Loading...
08/08/1989 - Packet C= OF TIGARD LTlrll=ES AND FRANCHISE CCHMITTEE MEETING AGENDA August 8, 1989 - 7:00 P.M. Tigard City Hall - Town Hall Conference Room Members: McReynolds, Barrett, Irwin, Jacobs, Walsh, Wogen Ex-Officio Members: Miller, Leichner, Schmidt 1. Call to order and roll call. 2. Minutes of June 20, 1989. 3. Roll out cans, tote barrels. 4. Rates 5. Other business 6. Adjournment 7li MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator W Respond By FROM: Wayne Lowry, Utility and Franchise=Laison For Your Information DATE: July 19, 1989 _Sign and Return SUBJECT: Coy Humphrey The Utility and Franchise Committee has been dealing with several issues involving recyclable materials for the past year. Nonfranchised haulers have been removing such material from the waste stream in Tigard, in effect cheating our franchised haulers out of the revenue from the sales of such materials that they are entitled to under their franchise. Coy Humphrey has involved himself in this issue and for the first time, the City has been able to actively enforce the franchise agreement. The Committee asked me to make you aware of their appreciation for Coy's efforts and cooperation with the Committee, the haulers, and the public in resolving these issues. cp/Franch CITY OF TIIFARD July 19, 1989 OREGON Janet Holmes 12215 SW 33rd Avenue Portland, OR 97219 Dear Ms. Holmes: Thank you for the information you sent regarding your comparison of garbage rates between franchised and nonfranchised haulers. I agree that the differences in rates are very dramatic. I gave each membex of the Utility and Franchise Cc mtittee a copy of your letter at their meeting on June 20, 1989. The members of the Committee discussed the City's rates with the franchised haulers and were a bit surprised by the difference as well. The Committee agreed that there are certain advantages to franchising such as having only one truck on your street instead of many, and having the performance of garbage haulers monitored by local government. Franchising also gives more organization to the recycling program and more opportunity to citizens to recycle. One of the haulers made the point that it is more expensive to do business in Washington County and therefore, the rates may be somewhat higher. Although some valid points were made, the Committee's discussion did not adequately answer your questions as to why Tigard's franchised rate is so much greater than several other unfranchised rates. More investigation and discussion will have to occur before this issue can be resolved. I will keep you informed as the discussion progresses. Sincerely, �IA Finance Director cp/Franch H:\WORD\ 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,P.O.Box 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 The GARBAGE INDUSTRY REPORT A Newsletter to the Oregon Waste Industry Prepared by the law firm of Kell, Alterman & Runstein 707 S.W.Washington, 1300 Bank of California Portland,Oregon 97205 (503)222-3531 March 1988 FRANCHISING; RECEIVED �. THE BEST SYSTEM JiV 2 1 U by Lee Davis Kell Recently, a,special Portland task force, appointed by City Commissioner Bob Koch, threw out franchising as an option for garbage collection. "The task force...wisely shelved franchising and route consolidation as government imposed solutions to the industry's problems." The Oregonian editorial February 22, 1988. With Oregon's largest city and newspaper opposing franchising and with many fran- chises up for renewal, now is time to reemphasize the benefit of this remarkably successful Oregon system of regulating garbage collection. The franchise system is continually challenged. The challenges mostly come from per- sons who want to be garbage collectors and from local government when officials question the efficiency or cost. These challenges won't end. Our free enterprise system encourages individuals to chal- lenge our businesses. Government will continue to question the quality and cost of garbage service in their jurisdiction. We should welcome these challenges. They give the opportunity to continually question the way business is done and how to do it better. They give us the chance to show why our franchise system is the best. This Newsletter will discuss the advantages and benefits of our franchise system to our communities. It is written from the point of view of the government. Its purpose is to provide arguments to local governments to support the franchise system. The most popular challenges to the franchise system are no regulation("free enterprise") or putting the franchise out to bid. Both challenges often have to be answered at the same time. Why Regulate Garbage Collection. First, the service is essential to the public health and welfare. Whenever there is a health hazard, the citizens will look to the government first. Government is responsible for community health. Garbage collection is not a