Government Grants for Non Profit Recyclers by ypg15560


More Info
									                                                                                     HD15C Survey Summary                           -- December 2007

Jurisdictions             Responders
Cities                                    25
Counties                                  21
Waste Authorities                          4
Total                                     50

1. Which RETAILERS or INDUSTRIES are taking back these U-waste products in your jurisdiction?
                                                 Batteries                         Thermostats
                           Fluorescent                         Recharge-able                      Electronics
                                                Household                           (mercury-
                         lamps and bulbs                         batteries                        Non-SB20
                                                single-use                         containing)
Number Jurisdictions            18                  27                37                11             19
Percent (of 50)                36%                 54%               74%               22%            38%

2. Please estimate the number of PRIVATE SECTOR locations that are accepting back spent U-waste products?
                           Fluorescent           Batteries     Recharge-able       Thermostats    Electronics
                         lamps and bulbs        Household        batteries          (mercury-     Non-SB20
                                                single-use                         containing)
Number Jurisdictions            18                  26                31                7              14
Percent (of 50)                36%                 52%               62%               14%            28%

3. How many PUBLIC (government-run) HHW or recycling centers in your jurisdiction collect spent U-waste products (not including curbside)?
                            Permanent          Mobile or one                       Permanent     Mobile or one
                             facilities         day events                          facilities    day events

Jurisdictions w/ Some            33                 33                                66%             66%
Jurisdictions w/ None            12                  8                                24%             16%
None? (Blank)                    5                   9                                10%             18%

5. Do you intend to expand collection methods in your jurisdiction?
                                Yes                 No            Producer-    Retail-financed   Government-      Non-profit       Mail-back    Satellite Curbside Expansio
                                                               financed retail   collection       financed u-    partner-ships                  drop-off collection n of HHW
                                                                  take-back                       waste-only                                                        facilities
Number Jurisdictions             38                  7                12               12              20              12              8           15         7         12
Percent (of 38)                                                      32%              32%             53%             32%             21%         39%        18%       32%

6. Who PAYS for collection and disposal of these products? Please check all boxes that apply.
                        Fluorescent Lamps and Bulbs                                              Batteries - Single-use                                   Batteries - Rechargeable                  Electronics - Non-SB20

                        Gov't pays                             Priv. sector pays                 Gov't pays                      Priv. sector pays         Gov't pays         Priv. sector pays     Gov't pays         Priv. sector pays
                               Coll'n            Dispose             Coll'n          Dispose          Coll'n        Dispose            Coll'n      Dispose   Coll'n   Dispose    Coll'n     Dispose   Coll'n   Dispose   Coll'n    Dispose
Number Jurisdictions            34                  36                16               15              37              38              18          17         34        34         28        29         27         28            24      23
Percent (of 50)                68%                 72%               32%              30%             74%             76%             36%         34%        68%       68%        56%       58%        54%        56%           48%     46%

                                                                                                                                                                                                     Product Policy Institute    11/14/2010
                                                                                    HD15C Survey Summary                                 -- December 2007

9. Are you working with STORM WATER and/or WASTE WATER AGENCIES within your jurisdiction to collect U-waste? Please check those that apply.
                         Do they collect?                    Pay for disposal?                      Conduct education?                Contribute to your         Monitor U-waste-rel.
                                                                                                                                      budget?                    pollution?
                               Storm           Waste              Storm             Waste              Storm           Waste             Storm         Waste       Storm    Waste       Storm   Waste
                               water           water              water             water              water           water              water        water       water     water      water   water
Jurisdictions w/ Some            4               7                  4                 6                  15             11                   5            2           5        2          6.6     5.6
Jurisdictions w/ None            18             14                  16               14                  12             12                  18           18          14       15         15.6    14.6
None? (Blank)                    28             29                  30               30                  23             27                  27           30          31       33         27.8    29.8

