Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Carolyn DannMassDEP Municipal Asst Coordinator
Methods, Caveats Tracking “interesting towns” SW since FY06 Updated with FY11 tonnage info where available Information ...
Chelmsford Case Study                        3
Barrel Size Matters                      4
Conclusions from “Interesting Towns” Starting point matters - Always ask about “before”!    More reduction predicted if ...
Next Ipswich, Bedford, Grafton and Hamilton, Continue to gather info                                            10
Ipswich: 4, 3, 2, 1 Barrel Limit                                    4 bag/barrel limit                                    ...
Ipswich : Getting to “Change” Decision Process   Selectmen not prepared for drastic change   Start enforcing current li...
Ipswich : Getting to “Change” Key Factors    Surveys (Most were already at 1-2 by 2010)    Know your stuff! Selectmen p...
Ipswich : Getting to “Change” Key Factors    Providing easy ways to recycle:        Recycling Extravaganza        Elec...
Ipswich : Getting to “Change” Key Factors    Communication       Utility Bill Inserts       Extensive articles/notices...
Ipswich : Getting to “Change” Public Response    Majority comply    Some complaints – big families    Very little publ...
Ipswich : Implementation Lessons Communication is Key Data is important Keep improving – never stop Dedicated voluntee...
Ipswich : Impact on Solid Waste, $ • Before WRP:        SW =.74 tons /hh/yr • After WRP :        SW =.62 tons/hh/y r • 16%...
Solid Waste TonnageBefore / After WRP                    Solid Waste400.00350.00300.00250.00200.00                        ...
Ipswich : Other Revenue  - We get paid $10 per ton for recyclable   materials ($18,000 for Year 1)  - Scrap metal collec...
Ipswich Town policy should support contract Joint responsibility with the hauler for enforcement Contract collection an...
Current Issues Getting hauler to enforce the rules    Establish clear rules about how full a barrel can be              ...
Current Issues Residents who put out trash but no recycling                                                 23
Current Issues Residents who have oversized barrels    - Give a grace period for people to get the right size     barrel...
Current Issues Multi-family dwellings  Hard to determine overages vs. multi-family  trash   -   We have asked people to l...
Recycling Committee Spent many hours planning Spent many hours negotiating Spends many hours implementing     Many hour...
Bedford: Automated 48-g carts Start Date: October 5, 2011 Program details:    48-gal barrels distributed to all 1-4 fam...
Bedford : Getting to “Change” Decision Process    Considered 35-gal barrels but …    DPW Staff drove streets, counted b...
Bedford : Implementation Lessons  Barrel eligibility policy  Distribution process  Space and security needs while barre...
Bedford : Impact on SW and $                                    2000      1824                                    1800    ...
Hamilton: A Program Evolution4/06/2010   Prepared by Carolyn Dann   31
Hamilton: Getting to “Change” Decision Process    Early success with Waste Ban Enforcement (10% less SW)     and Waste R...
Hamilton: Compost Pilot Lessons   Weight of food waste = 10-15 lbs/week, 1/3 – ½ of total      SW     People liked the a...
Hamilton: Impact on SW“Before” Waste Reduction Program (4-07 to 3-08)  • SW Total = 2806  • 1.04 tons per household“After”...
Grafton: Pay As You Throw Start Date: July 1, 2009 Program details:   Weekly Solid Waste Collections & Bi-Weekly Single...
Grafton: Getting to “Change” Decision Process   Board of Selectmen & Town Meeting Key Factors   Outreach Meetings   E...
Grafton: Implementation Lessons  Bags vs. Stickers  Type of Bags Selected    Draw Strings    Supply ahead of implement...
Grafton: Impact on SWFY 2009  SW Total = 5,169  • 0.9 tons per household•FY 2010  •37.6% reduction in SW  •SW Total = 3,...
Grafton: Lessons Continued Further Increased Recycling through Automated Collections                                     ...
MR Municipal PAYT
MR Municipal PAYT
MR Municipal PAYT
MR Municipal PAYT
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

MR Municipal PAYT

224

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
224
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • New programs have an impact!
  • 96-g is too large for trash collection, if you care about your disposal budget.
  • * Showed savings based on current disposal fee (this was the first year of a new collection and separate disposal contract. In the prior contract, the town was paying $97 per ton!!
  • Ask John to talk about enforcing the “Waste Bans” and “soft start” for WRP, dealing with barrel size.
