.
with amount of recyclables collected)
Contractor fees (if any) $ .
Other variable costs $.
Total variable recycling costs per month $.
6. Total Recycling Collection and Processing Costs per Month
Total fixed recycling costs per month
[from B-4J
Total monthly recycling costs under
pay-as-you-throw [fromB-6]
Total variable recycling costs per
month [from B-5J
Net revenue from sale of recyclables
per month
Total monthly recycling costs under
pay-as-you-throw
Adjusted total monthly recycling costs
under pay-as-you-throw
7. Total Cost of Pay-As-You-Throw and Complementary Programs
Total monthly MSW collection and disposal costs under pay-as-you-throw [from B-3] $.
Adjusted total monthly recycling costs under pay-as-you-throw [from B-6] $.
Other monthly complementary program costs, if any $.
Total monthly cost of pay-as-you-throw and complementary programs $.
137
-------
Worksheet 5
Part C
Program Revenues
Use this section to estimate the per-container price needed to meet your program's costs. If you plan to use more than
one size container, estimate the amount of waste you will collect in each size container per month (you might contact
planners in pay-as-you-throw communities for help with this estimate). Then perform the calculations in this section
separately for each container. If you are uncertain about how to convert your container's capacity from volume to weight,
refer to the report Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1995 Update. You also might check with
planners in other communities or weigh a random sampling of several filled containers and use the average weight for this
calculation.
I. Container Selection and Capacity
Container selection:
Volume of selected container:
Convert container capacity to weight:
. (cans, bags, tags, or stickers)
. gallons
tons
2. Estimated Per-Container Price
Tons of MSW expected per month
under pay-as-you-throw [from A-3J
Total monthly cost of
pay-as-you-throw and complementary
programs [from B-7]
Weight per container in tons
[from C-1]
Number of containers expected per
month
Number of containers expected per
month
Estimated price per container
Part D
Program Balance
At this point, you have developed a price per container that will help you cover your estimated costs. Remember, however.
that your per-container price is based on program costs in the projection year (once your program has reached the
steady-state). Prior to the projection year, you can expect greater waste collection amounts. This will result in greater
revenues, but also greater costs. You might consult with planners in nearby pay-as-you-throw communities for data on
whether their costs were greater or less in the two years before reaching the steady-state. If needed, adjust your
per-container price to strike a balance between reasonable fees and covering your costs completely. Also consider whether
your fee sends a strong enough waste reduction price signal to residents. Enter the revised per-container price below.
Revised price per container $
138
-------
Worksheet
IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST
Use this worksheet to review the different potential pay-as-you-throw program implementation
activities and check off the relevant ones as they are completed. This checklist is divided into three sec-
tions. All planners should use Section A, which contains a checklist of specific implementation activities suggested for
any pay-as-you-throw program. Then, select and use either Section B or C, depending on whether you plan on using
a bag- or tag-based systems or a can-based system.
Part A
All Container Systems
D Draft and enact any necessary ordinances to charge a variable rate for waste collection.
D Draft and enact any additional needed ordinances:
O Banning waste dumping and/or burning
O Limiting container weights
O Mandating recycling
O Prohibiting unauthorized containers
D Define enforcement responsibilities (work with the police and health department).
D Reassign collection and management staff as needed to new roles in outreach, enforcement, and
administration.
D Prepare staff to address residents' concerns and questions.
D Plan your education and outreach campaign. Develop outreach materials and schedule briefings and
presentations.
D Consider working with the business community to ensure that they lock their dumpsters to prevent
midnight dumping.
D Develop and implement policies for accommodating low-income residents and physically handicapped and
elderly residents.
D Develop and implement policies for accommodating residents of multi-family units.
139
-------
Worksheet 6
D Develop and test your rate structure and your budgeting and tracking systems.
D Develop procedure for gathering and analyzing data on waste generation amounts and costs. Conduct
baseline data collection.
D Develop a phase-in strategy (e.g.. collect all wastes for several weeks, but leave "error tags" where
needed to educate customers that only correctly paid and packaged trash will be collected in the future).
Part B
Bag- or Tag-Based Systems
D Determine weight limit for bags or size limit for trash that is tagged and the number of bags or tags to
purchase.
D Identify vendors, develop specifications and RFPs, solicit bids, and purchase bags or tags.
D Plan and develop a distribution network (e.g., using town offices or local retailers).
D If distributing through retailers, arrange distribution logistics (e.g., delivery and invoice schedule and
marketing agreements). Assign and train staff as necessary.
D If distributing through municipal offices, develop and implement inventory management system. Assign
and train staff as necessary.
D Develop an education program informing residents how to participate (e.g., the location of bag or tag
sales outlets and the procedures for bulky wastes).
D Develop and implement plans for bulky items, including pricing.
140
-------
Worksheet 6
Part C
Can-Based Systems
D Evaluate whether residents can use their own cans or if the town will supply cans.
D Determine the container size and number of cans to purchase.
D Identify vendors, develop specifications and RFPs, solicit bids, and purchase cans.
D If you have a subscription system, develop and provide information to residents that allows them to
estimate their trash set-out and select a subscription level.
D If residents will use one large can, develop plans for extra waste (e.g., supplement with bags or tags).
Purchase necessary items and educate residents.
D Develop and implement plans to distribute new cans (for new residents, replacements for stolen
containers, or changes in service level for subscription can systems).
D Distribute containers and maintain an inventory of extra containers.
D Develop and implement billing system.
D Develop and implement plans for bulky items, including pricing.
141
-------
142
-------
Worksheet
MONITORING A N D E V A L U AT I O N
Use this worksheet to monitor waste generation amounts and the amount of material recycled
and composted. For the first year after program implementation, enter base year data in the first column and
data from the program's first year in the second. For monitoring the program after the first year, enter the previous
year's data followed by the current year being evaluated. This information can be tracked over time to demonstrate
the waste reduction impact of pay-as-you-throw and help inform decisions about potential changes in the program's
scope or structure.
Part A
Waste Collection Amounts
Base Year
Current Year
Tons of MSW collected:
Part B
Recycling Amounts
Tons of recyclables collected: Glass
High-Grade Paper
Mixed Paper
Corrugated Cardboard
Newsprint
Aluminum
Plastic
Steel
Other
Total tons of recyclables collected:
143
-------
Worksheet 7
Part C
Composting Amounts
Base Year
Current Year
Tons of organic materials collected for composting:
Part D
Costs
Tracking the costs incurred and the revenues recovered under pay-as-vou-throw is an important process. At least
once a year, refer back to Worksheet 5,"Rate Structure Design," and re-calculate program costs and revenues. This
information can be used to evaluate the program's economic sustainability on an ongoing basis. It also can be used
to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of the program to elected officials or planners from other communities inter-
ested in pay-as-you-throw.
144
-------
SECTION
Articles and Newsclippings
Within the last several years, pay-as-you-throw has
begun to receive increasing attention in the print
media. A variety of solid waste management publica-
tions and newspapers serving communities with pay-
as-you-throw have published articles about these programs. This
section includes a few samples of recent coverage of pay-as-you-
throw, including an article reviewing six communities with successful
programs, an examination of unit pricing in rural and urban settings,
and an article presenting strategies for overcoming potential barriers
to pay-as-you-throw.
In addition to providing you with useful background information on
pay-as-you-throw, this section can assist in organizing any articles
about your community's program that appear in print. Over the
course of implementing pay-as-you-throw in your community, it is
likely that the program will be covered in your local media. (See Sec-
tion Two, Public Outreach Materials, for ideas on how to encourage
positive coverage by the media.) It might be helpful to keep track of
this coverage.
As articles about your program appear, you can three-hole punch
the clippings and add them to this section for later reference. This
will help you gauge the effectiveness of your overall outreach and
education effort and, in particular, the impact of your outreach to
the media. In addition, tracking local press coverage can help you
identify areas or issues on which you may need to focus greater
attention. It also can provide you with another measure of success,
an important resource you might use when asked about your pro-
gram's performance.
145
-------
After stoning recycling, composting, and public education programs, are waste generation rates
and MSW management costs still high? Give residents an economic incentive to reduce waste.
ys say that each week your crews
1 collecting newspaper, glass, alu-
num, steel, and plastics at the
bside for recycling. You're also
leering brush and leaves forcom-
posting. Households are doing their part,
and the amount of waste you're disposing
ofisdecreasing—but not as much as you'd
like. Tipping fees are still high, and you' re
having a hard time covering the costs of
providing service. What alternatives do
you have?
One option is to consider a "unit pric-
ing" program, also called "pay-as-you-
throw" or "variable rate pricing." Unit pric-
ing is a fee-for-service system in which
residents pay for MSW management ser-
M ••
vices per unit of waste collected rather than
through taxes or a fixed fee. The system
creates a direct economic incenti ve for peo-
ple to prevent waste generation, to recycle,
and to compost. With such a system some
communities have seen significant decreas-
es in waste disposal and increases in the
amount of material recycled.
These advantages are only part of the
story. In addition to helping achieve waste
reductions (and cost savings), by encour-
aging residents to think about waste gen-
eration, unit pricing often leads to a greater
understanding of environmental issues in
general. Residents also tend to welcome unit
pricing, viewing it as a more equitable way
to pay for solid waste services than tradi-
tional flat fees, which, in effect, require
households that reduce and recycle to sub-
sidize their more wasteful neighbors.
All sizes and types of communities can
realize benefits through unit pricing pro-
grams. These programs also work well
whether solid waste services are carried out
by municipal or private haulers.
Setting the Stage
The first step is to establish the groundwork
for unit pricing. Adopting an effective pro-
gram requires making a series of decisions
about how to best offer a variable rate to
residents. To be sure you are making the
right decisions, organize a team or council
that can determine the goals of your pro-
Mvch/April 1995
Reprinted with permission from March/April 1995 MSW Management © Forester Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
147
-------
gram and how to achieve them.
Establish an advisory team. A unit pric-
ing team typically consists of solid waste
staff, interested elected officials, civic lead-
en, and representatives from affected busi-
nesses in the community. Including these
individuals in the planning process gives
the community a sense of program owner-
ship. Team members can help other resi-
dents in the community understand the
specifics of the program as it evolves, and
can provide your agency with valuable
input on residents' concerns about the pro-
gram. In addition, members of the team can
serve as a sounding board to help ensure
strong community participation throughout
the planning process.
Set goals. Determine the goals of the
program based on a review of your com-
munity's needs and concerns. Specific
goals can include encouraging waste pre-
vention and recycling, raising sufficient
revenue to cover MS W management costs,
and subsidizing other community pro-
grams. Once you've come up with a list
of preliminary goals, the team can help
refine and prioritize them.
Consider legal/jurisdictional issues.
Generally, stales extend to local jurisdic-
tions the authority to provide waste man-
agement services and to charge residents
accordingly. Taking the time to determine
if this is the case in your state, however, is
better than risking discovery of it during
implementation.
Involve and educate the public. The
experiences of communities that have
implemented unit pricing programs indi-
cate that a good public relations program
more than pays for itself. Public education
can combat fears and myths about unit pric-
ing (such as the fear of increased illegal
dumping), and can help avoid or mitigate
many potential implementation problems.
It is critical to devise ways to involve and
educate the community during the planning
process, including holding public meet-
ings, preparing briefing papers for elected
officials, issuing press releases, and encour-
aging retailers to display posters and other
information about the program.
To help organize some of these activi-
ties. consider developing a timeline or
schedule. Planning for unit pricing should
begin at least a year in advance of your tar-
geted start date. Begin explaining the pro-
gram and its goals to the community
between 9 and 12 months before program
implementation. Public education should
continue throughout the months prior to the
start of the program and. to Mffle extent,
after the program is under way. Identify the
legal framework for the program at least
six months before the start of U» program.
Drafting a blueprint. The next step is to
determine the features of your program.
Designing a working program requires that
you consider and decide on a range of spe-
cific issues. The process of selecting pro-
gram components and service options can
begin as much as nine months before the
start of your program.
Volume-Based versus Weight-Based
One of the first decisions to be made when
designing a unit pricing program is to deter-
mine how solid waste will be measured.
Under volume-based systems, residents are
charged for waste collection based on the
number and size of waste containers that
Weight-based systems
offer a greater waste
reduction incentive,
since every pound of
waste that residents
prevent, recycle, or
compost results in
direct savings
they use. Under weight-based systems, the
hauler weighs at the curbside the waste that
residents set out for collection. Households gal. in capacity, are used. Residents pur-
are then billed based on the pounds of tmsb chase me bags from the solid waste age n
nel often are required to manage the billing
system. Most of the unit pricing experience
and data come from volume-based pro-
grams. Many of the design and implemen-
tation issues presented below, however,
apply to both of these systems.
Containers, Rate Structures & Billing
Communities that decide to design a vol-
ume-based program must consider the type
and size of waste collection containers on
which to base their rate structure and billing
system. A program can be based around
large cans, small or variable cans, prepaid
bags, or prepaid tags or stickers. Each sys-
tem has its own specific advantages and dis-
advantages related to such issues as offer-
ing a system that residents view as equitable,
creating as direct an economic incentive for
waste reduction as possible, and assuring
revenue stability for the agency.
Large cans. Households are provided
with single, large cans, which are typical-
ly 50 to 60 gallons in capacity. Each house-
hold is then charged according to the num-
ber of cans it uses. The primary benefit of
offering a single container size is revenue
stability. The waste .reduction incentive is
somewhat diluted, however, since house-
holds pay the same amount whether they
fill their container halfway or completely.
Small or variable cans. Communities
also could provide households with grad-
uated can sizes, typically ranging from 20
to 90 gal. in capacity. Such systems allow
residents to real i ze savings from even mod-
est reductions in waste generation. Track-
ing the amount of waste generated and
charging households accordingly can be
more complicated.
Prepaid bags. Standard-sized, distinc-
tively marked trash bags, often 20 or 30
generated. Weight-based sysjews offer a
greater waste reductiq»*iBcentive, since
every pound of wanethat residents prevent.
recycle, or compost results in direct sav-
ings,. Residents can easily understand this
kind of system, and the system itself is
more precise. In addition, under a
based program, residents are not tempted
to compact their waste, which can occur
with volume-based systems.
On the other hand, weight-based system*
typically are more expensive to implement
and operate than volume-based systems. To
operate a weight-based system, communi-
ties often need to use specialized collec-
tion trucks with on-board scales to weigh
and record the weight of the waste from
each household. A computerized system for
charging residents also is needed, and more
solid waste administrative agency person-
cy through such outlets as municipal offices
and retail stores. Bag systemsare less expen-
sive to implement and maintain, since there
is no tracking and billing required. Since
residents might buy large numbers of bags
then none for an extended period, rev
enue fluctuations may occur.
Prepaid tags or stickers. Tags Of stick-
ers specifying certain bag sizes can be sold
to residents through municipal offices or
retail stores. These systems offer many of
the same advantages as bag-based systems.
In addition to container choices, MSW
planners need to decide on the rate or pric-
ing structure. There are four basic rate struc-
tures: proportional (linear), variable <
tainer, two-tiered, and multi-tiered. I
and container choices are closely related.
The types of containers selected of ten dic-
tate the rate structure and billing system I
« • MM
148
-------
use. In other cases, an existing billing sys-
tem that cannot be overhauled could gov-
ern container type and rate structure.
A proportional (linear) rate system, the
simplest rate structure, entails charging
households a flat price for each container
of waste they place out for collection. A
variable container rate can be used by com-
munities interested in offering a greater
waste reduction incentive to residents.
Under this system, communities charge
varying rates for different size containers.
Communities also might opt for a two-
tiered rate structure under which households
are assessed both a fixed fee and a per-con-
tainer fee. The fixed fee helps ensure that
revenues will never drop below a certain
Linking recycling and com-
posting with unit pricing
lets communities recover
these expenses without
creating economic disin-
centives to recycle
Mowand mc*e communities ore hying to find
new and better ways to manage theii MSW in
response to (odors such os mcwasing waste gen-
eration and tipping fees. EPA recognizes that in
mis climate waste prevention will ploy an increas-
ingly important role For some communities, charg-
i ng a variable rate fo< waste collection con be a
wise strategy.
To help communities learn whether unit pric-
ing might work lor them, EPA organized the Unit
Pricing Roundtable, a gathering of experts and
representatives (torn communities with wriobie tale
programs in place. EPA then organized Ate wealth
of information resulting from the meeting's dis-
cussions into a 90-poge guide.
PcyAs-ybu-rhrow. lessons loomed About Unit
Pricing (0^30*94-004) provides detailed
technical information on unit pacing based on the
experiences of communities with variable role pro-
grams in place, The free manual can be ordered
directly from EPA by colling the RC8A Hotline at
(800| 424-9346 or by writing to USEPA, RCRA
irAxinata Center 15305), 401 M Street S.W,
Washington, DC 20460.
70
level, while the per-container fee provides
a strong waste reduction incentive. This rate
structure is the most complex and, there-
fore, is difficult to administer and bill.