Jurisdictions w/ Some            8%             14%                 8%               12%                30%              22%              10%          4%          10%        4%        13%      11%
Jurisdictions w/ None           36%             28%                32%               28%                24%              24%              36%          36%         28%        30%       31%      29%
None? (Blank)                   56%             58%                60%               60%                46%              54%              54%          60%         62%        66%       56%      60%

10. What would be the most important aide in the prevention, collection, and proper end-of-life management of U-waste products? Please rank your top three.
                          Mandating state    More local        Additional         Additional            More            More              More         Total
                             product          funding        public facilities private facilities    government     government          education
                         stewardship laws                                                              staff for   staff for policy
                                                                                                      collection      activities

Number Responses                 37              28                 11                19                 5                4                24
Percent (of 50)                 74%             56%                22%               38%                10%              8%               48%

Number 1's                       25              6                                     2                                                    3           36
Percent of No 1's (36)          69%             17%                0%                 6%                 0%              0%                8%          100%

11. Do you follow EPR (product stewardship) developments? Are your elected officials aware of EPR?
       Jurisdiction          I think so     I don't think     I don’t know
Number Responses                 26               9                 12
Percent (of 50)                 52%             18%                24%

12. Has your jurisdiction undertaken any of these EPR activities?
                          Passed an EPR       Developed         Hosted          Conducted            Conducted       Developed        Included take- Develope
                           resolution or       pub/priv        workshops       public surveys         studies            EPR              back in       d
                             ordinance      partnerships                                                            Implementa-         purchasing educatio
                                            for collecting                                                            tion Plan          contracts     nal
                                               U-waste                                                                                               materials

Number Responses                 7               21                 7                 9                  9                5                 4           22
Percent (of 50)                 14%             42%                14%               18%                18%              10%               8%          44%

13. Should CIWMB grants be used to provide seed money for building private sector infrastructure for U-Waste, HHWetc?
                                Yes             No
Number Responses                 35              12                            Comments induicate strong support for state legislation and state assistance for
Percent (of 50)                 74%             26%                            product stewardship programs.

Add to CPSC List?
Added                            24
Already on                       17
Declined                         10

                                                                                                                                                                                                Product Policy Institute   11/14/2010
No          Jurisdiction          County       Pop 1/1/2007   House-
 1   Amador County                                38,435       15,000
 2   Butte County                                218,069       80,000
 3   Calaveras County                             46,028       27,349
 4   Central Contra Costa                                     194,500
 5   Central Contra Costa SWA                                  76,000
 6   City of Agoura Hills       Los Angeles       23,340        8,000
 7   City of Albany               Alameda         16,764        4,500
 8   City of Bakersfield            Kern         323,213       90,000
 9   City of Berkeley             Alameda        106,347       52,000
10   City of Calabasas          Los Angeles       23,652        8,350
11   City of Chula Vista         San Diego       227,723       75,000
12   City of Clayton           Contra Costa       10,781        4,000
13   City of Concord           Contra Costa      123,519       47,249
14   City of Costa Mesa           Orange         113,805       41,793
15   City of Emeryville           Alameda          9,163        9,096
16   City of Fortuna             Humboldt         11,207        4,500
17   City of Indian Wells        Riverside         4,942        4,400
18   City of Lemon Grove         San Diego        25,451        8,900
19   City of Lompoc            Santa Barbara      42,015       20,000
20   City of Moorpark             Ventura         36,150
21   City of Palo Alto          Santa Clara       62,615       25,216
22   City of Redding               Shasta         90,045
23   City of Rio Vista             Solano          7,823
24   City of Roseville             Placer        106,266       43,704
25   City of San Dimas          Los Angeles       37,011       12,050
26   City of Simi Valley          Ventura        124,524       41,901
27   City of Suisun City           Solano         27,980
28   City of Thousand Oaks        Ventura        127,739
29   City of Vallejo               Solano        121,425       40,000
30   City of Vernon             Los Angeles         95           28
31   Del Norte County                             29,341       10,869
32   El Dorado County                            178,674       58,939
33   Fresno County                               917,515      300,000
34   Glenn County                                 28,915
35   Lake County                                  64,276       23,000
36   Lassen County                                36,375
37   Los Angeles County (only)                  7,000,000     3,300,000
38   Salinas Valley SWA
39   San Francisco                               808,844      350,000
40   San Joaquin County                          679,687      210,000
No          Jurisdiction   County   Pop 1/1/2007   House-
41   San Mateo County                 733,496      266,392
42   Santa Clara County              1,808,056     617,175
43   Shasta County                    181,401
44   Siskiyou County                   45,953       18,000
45   Sonoma County                    481,765      172,403
46   Stanislaus County                521,497
47   Trinity County                    14,171        5,000
48   Tulare County                    429,006      110,385
49   West Contra Costa                              95,790
50   Yolo County                      193,983       59,375

