"Planning Guide for Strategic Municipal Solid Waste Management"
SOLID WASTE PLANNING IN-BY-FOR MORGANTOWN I. “New Occasions Teach New Duties. Time Makes Ancient Good Uncouth.” Every solution addresses present needs. Solutions, however, can create a potential for a new set of problems which usually are not anticipated at the time. And that is where we are with the Morgantown solid waste planning of nearly a decade and one-half ago – especially as it relates to the high density district of the central city. II. Present Problems Description of Current Services In 1992, a decision was made to contract with BFI to provide trash collection services for the City of Morgantown. The City closed its municipal solid waste services and several of the City solid waste employees were hired by BFI at that time. BFI provided unlimited trash services for rates which were negotiated with BFI and approved by the City Council. A requirement that curbside recycling services be offered for selected items is included in the contract. BFI makes curbside collection on the second and fourth weeks in Morgantown and delivers the materials to the Mon County Solid Waste Authority Recycling Center in Westover. The fees for BFI services are currently $12 per unit per month for low density residential areas of the City and $20 per unit per month in the high density residential district. Current Waste Management Statistics Presently, The Mon County Solid Waste Authority reports that Morgantown‟s daily per capita rate for municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal is 4.07 pounds per day. In aggregate, this amounts to 1,636 tons of City MSW each month. (The daily per capita rate is slightly below the national average which is listed to be 4.34 pounds per person.) Of the aggregate total amount of MSW, Morgantown is reported to be recycling just 110 tons monthly of recyclables through its curbside recycling program. This amounts to 6.7 % of Morgantown‟s waste stream. The West Virginia Recycling Act adopted by the State Legislature in 1989 called for attainment of a 30% level for all municipalities by the year 2000 and a 50% level by the year 2010. (This information is cited in the Morgantown/BFI contract.) At present the EPA estimates that nationally 28% of the waste stream is being recycled. In view of the fact that Morgantown has been recognized as a desirable place to live, it seems significant that the City falls so far below the 28% and 30% levels. BFI Service Reports The current problems reported on MSW and recycling program services in the low- density residential areas of the City involve primarily missed trash pick-ups, missed recycling pick-ups, container problems and inadequate communication. BFI reports very low percentages of unsuccessful collections based on customer called-in complaints (less 1 than .2%) in both the low-density residential areas and the high-density area. It must be noted, however, that other cities with high percentages of transient populations resulting from residency of university students, who may not feel a commitment to the area, do not receive reports on service problems because students are not as likely to follow-up as readily on problems with trash and litter control services (Columbus/OSU). Problems in High density Area Problems in trash management reported in high density areas of Columbus, OH are recognized to be an outgrowth of a set of conditions which exacerbate problems with trash and litter management in most student populated areas. These include 1) the nature of housing which involve conversion of former single family residences into multi- residences for students, 2) absentee landlords, 3) personal habits of students, 4) lack of adequate capacity of trash containers, 5) failure to sign up for trash services. This analysis closely relates to the high density district in Morgantown as well. Many documented trash problems go unreported each week. Approximately 30% of the high density district dwelling units have not even signed up for trash services with BFI. It can be assumed that the occasional positive BFI monthly reports do not represent the actual overall performance of the current trash management system. Other current problems with the present trash management system – particularly in the high density area - can be identified as follows: 1. Extensive use of plastic trash bags without containers 2. Frequent BFI utilization of one person per truck and that person being unable to lift manually or carry 90 gallon totes 3. Unloading of full totes by trash pick-up crew garbage bag by garbage bag 4. Inevitable breaking of some garbage bags due to weight or sharp objects 5. Lack of promoting use of dumpsters in accessible public areas 6. Litter generated from trash pick-up as well as from animal or weather damage to plastic bags not in containers and awaiting pick-up 7. Accumulation of litter from public and private areas in street drains and on open property 8. Lack of litter pickup by Public Work Department during months between November and April 9. Apparent lack of regular integration of Public Works Department services in trash and litter management 10. Apparent inadequate utilization of section 523.20 of the City Code on Clearing Litter 11. Lack of full enforcement of litter and failed pick-up problems because of ambiguity about cause of problems (resident? BFI? Street area?) 12. Lack of sufficient capacity for dumpsters and totes at various locations. 