Refuse Coll. - Unit Based PriceCITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
November 8, 2001
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
Unit Based Pricing Worksession
Enclosed are the materials for the worksession ow Unit Based Pricing for Refuse
Collection to be held on Tuesday, November 13 in the third-floor auditorium of the
Carnegie-Stout Public Library. Dinner will be served at 5:00 p.m. with the meeting to
follow at 5:30 p.m.
MiChael C. Van Milligen ~
MCVM:ksf
Cc: Joyce Connors, Council Member Elect
Barry Lindah Corporation Counsel
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Don Vogt, Operations and Maintenance Manager
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
November 7, 2001
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
Don Vogt, Operations & Maintenance Manager
City Council Unit Based Pdcing Work Session
INTRODUCTION
The purposes of this memorandum are to provide an overview of the attached
background materials provided for the November 13th unit based pdcing (UBP)
work session with the City Council, outline program options considered, and,
recommend a course of action.
DISCUSSION
Solid Waste Management Supervisor Paul Schultz and I have requested a work
session with the City Council to solicit its input regarding the UBP, othen~ise
known as pay-as-you-throw (PAY-r), refuse collection system the City of
Dubuque is required to implement in FY2003.
Before highlighting the salient points in the attachments, I would first note that
Dubuque and all of the other cities in Dubuque and Delaware counties have been ·
ordered by the State of Iowa (sea attachment A) to adopt a UBP refuse collection
system in calendar 2002. While the reasons why we have received this mandate
are certainly worthy of debate, the November 13th work session is not intended
to focus on the "why", only the "how". Bottom line, we have to adopt and
implement a UBP refuse collection system by the end of next September. Since
receiving our notice from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
earlier this year, staff's focus has bccn on gathering as many ideas and opinions
as possible to help it plan for and propose the most effective and efficient UBP
system feasible.
The November 13th work session will be the final step in the input gathering
phase of the planning process (see attachment B). The process began early this
year, but accelerated in September with a survey of 500 of our solid waste
collection customers by the Loras College Center for Business and Social
Research. This survey was designed to accurately sample customers from every
section of the city and proportionately sample customers based on home
ownership versus rental and single versus multi-family. A summary of the survey
is attached (C). Also of note, a UBP public input session was hosted by the
Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission at the Carnegie Stout Library
auditorium on the evening of October 16th and an all-day UBP workshop was :
hosted by USEPA staff at the h'brary on October 19th. Also, numerous planning
meetings were held by staff with the Environmental Stewardship Advisory
Commission and the City of Dubuque laber-rrranagement Solid Waste
Operations Team this Fall. The survey and meetings have helped staff identify
program ob'~ctives, existing advantages and perceived barriers (see attachment
D). The input received has also helped staff identify possible program options,
advantages and disadvantages of each option, worker preferences, and to some
extent, public preferences. Staff also enjoys the benefit of learning from the
experiences of cities that already have UBP programs in place. We have visited
with and learned from cities such as Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Cedar Falls,
Clinton and Ottumwa. I should note at this point that we are certainly not the first
to adopt and implement a UBP program in Iowa. Attachment E is a list of the
cities in Iowa that have already voluntarily adopted a UBP refuse collection
system. Attachment F is a list of cities that have in the pastor will next year
adopt a UBP program, as mandated by the State of Iowa.
Before discussing the options that appear available to us, itis important to note
the parameters that we must and/or should work within. These parameters are
either dictated by the State or impressed upon us from the trials and tribulations
of cities that preceded us:
1) Adopt a UBP solid waste ordinance by 3/30/02 (State mandate);
2) Implement UBP program by 9/30/02 (State mandate');
3) Establish a "base fee" paid by all refuse collection customers, no
matter what they set out (other cities' experiences); and,
4) Use the equipment we and our customers have now as much as
possible (time and fiscal constraints).
Based on the input we have already received and what we learn at the City
Council's work session, it is our intent to finalize and propose a UBP program to
you and the City Council as part of the FY2003 budget process this Winter. It will
likely be a focal point of our budget hearing with the City Council in February and
will need to be approved in some form at the final public budget hearing in early
March.
As noted earr~er, staff hopes that the City Council work session will help it finalize
a recommended course of action as to 'how" the UBP system will work a year
from now. The previously noted parameters and barriers, along with Dubuque's
topography and climate, appear to somewhat limit program options. Options
staff have determined to be feasible and subsequently examined are:
1) Types of containers to be used: bags only; cans only; bags and cans;
bags in cans; large, wheeled carts (limited).
2) Size of containers to be used: 33 gallons or less; 35 gallons or less;
larger than 35 gallons.
3) Maximum weight of containers and contents: 60lbs; 50lbs; 40lbs; 30
lbs.
4) Number of containers emptied for base fee: 1; 2; More than 2.
5) Charges for "extra~ containers: 75¢; $1; $2; $3; 50% of base fee;
double base fee.
6) Financial consideration for. Low income households; Large family
households; Elderly,
7) Multiplex housing considerations: Restricted space for setouts;
Container restrictions by code; Pilot cart program possibility; Charge by
volume instead of number of households.