service that can be left only to free enterprise. Free enterprise will only serve where there is profit. For example, a competitor would prefer to take over the commercial collection accounts and leave the present collector with the residential accounts. If there is no available compensa- tion for removing waste, free enterprise will not remove the waste. To protect the health of the community, everybody must be served. Second, the community wants to keep the cost down for all citizens. Therefore, the cost for the service has to be spread over the entire community. To encourage the collector to provide service to everybody, an advantage has to be offered. The advantage is an exclusive franchise with regulation of rates and levels of service. Also, government regulates garbage collection because it is the only public service with personal contact with each voter and each business at least once a week. If there is a flaw in the system, the government will be notified first and blamed. Any public service with this kind of contact with citizens is vulnerable to constant criticism. Criticism for noise, cleanliness, quality of service, timeliness and personality of workers. Why is the Oregon Franchise System Best?The Oregon franchise system of local regula- tions is the best method of regulating solid waste collection. Alternatives are regulation by the state of Oregon as a public utility and government—owned collection. Local regulation blends the best of the private enterprise with hands—on control of the local government to assure citizens of the best service. The most important attribute of the Oregon franchise system is the local control by each community. Under our franchise system, local government has a continuing ability to adjust the level of service. It can regulate rates up or down. The people, through a public hearing, can have a direct say in rates and services. The community can request and expect modernization and high-tech safety standards. The collector will upgrade his equipment and level of service to meet the changing needs of the environment and the community. In Oregon, the collector is a part of the community socially, politically and economically. Most collectors have been in their communities for several decades. They have been raised or have raised their families there. They have participated in community activities, have been part of the political system, go to church, belong to service clubs and participate in charitable activities. The collector is involved in clean-up and helps various organizations with their recycling and fund-raising programs. The collector cares about the community. This is one of the few regulatory systems where the regulated business is also happy with the system. There is true compatibility between the local community and the garbage collector. The community gets good service at reasonable rates and the collector doesn't feel oppressed. This is the system both the collector and the community wants. Everybody wins. State Support of Local Control. The state of Oregon has certified this system by legislating in favor of local control. The state legislature has made it a matter of state-wide concern that local governments have the authority to regulate their own collection systems in the manner they want. The state legislature has removed the stigma of antitrust, and, most important, garbage collection franchises need not be put out to bid. Therefore, each com- munity can create and organize its own system. Bidding. The system of bidding for franchises is detrimental to the community's efforts to regulate garbage collection. It severly limits local control. If we are dealing with true bidding, we are talking about bidding on rates only. If the bid document has been carefully researched and prepared, the community knows exactly what level of service it wants, where that service should be, when it should be rendered, why they need it and who needs the service. The only thing left is how much it costs. Under this scenario, the community is the loser. The community loses control of the collector. Not only the rate is fixed, but the promised level of service is fixed. The contractor has no incentive to bend or to change. Why should the collector change? The collector has no assurance that the contract will be renewed, there is no assurance the rates will be changed, and if the job is done right, there is no threat the contract will be terminated. The bid contractor has bid a level of service based on a fixed rate of return, and the contractor cannot afford to change. The contractor will perform the contract to the letter and not beyond. If the contract allows for adjusting rates, then we are back to the status quo or the existing franchise system. The point is, if you bid a contract that can be renegotiated, why bid? The existing system allows the contract to be negotiated continually. It allows the