13. Haphazard commitment to utilization of trash collection apparatus in the manner intended (totes, automatic rear loading lifts not utilized, tote lids not closed, totes not properly stored, persistent trash surrounding the containers, lack of screening screened where it would be possible) 14. High volume of trash in general 15. Lack of general participation in curbside or drop-off recycling in high density area 2 16. Lack of separation of hazardous materials from trash 17. Heavy disposal of trash at the end of semesters 18. Occasional reports of random dumping along streets by landlords, commuters and others traveling through the area 19. Perceived inconsistency in waste collection by some residents and businesses 20. Lack of recycling drop bin service in downtown area. 21. Lack of an accessible transfer station where residents can drop off solid waste 22. High aggregate costs for property owners who have established dumpsters or other organized trash management systems for their tenants 23. Cost of deposit on totes is a disincentive to responsible participation in trash management collection system (insufficient numbers of totes are requested.) 24. Observations of BFI reductions in personnel to one person per truck without the use of automatic equipment, lack of vehicle replacement system, and sporadic maintenance on BFI owned and maintained dumpster equipment 25. Apparent high turnover in some BFI staff positions. 26. Lack of a performance-based contract which helps protects City service recipients 27. Lack of fining BFI for lack of performance 28. A lack of awareness by City Council on the aggregate monthly costs involved in operating the BFI services (Missed collections? MSW tonnage? Recyclables tonnage? Site of disposal? Tipping fees amounts? Etc.) 29. Lack of a viable public education process 30. Lack of a City environmental engineer to assess overall process and hauler contract effectiveness and efficiency, enable planning and adjustments, linkages and integration, and provide public education III. Critical Issues The list of problems in the previous section need to be considered one by one, but it also seems important to observe that the list seems symptomatic of more fundamental overall problems in the Morgantown solid waste system. While is can be appreciated that the current private contractual system has allowed the City to be relieved of operating a direct service which was experiencing personnel, equipment and financial problems in the early 1990‟s, the list of problems suggests that there are now several issues which need to be addressed both with new short term and in a longer term strategies. III A. The Issue of Incentives in the Current System The first overall issue is the matter of lack of sufficient incentives for all stakeholders within the structure of the present system. 1. The City of Morgantown - For the City‟s interests, the contract is not a performance-based contract in that there are few direct incentives for the hauler to regard as strategic standards for service delivery which must be met before financial penalties accrue. The hauler proposes the fees, negotiates the fee structure – apparently without sharing the details of the costs in providing the services – and then is in the position of collecting the fees and operating the 3 system. Numbers of service personnel and a schedule for equipment maintenance and replacement are not specified. Nor are target projected quantities of recycling specified. There is no required reporting on the amount of the MSW waste stream, the impact of Morgantown MSW on the landfill, no incentives to reduce the costs of the service for the city or for the customers, no requirements on litter control, nor any stated agreements on the interface of the City Public Works Department and the hauler. Furthermore, there is no system which assures 100% enrollment in the trash collection service. With the use of a private hauler which has been authorized to essentially operate an unlimited trash service system, the City has allowed itself to have „the luxury‟ of not addressing the larger waste stream issues because it too has lacked the incentives to do so. With principally only a very busy City Manager and a police officer to monitor the contract, there has not been sufficient personnel time available to keep check on what is going on day-by-day and to identify ways of reducing the quantity of the waste stream, to reduce that level of hazardous material within the overall waste stream, to improve the interface of Public Works Department services with the services of the hauler, and to help create a more effective enforcement system. 