Designing a unit pricing program also
requires that a community choose from
among three typesof billing systems: direct
payment, subscription, and actual set-out
systems. Direct payment systems typical-
ly are used with bag-, tag-, or sticker-based
programs. Residents pay for MSW services
by purchasing bags, tags, or stickers from
the solid waste agency. They are then
affixed to containerized waste placed out
for collection. Under subscription systems,
residents select in advance a specific sub-
scription level (the number of containers
they anticipate setting out each collection
cycle). The customer is then billed on a reg-
ular basis for these containers. If customers
are able to reduce the amount of waste they
generate, they can select a lower subscrip-
tion level and save money. Under an actu-
al set-out system, the solid waste agency
bills customers based on the actual num-
ber of containers set out for collection.
Choosing Important Services
The next step in planning a unit pricing pro-
gram is to determine which solid waste ser-
vices are most important to residents. A
carefully selected and priced service array
allows a community to offer the different
waste collection services that residents feel
are important, while generating sufficient
revenues to support core services.
Some services can contribute signifi-
cantly to the overall effectiveness of unit
pricing. Recycling and collection of yard
trimmings for composting enhance the pro-
gram's waste reduction goals. Linking recy-
cling and composting with unit pricing pro-
vides residents with an environmentally
responsible way to manage waste. In addi-
tion, since the cost of these programs can
be built into unit pncinj^b, communi-
ties can recover these expenses without
creating economic disincentives to recycle,
Other services are viewed as important
conveniences, or even necessities, by some
residents. Incorporating them ruff-add-irf
enthusiasm for your new program. For
example, backyard collection of waste
and/or recycl ables can be an important ser-
vice for elderly or disabled residents. Back-
yard collections also can beoltcredtoiHher
residemsatahighercost to reflect the added
service resource!) required.
Special Collection Needs
One of the biggest challenges facing com-
munities implementing unit pricing is how
to include multi-family (five units or more)
residential structures in the program.
Because waste often is collected from res-
idents of multi-family structures on a per
building rather than per unit basis, offer-
ing these residents a direct economic incen-
tive to reduce waste with unit pricing may
be difficult. One way to resolve multi-fam-
ily challenges is to have the building man-
ager sell bags or tags to each resident.
Another approach is to modify the system
of setting out waste for collection in multi-
family buildings so that only waste that has
been paid for can be left for col lection. Sys-
tems that employ technological solutions.
such as using magnetic cards to open
garbage chutes, usually are expensive.
Many communities considering unit
pricing are concerned about ensuring that
the waste reduction incentives of unit pric-
ing can be brought to residents living on
fixed or low incomes. Communities may
wish to consider providing assistance to res-
idents with special financial needs by reduc-
ing the per-household waste collection
charges by a set amount, offering a per-
centage discount, or providing a credit on
the overall bill. Assistance also can be
offered through existing low-income pro-
grams, particularly other utilities' efforts.
Launching the Program
There are two distinct schools of thought
about the timing of implementation. One
maintains that unit pricing should be imple-
mented within a brief period of time. The
other believes that households respond bet-
ter when asked to make changes in small,
manageable increments over time.
Regardless of your schedule of imple-
mentation, a number of tasks need to be
performed. They include educating the pub-
lic about the newMrcram and organizing
your solid waste agency to he able to effec-
tively administer the new program Other
common tasks include establishing legal
authority for charging a direct variable fee
for waste collection services, procuring
containers, designing and launching com-
plementary programs, and ensuring en-
forcement (including developing ways of
preventing illegal dumping),
Once your program is under way, begin
the process of monitoring and data collec-
tion. Data collecting will help you deter- s
mine how successful the program is. Jusi
as ii will take some time for residents to get
used to paying a variable rale lor their trash,
your program itself will necessarily go
through an adjustment period. Staying on
lop of'its problems and progress will allow
you to make needed changes quickly, help-
ing to ensure an effective program.
Guest author Michael Shapiro is director of
Office of Solid Waste. EPA,
149
-------
TRASHTAG PROGRAM
RESIDENTS FAVOR USER FEES
Since the program
began, 51 percent
of county
households
surveyed recycle
more, 15 percent
compost more,
and almost 40
percent pay more
attention to
product
packaging.
Sarah Stone
and Ellen Harrison
A TRASHTAG program was im-
plemented in Tomkins County,
New York in March, 1990, re-
quiring residents to purchase
a tag for each container of
garbage put out for collection.
The user fee program is one
part of an overall waste reduction effort dur-
ing the last two years in the county (pop.
94,000). Other aspects include curbside
pickup of recyclables, a central recycling/
trash baling processing facility, a home com-
posting program, and a yard waste com-
posting program.
The trashtag and curbside recycling pro-
grams are designed to work together, with
the trashtag program creating economic in-
centive for people to reduce their household
waste while the recycling program provides
a convenient method for people to do so. An
extensive educational effort which included
working with citizens, municipal govern-
ments, and waste haulers, was another vital
part of this strategy.
Before the trashtag program was adopted,
waste disposal costs were embedded in prop-
erty taxes. Because of this institutional frame-
work, some of the big users of the county's
landfill, including Cornell University and
Ithaca College, did not have to pay for waste
disposal due to their tax exempt status. Fur-
thermore, it was believed that a direct charge
for waste disposal would create an incentive
for households to recycle and to reduce the
amount of garbage they produce. Using prop-
erty taxes to handle disposal costs created no
such incentive since the cost was essentially
hidden.
The trashtag program is a cooperative effort
between private haulers, municipal haulers,
and the county. Tags are sold by both munici-
pal and private haulers. Each can add admin-
istrative and collection fees to the county's per
tag charge. While some opted to incorporate all
their fees into the teg, others have chosen to
make these two separate charges.
Tags are weight based. A large tag," which
allows for the coDection of up to 30 pounds of
trash costs $1.08 each. A "small tag," costing
$.62 can be used for up to 15 pounds. The coun-
ty also developed a subsidy program for low in-
come families that provides each eligible per-
son 12 tegs per year.
SURVEY CONDUCTED
Last year the County's Solid Waste Man-
agement Division, in cooperation with the Cor-
nell Waste Management Institute and Cor-
nell's Department of Consumer Economics &
Housing, conducted a survey of Tompkins
County residents to determine how they felt
about the trashtag and recycling programs.
The objectives of the survey included an as-
sessment of attitudes about how future in-
creases in waste disposal should be handled,
determining the public's attitude concerning
trashtags and the recycling programs, and
whether behavior has changed as a result of
the trashtag program.
The survey was sent to a random sample of
3,034 Tompkins County residents in Septem-
ber of 1990. Those who didnt respond to the
first mailing were sent a second survey. The
overall response rate was approximately 49
percent The final sample obtained compared
favorably with the known population of Tomp-
kins County both in terms of geographic dis-
tribution and demographic characteristics.
The results of the survey indicate that re-
spondents not only feel that the trashtag pro-
gram is the best of possible alternatives in
terms of paying for waste disposal, but that
the trashtag program has also aided other
waste reduction behavior.
USER FEES
Overall, respondents indicated that they felt
favorably towards the trashtag program. Six-
ty-three percent said that they are very much
in favor or somewhat in favor of the trashtag
program, 15 percent somewhat oppose the pro-
gram, 11 percent oppose the program, and the
rest either didn't care one way or the other (8
percent), weren't aware of the program (1 per-
cent) or didnt respond to the question (3 per-
cent).
Since it is expected that waste disposal costs
will increase in the future, residents were
asked how they would like to see these in-
creases handled. The largest percentage of re-
spondents felt they would like to see increases
in waste disposal costs handled through high-
er trashtag fees (48 percent). This was fol-
lowed by higher flat rate fees paid to waste
haulers (18 percent), higher property taxes (9
percent), higher sales tax (8 percent), and
higher income tax (4 percent). Fifteen percent
Reprinted with permission from BioCycle For sample copy of publication, contact BioCycle, Journal of Composting and Recycling, 419 State Avenue, Emmaus, PA
18049.610-967-4135.
151
-------
of the respondents chose not to answer this
question.
One of the key questions in volume or
weight-based fees is how it affects household
waste reduction behaviors, such as recycling,
composting, and precycling? Nearly 51 percent
of the respondents claim to recycle more since
the trashtag program began, 16 percent claim
to compost more and nearly 39 percent believe
they pay more attention to product packaging
when they shop since the trashtag program
began.
EFFECT ON RECYCLING
The Tompkms County recycling programs
certain towns and villages, or drop off centers
for recyclable materials. Full County-wide
curbside collection will be implemented this
summer. Nearly sixty percent of the respon-
dents use the curbside service, whether once a
week (26.7 percent), once every two weeks
(17.6 percent), or less frequently (14.5 per-
cent). Almost seventeen percent of the respon-
dents bring all of their recyclables to a dropoff
center, while almost 32 percent bring some of
their recyclables to a dropoff center.
This final figure has some overlap between
those who use the curbside service and those
who use a dropoff center. This may be due to
the fact that curbside pickup in most areas
does not include the collection of plastic or
cardboard. Therefore, some respondents may
use curbside for glass, newspaper, and metal
cans while using a dropoff center for plastic
and cardboard.
Table 1 shows the high recycling rates in
Tompkins County, as well as the impact that
the trashtag program has had on recycling
rates for each material. Overall, less than half
of the sample claims to recycle the same
amount of garbage (40.2 percent), while about
half (51.2 percent) claim to recycle more.
The questionnaire also tried to identify rea-
sons why some don't recycle. Almost 28 per-
cent of the respondents have storage space for
recyclables but still find it inconvenient. Al-
most 19 percent said that they do not have
enough space for recyclables. Three percent of
the respondents said that they don't bring any
recyclables to a dropoff center because they
dont have transportation.
Beyond the recycling program, another
means of reducing the amount of trash set out
is composting. Based on the survey, after the
trashtag system was put in place 47.2 percent
of the respondents composted, versus 39.6 per-
cent prior to it. Approximately 15.5 percent
claim to compost more now than before the
program was put into effect. About 96 percent
of all respondents that compost do so at home.
PURCHASING BEHAVIOR
According to the study, citizens claim to be
placing more emphasis on buying products
with less packaging. When asked if they try to
reduce the amount of household garbage by
buying products with less packaging, 31.5 per-
cent said "yes" and 44 8 percent indicated they
did so occasionally. Only 22.7 percent said
"no" Additionally, 38 9 percent claim to pay
Table 1. County Recycling Kates
Materials
Newspaper
Glass
Cardboard
Plastic
Metal cans
Do you recycle?
Yes
No
802%
191%
80.2%
191%
Did you recycle (before the trashtag program)?
Yes 556% 44.9%
No 42 8% 54 0%
478%
508%
239%
738%
634%
357%
275%
707%
611%
37.2%
n/a
n/a
Do you recycle (since the trashtag program)?
More 250% 359%
Less 2 0% 9%
Same 531% 435%
Dont recycle 180% 180%
198%
13%
290%
465%
352%
22%
274%
328%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
more attention to packaging.
The percentage of people who responded af-
firmatively to trying to reduce their household
waste by reducing the amount of packaging is
very high: 76.3 percent answered "yes" or "oc-
casionally" to this question, while almost 40
percent of the respondents claim to pay more
attention to packaging since the trashtag pro-
gram went into effect.
Beyond these methods of reducing the
amount of material, 25.2 percent of the re-
spondents identified additional ways of reduc-
ing household garbage. Among the more pop-
ular were reusing containers, using cloth
grocery bags, buying bulk foods, stopping junk
mail, sharing magazine and newspaper sub-
scriptions and giving away unwanted items.
POSITIVE RESULTS
The results of the survey were positive and
should encourage other municipalities to
adopt user fees. Respondents seem interested
and willing to participate in the county's ef-
forts to reduce the waste stream Fifty one per-
cent claim to recycle more since the trashtag
program, 15 percent compost more and ap-
proximately 39 percent pay more attention to
product packaging since the trashtag pro-
gram. Additionally, residents favor user fees
over alternative methods of handling waste
disposal costs. The enthusiasm was even more
evident in the write-in sections of the ques-
tionnaire where many respondents voiced
support for the county's programs. Many re-
spondents also expressed their willingness to
do even more in terms of waste reduction if
they knew how. •
Sarah Stone recently completed her graduate
work at Cornell University's Department of Con-
sumer Economics and Housing. Ellen Harrison is
Associate Director of Cornell's Waste Manage-
ment Institute. The authors would like to ac-
knowledge the contribution and assistance of
Barbara Eckstrom and Susan LaBarre of Tomp-
kins County Solid Waste Management Division
and Jeanne Hogarth and Jim Reshovsky, both
Assistant Professors, Consumer Economic and
Housing, Cornell University, in putting this arti-
cle together.
Residents say the
trashtag program is
the best way to pay
for waste disposal,
and that it has also
aided other waste
reduction behavior.
BlOCYCLE
AUGUST 1991 59
152
-------
T R E
D S
collection, legislation, international, recycling and technology
Volume-Based
Program Succeeds
In Urban Setting
Worcester, Mass., officials were
uncertain If a volume-based collec-
tion program combined with curb-
side recycling could work in a
large, urban area with a diverse
population. Undaunted, they de-
cided to try.
With 170,000 residents, Worces-
ter is the second largest city In New
England. The population of this
central Massachusetts community
encompasses all socio-economic
backgrounds. Housing is equally
divided between single- and multi-
family dwellings.
Until July 1993, the property
tax funded approximately 50
percent of the city's municipal
solid waste (MSW) collection
and disposal services. How-
ever, the Department of Pub-
lic Works (DPW) competed
with the school, police and
fire departments for limited
funds. After repeated cuts
in its tax levy budget, DPW
decided to evaluate alter-
native collection and dis-
posal options rather than
decrease its services.
Worcester officials con-
sidered a flat user fee
and volume-based collec-
tion. The flat fee was dis-
missed because it requires all
users to pay an equal amount,
regardless of the amount of
waste generated. In addition,
flat fees offered no incentive
to participate in recycling.
Instead. Worcester opted for
a curbside recycling pro-
gram with a fee requiring
residents to purchase spe-
cific bags for refuse dis-
posal.
Bright yellow bags
priced at 50 cents each,
have been printed with
the program's logo "Pay
a Little, Save a Lot."
The bags are sold at
115 retail outlets. DPW
also developed an exten-
sive public education and aware-
ness campaign including bro-
chures In three languages, newspa-
per, radio and airplane adver-
tisements, bumper stickers, bill-
boards and radio talk shows.
Enforcement methods to encour-
age compliance and to avoid Illegal
disposal Include fines and two noti-
fication stickers. The first, a bright
orange "warning" sticker, Is placed
on non-program bags and informs
^ ; , __
Worcester, Mass., Solid Waste
And Recycling Collection
Average Tons Per Week
MSW
Recycling
Tons Per
434
252
22,046
13,103
37%
50%
Collection Crew Employee*
Pounds Collected
Per Employee
$72.26
N/A
Of Collection And
isposal Per Household*
MSW
Recycling
Bulk Waste Collection
Number Of Pickups
Tons
•Based on 49,000 Households.
Gty Of Worcester Department Of ft/Mfc
14,000
757
residents of the new. official bags.
Residents are allowed 24 hours to
remove the bag and must comply
with the program by the following
week. The second sticker is placed
on bags that weigh more than 30
pounds or contain recyclables
mixed with refuse. If residents fall
to respond to these stickers. DPW
enacts a progressive fining system
starting at $25 and increasing to
$100.
Since late 1993. the program has
effectively reduced the amount of
MSW sent to landfills (see table).
For example, solid waste tonnages
have declined nearly 45 percent.
The city's recycling rate Is slightly
more than 37 percent and has re-
mained at that level during most of
the program. When yard wastes are
Included, -Worcester diverts more
than 50 percent of its solid waste
to recycling and composting.
Program compliance among
the 50.000 participating house-
holds has been 99.9 percent.
allowing the city to reduce the
amount of MSW collected and
Incinerated by more than 40
million pounds. With less
trash on the curb for city
crews to collect, the DPW
has reduced its collection
crews by 33 percent. Two-
person crews, rather than
the previous three, now
collect garbage on the
city's 11 routes. Savings
from the reduced crew
sizes and tipping fee
costs have allowed the
department to re-allo-
cate more than $1 mil-
lion to other public
works programs.
In addition, a free
bulk and hazardous
waste collection day
has been re-institut-
ed. Public response to
these services has been positive
and, as a result. Illegal dumping
has been reduced.
The program has been modi-
fied further for public conve-
nience. For example, small re-
cycling bins with handles were
introduced for those residents
who find the large recycling
bins too cumbersome. Small
Reprinted with permission from World Wastes, copyright Intertec Publishing Corp., A K-III Media Company, May 1996
153
-------
T R E
D S
half-size trash bags also are avail-
able for residents who do not fill a
30-gallon bag on a weekly basis.
The results of Worcester's solid
waste program have shown officials
that volume-based programs can
succeed In an urban area.
— Robert L. Moylon Jr.
Worcester DPW
Congress Attempts
To Stem The
Tide Off Mew Regs
The new Congress seems bent on
fundamentally changing the degree
to which federal regulations affect
businesses and consumers.
Three types of reform proposals
are under way: shutting the door
on new federal regulations: limiting
federally-imposed unfunded man-
dates on state and local govern-
ments: and scrutinizing the eco-
nomic costs and benefits of pro-
posed laws and regulations.