8) Illegal dumping: Stronger penalties; Education; Wait and see.
Attachment G lists the advantages and disadvantages identified to date by
citizens and workers regarding the container options.
Based on the input received to date from citizens, workers and other cities, staff
tentatively recommends the following course of action regarding the options
noted immediately above:
1) Types of containers: Allow citizens choice of using 35 gallon or less
bags or cans. However, encourage use of large, wheeled carts at
multi-plex rental housing.
2) Size of containers: 35 gallons or less, except where large, wheeled
carts are used at mutti-plex rental housing.
· 3) Maximum weight of containers and contents: 40lbs, except where
large, wheeled carts are mechanically lifted.
4) Number of containers emptied for base fee: 1.
5) Charges for ~extra" containers: $1.00 single use sticker on each extra
container; or $13.00 three month sticker on each extra can.
6) Financial considerations for: Low income households.
7) Mulfi-p!ex housing considerations: Encourage use of City-owned,
large, wheeled carts. Multi-plex housing would be charged by the
number and size of the carts, not the number of households.
8) Illegal dumping: Until evidence of problems, focus on education and
public awareness.
ACTION STEP
This memorandum and attachments are provided for your information. They are
intended to provoke discussion, provkte background information and solicit
direction regarding Dubuque's future UBP refuse collection system.
ATTACHMENTS
DJV/Iml
United States EPA530-F-96-031
Environmental Protection September 1996
Agency
Sotid Waste and
EmergenCy Response
(OS305)
,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.
esidents 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 prograra~, also
called unit-based or variable-rate pric-
Lng, provide a clkect economic incen- '
tive for residents to reduce waste.
Under pay-as-you-throw, households
are charged for waste collection based
on the mount of waste ~chey. 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
they generate, a
few
communities, households
~ are billed based on the
~'~Q~kweight of their
trash.
rc
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 fiat
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
~hey 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
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 comrrcanity, 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
successful program, communities
with pay-as-you-throw report that
they have found effective solutions.
Illkgal 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 Iegally.
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 Hotllne at 800424-
9346 or TDD 800-553-7672 for the hearing impaired.
For Washington, DC, and outside the United States,
call 703412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323.
STATE OF
I O'FVA
THOMAS J. VILSACK, GOVERNOR
SALLY J. PEDERSON, LT. GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE.\`-
JEFFREY R. VONK, DIRECTOR
July 27, 2001
City CLerk
City of Dubuque
925 Kerper Bird
Dubuque, tA 52001
Dear City Clerk:
I am writing regarding the implementation of unitibased pricing (UBP) for solid waste collection within the
Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency comprehensive planning area. Pursuant to iowa Code sqction
455B.3, as a city in a planning area ·that has failed to meet the 25% waste reduction goal Dubuque must
implement unit-based pricing for all solid waste collection and disposal services within their corporate limits.
Failure to do so constitutes a violation of section 455B.306; such violations may be subject to penalties of up to
$5,000 per day of violatiOn as set forth in section 455B.307.
The department first notified Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency of its failure to meet the 25% waste
reduction goal in March of 2001. ~'n later correspondence, dated May 6, 2001i the planning area was given
detailed descriptions of the requirements that had to be met, ndud ng the implementation of unit-based pricing for
solid waste collection by all cities in the planning area. A representative from Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid
Waste Agency should have already consulted with you regarding the necessary requirements for the development
and implementation of unit-based pricing ordinances. If you have any questioins, the primary cOntact for Dubuque
Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency is Don Vogt He can be reached at (319) 589-4250.
Dubuque has until October 6, 2001 to develop and pass a UBP ordinance and Submit documentation to the
department that this requirement has been satisfied. Documenter on can be submitted via mail, fax, or email by
the above deadline to meet the requirement, Once the ordinance has been p~ssed, Dubuque has until April 7,
2002 to implement the ordinance. ~
The department is also on hand to offer assistance to each city n completing this requirement. We have a
collection of UBP ordinances from a number of cities withi0 the state. Ordinances are available for a variety of
different sized communities and with diverse local waste colle~ion situations. !If your city is interested in reviewing
~Ampie'ordinances contact Tammie I(rausman at (515) 28143382, tamm[e:kraUsman~dnr.state.ia.us. Staff is also
available to answer questions about UBP ordinances and may be available to attend city council meetings if
schedules allow. Additionally, there are several websites and publications available to assist communities in
implementing UBP.
if you have questions about this letter or would like details on any of these resources please contact Tammie at the
contact information included above or myself at (515) 281-5105, ~ane.mild(o~dhr.state.ia.us.
Sincerely,
3ane Mild,
Land Quality and Waste Management Assistance Division
CC: Brian Tormey, Bureau Chief
Don Vogt, Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency
WALLACE STATE OFFICE BUILDING 1 DES MOINES, IQWA 50319
515-281-5918 TDD 515-242-5957 FAX 515-281-8895 VWWV.STATE.IA. US/DNR
UBP PUBLIC INPUT AND PLANNING PROCESS THROUGH NOVEMBER 6TH
· Six (6) labor/management Solid Waste Operations Team meetings.