  • Transcript of "MR Municipal PAYT"

    1. 1. Carolyn DannMassDEP Municipal Asst Coordinator
    2. 2. Methods, Caveats Tracking “interesting towns” SW since FY06 Updated with FY11 tonnage info where available Information sources include DPW reports wherever possible (FY). Otherwise, sources are Recycling Data Sheets (CY) Now, there are enough “interesting towns” that I’ve been able to group them by type of program Main weakness is # households served! Some have been carefully computed; others have not. 2
    3. 3. Chelmsford Case Study 3
    4. 4. Barrel Size Matters 4
    5. 5. Conclusions from “Interesting Towns” Starting point matters - Always ask about “before”!  More reduction predicted if >1.0 Ton/household Program matters  PAYT will result in 0.5 – 0.7 TPH  WRP will result in 0.7 – 0.9 TPH  Automated 64-g or 2 bag limit will result in 0.9 – 1.0 TPH  3-4 Barrel and Unlimited programs will result in 1.1+ TPH  5-10% reduction possible with 3-4 bag/barrel limit, SS-R only *Barrel size matters with Automation!  64-g will result in 1.0 TPH 9
    6. 6. Next Ipswich, Bedford, Grafton and Hamilton, Continue to gather info 10
    7. 7. Ipswich: 4, 3, 2, 1 Barrel Limit 4 bag/barrel limit enforced 2006 3 bag/barrel limit implemented 2008 $2 overthrow sticker 2 bag/barrel limit implemented Jan 2010 1 bag/barrel limit implemented June 2010 $2 overthrow bag replacing sticker 11
    8. 8. Ipswich : Getting to “Change” Decision Process  Selectmen not prepared for drastic change  Start enforcing current limits first 12
    9. 9. Ipswich : Getting to “Change” Key Factors  Surveys (Most were already at 1-2 by 2010)  Know your stuff! Selectmen presentations (data!)  Awareness 13
    10. 10. Ipswich : Getting to “Change” Key Factors  Providing easy ways to recycle:  Recycling Extravaganza  Electronics Recycling  Styrofoam Recycling  Curbside Composting  Rigid Plastic Recycling  Metal Recycling  Future – Textiles? 14
    11. 11. Ipswich : Getting to “Change” Key Factors  Communication  Utility Bill Inserts  Extensive articles/notices in Newspaper  Post office  Flyers around town  Meetings (offered to go to people’s homes to educate)  Cable show and slides  School letters  Email Lists 15
    12. 12. Ipswich : Getting to “Change” Public Response  Majority comply  Some complaints – big families  Very little public ‘dumping’ 16
    13. 13. Ipswich : Implementation Lessons Communication is Key Data is important Keep improving – never stop Dedicated volunteer team 17
    14. 14. Ipswich : Impact on Solid Waste, $ • Before WRP: SW =.74 tons /hh/yr • After WRP : SW =.62 tons/hh/y r • 16% reduction in Solid Waste • 36% increase in Recycling • $41,000+* saved in disposal fees • ~$ 15,000 revenue in Yr 1 (tipping fee not taken into account) 18
    15. 15. Solid Waste TonnageBefore / After WRP Solid Waste400.00350.00300.00250.00200.00 FY 2010150.00100.00 FY 2011 50.00 - ly ne ril y rch y st De e r ry er Ma Ju er Ap ar er Ju gu ua tob mb Ma mb mb nu Au br ve Oc Ja ce pte Fe No Se 19
    16. 16. Ipswich : Other Revenue  - We get paid $10 per ton for recyclable materials ($18,000 for Year 1)  - Scrap metal collection at the Transfer Station is on target to bring in ~$10,000 in year 2 of WRP 20
    17. 17. Ipswich Town policy should support contract Joint responsibility with the hauler for enforcement Contract collection and tipping fees separately to discourage collecting too much trash at the curb Plans for bulky items Penalties for collecting too much trash Single stream vs. separated recyclables Work on the rejection sticker with your hauler Contact numbers, wording etc. 21
    18. 18. Current Issues Getting hauler to enforce the rules  Establish clear rules about how full a barrel can be 22
    19. 19. Current Issues Residents who put out trash but no recycling 23
    20. 20. Current Issues Residents who have oversized barrels  - Give a grace period for people to get the right size barrel  - Warning stickers about the size  - Enforcement plans 24
    21. 21. Current Issues Multi-family dwellings Hard to determine overages vs. multi-family trash - We have asked people to label their barrels with Unit 1, Unit 2, ….. (work in process) but this is not always possible as some people cannot use barrels - We often have to ask the hauler to go back and pick up what is left 25
    22. 22. Recycling Committee Spent many hours planning Spent many hours negotiating Spends many hours implementing Many hours of this was done with volunteers!! 26