The House-passed moratorium
on new regulations would likely be
difficult to enforce — even if the
Senate went along with the House
bill. At press time, a Senate com-
mittee had approved Its own rule-
blocking bill. The Senate version is
somewhat more moderate than the
moratorium passed by the House.
For example, it would exempt all
regulations that cost the economy
less than $100 million a year.
Even when Republican appoin-
tees controlled federal agencies, it
seemed that nothing could stem
the tide of new regulations. Pres-
ident Bush ordered a 90-day mora-
torium during which agencies were
supposed to find ways to stream-
line and improve their output. De-
spite several promising concepts
that emerged from the exercise, the
overall nature and number of regu-
lations were unaffected.
A Congresstonally-mandated halt
to regulations, which the Executive
Branch uses to implement Con-
gress's laws, cannot promise better
results than a moratorium dictated
by the President himself. Indeed.
the conservative House majority
that voted for the moratorium also
created a sizable loophole. Any a-
gency would be able to issue a reg-
ulation in response to an "immi-
nent threat to health and safety.*
One branch of Congress Is now
In the awkward (not to mention le-
gally suspect) position of telling the
Executive Branch not to cany out
Its constitutional function: imple-
menting the laws that Congress
passes. A more direct — and obvi-
ous — solution would be to change
the laws themselves.
Of course, the 104th Congress
will say that it can't be blamed for
the "sins" of previous Democrat-
dominated legislative sessions. Put-
ting the brakes on the Executive
Branch, as the current leadership
might argue. Is making the best of
a bad situation. Still, the regulatory
reform measures in the works are
likely to have ..very significant Im-
pacts.
For its part,> the House has clear-
ly stated that it wants to slow the
Advertisement
154
-------
CURBSIDE COLLECTION
VARIABLE DISPOSAL FEE IMPACT
VARIABLE curbside disposal
fees have received increasing
attention as a means to fund
refuse services while promoting
waste reduction and recycling.
Variable fees — also referred to
as variable can rates or bag-
and-tag fee systems — are assessed direct-
ly on users and reflect, to some degree, the
cost of service. They contrast with fixed fees
and tax-based systems, where the customer
sees no direct financial incentive to mini-
mize the level of service.
To more fully understand the use and
extent of variable curbside disposal fees,
R.W. Beck and Associates conducted a
survey in 1993 of 80 cities and counties
nationwide. The survey used a random
sample of 40 large cities and counties (pop-
ulations greater than 100,000) and 40 medi-
um-sized communities (populations from
50,000 to 100,000).
In 68 percent of cities surveyed, a public
or governmental authority is responsible for
residential solid waste collection, with the
remaining 32 percent served by private
haulers. Household refuse pickup is usually
provided weekly (for 91 percent of those sur-
veyed) and waste collection containers are
furnished in 44 percent of the communities.
Pees for disposal are charged in 65 per-
cent of the communities; 35 percent use
property taxes or other indirect means. One
quarter of the cities with fees — 13 commu-
nities, or 16 percent of those surveyed — re-
port some type of variable disposal fee fin-
residential households in 1992.
Funding for recycling and yard trim-
mings programs also were explored. Recy-
cling programs for residential households
were reported in 80 percent of the commu-
nities, and of these, more than 80 percent
indicated that curbside collection services
are provided. Yard trimmings programs
were reported by 46 percent of the commu-
nities, and about 80 percent of those
included curbside service. Large cities gen-
erally report having a recycling and yard
trimmings program; nearly 90 percent offer
some form of recycling. Medium-sized cities
were less likely to have each of these
services; only 70 percent provide recycling
services.
Less than 18 percent of the municipali-
ties surveyed indicated that they charge a
specific fee for collection of recyclables, and
BIOCYCLB
Six case studies
provide a good
overview of what
happens when
variable fees are
in place for at
least one year.
Richard Cuthbert
less than 13 percent reported a fee for yard
trimmings service. Large cities are twice as
likely to charge for recycling services as
medium-sized cities, but were only half as
likely to charge for yard trimmings collec-
tion. Additionally, six communities (eight
percent) report some form of financial re-
bate for participation in a recycling pro-
gram and three communities (four percent)
reported a rebate for participation in their
yard trimmings program. The rebates may
come as a surprise because in most cases,
programs cost more than can be offset by
revenues from the sale of collected materi-
als, at least in the short run.
Each of the communities was asked what
factors influenced its decision to implement
recycling and yard trimmings programs. A
legislative mandate was reported by 80 per-
cent of those surveyed while local interest or
disposal problems were cited by 36 percent.
Measuring the effectiveness of variable
curbside disposal fees in promoting waste
reduction is complicated by the difficulty of
isolating the specific role of the collection
and disposal fee from the other elements of
waste reduction programs, as well as from
other elements of the economy in general.
In addition, many communities do not have
adequate disposal date, either for their cur-
rent situation or for the time before the im-
plementation of waste reduction programs.
A scientifically rigorous analysis of the
causes of solid waste reduction would be
time-consuming, costly and, in the end, per-
haps impossible. Thus, only anecdotal in-
formation on the effectiveness of variable
curbside disposal feesjs available. The fol-
lowing six case studies provide a good
overview of what happens when variable
fees are in place for at least one year.
PORIUND, ORIGOM
In Portland, 61 independent collection
companies provide residential disposal ser-
vices; most have had variable can rate
structures in effect for more than 10 years.
Before February, 1992, residential collec-
tion rates and service territories were un-
regulated. A new franchise system provides
for mandatory variable curbside rates,
weekly recycling services on the same day
as garbage services and recycling contain-
ers. In 1987, monthly curbside residential
recycling collection was implemented
throughout the city, and in early 1992 this
MAY 1994 63
Reprinted with permission from BioCycle For sample copy of publication, contact BioCycle, Journal of Composting and Recycling, 419 State Avenue, Emmaus, PA
18049 610-967-4135
155
-------
Seattle estimates
that a 10 percent
increase in charges
for residential
collection and
disposal results in
an approximately
two percent
reduction in overall
solid waste
disposal.
service was increased to weekly recycling
curbside collection. The city also imple-
mented monthly curbside yard trimmings
collection in April, 1992.
During the last 10 years, landfill dispos-
al costs in the Portland area rose from
$17/ton to $75/ton. In response to this in-
crease, collection rates for single can service
more than doubled, from approximately
$7.50/month to $17.50/month. In early
1992, a rate increase of about 25 percent
was implemented in conjunction with new
recycling services, including a less expen-
sive 20 gallon mini-can service level. Eigh-
teen percent of residents chose the mini-
can. As a combined result of the higher
collection fees and availability of recycling
services, Portland residents increased their
recycling levels from 740 tons/month in
1988 to 2,583 tons/month in 1992 — more
than tripling the recycling tonnages over
five years.
SEATUI, WASHINGTON
Seattle has had variable curbside collec-
tion rates since 1981. Before that, residents
paid a fixed fee charge for unlimited solid
waste disposal. Both the structure and level
of the city's rates changed numerous times
between 1981 and 1992, with the cost of sin-
gle can service more than doubling from
$6.40 in 1981 to $14.98 in 1992. Between
1985 and 1987, rates increased by 82 per-
cent as the city sought to cover the costs in-
curred from closing its landfills. Subscrip-
tion levels for single-can service rose from
approximately 18 percent of the city's house-
holds in 1981 to almost 65 percent of house-
holds by 1988, when residential curbside re-
cycling and yard trimmings programs were
implemented. By 1992, more than 89 per-
cent of customers shifted to either a one can
or half can subscription level.
Seattle estimates that it recycled 40 per-
cent of its waste stream in 1991 through re-
cycling, composting and yard trimmings
programs. This compares to a 24 percent re-
cycling rate in 1988 when curbside recy-
cling programs were first established, and a
15 percent recycling rate before the intro-
duction of variable can rates in 1981. In
1992, the city estimated that more than 88
percent of Seattle residents participated in
the curbside recycling programs, and 67
percent in the curbside yard trimmings col-
lection program.
Seattle has studied the effects of the fee
increases on total solid waste disposal, as
well as the interactive effects of other fac-
tors on disposal fees. The Seattle Solid
Waste Utility has produced several studies
and reports since volume-based rates were
first introduced in 1981. Among other
things, the city has quantitatively estimat-
ed both price and income elasticity factors
for its system. Holding all other factors con-
stant, it was determined that as rates in-
creased, customers disposed of less waste
either by recycling more or by more selec-
tive purchasing. Based on the city's past ex-
perience, the Solid Waste Utility estimates
64 BioCvcLE
156
that a 10 percent increase in charges for
residential collection and disposal results in
approximately a two percent reduction in
solid waste disposal — because residents
have the ability to reduce their overall
charges through vanable rates.
The city also has determined that
increases in household size and income can
disguise and even counteract the price elas-
ticity effects of its rate programs. For in-
stance, household size and income levels
were positively related to solid waste
disposal. The city estimates that with every
10 percent increase in household real in-
come, roughly 5 9 percent more solid waste
is disposed.
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
Tacoma has had variable curbside dispos-
al rates for solid waste collection for more
than 20 years. The city is converting its res-
idential solid waste collection program from
cans to 60 gallon and 90 gallon containers;
more than two-thirds of all Tacoma resi-
dents are now provided containers. In re-
cent years, solid waste rates have increased
significantly as disposal costs have contin-
ued to rise. For instance, in 1990 the one
can/60-gallon container rate was $7.10 a
month. It rose to $8.05 in 1991, and to
$10.10 in 1992 — -a 42 percent increase in
two years. The two can/90-gallon container
rate also jumped 42 percent over the same
time period, from $10.35 to $14.75.
Concurrent with the implementation of
these rate increases, Tacoma also began
several residential recycling programs.
Curbside yard trimmings service and recy-
cling was started in 1990, both offered at no
extra charge. Yard trimmings collection in-
creased from 6,000 tons in 1990 to 7,237
tons in 1991, while the amount of recy-
clables collected jumped three-fold during
the same period, from 507 tons to 1,854
tons.
Some of the effects of these rate increas-
es and waste diversion programs can be
seen in the landfilling data. Disposal at
Tacoma's municipal landfill fell six percent
between 1989 and 1991 (from 200,593 tons
to 188,449 tons), despite significant popula-
tion growth in the area. The city attributes
some of the decrease to its refusal to accept
large loads of demolition materials begin-
ning in 1989. Tipping fees also have nsen
significantly. The fee for city residents rose
from $22/ton in 1990 to $32/ton in 1992. At
the same time, the tipping fee charged to
noncity residents rose from $64/ton in 1990
to $80/ton in 1992.
WILKES-BABRE, PINNSYIVANIA
Wilkes-Barre operates a residential vol-
ume-based rate program that differs signif-
icantly from the other case studies. The city
first introduced a voluntary bag program
for multifamily (five units or more) cus-
tomers in 1988. The bags cost $1 each and
are sold to residents in packages of eight.
With this program, the city estimates that
the average household living in a multi-
MAY1994
-------
family residence spends $95.90/year for sol-
id waste and recycling services. Currently,
50 percent of all multifamily households
participate in the bag program, while the
other 50 percent contract with private
haulers for solid waste collection services.
Single family households (four units or less)
are charged an annual flat fee of $50/house-
hold. However, the city hopes to expand its
bag program to include the single family
residences in the future because the pro-
gram has proven to be popular.
During the first year of the multifamily
bag program, there was a 15 percent reduc-
tion in the total amount of waste collected
city-wide. Recycling services for all resi-
dential customers have been increasing
each year since 1985 as new programs are
added and others expanded. Wilkes-Barre
now has both curbside recycling and yard
trimmings collection, as well as a home
composting program. The recycling partici-
pation rate reached 65 percent in 1992, and
residents are now diverting an estimated
20 percent of the waste stream. Between
the bag and recycling programs, the city
has seen more than a 25 percent decrease
in total solid waste disposal at the local
landfill. Tipping fees at the landfill in-
creased six-fold since 1985, climbing from
$8.65/ton to $5I/ton by 1992.
BOTMEU, WASHINGTON
Before February, 1991, the suburban
Seattle community of Bothell charged a flat
fee for disposal services of $8.1 I/month.
Then the city implemented curbside recy-
cling and yard trimmings collection pro-
grams and, to support them, set variable
curbside collection rates. The rates were
implemented at $10 for one can, $14 for two,
$18 for three, and $24 for four. These cov-
ered all collection services, including recy-
cling and yard trimmings. This choice was
made in lieu of an increase in the monthly
flat fee to approximately $13 to cover the
same services.
When the programs were first started,
initial subscription levels in Bothell were
71 percent at the one can level, 28 percent
at the two can level, and less than one per-
cent using three or four cans. One year lat-
er, subscription levels were at 78 percent for
one can, 21 percent for two, and less than
one percent using more than two cans.
Significant waste reduction resulted from
the program. Initially, an estimated 40 per-
cent of Bothell's residential waste stream
was collected in the curbside recycling and
yard trimmings programs, leaving 60 per-
cent going to disposal. By 1992, the two pro-
grams were collecting 48 percent of the res-
idential waste stream.
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
Minneapolis charges a flat fee for unlim-
ited residential .solid waste collection but
has a rebate for participation in its curbside
recycling program. Residents were not
specifically charged for solid waste
collection services until October, 1987,
BIOCVCLE
when the city instituted a $5 monthly fee for
solid waste collection and disposal. The
original fee was a direct result of rising
disposal costs. In 1982, disposal costs were
$21/ton; by January, 1988, the tipping fee
was $38/ton. With an increase to $42/ton in
January, 1989, the residential charge was
increased to $7/month. When forced to
respond to a $757ton tipping fee in June,
1989, the city increased the residential fee
to $12/month, and added a recycling rebate
of $5/month to stimulate the waste reduc-
tion program that had begun in 1983. Fur-
ther increases in the tipping fee that re-
sulted in higher residential costs were
mitigated by increases in the residential re-
cycling rate. The 1992 tipping fee of
$99.55/ton was supported by a $17.50
monthly residential fee, accompanied by a
$7 monthly recycling rebate.
As disposal costs rose in the 1980s, Min-
neapolis began making additions and re-
finements to its recycling programs that
complemented the rebate. The first curb-
side recycling pilot program began in 1982,
when 1,026 tons of recyclables were collect-
ed, less than one percent of the total of
131,995 tons of solid waste. A yard trim-
mings program was added in 1987, and the
city began collecting large metal items
(such as major appliances) in 1990. By
1992, the participation rate in the curbside
recycling program reached 90 percent.
More than 40,375 tons of recyclables, in-
cluding yard trimmings and major appli-
ances, were collected in 1992 (approximate-
ly 28 percent of the waste stream), and solid
waste disposal dropped 21 percent from the
1982 level to 104,561 tons.
To be fair, the city's recycling efforts are
one factor in this reduction: A large drop in
tonnage occurred between 1989 and 1991
when the city changed from cans to carte. A
number of people stored their cans under the
driplines of their garages, causing them to
gather water and snow that made the waste
heavier. Switching to covered carts reduced
the amount of water collected, which the city
estimates lowered tonnages significantly.
CONCLUSIONS
Taken together, these case studies pro-
vide evidence that variable curbside dis-
posal fees do. assist and support waste re-
duction efforts. Although the specific
effects depend on social, demographic and
economic factors where they are imple-
mented, communities that have variable
disposal fees tend to be enthusiastic about
them. Most of these communities report
that the variable fee structures have sup-
ported other waste reduction activities and
have consequently helped reduce solid
waste disposal levels. •
Richard Cuthbert is an executive economist
with R.W. Beck in Seattle, Washington, where
he conducts demand forecasting, financial
impact analyses, rate studies and statistics for
electric, water and solid waste utilities
nationwide.
Portland residents
increased their
recycling levels
from 740 tons per
month in 1988 to
2,583 tons per
month in 1992 —
more than tripling
the tonnages.
MAY 1994 66
157
-------
Program Planning
Clearing Hurdles in Switching to
Variable Rate Pricing
Attracted by the benefits of solid waste unit pricing but concerned about some of the
potential drawbacks? An understanding of potential problems and how to overcome them
may help your community's decision-making when exploring unit pricing—and ease the
transition if such an approach is adopted.
By Michael Shapiro
Unit pricing programs offer com-
munities an impressive lineup of
benefits: greater attention by
residents to waste reduction; increased
participation by households in recycling
and composting programs; reduced dis-
posal costs; and a more equitable waste
management fee structure. Unlike tradi-
tional pricing systems, where every
household pays the same—regardless of
how much trash is set out on collection
day—unit pricing programs charge resi-
dents only for the waste they discard.
The less residents toss, the less they pay.
The benefits certainly have attracted
many communities. More than 1,600
communities have switched to some
form of variable rate pricing for solid
waste collection services in recent
years. (See Table 1). In addition, several
state legislatures now either encourage
or mandate use of variable rate pricing
for solid waste.1
The result for many communities
with unit pricing programs has been sig-
nificantly less waste, lower costs, and
improved service. Table 2 lists several
communities that have implemented
variable rate pricing programs and
shows some of the waste reduction and
recycling rate increases. For communi-
ties concerned about getting squeezed
between growing waste generation rates
and shrinking disposal options, unit
pncing might provide the margin their
waste management programs need.