· Five (5) Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission (ESAC) meetings.
· October 16th public forum at the Carnegie Stout Public Library auditorium.
· Five (5) meetings with Allied/BFI and other possible service providers regarding
recycling increases/adjustments.
· Three (3) meetings with Police, internal staff team and Valleyview Neighborhood
Association regarding illegal dumping concerns.
· Three (3) meetings with Information Services (IS) and Finance depar[ments
regarding future billing options.
· Three (3) teleconferences with USEPA staff and local stakeholders.
· October 19th daylong UBP workshop with stakeholders hosted by USEPA at
Carnegie Stout Library auditorium.
· Four (4) meetings with the Garbage Rules Enforcement Task Force.
· Two (2) meetings with the Dubuque County Environmental Task Force.
· Meeting with the Neighborhood Development Specialist regarding impact on Iow
income households.
· Four (4) public speaking presentations.
· Phone survey of 500 citizen/customers
· Channel 8 updates and information.
· October City Focus article.
· June 24, August 17 and October 17 Telegraph Herald articles.
· Five (5) television and radio interviews.
· November"windshield" survey of current customer setouts.
C
Introduction
The Center for Business and Social Research (CBSR) at Loras College received a contract from
the Operations and Maintenance Department: Solid Waste Collection Program of the City of
Dubuque to conduct a survey of its customers regarding current refuse collection and recycling
services. In addition, citizens were asked their opinions concerning five possible changes
required by the State of Iowa in current refuse collection and recycling policies. The
information gathered will be used by the City's Solid Waste Management program in its ongoing
planning activities.
Lisa Grinde, CBSR Research Associate, and Len Decker, CBSR Director, worked with Paul
Schultz, Solid Waste Management Supervisor, in developing the survey instrument, designing
the sampling strategy, and implementing data analysis procedures for this report.
Data Gathering Procedures
Data was gathered by means of telephone interviews conducted with a random sample of 500
customers of the City of Dubuque Solid Waste Collection Program. :The sample selected was
proportionate by City of Dubuque solid waste collection customers living in 5 different types of
housing and information about 4 additional identifier variables was also gathered from
respondents: number of people currently living in the household, refuse collection route number,
recycling colle~ion route number, and collection day. In addition, a census tract variable was
created from the refuse/recycling route information and used in the analysis of survey data.
Telephone interviews were conducted by the staff of Advanced Data Corem, Inc. during a two-
week time period in September of 2001. Supervisors of the telephone interviewers reported that
sample members were generally very cooperative in providing responses to the questions asked
of them.
A summary of findings is provided in the beginning of the report. Data from each survey
question is presented in the pages following the summary.
Responses to 3 open-ended questions were transcribed and are contained in Appendix A A copy
of the survey insmmaent is provided in Appendix B.
2
Demo~raohics.
The present survey was conducted with 500 Dubuque residents receiving solid waste colleution
services fi-om the City of Dubuque. Tables 1-6 outline the demographics of these 500
respondents. For purposes of data analysis, three of the demographic variables were seen as most
important: household number, type of housing, and census tract information.
Note: The census tract information was added after completion of the survey because it was
thought to be a more accurate measure than the solid waste collection day.
Table 1. Number of respondents per number of people in the household.
388 77.6{
112 22.4
Table 2. Number of respondents per type of customer housing.
355
29
52
42
22
500
Table $. Number of respondents per refuse route number.
71.0
5.8
10.4
8.4
4.4
100°.4
46
39
65
27
41
51
47
28
4O
36
61
19
500
9.2
7.8
13.0
5.4
8.2
10.2
9.4
5.6
8.0
7.2
12.2
3.8
100°.4
3
Table 4. Number of respondents per recycling route number.
113 22.6
77 15.4
107 21.4
112 22.4
91 18.2
500 100%
Table 5. Number of respondents per collection day.
88 17.6
105 21.0
113 22.6
92 18.4
102 20.4
500 100%
Table 6. Number of respondents per census tract.
109 21.8
81 16.2
179 35.8
43 8.6
51 10.2
37 7.4
500 100%
Note: Some of the following charts and tables will be depicting differences among variables.
These differences were identified via the chi-square statistic. This statistic compares patterns of
responses from different groups (e,g., housing type, household number) and indicates how likely
the different pattoms are simply due to chance fluctuations. Differe,ces with a low probability
of being simply due to chance fluctuations are indicative of probable differences in the response
patterns provided by those groups. Because the chi-square statistic is more likely to indicate
non-chance differences with larger samples, the CBSR chose a conservative level of probability
(p<0.05) for reporting differences between the groups in this analysis. Each chart title with an *
is indicative of a significant finding.
4
l~indin~s.
The following tables and charts, presented in the same order as items in the survey instrument,
summarize data from 500 surveys completed by City of Dubuque residents who have their refuse
and recycling collected by the City of Dubuque. Advanced Data Corem, Inc. staff members
administered the survey via telephone.