2. BFI - For the hauler there have been undoubtedly been incentives to make the contract profitable from its corporate office but little incentive to: a. advocate for improvements in the service design to improve service effectiveness (with assistance of from BFI corporate, the City, WVU Engineering, other) b. develop structures to improve level of recycling to reduce haulage costs and tipping fees c. advocate for and assist in litter control when the City Public Works is not consistently involved d. recommend modifications in the use of totes when one person coverage cannot handle full 96 gallon totes in several locations e. ask the City to assist with completing a 100% enrollment (presently reported at approximately 70%) when such a request might bring other concerns to the attention of the City f. operate with higher capital investment in equipment and maintenance when full dollar potential receipts have not been realized g. provide public education, consistent communication and reporting, and regularity of service because the system operates essentially as a complaint-driven system rather than as a strategically planned service with monitored steps for compliance and achievement. 3. Rental Property Occupants - As far as individual rental unit occupants in the high-density district are concerned, they also operate with few incentives relating to overall trash management. If the student renter is signed up for the haulers service, they can place anything out for pick-up without penalty or additional costs. In addition: 4 a. There is little incentive to participate in litter control, recycling and reduction of the trash stream because whatever the level of service delivered to them, it all costs the same. b. The deposit expense on the totes has been a financial disincentive to sign-up for the service. c. Trash in plastic bags placed outside of totes is picked up most of the time. In fact the trash hauler often empties totes bag by bag instead of carrying or dumping the tote manually. d. There is little incentive to pick up litter from broken bags. There is also little incentive to separate toxic waste from household trash. e. Very little information, education or orientation is provided to motivate and support tenant participation in efforts to better manage the waste stream. f. Occasional trash or litter citations become a more of a nuisance rather than a link to an understanding of a failure to participate in a larger community purpose and enterprise. 4. Rental Property Owners - Some rental property owners choose to use dumpsters instead of individual containers to better manage bug and animal infestation, public health and aesthetics, but there is no substantial financial incentive provided from the hauler to promote dumpster utilization for commercial properties. The same unit costs are charged even though a dumpster provides an efficient, effective means for the hauler to pick-up trash from a multi-unit site. Without incentives, landlords are unlikely to become involved in further facilitating trash and recycling system operations. Ideally all properties with three or more units would be able to use centralized dumpsters on private or public property for trash and recycling services. 5. Enforcement - As far as trash ordinance enforcement is concerned, there are lack of incentives for full enforcement due to continuing acceptance of bagged trash by the hauler, the extensive amount of litter on streets and other open areas as a result of multiple residents having broken bags (often near totes) and extensive litter accumulating in streets and blowing on to private properties. The litter control personnel attempt to manage contact with rental residents during the day and to provide warning and citations as situations are deemed to warrant. The size of the population and the geographic area involved are very large relative to the availability of a single officer. Little incentive has been evident to establish priorities or to establish a system for mailing citations. Because of lack of regularly assigned personnel from Public Works and use of a single enforcement officer with occasional personnel from the judicial court system, it can be surmised that neither trash enforcement nor contract oversight have been sustained priorities for City of Morgantown. 5 The incentives relating to the current system for the City itself, the hauler, the rental residents, the landlord and the enforcement personnel can be summarized as essentially inadequate or missing. IIIB. The Issue of Mission: What are We Trying to Accomplish with Our Solid Waste Services? In response to the previous discussion, it would seem that a second overall issue is that the City would benefit from having goals to assist it in establishing a sense of community mission and participation which could lead to a better management of the waste stream. Having a comprehensive sense of direction can assist in creating incentives for all stakeholders involved. Reducing Costs One of the first elements in a community plan for solid waste would be the incentive to reduce costs. The rate for trash service in the City‟s high density district is $20 per month or $240 per year. In a benchmarking study of university cities conducted in 2003 for the year of 2000, the following annual household unit costs and recycling/reuse/composting diversion rates were identified: University City Annual Unit Cost Diversion Rate Boulder, CO $188 36.40% Champaign, IL $162 28.20% Madison, WI $211 46.30% Minneapolis, MN $187 29.40% Orange City, NC $196 32.20% Portland, OR $211 50.30% Ann Arbor, MI $166 39.60% Morgantown, WV $240 6.72% (high density area) Even though each of the benchmarked university cities has a larger population than Morgantown and is located in an area with a more expensive economy, each annual service cost is lower and the diversion rate is higher. The study (as reported in the Ann Arbor Solid Waste