However, the switch from traditional
pricing to unit pricing worries some
Mike Shapiro is director of the Office of
Solid Waste for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Table 1: Variable Rate Pricing Programs In Local Governments, By State1
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
18
1
2
7
2
38
3
13
40
5
855*
3
1
Nevada
Now Jsrssy
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
2
18
3
4
2503
36
1
1
70
1
243
75
1 States not listed do not have variable rale pricing programs.
3 Minnesota regulations required the use of variable rate lees lor solid waste collection mall 855 communi-
ties beginning in 1993; however, some were exempted or granted delays in implementation.
1 Estimate from Peter Spendetow o) the Oregon Department ol Environmental Quality
Source. S)*Mfpfc Resources Corporation, 1993
MSW planners. While change is rarely
simple, local officials may be concerned
that restructuring the way the commu-
nity conducts and administers its waste
collection program might be more than
they want to take on. In the experience
of communities with variable rate pro-
grams, however, potential barriers to
implementing unit pricing can be over-
come with some advance preparation.
These barriers include:
—Building a consensus in the com-
munity about the goals of the program
and the need for changes that unit pric-
ing may bring.
—Establishing pnces that cover the
costs of waste collection and that resi-
dents feel are fair.
—Obtaining participation of the
entire community, including residents of
multi-family housing.
—Ensuring that illegal dumping does
not increase significantly after imple-
menting unit pncing
Consensus First: Is Change Needed?
Switching to unit pncing means changes
for both residents and the municipality
administering the program. Concern,
even resistance, can accompany these
changes. To win support for unit pnc-
ing, the municipality needs to think of
residents as customers whose satisfac-
tion is cntical to the program's success.
This means developing an effective
pricing program and supporting it with a
strong public education effort.
When Long Beach, California, began
planning its variable rates program in
1991, residents were skeptical. Accord-
ing to Jim Kuhl, manager of the city's
Integrated Resources Bureau, "People
were saying 'Garbage has been collected
the same way for a hundred years. Why
fix something that's not broken?'" Over-
coming the sense that no changes were
SOLID WASTE TECHNOLOGIES/NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1994 17
Reprinted with permission from Solid Waste Technologies Magazine, Adams/Green Industry Publishing, Inc
159
-------
Table 2: Selected Communities With Unit Pricing Programs
Community
Mansfield. CT
Seattle, WA
San Jose. CA
Pennsville, NJ
Bound Break. NJ
Antigo. Wl
Charlemont. MA
Plains. PA
Mt. Pleasant, Ml
Du Page County, IL
Plantation, FL
Perkasie, PA
High Bridge. NY
Illion. NY
Population
22.500
500,000
740,000
13,500
10.000
8,500
1,200
11,200
30,000
668.000
64,000
7,900
4,000
9,500
Program MSW
Type Reduction
Subscription can
Subscription can
Subscription can
Stickers
Stickers
Stickers
Bags
Bags
Bags
Bags
Bags
Bags
Stickers
Bags
25%
46%
30%
50%
37%
49%
44%
53%
59%
37%
Recycling
Change
+40%
+39%
+42%
+43%
+56%
+41%
+21%
+50%
+18%
+41%
needed was Kuril's biggest hurdle.
Educating residents about solid waste
challenges in Long Beach—and the
ways in which unit pricing could help—
was critical to building support for the
program California had passed a la\v
mandating specific recycling levels.
Failure to meet these levels carried
potential fines of up to S10.000 per
day—money that ultimately would
come from community taxpayers.
Through presentations at town meetings
and gatherings of civic and private
groups, distributing flyers, and meeting
with the city's elected officials. Long
Beach showed how the plan's waste pre-
vention incentives offered a cost-effec-
tive way to boost the city's recycling
rate, enabling it to meet the states man-
date, and avoid costly fines.
In addition, the city showed how the
program would save a significant
amount of money for those residents
who already were generating less waste.
To help drive home this point. Long
Beach officials compared the rates for
waste collection with the other utility
services residents receive. This argument
made sense to residents, said Kuhl:
"People understand that no one can just
go to a gas station and buy 20 gallons for
the price of 5—residents have to pay for
the amount of service they use." Through
its public education program, the city
convinced residents that waste reduction
incentives would help the city succeed in
Mailing Trash
When a unit pricing systems was started in Loveland, Colorado, residents were asked to buy
trash bags for 75 cents apiece at retail outlets. Residents soon complained, apparently compar-
ing the cost of the trash bags with other plastic bags they could buy for pennies. To make the
connection between the cost ol the bags and collection and disposal service, the city changed
to bag tags, and compared the tags to stamps. Now. to "mail" their garbage to the landfill, Love-
land residents afix one 75-cent stamp on each 30-gallon bag they put out for collection A 40-
cent stamp is good tor a 13-gallon bag. and a sofa will set you back about 13 stamps.
2l) SOLID WASTE TECHNOLOGIES / NOVEMBER / DECEMBER IW
its overall solid waste program. In turn,
residents supported unit pricing.
At What Price?
Switching to unil pricing also often
means convincing residents about their
bottom line results. Cases in Mansfield,
Connecticut, and Loveland. Colorado,
illustrate the point.
Before implementing its variable rate
program in 1990, the town of Mansfield
worked to find a price structure that res-
idents would consider fair. Lon Hull-
gren, Director of Public Works, said his
department began by designing a sub-
scription-based program to replace the
private waste collection service resi-
dents had previously used. (Under the
old system, residents paid a flat fee of
about 520 per month for unlimited ser-
vice). For the new program, the town
decided to offer four service levels: one,
two, and four cans per week, plus a
"mini" service level of just one bag per
week. The town established prices for
each level that would, in (he aggregate,
cover all program costs.
Next, since the amount set for the
most common service level was about
10 percent higher than the flat fee resi-
dents were paying previously for waste
collection services, planners lowered it
to a figure they felt was closer to what
the market would bear. The result was a
fee of $20.75 per month for two-can ser-
vice (with each can 35-gallons). The
prices of other service levels were
adjusted slightly to maintain the costs-
revenues balance. The price was set at
$14.50 per month for one-bag service,
$17.50 for one-can (or two bag) service,
and $26.50 for four cans.
The city overcame what Hultgren
described as the "classic resistance" to
a user-fee system, and the program is
now well accepted. With customers get-
ting used to it, there has been a general
trend of residents subscribing for lower
level service.
Mick Mercer, the Streets and Solid
Waste Manager in Loveland, Colorado,
agrees that price concerns are key.
Despite good intentions, "most people
don't pay much attention to solid waste
issues. Pocketbook concerns are what
really matter." The key, said Mercer, is
to design a program that will cost about
the same or save money.
In Loveland, the switch to variable
pricing began with a pilot program serv-
ing about 2,000 households three years
ago. Loveland took the program city-
wide (14.000 households) in April 1993.
160
-------
Table 3: Effect of Variable Rate Pricing on Illegal Dumping and Recycling Rates
City
Cities with notable problems
Harvard, IL
113%
Ithaca, NY
Woodstock. IL
Mt Pleasant. Ml
Cities with minor problems
Downers Grove. IL
Perkasw. PA
Lisle. IL
Cities with no apparent problems
High Bridge. NJ
Chariemont, MA
Antgo. WA
Ilion. NY
Rock Falls-Starling. IL
Seattle. WA
Population
5.600
35-40.000
15.000
30.000
46.000
7,000
19.500
3.600
1.200
8.500
8.800
29.500
495.900
Residential Landfill
%Change
-34% to -31%
-31%
-31%
-44%
-49%
-54%
-53%
-18%
-37%
-50%
•51%
•65%
• •
Recycling
% Change
63%
NA
141%
88%
156%
NA
3%
NA
146%
141%
NA
••
" Seattle reported no apparent problems with illegal dumping, but did not report changes in waste genera-
tion or recycling changes NA=no applicable data
Source "Under What Conditions Should Cities Adopt Volume-Based Pricing tor Residential SoM Waste Col-
Darnel Slums. Master's Memo Study. Duke University. May 1991
City planners estimated that most resi-
dents would probably use one 30-gallon
bag per week, down from the previous
two to three bags per week A year into
the full program, studies verify that the
average set out is now about 0 88 bags
per household per week
Under the old program, residents
were paying S3 75 per month for unlim-
ited waste collection services: the city
wanted to be sure not to come in too
much over this for those households that
were able to increase their waste preven-
tion and recycling.
The city decided that a rate of 75 cents
per 30-gallon bag would encourage resi-
dents to reduce and recycle while keep-
ing per-household costs at a reasonable
Getting Some Help
To help Interested communities
learn more about the process of
planning, designing, and Imple-
menting unit pricing programs, the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has prepared a guide,
"Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons
Learned About Unit Pricing." This
guide provides detailed technical
information on unit pricing based
on the experiences of 11 communi-
ties with programs in place. The
manual (EPA 530-R-94-004) is
free; to order, call the RCRA Hot-
line at (600) 424-9346, or write to
U.S. EPA, RCRA Information Cen-
ter (5305). 401 M Street S.W..
Washington, DC 20460.
level. Adding the cost for households that
set out one bag per week ($3 25/month)
to the fixed monthly fee for curbside and
yard waste recycling services (S3 40/
month), (he total refuse and recycling ser-
vice costs each household S665/
month—only 90 cents per month more
than the old program.
The system was started by selling bags
at retail outlets for 75 cents each Despite
some education efforts preceding the
switch, residents began complaining
almost immediately about the cost of the
bags. They compared them to supermar-
ket bags that cost just pennies apiece
Loveland officials realized they had lo
find some way to help residents make the
connection between the cost of the bags
and the town's waste collection services
Loveland solid waste planners accom-
plished this by changing from bags to
tags and comparing the new tags to
stamps—in effect, asking residents to
"mail" their waste to the landfill A sin-
gle "trash stamp" costs 75 cents and
covers one 30-gallon bag. A 40 cent
stamp also is sold lo those households
that need just a 13-gallon bag.
The stamp program helps handle
bulky items, too To dispose of a couch,
for example, residents are asked to call
the solid waste office, describe the item,
and are told how many stamps it will
cost. A standard-sized sofa takes about
13 stamps—about $9 75
The adjustment the city made to meet
criticism paid off After the first year of
operation, a survey showed that 87 per-
cent of residents gave the program a
mark of good or excellent.
All in the Family
Another potential burner for communi-
ties implementing unit pricing is to de-
sign a program thai extends the waste re-
duction incentive to residents of multi-
family housing. In multi-family resi-
dences (buildings with five units or
more), tenants typically are asked to bring
their waste to a central dumpster for col-
lection. Since their garbage is combined,
identifying the amounts of waste thai
individual residents discard in order to
charge accordingly can be difficult
Mansfield, Connecticut, faced such a
challenge Home to University of Con-
necticut, Mansfield has a large studeni
population living in multi-family hous-
ing But the town has come up with a
strategy to help extend unti pricing lo
ihese residents. The town charges the
landlords of multi-family housing a
variable rate for the waste collected
from their tenants Since these costs arc
included in the rent, residents do not see
what they pay for waste collection. So.
Mansfield officials sought ways to show
residents of multi-family buildings that
waste reduction could bring them poten-
tial cost savings
For example, when a 60-umt condo-
minium complex switched from its pri-
vate waste hauling services to Mans-
field's unit pricing program, town
officials reviewed its waste management
costs. It found that (he complex was
overpaying for waste collection services
The officials showed how the complex
could actually save money under the
program, if everyone cut down on waste
generation and began recycling, the
complex could actually save money
under the program. And these savings
could lead to a reduction in the condo-
minium fees charged to residents, or at
least prevent them from going up
Another strategy to extend unit pric-
ing to multi-family units is simply to
include as many residents of multi-fam-
ily housing as possible in your standard
program In Long Beach. California, for
waste collection purposes, the city con-
siders residents in developments with
10 or fewer units to be single-family
residences. These units are given the
same containers and rate options as all
other single-family households Kuhl.
from the city's resources board, reports
that tenants had few difficulties making
the transition to the can-based unit
pricing program, even in cases where
these developments previously used a
22 SOLID WASTE TECHNOLOGIES/NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1994
161
-------
central waste dumpster.
Illegal Dumping: Enemy No. 1?
When a community introduces the pos-
sibility of unit pricing to its residents,
one concern frequently mentioned is
whether residents might dump waste
illegally to avoid paying fees. Accord-
ing to Henry Fisher, the Solid Waste
Manager for McHenry County, Illinois,
the first thing that should be understood
is that illegal dumping has always
occurred. In addition, although this is
difficult to gauge, there is no evidence
of a large-scale increase in illegal dump-
ing due to of variable rate programs.
McHenry County's experience is sim-
ilar to that of many communities that
have adopted variable rate pricing. A
report by the Reason Foundation cited
several multi-community studies that
show illegal dumping is not a significant
problem.1 Another study covering 14
cities reported no problem in six cities.
Advertisement
minor problems in four cities, and
notable problems in four cities.2 Table 3
shows the effect of illegal dumping on
recovery in these 14 cities. Since these
communities do not use a standard
methodology for gauging changes in
waste generation and recycling rates,
these data should be considered esti-
mates. The extent of illegal dumping in
the communities had either no effect or
only a marginal effect on the effective-
ness of the programs. Another study of
eight cities show no dumping problems
in seven of the eight cities.1-2
Tempering the Temptation
Difficulties with illegal dumping can
be addressed through a combination of
enforcement and public education. One
method McHenry County's Fisher sug-
gests is to reduce residents' incentive
to dispose of waste outside the system
by adopting a multi-tiered rate struc-
ture that includes a flat rate for a basic
level of service and a modest per-unit
charge for any additional waste col-
lected. In this way, residents pay a
direct price that is less than if the pro-
gram relied entirely on per-unit charges
for program revenue. And households
also receive a certain level of trash col-
lection they might perceive as free.
(Residents pay for this basic service, of
course, in the traditional manner—via
taxes or flat fees.) With this combina-
tion, individuals who might otherwise
be tempted to dump waste believe the
new prices are reasonable and are more
inclined to participate.
Loveland's Mercer agrees that illegal
dumping is "perceived as a bigger
problem than it really is." Where it
does occur, illegal dumping in Love-
land typically takes the form of indi-
viduals leaving trash in commercial or
apartment building dumpsters. To pre-
vent this, Mercer's office conducted
extensive public education about all
aspects of unit pricing, including ille-
gal dumping. The office also works
hard to investigate complaints of viola-
tions. Where illegal dumping is sus-
pected, the office often finds the name
and address of the violator in mail
found in the trash. The individual is
notified of the finding and warned that
any additional violations will result in
prosecution. "We haven't had any
repeat violations yet," said Mercer.
Other Forms of Beating the System
When illegal dumping occurs, it com-
monly takes the form of roadside
24 SOLID WASTE TECHNOLOGIES /NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 1994
162
-------
dumping or citizens dumping their
trash in commercial dumpsters. Some-
times, residents cut back on waste by
dropping nonrecycable materials into
recycling bins
Long Beach. California, found an
increase in contamination of recy-
clables soon after implementing its
variable pricing system for trash. To
correct the behavior, the city did not
collect the materials from any recy-
cling bins containing nonrecyclable
materials. Instead, collection crews
attached notes to the bins that listed the
program's recyclable materials and
explained that residents could remove
the nonrecyclables and call the city to
reschedule the pickup—often on the
same day. Since implementation of the
policy, contamination of recycling bins
has dropped dramatically.
Another way residents have found to
beat unit pricing systems is to compact
their waste to fil as much trash into
fewer bags or smaller cans Loveland
dealt with this potential problem by es-
tablishing a 50-pound maximum
weight for trash bags set out for collec-
tion Besides providing more accurate
estimates of waste collected, (his pro-
tected sanitation workers. When over-
stuffing does occur, the collection crew
leaves a note for the resident, explain-
ing why it didn't collect the waste and
inviting the resident to call with any
questions.
Changes in the Office
Some communities find that changing to
unit pricing for solid waste also brings
increased administrative demands, in-
cluding the need for additional personnel
or equipment Communities can structure
programs to minimize these demands. In
Loveland. one reason why planners
decided upon the "postage stamp" con-
cept was the low overhead in such a sys-
tem Several stores in town agreed to sell
the stamps with no mark-up As a result,
the city has few additional expenses asso-
ciated with stamp sales and distribution.
Loveland simply bills the stores monthly
for the stamps they sell. Only one addi-
tional person has been hired—a customer
service person used to answer questions
that come in by phone.
Making the Move
To make the move to unit pricing, com-
munities should take steps ahead of time
to deal with potential barriers—before
they become a problem In addition to the
issues discussed here, there inevitably
will be other, community-specific con-
cerns that need to be addressed. Accord-
ing to communities with variable rate
programs, however, these issues are
manageable and that switching to unit
pricing is worth investigating •
Inquiries about this article should be
directed to the RCRA Hotline. (800)
424-9346.
Notes:
'Skumatz, L, "Variable Rates for
Municipal Solid Waste Implementa-
tion Experience. Economics, and
Legislation," June 1993, Reason
Foundation, Los Angeles. California
2Blume. D., "Under What Conditions
Should Cities Adopt Volume-Based
Pricing for Residential Solid Waste
Collection1'" Master's Memo Study,
Duke University, May 1991.
Advertisement
SOLID WASTE TECHNOLOGIES/NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1994 25
163
-------
Using volume-based
user fees in rural areas:
How do they work?