public to have a direct say in the level of service and the rates at public hearings. This is not possible when garbage collection is bid. In addition, the community loses because the bidding process is expensive. The commu- nity must hire an expert from outside the area to help them write the bid specifications for the community. If the work is hired locally, it may lack impartiality and credibility. Often, the losing bidder sues the local government. In this situation, the community has to budget for the cost of developing good bid specifications and budget for attorneys to defend the bid once it has been awarded. The community will lose the ability to choose the collector it wants. If the specifications are good and prequalification has been carried out correctly, the choice of collector is gone. In today's market, the collector may be based in Montreal, Dallas, Boston or Chicago. The chances are it will not be somebody known by the community. The new collector will be strangers and controlled by policies established far away. The winner pf the biu will not have community identity. There will be no community commitment. The only objective to the collector is to make a profit and carry out the con- tract. How does the community judge the low bid?There are at least two dozen different services and two dozen different rates. These are services for one, two, three or more cans at each residence, and residential service for yard debris and containers. There are recycling ser- vices. Containers come in many sizes, and there are various drop box rates. There are collections once a week, twice a week, three times a week and daily. There are different types of customers. The community cannot select one or two of these services and use them as the basis for the bids. The bidders know they can then low bid certain areas of service and adjust the rest of their prices accordingly. Finally, the community is the loser if the low bidder defaults. The government will then have to make concessions to continue the service. If the rules have to change in the middle of a contract, then why enter the bidding process in the first place? Also, if the low bidder fails, the alternatives are lost. The original collector is no longer around, they have left the business and there is no longer capital resources to start up a company. Local Control of Rates and Service. Under the Oregon franchising system,the community already has built-in means to obtain fair rates and good levels of service. They can continu- ally negotiate with the provider. If they question rates or service, they can always make comparisons with other communities, or hire experts to analyze the rates. Each local government should be encouraged and educated to spend its resources in developing a relationship with its collectors. The collector can help the community under- stand what is needed to continually improve, modernize and upgrade the level of service. The proof of the value and benefit of the Oregon franchise system was shown in the Opportunity to Recycle legislation. After the Opportunity to Recycle program was man- dated, the process to implement in most communities was easy. The franchised community only had to memorialize the existing program they had already worked out with their collector, ask their collectors to augment the existing recycling program, or ask the collec- tor to start a recycling program. The resulting recycling program is dynamic and ready for the future. In franchised communities, the collectors also took over the requirement to provide public education. Where there are no franchise systems, the Opportunity to Recycle program has been chaotic, unorganized and inefficient. In other words, the community has not been adequately served. It is one thing to argue with your local community that the franchise system is the best way to regulate garbage collection. It is better to point to the Opportunity to Recycle pro- gram as proof the system works to the benefit of the community. Kell,Alterman&Runstein,an associate member of OSSI,is a Portland law firm which has represented numerous solid waste businesses throughout Oregon since 1971.The firm assists their clients with franchises;environmental issues;purchase and sale of businesses; estate planning;compensation and retirement programs; corporate, tax and general trial law. Lee Kell is a licensed lawyer and C.P.A. in both Oregon and California. San Jose Case Study page three Plastics Recycling . Procedure: continue to grow: Between June and July of 1988, the plastic bottle (continued) collections increased from 2.6 tons to 5.65 tons—the biggest in- crease since the beginning of the program. Collection San Jose officials attribute the new participation rates to an increased awareness of the recyclables program. In addition to media coverage, Case both the city and Waste Management are running advertisements on television