Plan) discusses the relationship between the costs and the diversion rate. Waste reduction is linked to cost-savings for the community and for the individual unit payors involved. Another comparative study provided by the City of Albuquerque presents information on 19 cities in the southwest as of February, 2005. All cities have environmental requirements, curbside recycling, and large item pick-up. Most have household hazardous s waste program and several have yard waste, graffiti removal, weed and litter control and convenience centers (drop-off stations) available as well. The list of rates is as follows: 6 City Monthly Rate (for all services except large item pick-up and drop-off)) Albuquerque, NM 10.24 Sandia Heights, NM 11.36 Las Cruces, NM 13.48 Sante Fe, NM 12.78 Bernalillo, NM 10.86 Rio Rancho, NM 10.59 Los Ranchos de Al. 12.12 Mesa, AZ 19.57 Phoenix, AZ 23.20 Tucson, AZ 14.40 El Paso, TX 14.00 Dallas, TX 17.90 San Antonio, TX 12.21 Amarillo, TX 10.62 Fort Worth, TX 21.45 15.00 Deposit Salt lake City, UT 9.75 Colorado, Springs, CO 16.50 Unit Costs Alternatives Connected with the analysis of the university cities are the incentives for waste control though implementation of Pay-As You-Throw or “variable rate” (PAYT/VR) systems. Such unit pricing systems have also been implemented in Morgantown‟s regional university cities of Blacksburg, VA, Athens, Ohio and Charlottesville, VA According to research by the Skumatz Economic Research Association in 2002, more than 5,200 communities across North America have already implemented PAYT/VR systems. With such systems there is no fixed bill for unlimited collection. The rates are volume based and require household units to pay more if they put out more garbage – usually measured by the container or bag with special logos. Containers can be subscribed to and accommodate a specific amounts of trash (20, 30, 50, 96 gallon or more). The more containers which are used, the higher the regular disposal bill. With special trash bags systems(or sticker or tag programs), the bag or other trash identification units can be purchased at grocery or convenience stores as well at city facilities. The cost of the bag/unit includes the costs of the service. There are also various hybrids systems which can involve a fixed bill for the first can or bag and after that users pay for waste disposal on a per-sticker or per-bag basis. The key is that people only pay for the service that they use. If the PAYT/VR is established as optional (most communities apparently do not), a program may offer customers the option of unlimited service for a higher fixed fee. 7 According to a 2002 study conducted by Dr. Lisa Skumatz in Michigan on PAYT/VR programs, what communities can expect when they implement such programs is as follows: Disposal decreases of 16 percent to 17 percent. Increases in the recycling rate that reaches 5 to 6 percent of the total amount of disposal – which usually comes to about a 50% increase in the current level of recycling. Increases in yard waste diversion amounting to about 4 percent to 5 percent of disposal over current waste diversion levels. A reduction of about 6 percent of waste, due to less packaging, buying in bulk, grass recycling (leaving it on the law) and other behaviors that keep materials out of the waste stream. Skumatz states: “Based on these figures, a town that generates 100,000 tons of residential refuse annually could expect to see an annual reduction of 16,000 tons. Recycling tonnage would increase by about 5,500 tons as people moved waste, such as empty milk jugs, from their garbage bags to recycling programs. About 6,000 tons would be avoided through waste prevention.” PAYT/VR programs are “great ways to increase recycling, divert yard waste from trash pick-up and generally reduce the amount of garbage left on the curb.” As far as concerns about illegal dumping of garbage, only one quarter of the PAYT/VR communities reported and that illegal dumping problems usually last less than 4 months and are usually easily solved through a variety of enforcement strategies. (L. Skumatz, Michigan Privatization Report, Fall 2002, Mackinac Center for Public Policy.) Pennsylvania‟s Litterbug program and Burlington, VT also report that illegal dumping issues are manageable and short-term. IIIC. Environmental Protection for Whom? In addition to having goals for giving City residents a better signal for what their service costs, there are environmental considerations which need to be part of a city‟s prevention, management, and reuse relating to solid waste. Such considerations begin with an awareness of the role that a landfill has limitations in its capacity and in its ability to safely contain various materials from contaminating a watershed. According to the 2002 West Virginia State Solid Waste Plan (p. I-8), a landfill should be “reserved for non-recyclables and other materials that cannot practically be managed in any other way. This management option is a last resort. Reduction, recycling and reuse are the preferred management options for the State. Every landfill has a projected lifespan based on the amount of refuse which is deposited in the landfill. Currently there is no active landfill in Monongalia County and all city solid waste is hauled the Meadowfill and S & S Grading private landfills in Harrison County. It is