Implementing volume-based user fees in rural
locales is easier, and more successful, than
conventional wisdom would have us believe.
bv William M. Park
As the "solid waste crisis" has unfolded over
the last five to 10 years, most attention has
been focused on urban and suburban areas,
where huge volumes of solid waste and re-
cyclables must be managed. Naturally then.
discussions of the role of user fees in solid
waste management, particularly volume- or
weight-based fees, have centered on their im-
plementation within a context of door-to-door
garbage and recycling collection. Bui in some
sense, collection of solid waste and recyclable*
in rural communities through a drop-off sys-
tem poses an even greater challenge, partic-
ularly from the standpoint of financing this
public service and providing incentives for
source reduction and recycling
Historically, rural communities have faced
relatively low solid waste management costs
that in most cases were funded by general
property taxes. But times have changed. Fed-
eral landfill regulations and state mandates
for more comprehensive collection systems
and diversion of materials from landfills
through recycling or other means have
changed the situation dramatically, exacer-
bating the inherent difficulties of small total
population bases and low population densi-
ties that rural communities face.
Costs have risen to the point that they rep-
resent a major claim on rural community bud-
gets. Rural counties, often tagged as the "re-
sponsible unit of government" in state solid
waste management legislation, are in a par-
ticularly difficult situation. Because low pop-
ulation densities limit the incentive to private
haulers to serve residents in outlying areas.
many rural counties have gotten into the col-
lection business by converting old landfill
sites to transfer stations primarily for self-
haulers or by implementing what is typical-
ly called a "convenience center" system. Such
a system involves a number of conveniently
located sites with access controlled during
open hours by an attendant, where residents
can drop off their household garbage and per-
haps separate out a number of recyclable ma-
Willlam M Park is professor ot Agricultural Economics and is affiliated with the Waste Management
Research and Education Institute ai the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. The research was con-
ducted while the author was a visiting professor in the Western Rural Development Center at Oregon
State University, in conjunction with the National Rural Studies Committee, a project sponsored by the
Kellogg Foundation.
Reprinted by permission from Resource Recycling, P.O. Box 10540. Portland, OR 97296-0540. 503-227-1319.
165
-------
tenals. As such, the question naturally aris-
es about whether volume-based user fees
(VBUFs) could, or should, be implemented
within such u system
According to conventional wisdom, the
answer to this question is, "No." Rural solid
waste managers and elected officials may
readily acknowledge the two basic arguments
in support of volume-based user fees, name-
ly the equity of households paying in pro-
Advertisement
Volume-based fees:
A recycling incentive
• Residents can reduce volume-based
user fees by separating recyclable
materials from waste.
• Backyard composting allows resi-
dents to control their user fees. ,
• Special wastes (yard debris, white
goods, furniture, tires, etc.) are usual-
ly accepted at drop-off sites at a
• nominal cost, or none at all.
portion to the amount of solid waste they gen-
erate and the incentive such fees offer for
source reduction and recycling. However,
most would be equally quick to point out that
volume-based fees may encourage some res-
idents to employ inappropriate disposal meth-
ods, e g. illegal dumping or on-site burning
or burying They would also likely express
concern about other possible political and ad-
ministrative impediment!).
This conventional wisdom is reflected as
well by the absence of any explicit attention
to the rural drop-off collection context in the
several local decisionmaker guides to unit
pricing that have been published in recent
years The purpose of the research reported
upon in this article is to call into question this
conventional wisdom by assessing the expe-
rience of several rural communities that have
implemented volume-based user fees within
a drop-off collection context
The First step involved identification of
what are considered to be successful exam-
ples A June 1993 article in Resource Recy-
cling ("Community adoption of variable rates:
An update") indicated the number of "van-
able rate pricing" programs by state as of ear-
ly 1993. Contact was made with slate agency
personnel in those stales with the highest num-
ber of programs, as well as other persons
knowledgeable about rural solid waste man-
agement across the country
Eventually, this process yielded six exam-
ples within a drop-off context that varied with
respect to geographic and demographic char-
acteristics of the jurisdiction, as well as char-
acteristics of the user fee system. Once this set
of six was finalized, a Five-page questionnaire
was sent to the person most closely .involved
with administration of the solid waste man-
agement system and was used as an outline for
an extensive telephone interview
Contact was also made with elected offi-
cials or others in each community who could
provide some perspective on either the polit-
ical and administrative considerations in im-
plementing the user fee system or the impacts
of the system, both positive and negative.
This article provides a summary of compa-
rable information from all six case studies.
More detailed information on each case study
will be included in a comprehensive report to
be published later
Characteristics
Information on the basic geographic and de-
mographic characteristics for each jurisdic-
tion is presented in Table I This information
demonstrates the wide variation across the ju-
risdictions with respect to land area, popula-
tion, population density, and the estimated
percentage and number of residents who use
the drop-off system.
The jurisdictions portrayed here consid-
ered user fee system!* for a few months to
more than two years before they were im-
plemented Before user fee systems were im-
plemented, waste management was funded
Resource Recycling January I99S
Advertisement
166
-------
^^U^^fl Geographic and demographic characteristics
Jurisdiction Dubois
Type of jurisdiction County
State Indiana
Area (square miles) 433
Total population 36,600
Population density
(per square mile) 85
Population, percent
using drop-off sites 50%
Total population
using drop-off sites 1 8,300
( I ) Volume-based user fees implemented by
Source: William M. Pink, 1994.
Houston
County
Minnesota
576
18,500
32
35%
6,500
Lane
County
Oregon
4,620
298,000
65
50%
149,000
Monroe
County(l)
Wisconsin
915
37,300
41
20%
7,500
Eft
County
Georgia
269
35,000
130
45%
15,800
Weathersfield
Town
Vermont
50
2,700
54
75%
2,000
1 1 towns within Monroe County.
by general property tax revenues in four cas-
es, a serial property tax levy in one case and
a flat per parcel assessment in the other. Al-
though the administrative and political as-
pects of the consideration and implementa-
tion period vary across the cases, and in every
case represent an interesting story, space lim-
itations do not permit a detailed discussion of
each one. A common element, however, was
a concerted effort to publicize plans to im-
plement the user fee well ahead of time and
to educate residents as to the need and logic
font
Another commonality was that significant
changes were made in the solid waste man-
agement system at the time user fees were
implemented. Dubois County. Indiana and
Tin County, Georgia convened an existing
waste collection drop box system to a con-
venience center system, and recycling op-
portunities were initiated. In Houston Coun-
ty, Minnesota, collection of solid waste and
recyclable materials was provided by the
county for (he first time In Lane County,
Oregon, existing transfer sites were secured,
recycling was expanded and a recycling cred-
it was introduced. In general, towns in Mon-
roe County. Wisconsin implemented user fees
at the time small individual town dumps were
closed and were convened to transfer stations
When the Town of Weathersfield, Vermont
initiated user fees, it also expanded its set of
recyclable materials collected.
The basic characteristics of each user fee
system are summarized in Table 2. All ex-
cept Lane County were implemented between
1990andl992. In terms of the "type" of sys-
tem, two require purchase of a special bag,
two require purchase of a token or sticker to
attach to the residents' own bag, and two re-
quire cash payment at the drop-off site for the
residents' own bags. Convening the fees to
a consistent basis indicates a range of $0.50
to $2 00 per 30-gallon bag Although none
of the systems charge for recyclables, Hous-
Table 2
Jurisdiction
I User fee systems: Basic elements
Date initiated
Type of bag
Fee mechanism
Fee per unit of volume
Minimum fee
Credit or payment for
recyclables
Fee paid at drop-off sites
Fee paid at municipal offices
Fee paid at stores
.- Dubois
April '91
Own
Sticker
$.75/45-gal.
$0.75
No
Yes
Yes
No
33%
Houston
Oct. '91
Own
Cosh
July '80
Own
Cash
'90-'92
Purchased
Bag
$1.30/30-gal.(l) $2.00/32-gal.(2) $1.10/33-gaI.
$1.30 $6.00 $1.10
Percentage of total cost
covered by fee
General property tax funding Yes
Rat assessment No
Buy-back for
aluminum
Yes
No
No
26%
Yes
$.75/HH/month
$1.50 credit
for 10 Ibs. +
Yes
• No
No
100%(4)
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Variable
Yes
No
Jjfi
Oct.'92
Purchased
S1.50/38-gal.(3)
$0.45
No
No
No
Yes
63%
Yes
No
Weathersfield
July '91
Own
Token
$l.00/30-gal.
$1.00
No
No
Yes
Yes
57%
No
$25/parcel/year
Gal. = Gallon.
HH = Household.
(I) Or $.07 per pound.
(2) Other rates: $ 12 per pickup load or $5 per cubic yard.
(3) Other bag sizes and fees: $.45 per 8 gallon and $.75 per 16 gallon
(4) Although the solid waste management system is self-supporting overall, the rural drop-off collection component is "subsidized" to some extent
by other system components.
Source: William M. Park, 1994.
Resource Recycling January 19951
167
-------
ton County buys hack aluminum and Lane
County offers a S1.50 credit tor users who
separate out at least 10 pounds of reeyclables
per visit.
With regard to overall solid waste man-
agement system financing, only Lane Coun-
ty covers all of its solid waMe management
system costs with user fees, although landfill
tipping fees do. to some extent, subsidi/.e the
system of drop-off sites that serve primarily
rural self-haulers. VBUFs in the other sys-
tems cover from 26 to 63 percent of the total
solid waste management system cost, with
the remainder covered by ud valorem prop-
erty taxes in three cases, an annual per parcel
assessment in one case, and a combination of
property taxes and a monthly per household
assessment in the other. These "hybrid" fi-
nancing strategies allow per bag fees to be
kept at the relatively modest levels noted
above, thus limiting the incentive for inap-
propriate disposal.
Reeyclables and special wastes
Discussions of volume-based user fee s"ys-
tems typically emphasize the importance of
providing households with an opportunity
to reduce their costs by separating materials
lor recycling. Together with source reduc-
tion options such as backyard composting.
VBUFs allow residents some degree of con-
trol over their
"garbage bill"
and can con-
tribute to pub-
lic acceptance
of a user fee
system
The si x pro-
grams present-
ed here accept
a wide variety
of recyclable
materials. The
basic five ma-
terials — alu-
minum cans,
glass contain-
ers, steel cans.
old newspapers
and old corru-
gated contain-
ers — are ac-
cepted in all of
the systems, and five systems accept plastics,
magazines and at least one additional type of
paper
Given the variation across the jurisdictions
with respect to land area and population, one
would expect variation as well in the opera-
tional characteristics and technologies used
within the systems. As indicated in Table 3,
this is indeed the case, with the number of
Since 1980. Lane County, Oregon has charged user fees and given recy-
cling credit* at its rural transfer stations, such as this one in Creswell.
sites ranging from one to 15, the number of
hours open ranging from about 10 to 80, and
the tonnage of recyclable materials handled
per site in 1993 ranging from 43 to 275 tons.
Technologies used for collecting and trans-
porting materials and arrangements for proc-
essing and marketing also vary widely, as does
the role of private sector firms in relation to
these activities.
Advertisement
Resource Recycling January
168
-------
•JfflU^Xl Recycling system characteristics
Jurisdiction
Number of drop-off sites
Hours open per week
Average tons of recyclable
materials per site in 1993
Containers for recyclables
Transportation of
recyclables
Processing and market-
ing of recyclables
Dubois
8
14-32
52
4 cy. dumpsters
County trucks
Local salvage
yard
Houston
5
12
N.A.
20 cy. closed top
w/compartments
County trucks
County MRF
Lane
15
10-60
275
90 gal.
wheeled carts
Private
contractors
Private
firms
Monroe
1 per town
8
Variable
Variable
Private
haulers
Private firm
Tjfl
7
36-80
43
Trailer with
compartments
County trucks
County MRF
Weathersfield
1
11
220
Bunkers and
Gaylords
Variable
Town baler
N A = Not available. Cy. = Cubic yard. MRF = Materials recovery facility.
Source: William M. Park, 1994.
Recommendations by solid waste man-
agement professionals regarding treatment of
special wastes such as yard debris, white
goods, furniture and tires generally empha-
size the importance of providing timely, con-
venient and low-cost options for disposal Al-
though the ways these special wastes are han-
dled vanes across the six systems, most ac-
cept (hem at no or nominal cost at one or more
drop-off sites, thereby limiting any incentive
for residents to do something inappropriate
with items or materials of these sorts.
Positive impacts
While volume-based user fees are often jus-
tified on equity grounds, one would certain-
ly hope that they would reduce the amount of
solid waste requiring disposal, as a result of
the incentives provided for separation and
source reduction efforts on the pan of resi-
dents. Although the information available on
this subject was somewhat uncertain and dif-
ficult to interpret in most cases, there is a good
bit of evidence to suggest that the incentives
provided by these user fee systems are mak-
ing a significant difference.
While definitive "before and after" figures
isolating the effect on solid waste tonnages
requiring disposal were lacking, there was ev-
idence of small absolute reductions in three
cases In one other case, solid waste tonnage
stayed roughly constant even though signif-
icant economic and population growth was
taking place. Reported increases in tonnage
of recyclables collected account for pan of
the decreases in disposal tonnage, but it is im-
possible to know how much of the remain-
Advertisement
Resource Recycling January 1995
169
-------
Table 4
Jurisdiction
Participation in recycling (1)
Recyclables recovered (2)
Diversion/recovery rates (3)
der of the decreases
were due to actual
source reduction efforts
motivated by the
VBUFs and how much
was due to other factors.
Although it was dif-
ficult to calculate a valid
diversion or recovery
rate for the rural drop-off
systems alone, as noted
in Table 4, three counties
had computed county-
wide rates for state re-
ports that ranged from
20 to 34 percent. In ad-
dition, information from
the Town of Weathers-
field indicated a diver-
sion or recovery rate of
about 29 percent
Per capita amounts of recyclables collect-
ed were computed in four of the cases, based
on rough estimates of the number of people
using the drop-off systems. For Dubois, Lane,
and Tift counties, annual recovery ranged
from 40 to 60 pounds per capita. For the
Town of Weathersfield, approximately ISO
pounds per capita were collected in 1993. For
Houston and Monroe counties, only a coun-
tywide generation rate could be computed,
which thus included recyclables from curb-
Measures of impact on recycling
Dubois Houston Lane Monroe Tift Weathersfield
65%
45
N.A.
95%
146
34%
75%
59
28%
N.A.
98
20-25%
38
NA
85%
148
29%
N. A. = Not available.
(1) Percentage of residents using drop-off sites for garbage disposal who separate out some recyclables, bused on careful head
counts in Dubois and Tift counties and rough approximations elsewhere.
(2) In pounds per capita in 1993. For typical set of residential materials, including aluminum and steel cans, glass, plastic and
various forms of paper. For Houston and Monroe counties, only countywide tonnage figures were available. Thus, too-
nageisdivided by total county population, including residents served by curbside recycling collection programs. In the oth-
er four jurisdictions, tonnage collected only from dropoff sites is divided by the «ri"u»ftd population using the sites.
(3) In percent in 1993. These diversion/recovery rates are jurisdictionwide and thus include materials collected in curbside re-
cycling collection programs as well as items like white goods and yard waste. Exactly what is counted may differ some-
what across cases.
Source: William M Park, 1994.
side recycling collection in some municipal-
ities. Annual pounds per capita were 146 for
Houston and 98 for Monroe.
Finally, perhaps as useful an indicator as
any of the impact of VBUFs in these case stud-
ies is the level of participation in the separa-
tion of recyclables, measured in percent. In
two of the cases, participation had been care-
fully monitored or tracked over a long period
of time; in three others, an estimate was made
on the basis of general observations by atten-
dants and solid waste managers. The range
across die five cases was 65 to 95 percent, with
the average at 80 percent, which is relatively
high compared to previous estimates for drop-
off recycling systems elsewhere without vol-
ume-based user fee systems.
Problems
As noted in the introductory section, con-
ventional wisdom has it that user fee systems
in a rural drop-off collection system context
Advertisement
\ResourceRec\cling January 1995
170
-------
''arc likely to generate serious problems in the
jform of increased illegal dumping and
^burning, as well as less senous ones such as
.excessive compaction, use of pnvate com-
mercial collection containers and out-
of-junsdiction disposal. Although at least
one of these problems was noted as minor in
each of the systems studied, in no case did
solid waste managers or elected officials view
any problem as senous enough to undertake
a fundamental reconsideration of the user fee
system. It is good to keep in mind, however,
that these assessments are admittedly sub-
jective and are based on interviews with peo-
ple closely involved with each system who
may have some vested interest in portraying
their system in the best light.
In several cases, where an increase in ille-
gal dumping occurred, a show of willingness
to enforce applicable ordinances was appar-
ently sufficient to reduce the illegal dumping
fairly quickly to more usual levels. A typical
approach has been to identify the responsible
party from mail in household garbage and
send a letter slating that cleanup is required
by a certain date, with the threat of a modest
fine if it is not done. Some counties have pub-
lished names in the newspapers or required
citizens to appear before a county judge. The
increased burning in some cases was not nec-
essarily looked upon as a problem, because
burning of clean wood or paper is allowable
in some rural areas, although concern was ex-
pressed in some cases about burning of oth-
er materials. To avoid any problems with ex-
cessive compaction, Houston County insti-
tuted a weight limit of 30 pounds per bag from
the beginning. In several cases, minor prob-
lems with use of pnvate commercial collec-
tion containers were eliminated with the use
of locks. lift County initially had some prob-
lem with residents going across the county
line to use unattended containers at a waste
collection drop box system in a neighboring
county, but those containers were soon relo-
cated away from the county line.
