Everyone is certainly familiar with the large brown can into which you place all your reusable materials -- glass, plastics, newspapers and magazines, cardboard, etc. While this method is the most convenient for citizens and supposedly generates the most participation, it is also the most costly -- collecting and sorting the materials costs approximately double the amount per ton it costs to process our solid waste, even after the money earned from the sale of the recycled materials is factored in.
The Environmental Services Department is one of the city departments that will be examined during the budget process, so I will pose the question to you: How important is the city's current recycling program to you? Should we stick with the current process, or would you be willing to accept changes (use small individual containers for each material, return to drop-off sites only instead of residential pick-up, etc., don't do it at all ) in order to reduce the cost? Please share your thoughts with me!
20 comments:
An answer and a question:
How important is the recycling program to me? Very.
What is the annual net cost of providing the service?
If it's up to the people to take their recycling items to some place other than putting them out for pick up they won't do it. No recycling system is perfect but the thoughts of not having any really would be tragic. Recycling is important.
We always have more recyclables than trash. Of course, a healthy beer consumption contributes to that!
I would accept changes in order to keep the program. I'm willing to pay more taxes (gasp!) or go to a central station.
As far as smaller containers go, I'd need several per week. I must admit, I've wondered why we don't require sorting at the household level, though I'm lazy enough to be grateful that we haven't had to do it (yet). We go to Wrightsville Beach often, and they require sorting at a central location. It's a bit of a pain, but worth it as far as I'm concerned.
Very important. Are there any statistics on how Greensboro's recycling/landfill ratio measures up with similar cities with different recycling programs? Our recycling is always fuller than our trash too... but that would certainly change if we had to drop it off and/or sort it. Maybe a higher fee for the service is the way to go. Anyone could opt-out and still have a drop location.
I appreciate the convenience of the current recycling system so much. I love the fact that the bins are so large, that they're picked up on the same day as regular household garbage, everything about it. I prefer the Greensboro recycling program's procedures and guidelines to that of any other city I've lived in, and even though it seems like a minor aspect of life, for me, it is one of the great things about living in Greensboro.
I personally would go the extra mile and do whatever was required of me to recycle, but most people I know really wouldn't. I also don't think that most people avail themselves of the information that they need to properly follow the city's current recycling guidelines. I often find friends putting things into recyclables that are not recyclable according to the city's rules. I do my best to spread the word about what we should be doing, because I know that the more sorting and cleaning that has to be done with the recyclables after pickup, the more expensive the program will be, and I don't want to see it go away. I think that anything that is done to make the system more complex or difficult for people is going to lead to reduced participation and reduced compliance because of ignorance of the rules.
Though I live just outside the city limits I'm thankful for the recycling component offered by Republic Waste Services. We tend to have more recycling (just about two full cans every two weeks) than trash (less than a full can each week most of the time, even with lots of daipers!).
I'd wonder about some of the cost analysis because what's the case now could change radically in a short time if more recycled materials are added back to the waste stream. The transferred trash still has to go somewhere and the massive expense of permitting any additions to those sites (or creating new sites) will definitely be passed along to Greensboro residents. Plus more trash means greater transportation costs for the higher volumes.
General collection sites are not going to be an effective way to get people to recycle and providing multiple bins for sorting probably won't help that much since people may still mix things up.
Costs savings might come from more fuel efficient trucks (as they're replaced) or better ways (quicker or with less people) to pick up the recycling cans. Oh and let's not forget that more potentially recycled items might end up all over the place and raise typical costs to keep public spaces (and private lots) clean and orderly. Sometimes you just have to pay for things and except a broad community benefit with individual sacrifice.
Thanks to all of you who have taken the time to respond. You have basically confirmed my gut feeling about this issue -- many Greensboro citizens view our recycling program as important, just like our curbside pickup of leaves in the fall, and seem to be willing to pay for it.
Roch,
I checked on the costs of the recycling program, and here is the response I received from our budget director, Larry Davis.
"In FY 04-05, the direct cost of the residential and commercial recycling programs combined was about $4.8 million...This includes both collection cost and the tipping fee cost at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). The program also generated revenues of about $1 million."
By my math, the net cost is $3.8 million, or approaching two cents on the property tax rate.
Anonymous, Astro Boy, and Mike K.,
I agree that if it's not simple and easy, many folks are not going to even bother with it anymore. We can't make it much easier than dump everything into one big can and wheel it out on your regular garbage day. I don't have any comparison statistics about Greensboro's program, but I THINK I remember that we have one of the better - if not the best - recovery rates in the state, mainly because it is so easy for citizens. We DO need to do a better job in educating everyone and periodically reminding them what does and does not go into those brown cans.
I can remember what a hassle it was before the city began curbside pickup -- I had to take my glass, plastics and newspaper and place them in large bins in the parking lot of the then Kroger store at High Point and Holden Roads. Plus, the parking lot was always a mess around those bins -- broken glass, newspapers blowing around. I'm sure it was a big headache for the store management.