    23. 23. Bedford: Automated 48-g carts Start Date: October 5, 2011 Program details:  48-gal barrels distributed to all 1-4 family households  Continued manual, dual-stream recycling collection  One-day collection for entire town  Total households served = 4336  Gave barrels to “accessory use” apartments only after investigation  Sold ~120 2nd barrels for $150/1st year, $100/yr thereafter  Bags: 1.75mil, sold in rolls of five for $7.50 per roll ($1.50 ea) 27
    24. 24. Bedford : Getting to “Change” Decision Process  Considered 35-gal barrels but …  DPW Staff drove streets, counted barrels in actual use  Held one public hearing  Received calls, articles, letters  Hauler started to request added fee on overflow bags  Selectmen decided to go with 48-gal barrels,  Set bag fee reasonably high to deter excess use ($1.50)  Set fee for second barrel high ($150, then $100/y) Public Response – “All Quiet on the Bedford Front” 28
    25. 25. Bedford : Implementation Lessons  Barrel eligibility policy  Distribution process  Space and security needs while barrels assembled and delivered  Getting rid of residents’ unwanted old barrels  Addressing concerns of the COA  Gave out a roll of five bags with each barrel  Worthwhile to develop a nice full-color brochure with photos of barrel placement and recycling options. 29
    26. 26. Bedford : Impact on SW and $ 2000 1824 1800 1525 1600 16% or 249 tons less 1400Before (Oct – Feb FY11) 1200 trash, worth $17,000 so far!• SW = 1824 tons Tons 1000 = 1.07 tons T/hh/y 800 663 539• Rec = 539 tons 600 23% or 124 tons more 400 recycling 200 0 Oct 2010- Feb 2011 Oct 2011-Feb 2012After (Oct – Feb FY12) Trash Curbside Recycling• SW = 1525 tons, down 16% (249 tons) => 0.9 T/hh/y projected• Rec = 663 tons, up 23% (124 tons)• Saved $17,000 in disposal so far• Earned $6,100 new revenue from bag sales 30
    27. 27. Hamilton: A Program Evolution4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 31
    28. 28. Hamilton: Getting to “Change” Decision Process  Early success with Waste Ban Enforcement (10% less SW) and Waste Reduction Program (34% less SW)  Key support from LWV, Hamilton-Wenham Green  Hotline for Hamilton and Wenham residents  Pilot program documented interest and weight of compost Key Factors  Local compost site available  Supportive haulers (one for organics pilot, one for town- wide program)  Town Manager and Selectmen support for innovation and sustainably financed SW & R system 32
    29. 29. Hamilton: Compost Pilot Lessons  Weight of food waste = 10-15 lbs/week, 1/3 – ½ of total SW  People liked the ability to have year-round curbside compost collection  Gardeners valued getting free compost in return and were willing to pay for participation during pilot period  A separate route for collecting organics is expensive  Distance to the compost site must be minimal and tip fees must be lower than trash tip fees  Providing curbside organics collection town-wide may be inefficient without a “driving force” such as PAYT or bi- weekly SW collection. We’ll see how Hamilton and Wenham compare  New Program starts in April! 33
    30. 30. Hamilton: Impact on SW“Before” Waste Reduction Program (4-07 to 3-08) • SW Total = 2806 • 1.04 tons per household“After” (4-08 to 3-09) • 34% reduction in SW • SW Total = 1843 • 0.71 Tons per household • Average of one bag per month per household•“After” Weekly SSR+SSO, Bi-weekly SW • Hoping to see 0.5 or 0.4 Tons per household 34
    31. 31. Grafton: Pay As You Throw Start Date: July 1, 2009 Program details:  Weekly Solid Waste Collections & Bi-Weekly Single Stream Recycling  Bag Rates:  $1.50 - 33 gallon – 25lbs  $0.75 - 13 gallon – 13 lbs  Sold by local retailers - 7  Total households served = 6,300  Average 1 bag per household per week 35
    32. 32. Grafton: Getting to “Change” Decision Process  Board of Selectmen & Town Meeting Key Factors  Outreach Meetings  Equity – Household Size – Surrounding Communities  Compared Cost to Private Haulers Responses  Illegal Dumping  Disposing  Bag Quality & Materials 36
    33. 33. Grafton: Implementation Lessons  Bags vs. Stickers  Type of Bags Selected  Draw Strings  Supply ahead of implementation  Bag Manufacturer  State Contract  Account Management & Distribution Logistics  Waste Leaves the Grafton Stream  Solid Waste Decrease Recycling Increase  Reduce, Reuse  Stopped bringing workplace trash home 37
    34. 34. Grafton: Impact on SWFY 2009 SW Total = 5,169 • 0.9 tons per household•FY 2010 •37.6% reduction in SW •SW Total = 3,228 •0.5 Tons per household •Tipping Fee Reduction •$134,317.20 (@$69.20/ton)•FY11 v. FY09: -39.5%•FY12 v. FY09: -41.1% (est.) 38
    35. 35. Grafton: Lessons Continued Further Increased Recycling through Automated Collections 39
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×