promoting the recycling effort. The city's Solid Waste De- partment will distribute door hangers shaped like plastic bottles to Studies provide individual residents with additional information about the program. I • Rhode Island • North Carolina • New Jersey: Camden Co. • New Jersey: Mount Olive • California Plastics Recycling Foundation Plastics Recycling Foundation 1275 K Street, N.W. Y g Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 371-5200 Center for Plastics Recycling Research Center for Plastics Recycling Research Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Busch Campus, Bldg. 3529 _-- Piscataway, New Jersey 08855 (201) 932-3683 San Jose Case Study page two Background: both neighborhoods where higher than expected, the neighborhood Introduction (continued) provided with containers participated more than twice as much—72 percent versus 35 percent—as the neighborhood that had to supply its Plastics Recycling Case Studies feature innovative own. Based on these findings, the city decided to provide all the households with containers, a move that increased all participation communities that have made plastics recycling areal- significantly. ity. While most of the programs are still in early stages of development, progress is being made to ensure that San Jose's voluntary curbside program was expanded to 60,000 house- plastics recycling becomes a permanent solid waste holds in May 1986 and finally went citywide in August 1987. In De- management solution. cember of 1987, plastic soda bottles were added to the curbside collec- tion program. Overall, 58 percent of the San Jose population participates in the city's The information in this brochure is excerpted from a technical curbside recycling program. manual entitled Plastics Collection and Sorting: Including Plas- tics in a Multi-Material Recycling Program for Non-rural Single Procedure: Each week on"trash day,"glass,plastic bottles without their caps, h Family Homes. The manual can be obtained by contacting the newspapers and cans are set out at the curb in three stackable 10- Center for Plastics Recycling Research. gallon containers owned and provided by the city. The plastic bottles and cans are put in the one container; glass in another; newspapers in the third. The recyclables are collected by a Recycle America open- t body truck with three self-dumping bins. Regular trash pick-up is provided by a different Waste Management truck on the same day. The recyclables are brought to an intermediate processing facility where plastic bottles and cans are separated and baled. Recycle Amer- ica is responsible for seeking the best markets and prices for all the materials collected. Baled plastic bottles are sold to Plastics Recycling Corporation of California. Although San Jose's curbside recycling program is subsidized by the city, revenues have exceeded their projections. Participation rates { continued i Case Plastics Case Study5Recycling ;!, Plastics RecyclingStud 1 l Place: California: City of San Jose Place: Rhode Island: Phase I and 11 (120,000 Households) i � Contact: Christine Velez § Contact: Janet Keller, Coordinator Manager, Curbside Recycling Program i Ocean State Recycling and Cleanup City of San Jose,Department of Solid Waste I Department of Environmental Management 801 N. First St., Rm. 460 83 Park Street i San Jose, CA 95110 1 Providence, RI 02903 (408) 277-4509 ; (401) 277-3434 I ! I t Ken Newman Background: Under a 1986 mandatory state recycling law (the nation's first), the 30 I Plant Supervisor ' F Rhode Island communities that haul their garbage to the state's central j Recycle America E landfill in Johnston are required to have recycling programs in place by 1140 Campbell Ave. I 1990. The program officially got under way in April 1988, following a i I San Jose, CA 95126 six-month pilot project in two communities. I (408) 243-1323 The law requires the municipalities to send specified recyclables to a Background: In 1984, San Jose's city council decided to do something about the materials recovery facility in Johnston. The state also has offered to city's solid waste crisis before they were "up against the wall." Bids extend the recycling program to the nine municipalities that do not use went out for the city's residential garbage collection and disposal. the central landfill. Several of these communities have expressed Waste Management, Inc., won a five-year contract for residential interest in participating, as well. garbage collection. BFI Industries won a 30-year contract for city use of its landfill. The council determined that the bid process and subse- Initially, only residents of single-family homes and apartment buildings quent awards meant substantial savings for the taxpayers: it would have with as many as four units were required to separate their trash. It is cost the city$60-million above the price of the contract awards to expected that