I'm thinking it might cost the city additional money to abandon the brown can method. These cans are picked up by our "one-armed bandit" trucks that requires only one person to operate it. The city saved a lot of personnel costs when we converted to this automated pickup system. If we move to smaller containers or plastic crates, it would take at least two people per truck (one to drive, one to lift and empty the crates). Plus, if we are to eliminate the sorting faciltiy, I'm assuming we would need a separate truck for glass, one for plastic, one for newspaper, one for cardboard, etc. Maybe we're not getting such a bad deal after all!
Dshular,
The recycling program is now paid out of your property taxes, not a separate fee on your city services bill as it was in the past. So it is not possible for people to opt out of the recycling program and not pay for it.
I voted against the switch form a fee to the property tax because owners of vacant lots are having to pay for recycling through their property taxes even though they receive no service at that location. It also means that people with more expensive homes and property pay more for the very same service people in more modest homes pay. Not fair, in my opinion.
Please keep your ideas and comments coming. I certainly plan to share your sentiments when the council discusses the pros and cons of this program.
Sandy, People with more expensive homes pay more for police, fire, parks, and everything else. Are you saying that's not fair?
Good point, Tom!
In reality, no, it is not fair for any citizen to pay more for the same service. But to try to tailor everyone's taxes on an "a la carte" basis where one pays only for the services one uses (and that might constantly change depending on whether one had to call the police or not, went to the park or not, etc.) would be an absolute nightmare to administer. I guess property tax is the simplest and "lesser of the evils" to pay for general city services.
Having said that, I still prefer the separate fee instead of property tax support of the recycling program. If solid waste and recycling collection were funded by a fee, we could in theory charge people "by the pound" for their garbage (there are cities that do that)where the larger users would pay more. Of course, there are big downsides to that option -- my neighbors could place their garbage in MY can, sticking me with extra costs. So there's certainly no easy solution.
I want to chime in with my vote for recycling - whatever it takes to keep the recycling program going is fine with me! I used to collect recyclables from our neighbors and take them to the recycling dumpsters, so this is an important program to me.
I would like to see it expanded to include some more grades of plastic, such as #5.
Sandy wrote: "By my math, the net cost is $3.8 million, or approaching two cents on the property tax rate."
Help me out here, Sandy. You are going to be better informed on this than I, granted; and it's quite possible I may be making a mistake somewhere, but...
You calculate a cost for the recycling program of $3.8M, but that's not really the net cost since those materials would have to be disposed of if not recycled, at a cost that you said was half of the cost of recycling. So the materials that are costing $4.8M to recycle would cost $2.4M to dispose of. Therefore, comparing the cost of $3.8M to recycle (after deducting generated revenue)with the cost of $2.4M to send to a landfill, the true net cost of the recycling program is $1.2M annually.
The City's budget for the current fiscal year is $349.8M. Therefore, the $1.2M cost of the recycling program is 0.34% of the total city expenditures ($1.2M/$349.8M).
With the current tax rate at .5475 (54.75 cents per $100 of property valuation, excluding transit fund tax), the 0.34% share for the recycling program does not approach the two cents on the property tax rate that you estimated. Rather, it represents 0.19 cents of the 54.75 cents of the property tax rate or about $24 per year ($2/month) for a $127,000 house. (The median price according to CNNMoney.com)
I applaud Mr. Phillips' efforts to find savings in city government but I hope this discussion will take a true cost/benefit approach. The council should also consider the value of the jobs created by the program, the value to Greensboro's reputation of having such a program and the value of the environmental benefits.
CORRECTION:
I made a subtraction error. Here are the correct figures:
-- True net annual cost of recycling program: $1.4M
-- Percentage of budget: 0.4%
-- Amount of property tax valuation: 0.21 cents of 54.75 cents.
-- Cost per median-priced home: $28/year, $2.33/month.
Roch,
That $3.8 million is what was spent on the recycling program this past fiscal year. One cent on the tax rate equals approximately $2 million in revenue for the city, so that is how I came up with "approaching two cents on the tax rate" for that $3.8 million cost.
Thanks for your additional calculations and considerations - the increased cost for more solid waste disposal (in the absence of recycling) certainly would have to be included in the final financial analysis.
I'm glad I prefaced my remarks by saying that you would know more than I about this. My calculations took the cost of the program as a percentage of the entire budget, and while it is indeed 0.4% of the expenditures, since property taxes account for only about $120M of this year's $349M of revenues, the cost of the program could indeed have a larger impact on the property tax alone.
You were indeed correct (of course) to say that a $3.8M expenditure would account for about 2 cents on the property tax rate.
At a net cost of $1.4M, the recycling program accounts for 1.17% of the $120M collected from property taxes. 1.17% of the current property tax rate (54.75 cents) is 0.64 cents.