                                    Responded       In CA    Percent
     Cities                                  25         487          5%
     Counties                                21           58        36%
     Waste Authorities                        4
     Total                                   50
8. How do you FUND your government U-waste collection programs?
U-Waste funding
Waste Management Department General Fund
Landfill tipping fees, grants
Our solid waste parcel fee, which funds our entire solid waste infrastructure.
Enterprise fund based of refuse fees
from the sale of residential recyclables (through our processor)
Not yet established, coming in 2008
General fund, waste mitigation funds.
City of Bakersfield has an annual BPO for pickup and disposal of u-waste collected from City
buildings. Non-SB 20 collected under City’s Curbside Bulky Item Collection Program is funded
through Solid Waste Enterprise Fund (service fee built into rate charged to customers).
We don’t have a gov’t U-waste collection program in Berkeley. Non-profits have stepped up with the
private sector to start filling this role
AB 939
Trash and recycling service franchise fees
There is not any local funding for U-waste. Currently [funded] thorugh grants and local collected
fees as part of the sewer charges
Sewer rate payers in Concord contributed about $350,000 to the cost of operating Central Contra
Costa Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility
The Costa Mesa Sanitary District funds the battery collection program. Their contact number is 949-
Don’t have any for the public, just for our own operational wastes
2006 – used general fund monies; 2007 – funded with CIWMB HHW grant & revenue from an e-
waste collection event
U-waste disposal costs for residents are included in annual residential levy. Commercial accounts
must seek contract with independent u-waste haulers.
AB939 fee collected by waste hauler
Collection and Tipping Fees
Enterprise fund based of refuse fees.
no data

Solid Waste Enterprise Fund and Partnerships with non-profit organizations
All our private sector programs are paid for by the individual companies, but the City promotes their
programs or events. The City piggy backs on the County’s programs and events
General fund
AB939 Fees & grant monies from Sewer District
solid waste fund and general fund
Through the garbage rate application.
Absorbed into regular solid waste budget
Since March 2005, the contracted operator of the Del Norte County Transfer Station has been
required to receive and recycle fluorescent tubes, car batteries, and CRT items from households for
no charge. (The estimates above reflect the contractor’s labor costs and cost for these materials to
be collected). CIWMB HHW grants have been used to enhance infrastructure and outreach efforts,
but have been used to off set these other costs. The Contractor pays these expenses from
revenues collected from service fees assessed on mixed wastes and other materials disposed at
this facility. The contractor has agreed to receive household batteries and electronics for the
same service fee as mixed wastes.
8. How do you FUND your government U-waste collection programs?
U-Waste funding
Supplemental property tax parcel assessment of $3 per parcel per year and grants thru CIWMB
Surcharge on each ton of solid waste landfilled in County
Enterprise fund based of refuse fees
Landfill gate fees
Subsidized by refuse disposal fees at our two operating landfills.
Solid Waste Tipping Fee