larger apartment complexes would be on line six months collect and landfill San Jose's waste. Because the collection of re- after the single-family homes come on line. All businesses will be par- cyclables was not part of the original contract with Waste Management ticipating in the recycling program beginning January 1, 1989. Source Inc., an additional agreement was made with that company upon its reduction and recycling plans are due from each company at a specified acquiring the Recycle America subsidiary. time during the year. Deadlines are determined b size of company and j g Y Y P Y number of employees. In 1985, the city (p. 732,000) started a pilot curbside collection pro- s gram for 20,000 households. Glass, newspaper and cans were the only The whole municipal program will cost the state $30 million for the recyclables collected at that time. Two neighborhoods were chosen: first six years ($4 million of which will go toward construction of the c One was given containers to separate out their recyclables; the other materials recovery facility). The principal source of funding for the i was not supplied with specific containers. While participation rates in state recycling program will come from commercial tipping fees. Rhode continued continued I Center for Plastics Recycling Research Plastics Recycling Foundation Center for Plastics Recycling Research Plastics Recycling Foundation Rutgers,The State University of New Jersey 1275 K St., NW, Suite 400 Rutgers,The State University of New Jersey 1275 K St., NW, Suite 400 Busch Campus, Bldg.3529 Washington, DC 20005 Busch Campus, Bldg. 3529 Washington, DC 20005 Piscataway,NJ 08855 Tel.: (201)932-3683 (202)371-5200 Piscataway, NJ 08855 Tel.: (201) 932-3683 (202)371-5200 Rhode Island Case Study Mount Olive Case Study page two page two Background: Island law stipulates that the state must pay the reasonable costs Procedure: The plastic beverage containers collected by Mount Olive are taken to (continued) associated with programs it mandates for its municipalities. Thus the Center for Plastics Recycling Research CPRR at Rutgers Univer- p � p � (continued) y g ( ) g through a complex arrangement involving three state agencies, Rhode sity, Piscataway, N.J. The township has an agreement with CPRR to Island is providing full funding to municipalities for the first three supply them with recyclable plastics through the end of 1989. News- years of the mandated recycling program. After that, the communities papers and corrugated boxes are sold to a local paper processor. Abca are on their own, although tipping fees for separated recyclables will j Glass of Kearny, N.J., buys the glass and aluminum cans from the continue to be waived. township. Procedure: The state provides special 12.5-gallon blue bins in which residents i Future Plans: According to Director Matteo, Mount Olive is very interested in place recyclables. Into the bins go rinsed glass bottles,jars with the continuing its successful plastics recycling program, and the township labels removed,plastic soda bottles and milk jugs, and aluminum cans welcomes the option of a materials recycling facility in the near future. and foil. Newspapers are bundled and placed on top of the other re- cyclables. The bins are emptied on regular trash days for those com- munities with curbside garbage pick-up (the methodology to be used in more rural areas still is being researched.) Separate trucks (Pelican II i closed-body recycling vehicles,Labrie over-the-top loaders or Eager Beaver closed-body trucks) are used, as well as separate one-person operations. The only sorting done on the trucks is the separation of newspapers from mixed recyclables. During the pilot program, the mixed materials were hand-separated in Johnston; they now are being ( k stockpiled pending completion of the materials recovery facility in early 1989. ! s i n Materials separated at the recovery facility will be sold to companies who will use them to make new products. Customers for the Rhode r Island project include American Waste Paper Company, Reynolds I Aluminum, Anchor Glass, Vulcan Metal,Eaglebrook Plastics and Wellman (also for plastics). The state was assisted in procuring these n users by New England CRInc., a North Billerica, MA processor, manufacturer and broker. p At this printing, no figures were available comparing the Rhode Island k program's net revenue to landfill tipping fees. The Department of continued h i ' . , 40 Case Rhode Island Case Study Study 4 Plastmics Recycling page three S Place: New Jersey: Mount Olive Township Procedure: Environmental Management (DEM) also hadn't completed its (continued) planned cost-benefit analysis to determine the extent of future plastics Contact: Frank Matteo,Director recycling. According to the DEM, sales values for various recyclables Health, Welfare and Sanitation were estimated to be: $28/ton ($9.80/cu.yd.) for glass; $20/ton ($5/ Mount Olive Township cu.yd.) for newspapers; $1360/ton ($33.32/cu.yd.) for aluminum; P.O. Box A, Route 46 $100/ton ($2/cu.yd.)for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) from Budd Lake, NJ 07828 plastic soda bottles, and$500/ton ($10/cu.yd.) for high density poly- (201) 691-0900, ext. 330 ethylene (HDPE) from plastic milk jugs. East I Background: Mount Olive Township, N.J., is the first community in the state to f Greenwich: In October 1987, half the residents of East Greenwich were given the initiate its own plastics recycling program without mandatory require- I opportunity to take part in the town's recycling pilot program. About f mi 89.1 percent of the eligible residents participated, exceeding the ents by the county where it is located. Begun in August 1987, the program boasts one of the highest success rates in the state, according r state's projection of 75 percent involvement. State officials also had projected a 12.8 percent reduction in the total amount of trash; reduc- to program Director Frank Matteo. tion actually reached 14.01 percent. On April 18, 1988,East Unlike other communities that recycle plastics, Mount Olive does not Greenwich became the first Rhode Island municipality to extend the s own or lease a processing facility. Instead,recyclables are taken recycling program to the entire town. Costs for the recycling program directly to vendors for processing there. i for this community of approximately 11,100 persons is $135,000 for i the first year. The state will review actual program costs and adjust I the grant award for years two and three based on the first year's Procedure: At the beginning of the program, each Mount Olive household was given a seven-gallon white recycling bucket with a special logo on the results. front. The bucket is for plastic beverage containers and aluminum cans. Newspapers are bundled; glass is put in a separate container provided ! s East Greenwich is the richest town in the state of Rhode Island j ($53,193 median income), with a mix of urban, suburban and rural by the household (garbage can,plastic bag, etc.) I neighborhoods. East Greenwich has a citizens recycling committee The recyclables are set out at curbside on weekly "trash day"for pick- i { and had been collecting newspapers at curbside monthly for several ( years before the pilot program started. The DEM reports that the town up by township-owned trucks. Garbage collection is accomplished by has a fairly high waste-generation rate, and pounds per household one truck. Then, a rack-body truck with a tail-gate lift is sent around for j the recyclables. Usually, the recycling truck has two workers on it: a I (10.9) also have been high. driver, a collector and one or two laborers who stay on the truck and 1 sort the recyclables as soon as they come off the curb. Plastics and West This community also participated in the pilot program and produced aluminum are separated; glass is sorted according to color. This Warwick: results that exceeded expectations. Again, the state had looked for 75 i separation procedure enables the recyclables to be taken to vendors for processing almost immediately. continued ' continued 1 1 3 Center for Plastics Recycling Research Plastics Recycling Foundation Rutgers,The State University of New Jersey 1275 K St., NW, Suite 400 Busch Campus, Bldg. 3529 Washington, DC 20005 Piscataway, NJ 08855 Tel.: (201)932-3683 (202)371-5200 Rhode Island Case Study Camden County Case Study page four page three West percent participation and a 12.8 percent reduction in total trash. In Berlin identify recyclables. Letters also were sent from Berlin's mayor and Warwick: actuality, 83.2 percent of eligible residents took part and trash was Township: the CPRR, urging residents to participate and supplying them with (continued) reduced by 12.34 percent. Costs for the first year of the recycling pro- (continued) more information on the program. gram serving the entire community of approximately 28,650 persons is $174,000 per year. The biggest savings to Berlin Township projected thus far are in landfill costs. It is estimated that the municipality will save$30,000 West Warwick ranks relatively low in income in the state, with a me- annually. dian income of$28,414, as compared to the state median of$33,647. Clementon The town has a mix of urban and suburban neighborhoods, and its waste Borough: Clementon Borough—population 5,800—has been recycling for generation is slightly above the state average. Households for West War- several years. It was one of the first municipalities to collect and wick, which had no previous municipally sponsored recycling program, recycle mixed bottles and cans. The borough has used a single small average 6.71 pounds per week. container system for mixed recyclables since it began its recycling program. Newspapers are placed in paper bags and placed with the re- cycling container. Regular