not completely clear how long the land fills will be available for trash 8 received from the City of Morgantown and what kind of hazards, haulage and tipping fee requirements will be required at a future certified location. Because regional landfills can and will have a growing impact on watershed and sources of water for communities in our Monongahela-Tygart-West Fork rivers watershed including Morgantown, it is important that we work to protect the public health of the current populations as well as our future population in the ways that we create and manage waste. What we do today in terms of solid waste collection, processing, recycling and disposal is intrically tied to the future public safety, health and welfare of people living where we live. We have a vested interest in being care-full in what we leave for them. In the interest of the environmental sustainability of our area for our progeny, it is vital that we make the State plan goals our own by reducing waste and preserving landfill capacity. It is vital that we work to support and promote source reduction, recycling, reuse and composting by collaborating with the County, the University, various stakeholders and interested organizations. It is also important that we as a city do through planning, management, education and resource development to fulfill our obligations to our present and future residents. IIID Materials Resource Recovery and Economic development Another important concept which belongs as a core issue to consider in reviewing Morgantown‟s solid waste policies is the matter of recycling and resource recovery as elements of economic development. As long as we operate our system with only a minimal diversion of waste into recycling (6.7%), it can be assumed that we are essentially giving low priority to the cognitive awareness that we have in knowing that waste is a potential resource. As a resource it is important that we explore and develop ways for our waste materials to be recycled within our local industrial/social system. When this awareness of an industrial ecology is part of our solid waste management planning and development, the waste stream can become a growing source of economic productivity. According to a report by Lance King on Wasting and Recycling in the United States 2000, “On a per ton basis, sorting and processing recyclables alone sustains more jobs than landfilling or incineration.” According to the report, some recycling-based paper mills and recycled plastic product manufacturers employ 60 times more workers on a per- ton basis than do landfills. The report adds, “Each recycling step a community takes locally means more jobs, more business expenditures on supplies and services, and more money circulating in the local economy through spending and tax payments.” (Eco- Cycle: Creating Jobs from Discards, 2002) A representative list of items currently included in materials resource recovery programs helps to provide some indication of the potential for various types of economic activity which recycling and resource recovery programs can represent to an area: 9 Antifreeze Aluminum Batteries, Auto Batteries, Appliance Beverage Cans Brush & Tree Waste Construction Material Electronics Fluorescents Food Waste Grease, Bones, Tallow Glass Minerals Oil, Automotive Paper Paint Parts Cleaner Plastic Scrap Metal Solvents Refrigerant Textiles Toner Cartridges Tires Typewriter Ribbons Wood Waste & Pallets Yard Waste The City of Burlington, Vermont is linked to a Northeast Recycling Council which is a network of regional recycling and reuse industries which identifies 13,000 jobs in recycling, reuse and remanufacturing. The Monongalia County Solid Waste Authority has established an important foundation for expanding economic activity in recycling for the area. It is vital that Morgantown nurture this growth by increasing its waste stream diversion into productive resource recovery activity. There are dimensions of resource recovery which need to be included in this rethinking of waste as a resource. The City of York, PA and York County have established a very interesting resource recovery process which generates 36-40 megawatts of continuous electricity through a partnership with the Montenay Power Corporation which has eight other similar operations around the country. The City of Lancaster, PA and Lancaster County have developed an integrated system of waste management in partnership with COVANTA Energy which includes a resource recovery facility which produces 36 megawatts of electricity, provides water treatment, recovered ferrous metals, and produced over $133 million in electric revenue alone in a 10 year period. COVANTA has 14 such operations with local solid waster management systems in the USA. Arlington, VA provides similar resource recovery services as part of its waste management system. Augusta, GA, has a tire resource recovery plant. Morgantown and Monongalia County are uniquely situated and could become a center for a larger resource recovery industry for either energy production or some form of specialized materials from the list above. The catchment area involved could include not only include the other Region VI counties of Marion, Harrison, Doddridge, Taylor and Preston but also adjoining counties and cities in south west Pennsylvania as well. IIIE. Foundations for Public