Residential & commercial garbage rates.
HHW Budget - funded through an annual $4 fee on all residential dwellings; occasional CIWMB
HHW grants
Currently funding is from the Solid Waste Fund (tipping fees); future funding will come from the
County General Fund__. + Short-term funding to develop retail take-back partnerships is provided
by a grant from CIWMB.
A portion of the AB939 Implementation Fee (solid waste tipping fee) funds the u-waste collection
Our universal waste collection is funded by HHW grants from the Waste Board. Otherwise,
expenses are charged to our sanitation budget.
Tipping fees
Grants and tip fees
Grants & ear-marked tipping fees
Portion of the Garbage Rate and Waste Board Grants
Tipping fee & grants.
13. Should CIWMB grants be used to provide seed money for building private sector infrastructure for U-Waste, HHWetc?
Any help from CIWMB re: EPR would be great. Small jurisdictions are faced with a never ending list of items
which will not be accepted into our landfills, and shouldn’t be, but for each one, costs of recycling and or
disposal seem to mount and always come back to the consumer, hence the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions are
faced with a growing number of items for which there is no local demand or market for. What are we facing in
the future?
as long as it goes towards assisting compliance with mandatory programs (such as a product stewardship
system set-up for a listed product category), and not just to subsidize a voluntary program pilot (such as 2
years take-back, with no follow-up)
CIWMB monies come from tipping fees primarily. That is ratepayer monies. If the private sector would like to
build a fund through the CIWMB, then they can tap it, but otherwise, I wouldn’t support giving money to the
private sector. That is not the paradigm shift we’re seeking.
I think most private sector infrastructure would work best for lower risk HHW & problem products (e-waste, u-
waste, latex paint, appliances, etc)
It’s a good thing to invest in to get going, but the private for profit manufacturers and retailers should bare cost
Mandates should be set for private industries to establish their own infrastructure
Money needs to provide for ongoing collection and disposal operations, not education and not seed money the
issue is stable ongoing source of funds for the collection and backhauling . No they should be available to
use for on going operation costs of HHW program drop off, and curbside collection
no response
No, I think it’s more productive to give the grant money to cities and counties for programs, events and
education. I also support producer responsibility take it back programs!
Not just seed money – in my view this is not a local problem to be solved with local $
Only in cooperation with local jurisdictions who have the big picture and history about collection needs and
Please tell the Waste Board to back off on EPR…it’s a duplicative, inefficient and costly waste management
scheme that will only serve to hasten the pending economic demise of California.
see comment
Technical research and development of CalOSHA-approved technologies fluorescent tube
The grant process could be eliminated and replaced with direct transfer of all ADFs to local agencies in charge
of solid and hazardous waste programs based on per capita formula. The knowledgeable Waste Board staff
would achieve greater results working directly with the public in local agencies. Pre SB20 local agencies were
much more cost efficient contracting directly with licensed haulers and recyclers. The SB20 system is more
costly and problematic.
The rest of my Contra Costa Counter Parts need to be in agreement.
The taxpayer should not be responsible for the funding. The manufacturer or retailer should bear the cost. Of
course, they would pass it along to the customer.
These grants should be for the private sector and should have clear sustainability requirements and penalties
for less than x (i.e. 5 yr) program life. We want THEM to develop an infrastructure that works for THEM
because they are more likely to stick with it if it works for them. I also think that if funds are provided to private
sector programs I think the dollar amounts should be based on percentages, with the remaining balances
growing to locals to manage the rest of the material that are not being handled by those private sector
businesses. In other words, if the pot is $25K for Yolo County but IKEA is the only store that applies for funds,
they can be granted up to X% based on taxable sales data (or some other formula) for that area, then the
remaining should go to local jurisdictions because not everyone is going to take their uni-wastes to IKEA.
We don't want seed money, we want enough money to raise the crop
Without grant funding from the Waste Board we would not have been able to expand on our HHW program to
provide Household Battery Collection at retail locations. But, grant funding is a temporary fix and EPR is
yes, only if outcomes and result of project will prove higher results

To top