trash is picked up once a week, while re- Cranston: The city of Cranston is the third largest municipality in terms of popula- cyclables are picked up every other week. Pick-up is on the same day tion and household served. Cranston started full scale recycling on for everything to make it easier for the residents. August 1, 1988. The city has generated an average of 8.50 pounds per household a week with a weekly participation rate of 73.14. Cranston is Clementon has no investment in equipment; it pays a monthly fee to currently diverting 13.65 percent of their solid waste through recycling. O'Connor Corp. Division of Waste Management, Inc., to haul both trash and recyclables. The Clementon program, according to Rob x Allen, general manager,is also an experiment for the hauler, which is Future Plans: By the time all mandated municipalities are on line, the state hopes to be collecting the mixed plastic, bottles and cans for the first time. recycling 15 to 20 percent of its waste. Eight programs serving 120,000 households will be on line by December 1988. State officials also are According to Mayor Richard Wooster, Clementon Borough should see considering a pilot program for mixed plastics in the spring of 1989. An a savings of 25-40 percent at the end of the six-month pilot program. on-truck plastics densification project funded by the National Associa- The borough has the potential to save$40,000 in landfill costs. The tion for Plastic Container Recovery (NAPCOR) is set for January 1989. goal is to have a"cost-avoidance"program versus a profit-oriented one. To promote the new pilot test, ads were placed in the local newspaper. Letters from the CPRR and Camden County officials also were sent to residents, explaining the program and what should be recycled. Like Berlin Township, Clementon hopes to continue recycling plastics g� after the pilot program is completed. i } Camden County Case Study Case ■page twoast ' Recycling Study 2 Procedure: Almost all municipalities in the county are ready and eager to include i Place: North Carolina: Charlotte, Mecklenburg County (continued) plastics in their recycling programs as well. The preliminary results i from CPRR market research programs indicate that markets for these Contact: Brenda Barger materials will develop as they are collected. Recycling Division Berlin i Mecklenburg County Engineering Township: Although Berlin Township is small—population 5,700—it was j 700 N. Tryon Street chosen for the program because of its high recycling participation = Charlotte, NC 28202 rates. (704) 336-4279 Before the program began, Berlin recycled oil, newspaper, cardboard Background: Begun in February 1987 with approximately 2,400 household partici- boxes, glass and cans. Plastic bottles were added in February 1988 pating, Phase I of Mecklenburg County's curbside recycling program and will continue to be recycled at least for the duration of the six- now provides about 9,100 residents with an easy, efficient way to month pilot program. i recycle newspapers, glass bottles and jars, metal beverage cans and i plastic soft drink and plastic liquor bottlQs by placing them at the curb Success rates are overwhelming. According to Berlin Township in special containers for weekly pickup. Mayor Paul F. Farms,participation rates are almost 100 percent. s Farms credits the new 20-gallon recycling containers provided by the Results of the first year show that at least 74 percent of the eligible 1 CPRR as the reason for the program's success. Collection rates for all households in Charlotte set their recyclables at the curb regularly, with recyclables have tripled since the program began. some Mecklenburg County towns reporting even greater participation percentages. Also, telephone surveys of Phase I households indicated Before the development of Berlin Township's pilot program, each ma- that the curbside recycling program was responsible for tripling the I terial had to be separated by the resident into different containers. f percentage of households that said they recycle. The voluntary Since then, however, the town has switched to asingle-container curbside recycling program is the primary component in Mecklenburg j i system in which all recyclables are placed in one bin. Each household ; County's multi-year, long-range solid waste management plan. now places all its recyclables (except newspapers) into the special 1 j Yellow, plastic recycling container on "trash day." Newspapers are � Procedure: Mecklenburg County provides special 10-gallon Curb Itcontainers to bundled and placed on top of the bin. Garbage pick-up is followed all curbside recycling households. Residents simply collect plastic soft i within an hour or two by the township's"Eager Beaver" truck, a drink and plastic liquor bottles, glass bottles and jars and metal bever- com artmentalized flatbed pulled by apick-up truck. Owned and I age cans