Policy The City of Fitchburg, Wisconsin, underscores the value of two well established policy frameworks which serve as guiding principles in solid waste management planning: Sustainability and Zero Waste. Both sets of concepts are based on awareness of the systemic interrelationship of discards from one part of a system becoming resources in other parts of the system. This relationship is fundamental to natural systems. The concept of Sustainability embodies the following guiding principles: 10 Understanding the limits of natural systems. Consideration of the impact any actions will have on the future generations. Understanding the interconnections between economy, society, and environment. Equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. The Zero Waste model includes the following principles: Managing resources instead of waste. Conserving natural resources through waste prevention and recycling. Turning discarded resources into jobs and new products instead of trash. Promoting products and materials that are durable and recyclable. Discouraging products and materials that can only become trash after use. (City of Fitchburg Solid Waste Plan, February 2002) Because of such considerations, several hierarchies of waste management have been developed as follows: (EPA; West Virginia and Wisconsin Solid Waste Plans) EPA West Virginia Wisconsin 1. Source reduction Source Reduction Reduction 2. Reuse Recycling Reuse 3. Recycling Reuse Recycling 4. Resource recovery Material Recovery Composting 5. Incineration Landfilling Energy recovery 6. Landfilling Landfilling 7. IV. Proposed Goal for Morgantown Municipal Solid Waste Management Having identified the importance of incentives costs, environmental, and waste economics considerations for community stakeholders, a goal statement for Morgantown solid waste management program could be projected as follows: To manage municipal solid waste systematically, contractually and collaboratively in order to protect the public safety, health and welfare of the population and the economic investments in the community by working strategically to effectively 1) increase diversion of the waste stream, 2) capture economic benefits, 3) promote stakeholder and resident participation, and 4) maintain public assessment, support and service delivery. V. Service Delivery Recommendation for 2005-2007 BFI Contract 1. Promote use of accessible dumpsters for commercial properties through a) financial rate reduction incentives, b) regular equipment maintenance and repair, c) City arrangement for space as practical and needed in public right of ways and with screening. 11 2. Restate location and management policy for totes. Specify lack of authorization to store totes on street sidewalks. Allow totes to be stored in front of residences if screened. Require that lids be completely closed. 3. Institute 100% billing system with referral of non-compliance to Police Department (Commercial dumpster customers will need to provide names and addresses of residents to prevent unnecessary billing.) 4. Require BFI to demonstrate a capacity to physically manage the utilization of 96 gallon totes in the high density population area with their current vehicle and personnel resources without having to require personnel empty totes manually bag by bag. 5. After an appropriate information and orientation campaign, insist that BFI not pick-up trash bags which are not placed inside of totes or cans. (Blacksburg) (Bags located outside of approved containers will be subject to citation.) BFI must assist, however, with the collection of loose unbagged trash around dumpsters and assume responsibility for trash from spillage and breakage during trash loading processes. 6. Require quarterly financial and service reports by BFI to identify monthly tonnage delivered to landfill, location of landfill, amounts of tipping fees, monthly tonnage of recyclables, missed pick-up days for MSN and curbside recyclables, etc. 7. Create incentives for BFI to control collection costs through performance-based downsizing of the solid waste collection system while increasing diversion to the recycling system operated by the Mon County Solid Waste Authority. 8. Require that BFI provide for the City website information on trash and curbside recycling requirements as well as maps showing daily pick-up service areas and schedules. 9. Announce and publish information on hazardous waste collections and exchange events with BFI information even though the services may not be sponsored by BFI. 10. Plan, announce, and publish information and instructions for special collections several months in advance. Enforcement 1. Require BFI to provide ready access the full customer list to the Police Department to assist in the issuance of citations by mail. 2. Cite tenants/residents by mail for trash bags not placed in approved containers. 