So, yes, the cost approaches 2 cents of property rax at the cost of $3.8M, but if one factors in the (estimated) cost of additional solid waste disposal, the cost is around 0.64 cents of the property tax.
Please keep the recycling program! I agree with your statement about having to take recylables to a drop off center. Maybe we need to make changes, but please don't toss the baby out with the bathwater. (And maybe use the bathwater to water plants?)
When I lived in Oregon (15 years ago), you had to pay extra the more trash you threw out! (one big can per week was "free") All your recycling was picked up for free, however. Did this get abused sometimes? Yep. Was it a great system for encouraging recycling? I think so, but Oregon is a very environmentally forward thinking state (bike lanes, for example, EVERYWHERE!).
Thanks for asking, Sandy.
Anne
PS
BTW, abusing Oregon's recycling system is how Tonya Harding got caught for whacking Nancy Kerrigan in the knee. Folks that don't want to pay for extra trash sometimes take it and try to toss it in a business' dumpster. The business owners don't want to pay for trash that's not theirs, so they would go through trash looking for identifying items. Voila! Not only Tonya Harding's gas bill, but also the plan to whack Nancy's knee.
Greensboro's recycling program as it currently functions is extremely important to me. Thank you all for making very good points about it.
I would be in favor of a "pay for what you throw away" system--some way to let citizens themselves experience the benefits or drawbacks of creating more or less garbage volume.
Thanks, Anne, for the info about how such a system worked in Oregon. Here's what I know of the trash pickup system in a city in Switzerland: They charge per bag of trash picked up (I think there are standard-size bags), and issue stickers that you have to put on the bag to show you've paid. It might be too complicated a system and it certainly has its drawbacks, but living under such a system really makes you think about every thing you throw away! You find a lot less unnecessary packaging for the products there, and this tendency towards less extraneous packaging is urged on by the fact that at least in some cases I saw, if you're at a store and you buy something that comes with more packaging than is necessary, you can remove the packaging materials at the store so that the store has to pay for their disposal instead of you. This probably causes retailers to demand less packaging from their suppliers, or maybe to pass on the costs of some of their disposal to the producers of the trash. The system also might make customers more likely to buy a product that's not overpackaged than one that is. I like any system that makes people more directly responsible for the costs they incur in terms of government services and their effect on the environment, and that factors in the costs to society that are otherwise hidden. I think this makes people think about what they're throwing away and helps us to connect the dots to target the source of much of the huge costs our municipalities have to take on to support our throwaway culture: the producers of our consumer goods and their packaging.
I've got to add my agreement on looking at "pay for what you throw away options". I've read several articles about communities (many on the West Coast I think) that have implemented these types of program and made significant progress in reducing the overall volume of trash that's generated. Less volume means reduced tipping fees, a key factor to consider now that trash is going through the trash transfer station to a site outside Guilford County.
I'm also glad that Roch101 tried to put some figures with the cost of putting currently recycled items in the landfill. True cost benefit analyses have to way all the secondary effects of decisions to be truly accurate.
Good luck in finding the best solutions, but it's pretty obvious everyone wants to keep recycling and find ways to reduce trash volumes as well.
I regularly attend events held by civic and art-oriented groups in Greensboro. These groups serve wine, beer, soda and water and NEVER is there an area to recycle bottles and cans! Is there a way to mandate, or atleast encourage, recycling at events held downtown? It is ironic that these groups are so concerned about Greensboro's future, but can not incorporate something so simple as recycling their waste.
Amy Hoefle
Amy,
Excellent observation! I'll pass your comment along to see if these folks would consider doing their part in this effort.
Amy,
After I forwarded your comment/suggestion to some key folks in the city, I received the following response from Jeryl Covington of the city's Environmental Services Dept.:
"I do agree however with the need to promote recycling of the glass and aluminum cans as well as other products too for every portion of the community. The downtown area is challenging due to the space constraints for large receptacles for waste management and compatible services for the various needs. Both public and private service the downtown area. The dumpster service is not compatible with glass due to the conflict in the method of collection. Some private companies in other communities have developed the rollout services for large beverage containers users. I do not know what they range of costs are presently. Some municipalities fund this type of collection services too (Those communities that sort and separate at the curb find beverage management integral/compatible to their services).
The City has marketed to the downtown businesses to recycle their products, since it is currently a voluntary program, few participate. The green recycle bags are provided to interested parties; however, we have found that some do not utilize the bags as intended. However, effective January 1, 2008, ABC glass beverage bottles will be illegal to be disposed of in NC landfills. The ABC Board has notified all permit holders of this requirement in January/ February 2006. With the passage of this requirement, staff had been instructed to develop plans to educate, partner, or develop a solution for this requirement. I am not sure where this stands at this time.
P.S. Aluminum cans have been illegal to dispose in NC landfills since the late 1980’s."
Post a Comment