and place them in their Curb It! containers. (Newspapers are operated by the township, the "Eager Beaver,"hauls the recyclables to collected also, but they are placed on top of or beside the container in the Camden County Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) to be sorted ? paper bags.) and reclaimed. i 1 ` Residents place the Curb It! containers at the curb on their trash pick- To promote the new curbside recycling program, a letter from Camden up day, separating the Curb It! containers from their regular trash. County officials was sent to residents, to explain the program and o � continued continued ! ; M I � 1 Center for Plastics Recycling Research Plastics Recycling Foundation Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 1275 K St., NW, Suite 400 Busch Campus, Bldg. 3529 Washington, DC 20005 Piscataway, NJ 08855 Tel.: (202) 932-3683 (202)371-5200 I North Carolina Case Study Case page two Plastics Recycling � Study Procedure: Drivers of special recyclables collection trucks (one Lodal with three Place: New Jersey: Camden County (continued) dumping bins and two Amartech trucks with rear loading) empty the ' containers and take them to a processing center, where the recyclables Contact: Joseph Gilson are prepared for sale. Camden County, Solid Waste Management 6981 N. Park Drive Recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) from plastic bottles is East Building, Room 305 granulated at the processing center and sold to St. Jude Polymer, Pennsauken, NJ 08109 Frackville,PA. The National Association for Plastic Container Recov- (609) 757-6914 ery (NAPCOR), Charlotte, N.C., helped the county get price quotes from plastics buyers. Recycled glass is sent to a local dealer who Background: Camden County's curbside recycling pilot program is the first of its processes it and sells it to Owens-Illinois, Winston-Salem, N.C. The kind in the nation. It was developed as a cooperative effort among newspapers are delivered directly to a local paper dealer. Cans go to a Camden County's Solid Waste Department, its municipalities, the scrap metal dealer affiliated with Container Recovery, a subsidiary of Center for Plastics Recycling Research (CPRR) at Rutgers University Anheuser-Busch Corp. in Piscataway, N.J., and private recycling companies. i Residents not yet included in the service or who do not live on a city This pilot program, initiated and planned by CPRR, is actually a six- curbside trash collection route can bring their recyclables to drop-off month field test to include plastics in its current curbside recycling and commercial buy-back centers located throughout Mecklenburg process. Camden County was chosen for the test because of its previ- County. ous success in collecting glass, aluminum, steel and newspaper. The F' county also was one of the first to have a recycling center. Currently, ' Future Pians: County officials plan to expand recyclables collection to 7,000 more two of the county's municipalities are participating in the program: households beginning November 1988. The project's goal is to include Berlin Township and Clementon Borough. a total of 94,000 single-family dwellings of Charlotte and neighboring towns by September, 1989. Procedure: The collected recyclables are taken to Camden County's Materials Re- covery Facility (MRF), an intermediate processing center, by the In order to process the volume of recyclables expected when the municipality and a private hauler. The facility hand-sorts and mechani- service is available citywide, Mecklenburg County is planning to build cally processes 60 tons of bottles and cans per day for recycling. The a new materials recovery facility (MRF). The county is awaiting a plastic bottles, a new addition during the pilot test, are placed in a 40- court decision on a siting suit concerning the facility. If the court foot tractor trailer and hauled to the CPRR. The MRF is privately decides that the MRF cannot be built at the planned site, county offi- operated by Resource Recovery Systems and Giordano Waste Materi- cials may opt to contract with a private firm for processing their re- als. The processing equipment is owned by Camden County. cyclables. Either way, the MRF is scheduled to come on line in Joe Gilson, director of Camden County's Solid Waste Department, September, 1989. Various processing options will be available at the J would like it to be economically feasible to include plastics perma- new facility, one of which may be to bale the PET. The city of Char- nently in this county's curbside collection and recycling program. lotte plans to buy 19 new recycling trucks to handle the recyclables collection. continued i Center for Plastics Recycling Research Plastics Recycling Foundation Rutgers,The State University of New Jersey 1275 K St., NW, Suite 400 Busch Campus, Bldg. 3529 Washington, DC 20005 Piscataway, NJ 08855 Tel.: (201) 932-3683 (202)371-5200