Another concern expressed often is that
administration of a VBUF system in a rural
drop-off context might be infeasible or pro-
hibitively costly. Although minor adminis-
trative adjustments have been made along the
way in all of the systems, in no case were (he
basic administrative changes major impedi-
ments. In addition, in most cases adminis-
trative costs were not increased substantial-
ly, because the commitment had already been
made, quite separately from the VBUF ques-
tion, to have attended drop-off sites. Costs
associated with sale of the bags, stickers or
tokens have been minimal, and no billing sys-
tem is required in any of the systems.
Conclusions
Although VBUFs may not be the most ap-
propnate financing strategy for all rural ar-
eas, the experience of these rural counties and
towns warrants the following conclusions.
Implementing a volume-based user fee sys-
tem in a rural drop-off context appears feasi-
ble across a wide range of geographic and de-
mographic conditions, as well as a wide range
of system characteristics, without prohibitive
administrative problems or costs.
Most residents appear willing to support
(or at least accept) a volume-based user fee
system if they are well informed of the need
for and logic of the system in advance, and
are given reasonable options for gaining some
measure of control over their total bill. Hy-
brid financing strategies allow per-bag fees
to be kept at modest levels. Support comes
more easily if VBUFs are initiated at the time
of a significant enhancement of the collec-
tion system.
VBUFs within rural drop-off collection
systems appear capable of motivating rela-
tively high levels of participation in the sep-
aration of recyclables, thus contributing to
relatively high per capita generation rates for
typical recyclables and countywide diversion
or recovery rates
At least minor problems with increased il-
legal dumping and burning can be expected,
but a show of willingness to enforce ordi-
nances against such practices can lead to fair-
ly quick subsidence. RR
i .
Advertisement
Circle 203 on RR service card
Re source Recycling January 1995
171
-------
Annotated Bibliography
lanners considering pay-as-you-throw may want to conduct
additional research to help them learn more about how these
programs work. This section includes an annotated bibliogra-
phy and an additional list of references to help facilitate your
research. Compiled in the following bibliography are over 50 recent
articles that appeared in a variety of publications, from solid waste
trade magazines to reports from universities and private institutions.
The entries in this bibliography were selected to help provide a com-
prehensive review of the economic, environmental, and legislative
issues surrounding pay-as-you-throw. A number of articles analyze
the impact of pay-as-you-throw on waste reduction amounts and
recycling rates. Other studies examine the financial benefits of pay-
as-you-throw as a solid waste management strategy for municipali-
ties. A few articles identify successful public outreach and education
mechanisms used by particular communities when instituting their
pay-as-you-throw programs. In addition, if you find additional
resources on pay-as-you-throw in the course of your research, you
can three-hole punch a sheet of paper with those references and
add it to this section.
This bibliography was developed by Marie Lynn Miranda of Duke
University as part of a research project on the impact of pay-as-you-
throw programs.
173
-------
Pay-As- You-Throw Annotated
Bibliography
Adamec, Barbara. "Volume-Based Collection Fees: A Success Story." Resource Recy-
cling. March, 1991.
A review of the unit pricing program in Lisle, Illinois. The community's variable rate sys-
tem has successfully increased recycling participation and reduced waste generation with-
out significant problems. The author based her conclusions on a survey of 100 residents.
She divided the respondents into'four socio-economic groups and found that recycling
participation was high across all groups, but that average set-out levels seemed to rough-
ly increase with income. She also found that the average decrease in garbage from 1989
to 1990 was 53 percent, with 63 percent in the highest month (August) and 38 percent in
the lowest (October). The average loss in total volume was 31 percent, with 46 percent in
the highest month (August) and 8 percent in the lowest (October).
Albrecht, Oscar W. "An Evaluation of User Charges ,for Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal." Resource, Recovery and Conservation. Vol. 2.1976/1977.
An early introduction to the concept of user fees for waste collection services. Variable
rates, like effluent charges for air and water pollutants, provide a pricing incentive to
reduce the amount of garbage generated. A University of California study estimated the
price elasticity of demand for solid waste service at 0,44, and an analysis by the City of
Chicago found that waste production had a per capita income elasticity of 0.53. The key
question with unit pricing is: will it result in lower system costs and higher net benefits
than other pricing systems. Other questions include: does unit pricing lead to other dis-
posal activities, including burning and Uttering; and, does unit pricing affect household
choices of service levels?
Alderden, Jim. "Volume-Based Rates, Dream or Nightmare?" Recycling Today.
November, 1990.
Unit pricing has been shown to encourage recycling and reduce the amount of municipal
waste collected. Communities utilizing variable rates have reported an average reduction
in garbage of 28 percent, with a range of 25 percent to 50 percent. It is also fairer to
those that produce less waste. The downside of unit pricing is that it can encourage illegal
dumping, especially at the beginning of the program, and lead to insufficient revenue for
waste haulers. McHenry County, Illinois, had problems with residential garbage being
thrown into commercial dumpsters. Blazier Disposal'in Harvard, Illinois, set its rates based
175
-------
on on estimated pickup of 1.6 bags per household and it only got 1.2 bags, leaving it short
of revenue. Issues to consider include the demographic mix of the community, whether it
is urban or rural, the level of community environmental awareness, the recydables that
will be collected, whether adequate revenue will be generated, and whether the program
will be voluntary or mandatory.
Andresen, Katya. "Communities Weigh Merits of Variable Rates: Residents' Fees for
Garbage Disposals." World Wastes. November, 1992.
A review of volume-based programs, experiments with weight-based fees, and technologi-
cal innovations in waste collection. The author spoke with several solid waste profession-
als and academics who have studied variable rates, including Lisa Skumatz and Glen
Morris. She summarized different system options, and reported on the success of unit
pricing in Santa Maria, California, Seattle, Washington, Perkasie, Pennsylvania, and ///on,
New York. Weight-based systems have been tested in Seattle, Washington, Farmington,
Minnesota, and Durham, North Carolina. Charging by weight, while more difficult to
implement, would provide a more accurate pricing signal to residents than vo/ume-bosed
fees. Illegal disposal is a significant concern with unit pricing, but the problem can be
headed off by providing free drop-off days, locking commercial dumpsters, and strictly
enforcing anti-dumping ordinances. Technological developments, like bar coding cans,
make waste collection easier and cheaper. Concerns about accuracy can be addressed
by high standards and hauler education.
Bender, Rodd; Briggs, Wyman; De Witt, Diane. Toward Statewide Unit Pricing in
Massachusetts; Influencing the Policy Cycle. Master's Degree Project. John F.
Kennedy School of Government. January, 1994.
The /Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs advocates unit pricing for
municipal solid waste collection, but the decision to implement variable rates is up to
localities. This study is an effort to judge community perceptions of unit pricing. The
authors found that financial concerns (such as the cost of waste disposal or the solvency
of the collection service), a desire to encourage recycling and reduce waste, and grass-
roots lobbying efforts are all factors that can put unit pricing on a community's agenda.
The study showed that the three biggest problems with unit pricing are: citizen percep-
tions that trash service should be free, failure to recognize the benefits of unit pricing,
and fears about negative side effects, such as illegal dumping and customer resistance.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and MassRecycle support
unit pricing at the community level by, among other things, functioning as information
clearinghouses and addressing community concerns in statewide seminars.
176
-------
Blume, Daniel. Under What Conditions Should Cities Adopt Volume-Based Pricing for
Residential Solid Waste Collection? Master's Memo, Institute of Policy Sciences
and Public Affairs, Duke University. May, 1991.
A study of 14 communities with unit pricing programs. The study showed that these sys-
tems reduced the amount of garbage produced in those cities and increased recycling
activity with few significant problems. The paper also explored different features of unit
pricing and their effectiveness, and assessed factors that would determine whether unit
pricing was appropriate for a given community.
Browning, Marilyn; Becker, Jeanne. Volume-Based Garbage Collection Fees: An Analy-
sis of Ten Illinois Programs. A Report Prepared by Becker Associates, Inc. Novem-
ber, 1990.
A summary of the structure and components of 10 unit pricing programs in Illinois. A sur-
vey of solid waste officials in each of the 10 communities found that the use of commer-
cial dumpsters for residential waste was, on average,,the most significant problem,
receiving an average score of 2.9 on a scale of 1 to 5. The next most significant problem
was insufficient revenue, followed by roadside dumping, uneven cash flow, and excessive
garbage compaction. These problems can be addressed through better citizen education,
locks on commercial dumpsters, the use of a minimum fee to cover fixed expenses,
tougher enforcement ofanti-littering provisions, and strict limits on the weight of a pre-
scription container or bag.
Canterbury, Janice. Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing of Munici-
pal Solid Waste. EPA Office of Solid Waste. EPA530-R-94-004. April, 1994.
In December 1992, the EPA's Unit Pricing Roundtable met to discuss variable rates for
waste collection. The result of that meeting is th/s guide for communities considering unit
pricing. Before adopting variable:rates, a community needs to consider its waste manage-
ment needs and whether the potential benefits of unit pricing, reduced waste, increased
recycling, pricing equity, and greater environmental awareness will meet those needs. A
community also must be aware of potential problems with unit pricing, including illegal
dumping, higher costs, service to multi-unit housing complexes, and citizen resistance.
When designing a unit pricing system, a community must decide among container
options, set a pricing structure, create a billing system, and design program options.
Implementation of unit pricing must be accompanied by public educational and out-
reach, and program monitoring. The report contains a number of brief case studies and
information about specific programs, and a roundtable discussion with a number of unit
pricing experts.
177
-------
Cargo, Douglas R. Solid Wastes: Factors Influencing Generation Rates. Research
Paper No. 174. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Department of Geography.
The author analyzed the 7968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste Practices to
determine actual amounts of waste generation. The survey assessed household and com-
mercial waste generation. Cargo found that the actual amounts of waste generation were
larger than EPA estimates. After employing regression analysis to determine the effects
of socio-economic variables on waste generation, he found that "greater solid waste gen-
eration rates occur in areas with large populations, with high densities, and occupied by
lower-income groups." While generation rates increase with city density and city popula-
tion size, they decrease with income.
Chua, Dale H.H.; Laplante, Benoit. Litter and Waste Management: Disposal Taxes,
User Charges, and Penalties. April, 1991.
The authors expand upon Ian Dobbs' 1991 report, which recommended a combination
of disposal fees on commercial products that would incorporate the potential cost of lit-
tering and of refunds for proper disposal of product waste. This report advocates the
addition of penalties for littering to further encourage the proper disposal of waste. It is a
completely theoretical piece that bases its findings on an economic model.
Cuthbert, Richard. "Variable Disposal Fee Impact." Biocycle. May, 1994.
Six cose studies of unit pricing programs in Portland, Oregon, Seattle and Tacoma, Wash-
ington, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and Bothel and Minneapolis, Minnesota. The article
described the structure of each program. The case studies were the result of a random
80-c/ty survey conducted by the author. Forty of the survey cities were large (100,000+)
and 40 had populations between 50,000 and 100,000. Sixty-eight percent had city-run
waste service, and 32 percent contracted out to a private hauler. Thirty-five percent
financed their service from property taxes. The other 65 percent used fees, and 13 of
those, or 16 percent of the survey group, had variable rates. The general conclusions of
the case studies were that unit pricing encourages waste reduction, that residents were
accepting of the variable rate systems, and that variable rates supported other waste
reduction activities, such as recycling.
Dinan, Terry. "Solid Waste: Incentives That Could Lighten the Load." EPA Journal.
May/June, 1992.
Faced with increasing per capita waste generation and growing waste disposal costs, the
United States should consider pricing systems that provide an incentive to reduce
garbage. Unit pricing and disposal taxes ore two such systems. Unit pricing enables
178
-------
households to save money by limiting the amount of garbage they put out for collection.
A study of three variable rate programs in Perkasie, Pennsylvania, ///on, New York, and
Seott/e, Washington found that t/ie amount of waste landfilled or incinerated could signif-
icantly decrease. The author provided no specific figures.
Dobbs, Ian M. "Litter and Waste Management: Disposal Taxes Versus User Charges."
Canadian Journal of Economics. February, 1991.
An examination of user charges and disposal taxes as waste management techniques.
The author recommends a strategy that employs a combination of each. A user fee
would recover the marginal cost of waste disposal, while a disposal tax with a refund for
proper disposal would significantly reduce the potential for illegal dumping. The article is
completely theoretical and bases its conclusions on an economic model.
Efaw, Fritz; Lanen, William. Impact of User Charges on Management of Household
Solid Waste. Report prepared by Mathtech, Inc. August, 1979.
The authors conducted case studies of five communities (Burbank and Sacramento, Cali-
fornia, Provo, Utah, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Tacoma, Washington) to determine
the effect of particular pricing systems for solid waste collection on waste generation.
The report contains in-depth descriptions of each community's systems, three of which,
those in Sacramento, Grand Rapids, and Tacoma, have some variable rate component.
The authors concluded that while choices between types and levels of sanitation service
may be sensitive to price, the quantity of waste generated at the household level may not
be sensitive to price. In Tacoma, residents had a high price elasticity of demand with
respect to the number of cans or the choice of backdoor pickup, but because of the
availability of waste drop-off centers, the price elasticity of garbage production was not
significant/y different than zero. The same was true in Grand Rapids and Sacramento.
The report also found that as household income increases, so does the quantity of
garbage produced.
Emmer, Terri; Neidhart, Jim. An Analysis of the Effects of Volume-Based Waste Dis-
posal Fees on Consumer Behavior. Department of Resource Economics, Universi-
ty of New Hampshire.
The authors of this report surveyed residents of Dover, New Hampshire, to determine
the effect of Dover's variable rate system on consumer behavior. The report concluded
that unit pricing led to higher recycling participation rates and lower waste generation in
Dover. The survey also found that while there was initially a wide range of consumer atti-
tudes about recycling, 6 months into the program there was a convergence of attitudes
and a more uniform level of commitment to the program's goals.
179
-------
Enos, Gary. "Residents Clean Up With Waste-Cutting Incentive." City and State. Feb-
ruary 25, 1991.
A study of three areas (Bellevue, Washington, Lansing, Michigan, and the state of Rhode
Island) that have either implemented or are considering implementing a variable rate sys-
tem. Bellevue and Lansing reported success with their systems. In Bellevue, more resi-
dents switched to a smaller can, and in Lansing, the amount of waste sent to the city
landfill fell by nearly 20 percent. The only difficulties with the system in either city
involved setting the rate structure and concern that if too many customers reduced their
waste too much, the waste haulers would not receive enough revenue to operate.
Fletcher, Jeff. "Why Unit Pricing Makes Sense for Solid Waste: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Project." Nation's Cities Weekly. October 19, 1992.
This article concerned EPA's plan to run a unit pricing demonstration project. At that
time, the Agency was looking for communities interested in participating. The author con-
tends that variable rates send a more accurate pricing signal to waste generators than
traditional flat rate systems and encourage garbage reduction. They are also fairer than
flat rate systems, because residents that produce less garbage pay lower collection costs.
Folz, David H. "Recycling Program Design, Management, and Participation: A National
Survey of Municipal Experience." Public Administration Review. May/June, 1991.
The author conducted a survey of 264 recycling coordinators to determine what factors
influence citizen participation in recycling programs. The study identified eleven specific
operational policies, of which variable rates for garbage collection was not one. The sur-
vey showed that allowing public input during the planning and design process, mandating
recycling participation, providing curbside service and free bins, and utilizing public edu-
cation programs all contributed to higher participation rates. Same-day recycling and
garbage pickup, and permitting commingling did not seem to significantly impact partici-
pation rates.
Fullerton, Don; Kinnaman, Thomas. Garbage, Recycling, and Illicit Burning or Dumping.
National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper # 4374. May, 1993.
Analysis of an economic model of household waste disposal behavior shows that given
three disposal options, collection, recycling, and illicit disposal, a unit fee would lead to
some burning or dumping. However, a disposal tax on products, coupled with rebates for
proper waste disposal, would encourage legal disposal of garbage. The study is purely
theoretical and involves no empirical data.
180
-------
Fullerton, Don; Kinnaman, Thomas. Household Demand for Garbage and Recycling
Collection with the Start of a Price per Bag. National Bureau of Economic
Research Working Paper # 4670. March, 1994.
A survey of a random sample of 75 Charlottesville, Virginia, households measured house-
hold garbage generation before and after the city implemented a unit pricing system.
The survey found that white recycling increased 15 percent and the volume of garbage
was reduced by an average of 37 percent, the weight of garbage was only reduced 14
percent. The authors concluded that residential trash compaction accounted for the dif-
ference between the volume reduction and the weight reduction. The survey also showed
that approximately 28 percent of the total reduction was accounted for by illegal dispos-
al. The authors based this figure on respondents that .indicated they used "other
means," as opposed to recycling, composting, and demanding less packaging at stores,
to reduce their waste.
Goldberg, Dan. "The Magic of Volume Reduction." Waste Age. February, 1990.
Unit pricing has led to reduced levels of garbage and increased recycling participation in
i
several communities that have adopted the pricing system. In St. Paul, Minnesota, house-
hold participation in the recycling program increased on average from 15 percent to 32
percent. In Olympic, Washington, there was a 50 percent increase in the number of resi-
dents utilizing a smaller can. Illegal dumping is a potential concern with a unit pricing sys-
tem, but it has not been a problem in Perkasie, Pennsylvania, or Seattle, Washington.
Generally, problems with the system appear when it is first implemented, and they can
be quickly corrected. Finally, 93 percent of Perkasie residents who were asked their opin-
ion of unit pricing approved of the system. It has met with similar citizen satisfaction in
other communities.
Harder, Greg; Knox, Linda. "Implementing Variable Trash Collection Rates." Biocycle.
April, 1992.
Variable rate systems in 36 Pennsylvania communities have shown success at reducing
garbage generation and encouraging recycling. Citizen education at the outset of a unit
pricing program is a critical element of the system. Communities should a/so be aware of
the potential for backyard burning or illegal dumping,* and take proactive steps to prevent
such behavior. Other problems common to the 36 municipalities in this report were: bags
that tear or are attacked by animals, tags that fall off, illegal grass dumping, service to
apartments, and the use of counterfeit bags. The authors present case stud»'es of Carlisle,
Perkasie, and Forest City. They also describe the failure of unit pricing in Nanticoke,
which lost 68 percent of its municipal customers when it switched to variable rates. The
failure seemed largely due to the lack of a curbside recycling program in the town.
181
-------
Hayes, Jeffrey. "Let the Market Replace the Madness: How to Control Rising Solid
Waste." Public Works. December, 1992.
The author advocates variable rate pricing as a tool to reduce waste. Variable rates not
only encourage recycling, but they also induce garbage reduction, a preferable waste
management strategy. Under unit pricing, Somersworth and Dover, New Hampshire,
have reduced their residential waste by 50 percent. The structure of variable rate sys-
tems vary with different receptacles and different pricing schemes.
Hong, Seonghoon. An Economic Analysis of Household Recycling of Solid Wastes:
The Case of Portland, Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Agriculture and
Resource Economics. Ohio State University. November 21, 1991.
The outhor designed a model of household waste generation behavior and applied it to
Portland, Oregon, to see how a marginal pricing system, as well as other socio-economic
/actors, affect recycling behavior and the demand for garbage collection services. The
analysis showed that increasing the price of collection increased household recycling par-
ticipation, but did not significantly reduce demand for garbage collection services. Educa-
tion level and value of time were also significant factors influencing households' degree of
recycling participation. Income was a determinant of total waste generation, but demand
for collection services was inelastic with respect to income.
Jenkins, Robin. The Economics of Solid Waste Reduction. Edward Elgar Publishing,
Ltd., 1993.
This book grew out of Jenkins' dissertation on the same subject. The author presents a
model for residential waste generation that shows that user fees can have a significant
impact on the level of waste generation, and that society's welfare gain from switching to
unit pricing is substantial. The book also looks at commercial generation of solid waste
and concludes that increasing already existing unit fees can have a significant impact on
waste generation levels. The book contains a literature review, models of household and
firm waste generation behavior, demand equations for residential and commercial waste
collection services, descriptions of the elements of the model, and the results of manipu-
lating the model. The author studied five unit pricing communities (San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, Estherville, and Highbridge, New Jersey, and Seattle and Spokane, Washington)
and four flat fee communities (Hillsborough County and St. Petersburg, Florida, Howard
County, Maryland, and Bernalillo County, New Mexico).
182
-------
Kemper, Peter; Quigley, John M. The Economics of Refuse Collection. Ballinger Pub-
lishing Company, Cambridge, MA. 1976.
The authors provide a general overview of the economic issues in waste collection. Chapter
five surveys the issues involved in a system employing user charges. They compare user
charges to two other financing mechanisms: general revenues and service fees. The chapter
addresses efficiency in theory, equity, federal income tax deducibility, revenue from tax-
exempt institutions, and efficiency in practice. The authors note that "true user charges are
rare" and do not provide much empirical evidence of the issues they discussed.
Lambert, Abigail F. Rate Proposal for a Weight-Based Pricing System for Residential
Waste Collection in Durham, North Carolina. Master's Project, School of the
Environment, Duke University. 1991.
The author contends that the city of Durham, North Carolina, which currently funds resi-
dential garbage collection through general property tax revenues, ought to consider
implementing weight-based rates to finance its collection service. Weight-based rates
would send a more accurate pricing signal to city residents and might reduce waste and
encourage recycling. Five issues that the city would need to be aware of before imple-
menting a variable rate system are the need for political support and aggressive public
education, the impact of variable fees on low-income residents, potential problems with
illegal dumping, and necessary departmental changes. Lambert conducted an economic
analysis of Durham's waste management system, considering collection costs, disposal
costs, the added costs of a weight-based system, and estimated environmental and social
costs. Based on this analysis, Lambert presented five options for a weight-based rate
structure. She recommended a system that uses variable fees to cover landfill disposal
costs, including environmental and social costs, and continues to finance the other costs
of waste collection through property taxes. Such a system would give some price incen-
tive to residents, but would still provide a stable revenue stream for the co/lection system.
The author a/so recommended reduced rates for lower-income residents.
Lewis, Thomas A. "Waste Not, Want Not." National Wildlife. June/July, 1993.
As landfills across the country approach capacity, disposal costs rise, and per capita
waste generation continues to increase, source reduction has become a top priority for
solid waste managers. Recycling is gaining popularity, both among solid waste officials
and private citizens. Unit pricing provides an inducement to recycle, and to reduce the
amount of waste put out for co/tection. Seattle, Washington, and Perkasie, Pennsylvania,
have both had successful variable rate systems.
183
-------
Menell, Peter S. "Beyond the Throwaway Society: An Incentive Approach to Regulat-
ing Municipal Solid Waste." Ecology Law Quarterly. Vol. 17, 655.1990.
Traditional pricing systems for garbage collection do not provide incentives for reducing
waste or manufacturing products that produce less waste. The authors use an economic
framework to analyze a variety of policy options for correcting this market distortion. The
article provides an overview of the waste stream and available technologies for collecting
and regulating waste, describes traditional flat rate or tax financed systems for funding
waste disposal, and examines alternative methods, including curbside charges, retail dis-
posal charges, and two-tier charges. According to the economic model, variable rate pric-
ing and/or retail charges based on the disposal cost of different products are the best
waste management strategies. They provide an accurate pricing signal to households and
product suppliers. Local governments are best suited for designing the ideal solid waste
regulatory system for their specific localities. The federal government can provide infor-
mation and correct macroeconomic distortions, and the states can coordinate various
local policies. The article is primarily theoretical, although it does briefly describe unit
pricing systems in Seattle, Washington, and Perkasie, Pennsylvania.
Miedema, Allen K. "Fundamental Economic Comparisons of Solid Waste Policy
Options." Resources and Energy. Vol. 5. 1983.
The author developed a macroeconomic model to analyze the effects of several waste
management policy mechanisms. Miedema compared user fees, recycling subsidies, dis-
posal charges, and litter taxes to the status quo (i.e., none of these policy mechanisms
were in effect). He analyzed the real income effects, net waste effects, waste generation
and resource recovery effects, and recycling rate effects for these four policy tools given
three different policy scenarios (the scenarios varied according to hypothesized changes
in the diseconomies of scale for recycled materials suppliers and virgin materials suppli-
ers). He found that user fees and litter taxes always had the same effects. The disposal
charge always had a larger real income effect and the smallest net waste collected and
disposed. In two out of the three simulations, the disposal charge had the highest recy-
cling rate, while the recycling subsidy had the highest recycling rate in the simulation
characterized by greater diseconomies of scale for virgin materials suppliers.
Miller, Chaz. "Pay as You Throw: Less Weight? More Stuffing!" Waste Age. Septem-
ber, 1993.
Unit pricing has been touted as a way for municipalities to encourage higher recycling par-
ticipation and reduce household waste generation. However, the system can also encour-
age overstuffing of garbage receptacles, illegal burning and dumping, and contamination
184
-------
of recycling receptacles with nonrecyc/oWe material. Can-based systems hove complicated
billing requirements. On the other hand, bogs can tear and tags can be separated from
set-outs. Furthermore, variable rates may be unfair to lower-income residents, and political
support for unit pricing is lacking in many areas. The author contends that there is no con-
clusive evidence that variable fees reduce residential waste generation. He bases most of
his conclusions on anecdotal evidence and interviews with a few solid waste professionals.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. State Solid Waste Policy Report: A Focus on
Greater Minnesota.
A review of Minnesota's waste management system. The report examines historical and
contemporary statewide programs, county initiatives, industrial and residential waste gen-
eration trends, waste collection and transportation systems, and collection system costs.
The report also highlights public education efforts, and waste reduction, recycling, com-
posting, waste-to-energy, and land disposal programs. Unit pricing is reviewed briefly, and
St. Louis Park, a unit pricing town, is mentioned in the report.
Miranda, Marie Lynn; Everett, Jess W.; Blume, Daniel; Roy, Barbeau A., Jr. "Market-
Based Incentives and Residential Municipal Solid Waste." Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management. Vol. 13, No. 4. 1994.
The authors gathered waste generation data from 21 unit pricing communities. The data
showed municipal waste generation before and after the implementation of variable
rates. The overage reduction in tonnage of waste landftiled was 40 percent, w/th a high
of 74 percent and a low of 17 percent. Recycling increased, on average, by 126 percent,
with a high of 456 percent and a low of 3 percent. The average reduction in overall waste
generation was 40 percent, with an average recycling rate of 19 percent. Even account-
ing for illegal disposal and measurement error, the authors concluded that some of the
waste reduction must have resulted from source reduction behavior. There were few
problems among the 21 municipalities with illegal dumping. Burning was a problem in
three of the cities, but it seemed to only account for about 20 percent of the total waste
reduction. Burning stopped in Perkasie, Pennsylvania, when the city adopted an antiburn-
ing ordinance.
Moriarty, Patrick. "Financing Waste Collection for Maximum Diversion." Biocycle. Jan-
uary, 1994.
Illinois has set a statewide waste diversion mandate of 25 percent by 1996. The author sur-
veys 23 municipalities in the Chicago area to determine how localities are responding to
the mandate. Seven of the 23 communities have changed their rate structures since 1988,
IBS
-------
six of them adopting some form of variable collection fees. The average fee among the flat
rate communities was $11.60, while the average per-bag fee in Downers Grove, Hoffman
Estates, and LaCrange Park was $1.40. Thus, members of a household that put out less
than two bags of garbage per week under the variable fee systems would spend less for
waste collection than they would have under a flat rate system. The unit pricing communi-
ties also had higher recycling participation rates than the flat fee communities, and higher
percentages of total waste recycled. The average tonnage recycled for flat fee communi-
ties was 18 percent, while for Hoffman Estates it was 31 percent and for Downers Grove it
was 28 percent. The author also provided a case study of Hoffman Estates that described
that community's program.
Morns. Glenn E.; Holthausen, Duncan M., Jr. "The Economics of Household Solid
Waste Generation and Disposal." Journal of Environmental Economics and Man-
agement. Vol. 26.1994.
The authors designed a model of household waste disposal behavior, taking into account
various disposal options (including garbage pickup, recycling, and source reduction) and
fee levels, both flat and variable. The simulation showed that households' elasticity of
demand with respect to price for solid waste collection services varied significantly with
the price of that service. Supported by actual waste and demographic data from
Perkasie, Pennsylvania, the model showed that a typical household's utility was higher
with variable rates than with a fixed rate system. Furthermore, as the user charge
increased, households responded with greater waste minimization behavior and less recy-
cling. Emphasizing one type of disposal option, recycling, for example, could dampen
households' incentive to pursue another type, such as source reduction.
"New Jersey Town Weighs in on Trash by the Pound: Mendham, New Jersey." World
Wastes. February, 1993.
This article presents an interview with the recycling coordinator of Mendham Township,
New Jersey. Mendham switched to variable rates after its successful recycling program
reduced residents' need for garbage collection services. The town went from two collec-
tions to one each week and its households each saved an average of $200 annually. Recy-
cling increased 83 percent, garbage was reduced 55 percent, and the town has saved
money. The town has not experienced dumping or other significant problems. According
to the coordinator, before adopting unit pricing, a municipality should consider whether a
majority of residents will benefit financially from the system. The community might also
want to consider having a base charge to cover fixed collection costs, and basing the vari-
able rates on the city's disposal costs.
186
-------
Morris, James L. "Recycling and Computerized Garbage Tracking Cut City's Costs."
Public Works. February, 1994.
Athens, Ohio, facing a state-mandated 25 percent waste reduction goal, adopted a multi-
tiered rate system for garbage collection to induce greater participation in the town's recy-
cling program. Since its inception in 1982, the curbside recycling program has already
reduced waste by as much as 50 percent. Athens also has a computerized billing system
that keeps track of the amount of garbage each resident puts out for collection each week.
The system is easy to use and has eliminated inaccuracies resulting from human error.
Owen, Melissa. "Integrated Waste Minimization (With Composting)." Biocycle.
April, 1994.
Piano, Texas, has an aggressive yard waste diversion program. The program includes a
"Don't Bag It" Lawn Care Plan, which reduced yard trimmings collection by 50 percent
from 1991 to 1993, a backyard composting program, and biodegradable collection bags
(20 for $5). Collected yard waste goes to a centralized composting facility. Piano's waste
management system also includes a higher garbage collection fee for household waste in
excess of the city-provided 95 Ib container.
"Pay-As-You-Throw Shows Rapid Growth." Biocycle. August, 1993.
A recent Reason Foundation study shows that over 1,000 communities have adopted
some form of variable rate pricing for garbage collection, and the number is rapidly
increasing. Moreover, the towns report overage reductions of 25 percent to 45 percent in
the amount of waste sent to disposal facilities.
Project 88 - Round II. Incentives for Action: Designing Market-Based Environmental
Strategies. A Policy Symposium Sponsored by Senator Timothy Wirth and Sena-
tor John Heinz. May, 1991.
The symposium explored market-based soiutions to environmenta/ problems. Unit pricing
was examined as a way to reduce waste generation by providing a better pricing signal to
residents than traditional flat rate systems. While variable rates are implemented at the
local level, the federal government can act as an information clearinghouse and can facili-
tate local efforts to implement unit pricing. Seattle, Washington, and Perkasie, Pennsylva-
nia, have both experienced success with unit pricing, and problems like illegal dumping
and the disparate impact of variable fees can be alleviated with proactive efforts on the
part of the municipality. Perkasie reduced billing costs by using bags instead of varying
prescription can sizes.
187
-------
Reschovcky, James D.; Stone, Sarah E. "Market Incentives to Encourage Household
Waste Recycling: Paying for What You Throw Away." Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management. Vol. 13, No. 1. Winter, 1994.
Unit pricing, which sends a more accurate pricing signal to households than traditional
flat collection fees, has reduced waste and encouraged recycling in cities like Seattle,
Washington, and High Bridge, New Jersey. There are, however, practical concerns with
unit pricing: rates are difficult to set, revenues are hard to predict, illegal dumping could
occur, administrative costs may be high, variables fees could have a regressive impact on
low-income residents, common receptacles in multi-unit housing complexes preclude
application of variable rates, and politicians may be unwilling to risk unpopularity. The
authors studied unit pricing in Tompkins County, New York. They surveyed 3,040 random
households and performed a statistical analysis of the survey results. They found that
curbside service had the greatest impact on recycling participation. While variable rates
alone seemed to have only a minor impact, the combination of unit fees, curbside ser-
vice, and mandatory recycling had the largest impact on participation. The survey was
unclear on the potentially regressive impact of variable fees, and it found no evidence
that the pricing system encouraged illegal dumping, although 51 percent of the residents
surveyed said littering had increased, and 20 percent said they burned their trash. Two-
thirds of the respondents said they favored unit pricing.
Richard, Bill. "Recycling in Seattle Sets National Standard but Is Hitting Snags." Wall
Street Journal. August 3,1993.
The author contends that Seattle will have trouble reaching its 60 percent recycling goal.
According to the article, most avenues for increasing the rate of recycling have been
exhausted, and it will require draconian measures to make 60 percent. The article also
questioned the savings the city was receiving from recycling, and said there was a glut in
the market for recyclables. Finally, the author provided anecdotal evidence that residents
were stomping on their garbage, rather than actually reducing it or recycling more.
Richardson, Robert A.; Havlicek, Jr., Joseph. "Economic Analysis of the Composition
of Household Solid Wastes." Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage-
ment. Vol. 5. 1978.
The authors analyze the social and economic factors that affect the quantity and compo-
sition of the household solid waste stream. The weekly per capita and per household
quantities of eleven household waste components were analyzed: dear glass, green glass,
brown glass, aluminum, other metals, newsprint, other paper, textiles, plastics, grass,
and garbage/other. Waste generation is positively correlated with income, age, and
188
-------
household size, and negatively correlated with ethnic background (percentage of black
households in a census track). Results indicate that if glass, plastics, textiles, paper, and
metals were recovered through recycling and incineration for energy production, around
53 percent of the summer household waste stream could be diverted from landfills. The
economic feasibility of such resource recovery was not discussed.
Savas, E.S.; Baumol, Daniel; Wells, William. "Financing Solid Waste Collection." The
Organization and Efficiency of Solid Waste Collection. Lexington Books. 1977.
This is a chapter in Savas' book. The authors examined the effect of different methods of
financing solid waste collection on the amount of residential waste generated and the
cost of the collection service. They relied on a survey of private citizens living in communi-
ties with a variety of collection systems. According to the survey, variable rates had little
effect on either the amount of waste generated or the level of service requested. They
also found that unit fees, whether flat or variable, increased billing costs for municipali-
ties. Finally, they found that because local taxes are deductible from federal income tax
returns, there was an incentive for communities to raise taxes to pay for garbage collec-
tion rather than institute user fees. These findings were based on comparisons of waste
generation figures, service levels, and collection costs across tax financed, flat fee, and
variable fee collection systems.
Scarlett, Lynn. Mandates or Incentives? Comparing Packaging Regulations with User
Fees for Trash Collection. Reason Foundation. Publication No. 158. May, 1993.
U.S. and Massachusetts solid waste management policy is beginning to address the
nation's growing garbage crisis by stressing source reduction and recycling. Massachu-
setts is considering a state-level initiative that would set recycled content requirements for
consumer products and require reusable, reduced, or recycled packaging. An alternative
market-based solution is unit pricing for residential waste collection. Unit pricing would
create an incentive among consumers to source reduce, and that would cause producers
to respond with reduced or recyclable packaging and products. The author reviews prob-
lems with recycling markets and reports on the success of unit pricing in communities like
Perkasie, Pennsylvania, and Seattle, Washington. She identifies illegal disposal, garbage
compaction, citizen resistance, and the impact of variable fees on low-income residents
as outstanding issues. The author conducts a cost-benefit comparison of packaging man-
dates and user fees for trash collection. She compares the reduced waste benefits of
each system and their implementation costs. The author concludes that unit pricing can
have a greater impact on the waste stream than packaging mandates, and it would be
$210 to $215 cheaper per household each year.
189
-------
"Seattle Engineers Say: Variable Can Rate Encourages Recycling." Waste Age. Novem-
ber, 1985.
Since the start of unit pricing in Seattle in 1980, recycling tonnage has increased 60 per-
cent. Also, the city's per capita waste generation rate climbed more slowly than other
cities' rates. Moreover, 80 percent of the city's residents favor the system, and it had a
91.5 percent compliance rate.
"Seattle Stomp." Garbage. Spring, 1994.
A short description of the "Seott/e stomp" phenomenon. Residents in Seottle and other
unit pricing communities compact their trash to avoid higher collection fees. The author
makes no effort to quantify the problem. Strategies to combat the "stomp" include
weight-based fees and instructing haulers to not collect receptacles that are overloaded.
Shanoff, Barry. "Communities Switch to By-the-Bag Billing System." World Wastes.
October, 1992.
A report on the successes of unit pricing in several communities with variable rate sys-
tems. Utica, New York, Chester Township, New Jersey, Stonington, Connecticut, and
Seott/e, Washington, have a/1 adopted unit pricing. Each community's system has differ-
ent features and different fee schedules. Proponents of variable rates argue that it is fair-
er than flat fees: those that produce less trash should be able to pay less. In some unit
pricing communities, residents that reduce their waste pay significantly lower garbage
collection fees than they did under a flat rate system. Unit pricing can also encourage
illegal dumping, but localities have responded by locking commercial dumpsters.
Sherman, Steven. "Local Government Approaches to Source Reduction." Resource
Recycling. September, 1991.
In recent years, solid waste management policy has emphasized source reduction as a
waste management strategy. Decreased solid waste generation can be accomplished by:
reduced product weight or volume, reduced packaging, increased product durability,
alterations in consumer purchasing patterns, greater efficiency in manufacturing process-
es, composting and other organic waste reduction techniques, and changes in the waste
stream making it less hazardous. Strategies available to local governments to encourage
waste reduction include public education, economic incentives, legislative mandates, on-
s/te composting, and hazardous waste reduction. One of the economic incentives the
author mentions is unit pricing. Unit pricing can be implemented by using metered bags
or tags, or subscription containers. It provides a clear pricing signal to households that
can lead to source reduction and increased recycling participation. It also influences con-
sumer behavior, which will cause producers to respond with reduced product packaging.
190
-------
Skumatz, Lisa A. Variable Rates for Municipal Solid Waste: Implementation Experience.
Economics, and Legislation. Reason Foundation. Publication No. 160. June, 1993.
Unit pricing programs have a variety of different features. They can use bags, tags, or pre-
scription cans, they may be city-run or contracted out to a private hauler, they are often
accompanied by various complementary programs, including curbside recycling and back-
yard composting, and they sometimes have special features for servicing multi-unit housing
or helping low-income residents. Successfully implementing unit pricing requires political
support, the involvement of all concerned parties, citizen education, and program flexibili-
ty. Variable rates in cities like Seattle, Washington, and Perkasie, Pennsylvania, have
reduced landfilled waste and increased recycling participation. Concerns about the pro-
gram include illegal dumping, backyard burning, and unstable hauler revenues. Three
states, Washington, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, have laws requiring variable fees for waste
collection. Indiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Vermont, Illinois, and Montana all
encourage local authorities to use unit pricing. The author lays out four steps for evaluat-
ing the performance of a unit pricing program: 1) determine the level of participation, 2)
measure any changes in residential waste disposal patterns, 3) assess the linkage between
variable rates and the observed changes in disposal behavior, and 4) identify the net bene-
fit and cost effectiveness of the program.
Skumatz, Lisa; Van Dusen, Hans; Carton, Jennie. "Garbage by the Pound: Ready to
Roll with Weight Based Fees." Biocycle. November, 1994.
Severol communities across the country have run weight-based pricing pilot programs.
They include Seattle, Washington, Columbia, South Carolina, Durham, North Carolina,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Farmington and Minneapolis, Minnesota. Residents partici-
pating in Seattle's program reduced their waste, by weight, an extra 15 percent. Collec-
tion times did not increase in Columbia during its pilot study. The scales used in
Durham's test did not meet some accuracy standards, but those deficiencies have since
been corrected by the manufacturer. Milwaukee was scheduled to run a test in the fall of
1994, and Farmington and Minneapolis, though their pilot studies went well, have put
plans to fully implement weight-based rates on hold. Though weight-based systems incur
high initial costs, communities can achieve long-term savings from reduced waste.
Skumatz, Lisa A.; Zach, Philip A. "Community Adoption of Variable Rates:
An Update." Resource Recycling. June, 1993.
Spread across 26 states, variable rate systems ore often adopted in response to increasing
tipping fees, a desire to increase recycling efforts, and statewide or regional diversion
requirements. Some of the issues involved with implementing a variable rate system include
its compatibility with the existing collection system, the size of the community, illegal dump-
191
-------
ing, and multi-family housing facilities. Political support for the system is crucial, design plan-
ning is important, and the system should include a strong citizen education effort.
Sproule, Kimberly A.; Cosulich, Jeanne M. "Higher Recovery Rates: The Answer's in
the Bag." Resource Recycling. November/December, 1988.
The authors surveyed 12 per-unit fee systems, and the article describes five of them: Hol-
land, Michigan, Perkasie, Pennsylvania, Woodstock, Illinois, Newport, New York, and High
Bridge, New Jersey. It also provides basic information, such as container type, fee, and com-
plementary programs offered, for all 12. The five cities described in the article all reported
success with their systems, a/though reduction rates are not given for all of them.
Stavins, Robert N. "Market Forces Can Help Lower Waste Volumes." Forum for
Applied Research and Public Policy. Spring, 1993.
In response to tougher federal regulations and the need for more effective waste man-
agement strategies, communities have experimented with a number of innovative sys-
tems. They /nc/ude different pricing schemes for waste collection services, including unit
pricing, retail disposal charges and virgin material charges, traceable permits for indus-
try-wide recycling mandates, and a deposit/refund system for discouraging illegal disposal
of waste. The author uses Seattle's unit pricing system as an example.
Stevens, Barbara. Pricing Schemes for Refuse Collection Services: The Impact on
Refuse Generation. Research Paper No. 154. Columbia University Graduate
School of Business. January, 1977.
A variable rate pricing scheme is administratively feasible, and it would convey to con-
sumers the true cost of waste disposal. The author uses an economic model of household
waste generation behavior to predict the effect of variable rates for refuse collection on
the demand for those services. She also conducted a survey of 93 cities with variable fee
systems. She found that for a 70 percent increase in the price of collection, demand for
service went down 9 percent. However, refuse generation only decreased by 0.5 percent
to 1.17 percent.
Stone, Sarah; Harrison, Ellen. "Residents Favor User Fees." Biocycle. August, 1991.
Tompkins County, New York, has a county-wide unit pricing program for waste collection.
The authors surveyed 3,034 randomly selected households in the county and received a
49 percent response rate. Sixty-three percent of the respondents were "very much in
favor" or "somewhat in favor" of the county's variable fee system. Fifty-one percent said
they recycled more because of the program, 16 percent said they composted more, and
39 percent said they were more attentive to product packaging when they shopped.
192
-------
"Taking the Innovative Approach to Waste Hauling." Biocycle. July, 1993.
Tom Kraemer Sanitation Co. provides collection service to a half-dozen small towns in
Minnesota near St. Cloud. The hauler charges a flat base rate and sells tags for each 30-
gallon container put out for collection. It also uses a truck-based co-co//ection system for
garbage and curbside recycling. The hauler saves money from reduced disposal costs,
and brings in increased revenue from the sale of recyclables.
U.S. Conference of Mayors. A Primer on Variable Rate Pricing for Solid Waste Ser-
vices. June, 1994.
An introductory brochure for municipalities considering a unit pricing system. Unit pricing
passes variable waste disposal costs onto the household producers of garbage. It encour-
ages waste reduction and increased recycling. It is fair, it helps to conserve landfill space,
and it increases collection efficiency. Unit pricing systems can use prescription cans,
bags, or tags, and can be based on weight, volume, or a hybrid of flat rates and variable
rates. Implementation issues include ensuring sufficient revenues, the impact on poor
residents, illegal dumping, public acceptance, recycling contamination, and service to
multi-unit housing. To develop a successful program, localities must clearly define their
goals, develop a complete plan, start with a pilot study, obtain political support, and
develop a public education strategy.
U.S. EPA. "EPA Probe of Household Waste Reduction to Focus on Per Volume
Charge." Inside EPA. August 10.1990.
This article concerns EPA's evaluation of the pros and cons of variable rate pricing to
determine if the Agency should recommend it as a waste reduction incentive. The EPA
study involved weighing the costs and benefits of unit pricing, as compared to flat rate
pricing for garbage collection service. Unit pricing provides a dearer pricing signal to
households, but it could also lead to illegal waste disposal and higher administrative costs.
The Agency is unlikely to seek national unit pricing legislation, but may incorporate vari-
able rates into its waste reduction guidelines for localities.
U.S. EPA. Waste Prevention. Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons Learned
from 30 Communities. EPA530-R-92-015. February, 1994.
This report focused on various strategies for municipalities to reduce net waste through
composting, recycling, and education. The report details approaches to increase levels of
composting and recycling, as well as improving materials recovery from commercial activ-
ities and construction. The report provides a brief overview of variable refuse rates, and
further comments on the positive effects of variable pricing on recycling participation
193
-------
and source reduction. Three additional volumes provide case studies on rural areas, sub-
urbs and small cities, and urban areas.
Wertz, Kenneth. "Economic Factors Influencing Households' Production of Refuse."
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Vol. 2. 1976.
The author uses a series of economic models to determine the impact of several waste
collection service options on the level of household garbage generation. He also surveys
six communities in the Detroit area and studies the collection system in San Francisco.
There is an economic externality associated with traditional flat rate pricing systems for
waste collection. Flat rates do not take into account the marginal disposal cost of incre-
mental levels of garbage. Increasing flat rates somewhat decrease waste generation, but
only through an income effect. There will be no substitution to lower waste generating
behavior. However, variable rate pricing will more directly encourage waste reduction.
The author a/so concluded that waste generation increases with income, with more fre-
quent municipal collection service, and with less convenient collection sites (i.e., curbside
rather than backdoor).
Zimmerman, Elliott. Solid Waste Management Alternatives: Review of Policy Options
to Encourage Waste Reduction. A Report to the Illinois Department of Energy and
Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Affairs Division. February, 1988.
Waste reduction should be a top priority for the state of Illinois. Unit pricing is one finan-
cial incentive that could be used by localities to encourage households to reduce garbage
put-outs and increase waste reduction and diversion efforts. There are three potential
drawbacks to this pricing method. First, a 1979 EPA study found no statistically significant
relationship between variable rates and garbage generation, so unit pricing might not
have an impact on residential waste. Also, user fees, unlike property taxes, are not
deductible from federal tax returns, so residents could lose money in increased tax pay-
ments. Finally, federal revenue sharing arrangements do not take into account user fees
as local tax revenue, so municipalities could lose federal support by lowering property
taxes in favor of variable rates.
194
-------
Additional Sources of Information
Angelo, James J. Should Brevard County, Florida Adopt a Unit Pricing Program for
Municipal Solid Waste? Undergraduate Honors Project; Sanford Institute of Public
Policx, Duke University. April, 1993.
Felton, Mary K. "A Snapshot of Waste Generation and Recovery." Resource Recy-
cling. January, 1995.
Fiske, Gary S. "Rates: A Powerful Tool to Reduce the Waste Stream." Solid Waste
and Power. March/April, 1992.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management
to the Year 2000. Prepared for Keep America Beautiful, Inc. September, 1994.
Guerrieri, Tony M. An Assessment of Unit Pricing for Municipal Solid Waste. A
Report for the Pennsylvania Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and
Conservation Committee. September, 1994.
Hong, Seonghoon. An Economic Analysis of Household Recycling of Solid Wastes:
The Case of Portland, Oregon. PhD Dissertation. Department of Agriculture and
Resource Economics, Ohio State University. November 21,1991.
Jenkins, Robin. Municipal Demand for Solid Waste Disposal Services: The Impact of User
Fees. PhD Dissertation. Department of Economics, University of Maryland. 1991.
Miranda, Mane Lynn; Aldy, Joseph E. Unit Pricing of Residential Municipal Solid
Waste: Lessons from Nine Case Study Communities. School of the Environment,
Duke University. 1995.
Skumatz, Lisa A. "Introducing the Hybrid Variable Rate System." Biocycle.
November, 1993.
Toomey, William A. "Meeting the Challenges of Yard Trimmings Diversion." Biocycle.
May, 1994.
195
-------
Pay-As-You-Throw
Rates Model
MSW
Factbook
-------
Notic
For planners considering pay-as-you-throw, establishing an effective rate structure—one that generates enough revenues
to cover the costs of MSW services—can be a real challenge. There are several different methods, however, that you
can use to come up with the right container prices.
If you're in a community with a complex array of MSW services or need to ensure that all program costs are com-
pletely covered, the Pay-As-You-Throw Rates Model software (now called the Pay-As-You-Throw RateMaker) may be a
useful tool for you. Designed to enable planners to input all relevant costs and arrive at the optimal per-bag or per-can
fees, RateMaker Version 1.0 is currently under development. If you would like to receive a copy of this
tool when it becomes available, please complete and return the order form at the bottom of this
page.
Some communities may opt for a different approach. If you're in a smaller community or are not required to cover all
costs with your per-container fees, you might simply consult with neighboring cities and towns (or communities else-
where in the country with similar demographics) that already use pay-as-you-throw, adjusting their prices as needed to
arrive at an appropriate rate structure.
Other options for developing a rate structure are included in this tool kit. In the Guidebooks section, you can refer to
Part III of Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing for information and advice on rate structure design. In
addition, the Pay-As-You-Throw Workbook in the Workbook section of this tool kit contains worksheets (beginning on
page 121) that can help you arrive at rates based on local demographic and solid waste generation data.
EPA is continuing to develop materials for communities that have or are considering implementing a pay-as-you-throw
program. Be sure to visit our homepage at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/payt for the latest information.
PayAs'YoirThrow
RateMaker
To bbMI y4ur coc^'bf'RateMakeA please compfete
• //" ' $ i •- ''''•' • '- - t\ * • ~ V' •'"''''' ' *' '•'' '"'"' • f"^-^..^ \ '"""
^nd^xM*' mail "this ,c/h|ff fbrnC$be % ;;• !'• JV( lfj
U.S. EPA Pay-As-You-Throw
MO Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02I73
Fax: 6I7-674-285I
Name:
Organization:
Address:
Note: RateMaker Is an dppfejfo^fbir
• PC-compatibisS running Microsoft.- • Crty/State/Zip_
•Excel for Windows,;- •
Phone:
You can also order by phone.
Call the Pay-As-You-Throw
Helpline toll-free at I -888-EPA-PAYT.
Title:
Fax:
------- |