Based on the responses of these interviews, the following conclusions can be made:
There were 79% of respondents who reported above average or excellent ratings for their
overall refuse collection service. Forty percent reported excellent service, 39% reported
above average service, and 18% reported average service. ~
Of the 92% of sample respondents who currently recycle at least once per month, 43%
reported excellent service, 42% above average service, and I4% average service. Of the
8% who reported that they did not recycle once per month, the two most conimon reasons
given were that they did not have a yellow bin and that they were not in the habit of
recycling.
Of the total sample, half (50%) favor the proposal for Unit Based Pricing COBP) and a
qumer oppose it. Another qumer did not give an opinion regarding this unfamiliar solid
waste concept.
o Fffiy percent of respondents living in a 1-3 person household favor Unit Based
Pricing, whereas 50% of respondents living in a 4-9 person household oppose it.
o A greater percentage of single-family owners (46%), duplex (42%), and 3-4plex
customers (56%) are in favor of Unit Based Pricing than opposed to it. Singl~-
family renters and 5-6plex customers had almost equal numbers of respondents
who favored and opposed the proposed change in pricing (approximately 31%).
o More residents in each of the census tracts favored (~9°/O-57%) Unit Based
Pricing than opposed (21%-31%) it, except for the Fremont/Cedar Cross/Kelly
Lane area in which 40% of residents opposed the Unit Based Pricing proposal.
There were slightly more respondents who ' '
favor (43%) the proposal to reduce the
number of allowed refuse containers to one than respondents who oppose (39%) it.
o Half (50%) of respondents living in a 1-3 person household favored the proposal,
whereas 67% of respondents living in a 4-9 person hOusehold opposed the
proposed reduction.
o More customers living in single-family rentals and 344 and 5-6 ptexes (45%, 61%,
and 40%, respectively) were in favor of the proposed] reduction than opposed to it,
whereas more single-family owners and duplex customers (46 and 48%,
respectively) were opposed to the reduction in containers than supported it.
o Slightly more respondents residing in the Midtown/N~ West End and
Hempstead/Far West Side areas favor the proposed reduction than do oppose it.
Sli~agh~y more respondents residing in the Northend/Downtown/R.homberg,
32~/Kanfmann and South Grandview areas opposed than favored redudng the
number of allowed containers to one. More respondents in the Fremont/Cedar
Cross/Kelly Lane opposed the proposed reduction than supported it.
5
Of the total sample, half (50%) of respondents favor a container weight limit reduction
and 20% oppose it.
o Half of all respondents living in a 1-3 person household favor a weight limit
reduction, whereas only one-quarter of respondents living in a 4-9 person
household favor it.
o Single-family renters, 3-4plex customers, and 5-6plex customers were more in
favor of reducing the weight limit (66%, 76%, and 60%, respectively) than were
single-family owners or duplex renters (37% and 45%, respectively).
o Each census tract group was clearly in favor of a container weight limit reduction
(39%-53%), except for the Fremont/Cedar Cross/Kelly Lane area, which was
almost evenly divided between those favoring (28%)and those opposing (30%0) it.
Of the total sample, approximately 40% prefer 35-gallon rigid cans, one-quarter prefer
heavy-duty 35-gallon bags, and one-quarter prefer the city-owned carts with wheels. Less
than a tenth of respondents did not offer an opinion.
o Approximately 40% of both 1-3 and 4-9 person households prefer 35-gallon rigid
cans. However, 1-3 person households prefer the 35-gallon heavy duty bags
(30%) over the city-owned carts with wheels, whereas 4-9 person households
prefer the city-owned carts with wheels (35%) over the 35-gallon heavy duty bags
070/0)-
o Single-family owners and renters prefer the 35-gallon rigid cans over the other
two container options. Duplex customers were evenly divided among the three
container options. Three-four plex and 5-6 plex customers prefer 35-gallon heavy
duty bags.
o More respondents from each census tract, except for Hempstead/Far West Side,
prefer the 35-gallon rigid cans. Hempstead/Far West Side has a slightly higher
preference for the heavy-duty 35-gallon bags.
There were 44% of respondents who prefer the use of seasonal stickers for extra
containers, approximately 20% prefer the single-use stickers, and less than 10% prefer
the $1 logo bags.
o Both 1-3 persen househ01ds and 4-9 person households prefer the seasonal
stickers, followed by the single-use stickers, followed by the $1 logo bags.
o More respondents in single-family owner, single-family renter, duplex, and 3-4
plex households prefer the seasonal stickers (43%-48%) over single-use stickers
(17%-27%), which respondents prefer over the $1 logo bags (3%-14%).
Respondents in 5-6 plex households were evenly divided among the three options
(23% each).
o Respondents fxom each census tract dearly prefer the use of seasonal stickers
(36%-54%) over the other two options, single-use stickers (19%-24%) and $1
logo bags (4°/o-14%). ~
UNIT BASED PRICING (UBP) I PAY AH YOU THROW (HAY !
COLLECTION PROGRAM
DEFINITION:
Unit Based Pricing, also known as Pay As You Throw, is a system under which customers
pay for solid waste collection per unit of refuse collected rather than through a fixed fee.