12 3. Cite extended litter infractions on lawns and areas around houses (such as on Dallas Street, Jones Ave., etc.) 4. Give priority enforcement to corridors such as Beechurst, University Ave, Stewart Street, and Richwood Ave. Public Works Establish year around service plan to assure continuity of street sweeping services and litter collection with BFI services Recycling Participate in short term and long range planning with the Monongalia County Solid Waste Authority in matters relating to drop-off recycling, hazardous waste collections, automotive waste recycling, household chemical exchanges, and revenue sharing in partnered services VI. Privatized and Non-privatized Municipal Solid Waste Systems Descriptions In reviewing a sampling of municipal solid waste systems information, what becomes evident very quickly is that there are basically two types of solid waste management systems with multiple variations. One basic type is the type of system which has most of its functions privatized. Private haulers provide the collection services. The refuse is taken to public, nonprofit or private recycling centers as well as to public or private landfills. In some situations the maintenance of the dumpsters and equipment is also contracted out to additional private contractors. Yard waste may be picked up by still under another contract. And yet here are numerous corporations involved in a full gamut of solid waste services. Some corporations seek certified industry standard training such as provided by the National Solid Waste Management Association and the Solid Waste Association of North America to support contract performance. The other type of basic system is one which the municipality operates most of the components of the system. through some type of board, free standing public utility or enterprise fund. A few municipalities still operate solid waste out of the general revenue funds, but most of the examples reviewed have established entities within the governmental structure to operate the service. (One such structure could be the type of structure that Morgantown has established with the Morgantown Utility Board,) There may be contracting for specialized functions with a non-profit or private contactor, but the core operations are a municipally sponsored service. The city is the collector of MSN and recyclables, the hauler the yard waste, the composter, the chipper of brush, the recycler, the manager of hazardous waste and automotive and electronic wastes, the resource recover, etc. 13 Comparisons The strengths of the privatized system are that it tends to be self-managed and self- contained. There is less administrative oversight required for the city to address personnel and capital equipment issues The weaknesses of the privatized system is that its being self-contained tends to be make it less able to interact and integrate with other solid waste service elements. Communication is more difficult among separate entities and with customers. Customer services often lack continuity and consistency. It is important that contracts with private contractors be written in performance terms to assure strategic compliance and also to protect the city from an entropic drift away from an initial higher quality of performance. Fragmentation in use of financial resources for multiple contracts can create more cost and audit requirements for the municipality. It also can create a situation for a city in which it is left without sufficient resources to monitor the contracts and properly respond to gaps in services and in communications. The weaknesses of a municipal system are that it sometimes does not receive the policy and administrative direction which it needs. When operated as a free-standing public utility or as an enterprise agency, there is greater likelihood of continuity and stability in services as well as a stronger likelihood that there can be service integration in terms of an overall mission for all service elements within the system. As a public entity, there is a greater chance for the service to have a broad comprehensive mission which addresses more than collections and recycling. It can do planning, education, service assessment and service expansion and development while pursuing citizen–oriented economic, ecologic, and service improvement oriented goals independent of the service contracts which are in place. Morgantown is in a position right now in which it has two years remaining on its contract with its hauler. Adjustment need to be made in that contract to address the enumerated problems in this proposal. It is important, however, that in the two years remaining on the hauler contract, the City weigh carefully the benefits of continuing to operate its solid waste program through an exclusive hauler centered contract for unlimited trash services. It needs to determine whether it is ready to make changes which will allow the City to address the additional solid waste issues and opportunities identified in this proposal as well. The following recommendations are offered: VII. Recommendations Pertaining to the Solid Waste Program Beginning in 2007 The following recommendations reflect an awareness of our current solid waste ordinance and hauler service contract, an evaluation of current City solid waste problems, and a review of various information on solid waste management systems related to 33 municipalities: 1. Reassume responsibility for collection of fees for trash services and pay the hauler under contract for services rendered. 14 2. Establish an Environmental Investment Fee (EIF) (which could be collected as a surcharge with the fees for contractual services.) (Arlington, VA, Hillsborough, NC) This fee would: Support litter collection, street sweeping, and support special collections. Enable waste stream assessment and tracking. