Get documents about "Government Grants for Non Profit Recyclers
Description
Government Grants for Non Profit Recyclers document sample
Document Sample
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
projects
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
so
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-
holds
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-
holds
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-
645-8400
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
Grants
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
ND
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
program
CIWMB HHW Grants
Our universal waste collection is funded by HHW grants from the Waste Board. Otherwise,
expenses are charged to our sanitation budget.
Tipping fees
Taxes
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?
Comment
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
issues.
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
needed.
yes, only if outcomes and result of project will prove higher results
Related docs