OBJECTIVES:
Implement a more equitable solid waste rate structure
Reduce refuse collection tonnage disposed at DMASWA Landfill by 15%
Increase curbstde recycling tonnage by 25%
Reduce crew injuries in collecting solid waste from heavy containers
Improve neighborhood sanitation and aesthetics
Comply with state mandates regarding Iowa Solid Waste Diversion Goals
Increase reuse, drop-off recycling and composting of non-curbside collection materPais
Heighten community education and participation in sustainable waste minimization
Provide reasonable accommodation for customers with special needs or limited means
Provide for continued use of customers' suitable solid waste collection containers
Increase disposal options for small quantities of home improvement and demolition debris
Expand year-round disposal options for some types of bulky wastes
Gain some experience in wheeled cart and semi-automated collection
EXISTING ADVANTAGES:
Established voluntary curbside recycling collection program, with no additional charges for collection or yellow bins
Established drop-off facility for normal curbside recyclables
Established drop-off locations for non-curbside recyclables: foam packing peanuts, batteries, plastic bags, etc
Established drop-off facility for Household Hazardous Materials
Established Large Item Collection Program for bulky wastes, appliances, tires and large volume cleanouts
Established small-load drop-off facility for refuse at DMASWA landfill (fee based, six days per week, year round)
Established safety net for seniors, people with disabilities and iow income customers: 50% discount
Established billing system, enterprise fund and full cost accounting
Established funding opportunity for technical assistance, recycling bins and promotion from DMASWA
Established distribution and vendor system for stickers as in Yard Waste program
Established Public Education opportunities through City Channel 8 and City Focus
Established local technical support for food waste and household organics compoating options
Customer experience with PAYT through the Yard Waste program
DMASWA Garbage Guide booklet to he'mailed countywide prior to UBP implementation
Very positive citizen perception of the City's and DMASWA's comprehensNe sorid waste programs
strong support for PAYI' from Public Info Session, comprehensive phone survey, community groups and elderly
Involved and supportive Environmental Stewardship Advisory Commission and Solid Waste Operations Team
Specialized technical consultation from USEPA- Pay As You Throw Initiative: 6,000 programs nationwide
High quality public education and resource materials available from USEpA and IDNR
Good local data on waste composition, collection efrmiencies, models and customer sc=flout demogrephies
Flexibility to allow equ*fi'able year-round collection of C&D and some smaller bulky waates without appointments
FleyJbility on collection trucks to allow new wheeled cart and collection options
PERCEIVED BARRIERS:
Public Education challenge to inform our 20,000 customers and help them modify their setout behaviors
Building Public Consensus: resistance to changing of a very popular solid waste collection system
Some customer dissatisfaction with lowered individual container/contents maximum weight
Some customer dissatisfaction with lowered total number of containers permitted at base monthly fee
Some "Large Family" resistance due to likely increased cost
Some difficulty in enforcing PAYT at multiplexes (especially above 4 units)
Complete re-routing for refuse and recycling collection with staffing changes
Increased crew time enforcing container weight, size and number limits
Increased customer sarvioe phone calls and customer service on-site visits by staff
Increased hours needed for completing Lead Sanitation Driver responsibilities
Increased startup, promotion, administrative, bag and/or sticker distribution and recycling processing costs
Short timeline for implementation (budget process and ordering new equipment)
Instability of the recycling processor due to Iow commodity prices, Iow landfill fees and increased competition'
Some operational risk in over estimating diversion from refuse and increases in recycling
Some financial risk in over estimating revenue from UBP sticker and new subscription options
Fear of illegal dumping
E
IOWA CITIFS THAT VOLUNTARILY
ADOPTED UBP PROGRAMS
Jeffemon
Lake View
Harper
Hayesviile
Heddck
Keota
,Keswick
!Kinmss
Gibson
:airfield
~atavia
Bdghton
Ainsworth
Delta
Crawfordsville
Sigoumey
3Ieasant Plain
Richland
Webster
Wellman
iWayland
Washington
South English
Thomburg
~ackwood
Olds
Cilia
Lockddge
Martinsburg
Libertyville
West Chester
What Cheer
Kellogg
. 'Colfax
Sully
Newton
Shenandoah
Coin
Essex
Yorktown
Creston
Coming
Bedford
Afton
Nodaway
Bennett
Bettendorf
Calamus
;Camanche
Clarence
Clinton
Durant
Maquoketa
Nichols
Stanwood
Tipton
West Branch
Mount Pleasant
Burlington
Armstrong
Amolds Park
Milford
Okoboji
Lake Park
Wahpeton
Spirit Lake
West Okoboji
Hiawatha
Hills
Iowa City
Kalona
Fairfax
tEly
[Cedar Rapids
rCenter Point
: Coralville
Atkins
Albumett
Mount Vernon
Millersburg
Monticello
North English
North Liberty
Oxford
Lisbon
Lone Tree
Madon
Palo
Riverside
Robins
Solon
I Osceol~
Swisher
University Heights
iTiffin
:Williamsburg
Floyd
Fredericksburg
Ionia
Alta Vista
iBassett
Colwell
Chades City
Mclntire
Marble Rock
Orchard
Osage
North Washington
Mitchell
Nashua
New Hampton
RoCkford
Riceville
St. Ansgar
Rudd
Stacyville
Grundy Center
Dunlap
Dunkerton
Dike
Cedar Falls
Brandon
Aurora
Hudson
Stanley
Sumner
Watedoo
Wavedy
Reinbeck
Quasqueton
Lamont
La Porte City
Burt
'Bdtt
Windsor Heights
West Des Moines
Humboldt
Livermore
Per~
Lodmor
Woodbum
IOWA CITIES THAT WERE/ARE
REQUIRED TO ADOPT UBP PROGRAMS
Planning Area City
WRD Allerton
WRD Beaconsfield
WRD Benton
WRD Clio
WRD Corydon
WRD Davis City
WRD Decatur City
WRD Delphos
WRD Diagonal
WRD Ellston
WRD Garden Grove
WRD Grand River
WRD Humeston
WRD Kelledon
WRD Lamoni
WRD Le Roy
WRD Leon
WRD Lineville
WRD Maloy
WRD Millerton
WRD Mount Ayr
WRD Pleasanton
WRD Redding
WRD Tingley
WRD Van Wert
WRD Weldon
SCISWA Albia
SClSWA Brooklyn
SClSWA Bussey
SClSWA Chadton
SClSWA Deep River
SClSWA Derby
SCtSWA Grinnell
SCISWA Guemesy
SCISWA Hamilton
SCtSWA Hartwick
SCISWA Harvey
SCISWA Knoxville
SCISWA Lovilia
SCISWA Lucas
SCISWA Malcom
SCISWA Marysville
SCtSWA Melcher-Dallas
SCISWA Melrose
SCISWA Montezuma
SCISWA Pella
SCISWA Pteasantville
SCISWA Russell
SCISWA Searsboro
SClSWA Swan
SCISWA Victor
SCISWA Williamson
Flannegan Ayrshire
Flannegan Bode
Ftannegan Curlew
Ftannegan Cylinder
Flannegan Dolliver
Flannegan Emmetsburg
Flannegan Estherville
Flannegan Graettinger
Flannegan Gmver
Flannegan Havelock
Flannegan Laurens
Flannegan Mallard
Flannegan Palmer
. Flannegan Plover
Flannegan Pocahontas
Flannegan Ringsted
Flannegan Rodman
Flannegan Rolfe
Flannegan Ruthven
Flannegan Superior
Flannegan Terdl
Flannegan Vafina
Flannegan Wallingford
Flannegan Whittemore
Ottumwa/Wapello Agency
Ottumwa/Wapello Blakesburg
Ottumwa/Wapello Bloomfield
OttumwaNVapello Chillicothe
Ottumwa/Wapello Drakesville
Ottumwa/Wapello Eddyville
Ottumwa/Wapello Eldon
Ottumwa/Wapello Flods
OttumwaNVapello Kirkville
OttumwaJWapello Ottumwa
Ottumwa/Wape[lo Pulaski
Clarke Murray
Clarke Osceola
Clarke Woodbum
GRRWA Donnellson
GRRWA Fort Madison
GRRWA Franklin
GRRWA Hillsboro
GRRWA Houghton
GRRWA Keokuk
GRRWA Montrose
GRRWA St. Paul
GRRWA West Point
Van Buren Birmingham
Van Buren Bonaparte
Van Buren Cantdl
Van Buren Farmington
Van Buren Keosauqua
Van Buren Milton
Van Buren Mount Steding
Van Buren Stockport
NWIASWA Alton
NWIASWA Alvord
NWIASWA Archer
NWIASWA Ashton
NWIASWA Boyden
NWIASWA Calumet
NWIASWA Chatsworth
NWIASWA Dickens
NWlASWA Doon
NWIASWA Evedy
NWlASWA Fostofia
NWIASWA George
NWIASWA Gillett Grove
NWlASWA Granville
NWIASWA Greenville
NWIASWA Harris
NWIASWA Hartley
NWIASWA Hawarden
NWIASWA Hospers
NWIASWA Hull
NWIASWA Inwood
NWtASWA beton
NWtASWA Larchwood
NWlASWA Lester
NWlASWA Little Rock
NWIASWA Mattock
NW1ASWA Maudce
NWIASWA Melvin
NWlASWA Moneta
NWIASWA Ocheyedan
NWIASWA Orange City
NWIASWA Pautlina
NWIASWA Peterson
NWIASWA Pdmghar
NWIASWA Rock Rapids
NWIASWA Rock Valtey
NWIASWA Rossie
NWIASWA Royal
IOWA CITES THAT WERE/ARE
REQUIRED TO ADOPT UBP PROGRAMS
NWIASWA Sanborn
NWIASWA Sheldon
NWIASWA Sibtey
NWIASWA Sioux Center
NWlASWA Spencer
NWIASWA Suthedand
NWlASWA Webb
CDS Fertile
CDS Leland
CDS Rake
CBS Scarville
CDS Thompson
Dubuque Asbury
Dubuque Balltown
Dubuque Bankston
Dubuque Bernard
Dubuque Cascade
Dubuque Centralia
Dubuque Delaware
Dubuque Delhi
Dubuque Dubuque
Dubuque Dundee
Dubuque Durango
Dubuque Dyersville
Dubuque Eaflvitie
Dubuque Edgewood
Dubuque Epworth
Dubuque Farley
Dubuque Graf
Dubuque Greeley
Dubuque Holy Cross
Dubuque Hopkinton
Dubuque Luxemburg
Dubuque Manchester
Dubuque Masonville
Dubuque New Vienna
Dubuque Peosta
Dubuque Rickardsville
Dubuque Ryan
Dubuque Sageville
Dubuque Sherdll
Dubuque Strawberry Point
Dubuque Worthington
Dubuque Zwingle
Adair Adair
Adair Bridgewater
Adair Casey
Adair Fontanelle
Adair Greenfield Louisa Letts
Adair Menlo Louisa Oakvitle
Adair Odent Louisa Wapello
Adair Stuart U arg ~ji ~!iii~.....!i:~.. i;: :: ii!:i::!i;~i i~!~iiii:: i~i; :::; :. :.
Fre~i~j(iB~i? :: :: : i:: i ~': :':'ii:ii!i~ii ~!~!'3i:?i'!?: Marshall Albion
Fremont Mills Emerson Marshall Clemons
Fremont Mills Farragut Marshall Collins
Fremont Mills Hamburg Marshall Ferguson
Fremont Mills Henderson Marshall Gilman
Fremont Mills lmogene Marshall Haverhill
Fremont Mills Randolph Marshall Laurel
Fremont Mills Rivertan Marshall Le Grand
Fremont Mills Sidney Marshall Liscomb
Fremont Mills Silver City Marshall Marshalltown
Fremont Mills Tabor Marshall Melbourne
Fremont Mills Thurman Marshall Rhodes
L N:!::: :~:~* ~-~::~?~:~ ......... ~.,:: :~::~:~:~,~::: ~: :~:~:~.~:~ Marshall St. Anthony
LNI Clear Lake Marshall State Center
LNI Coulter Marshall Whitten
LNI Doughety
LNI Forest City
LN1 Garner
LNI Geneva
LNt Grafton
LNI Hampton
LNI Hanlontown
LNI Hansel
LNI Joice
LNI Kensett
' LNt Klemme
LNI Lake Mills
LNI Latimer
LNI Manly
LNI Mason City
LNI Meservey
LNI Nora Spdngs
LNI Northwood
LNI Plymouth
LNI Pope Joy
LNI Rock Falls
LNI Rockwell
LNI Sheffield '
LNI Swaledale
LNt Thornton
LNI Ventura
Louisa Columbus City
Louisa Columbus Junction
Louisa Cotter
Louisa Fredonia
Louisa Grandview
NCISWA Badger
NCISWA Barnum
NCISWA Bradgate
NCISWA Caliender
NClSWA Clare
NCISWA Dakota City
NCtSWA Dayton
NCISWA Duncombe
NClSWA Eagle Grove
NCtSWA Fort Dodge .
NClSWA Gilmore City
NCISWA Gowrie
NClSWA Harcourt
NClSWA Hardy
NC1SWA Humbott
NCISWA Kniedm
NCISWA Lehigh
NClSWA Livermore
NCISWA Manson
NCISWA Moodand
NCISWA Otho
NCISWA Ottosen
NCISWA Pioneer
NCISWA Pomeroy
NCISWA Renwick
NClSWA Rockwell City
NCISWA Rutland
NClSWA Thor
NCISWA Vincent
Rural Iowa AckJey
3
IOWA CITIES THAT WERE/ARE
REQUIRED TO ADOPT UBP PROGRAMS
Rural Iowa Alden
Rural Iowa Alexander
Rural Iowa Allison
Rural Iowa Aplington
Rural Iowa Aredale
Rural Iowa Belmond
Rural Iowa Blairsburg
Rural Iowa Bdstow
Rural Iowa Buckeye
Rural Iowa Cladon
Rural Iowa Clarksville
Rural Iowa Dows
Rural iowa Dumont
Rural Iowa Eldora
Rural Iowa Ellsworth
Rural Iowa Galt
Rural Iowa Goldfield
Rural Iowa Goodell
Rural Iowa Greene
Rural Iowa Hubbard
Rural Iowa Iowa Falls
Rural Iowa Jewell
Rural Iowa Kamrar
Rural Iowa New Hartford - '
Rural Iowa New Providence
Rural Iowa Owasa
Rural Iowa Parkersborg
Rural Iowa Radcliffe
Rural Iowa Randall
Rural Iowa Rowan
Rural Iowa Shell Rock
Rural Iowa Stanbope
Rural Iowa Steamboat Rock
Rural iowa Stratford
Rural Iowa Union
Rural Iowa Webster City
Rural Iowa Williams
Rural Iowa Woolstock
SCI Landfill Agency Ackworth
SC1 Landfill Agency Bevington
SCI LandfillAgency Cumming
SCI Landfill Agency Dallas Center
SCI Landfill Agency De Soto
SCI Landfill Agency Dexter
SCl Landfill Agency Eadham
SCI Landfill Agency East Peru
SCI Landfill Agency Indianola
SCI Landfill Agency Lacona
SCI Landfill Agency Martensdale
SCI Landfill Agency Milo
SCI Landfill Agency New Virginia
SCI Landfill Agency Patterson
SCI Landfill Agency Sandyvilte
SCI Landfill Agency Spring Hill
SCl Landfill Agency St. Chades
SCI Landfill Agency St. Marys
SCi Landfill Agency Truro
SCI Landfill Agency Van Meter
SCI Landfill Agency 'Winterset
RIGID CONTAINER (CAN) ISSUES (WITH OR WITHOUT STICKERS)
35 GAL CAN MAXIMUM MANUAL COLLECTION
ADVANTAGES
Animal protection
Can be labeled with address and apartment # for enforcement
Required by Housing Dept in rental housing
Large number of existing cans requiring no new pumhuses
Potential for using single-use, seasonal or annual stickers
for additional containem
If the first container must be a can, then all begs outside of cans
