Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

MR Municipal PAYT

337 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

×