must have a sacker, thereby reducing the risk of
leaving complying refuse uncollected at allowed pioxes
DISADVANTAGES
Requires greater time and effort for crews to remove lid,
dump can and return can to curb
More likely to be ovenNeight
Cans w/o lids collect extra weight from rain and snow
Materials / begs get stuck or treeze to side / bottom of can
Lifting is a risk factor in weight related crew injuries
Risk of "sewage" spilling on crew thru cracked cans
Wind blows cans onto roadways, drh/eways and sidewalks
I! bags are not used inside cans, loose material can litter
Customers complain re crew damage, negligence
City is subject to claims for Can or lid replacement
Customer complaints if oversize cans must be replaced
BAG ISSUES (LOGO BAGS OR BAGS WITH STICKERS)
35 GAL BAG MAXIMUM MANUAL COLLECTION
ADVANTAGES
Stronger waste reduction factor since bags hold less weight
Collection faster and more efficient than cans
Bags contain less weight than cans, so are less likely
to cause crew I~ing injuries
Little extra weight from rain and snow
Fewer claims for property damage caused by crews
Street aesthetics improved after collection:
no cans or lids left at the curb
Customer familiar'r~ due to official "City" yard waste bags
and yard waste bags requiring stickers
Education flyer included in every 10-pac of Logo bags sold
Bag / st~cker distribution by Lead Sanitation Driver -- reduced cost
Easy to understand
DISADVANTAGES
Animals can tear and scatter bag contents
Thinner bags can tear dudng lifting, especially if stuffed
Unprotected sharps can injure crews or pedestrians
Lightweight bags can blow away from setouts
White garbage bags in snow are hard to see
Bags are lower to ground requiring more bending by crews
Logo bags: more expensive than reusable cans or stickers
Customem might view requirements to purchase and store
bags and/or single-use stickers as inconvenient
Bags are not re-used, creating plastic waste
and other negative environmental impacts
High outside vendor & distribution casts for logo bags '
High inventoP/costs and tied up capital for logo bags
BAGS INSIDE OF OVERSIZE OR STANDARD CANS ISSUES
35 GAL BAG MAXIMUM MANUAL BAG REMOVAL COLLECTION
ADVANTAGES
Bag protection from animal damage in certain neighborhoods
Less litter, odor and fly problems than loose refuse in cans
Allows for use of customer's existing oversise cans
Allows for better transportation of bags to curb for some customers
DISADVANTAGES
Lower visibility grabbing bags: crews can get stuck wl sharps
Some customem may place too many small bags in cans
Bags can get stuck in smaller cans (vacuum seat or wedged)
Bags can freeze to side of cans
Windshield Survey of Current _
Refuse Container Use At Single,Family Households (HH) RecyCle Setouts
Container Types HH % Wt Wt/HH/VVKHH %
I
Cans Plus
standard cansonly 27 33.3%98034.5 18 67%
,standard cans & bags 11 13.6%47040.6 10 91%
standard cans w/more than bags. 10 12.3%50548.0 8 80%
oversize cans only 0 0.0% 0 0.0 0 0%
oversize cans w/bags or more 4 4.9% 21049.9 1 25%
Subtotal 62 64.2%2165 39.6 37 71%
Bags Plus (no cans)
sm bags only 5 6.2% 12523.8 1 20%
refuse bags only 15 18.5%38024.1 10 67%
refuse bags & sm bags 6 7.4% 19530.9 3 50%
.bags w/boxes & misc 3 3.7% 85 26.9 3 100%
Subtotal 29 35.8%I 786 25.7t17 59%
Total 81 100,0%2950 34.6 54 67%
In FY01, the average customer setout 27 lbs of refuse per week including Large Item collections.
IThis average includes sin~lle family residences, multiplexes and small businesses.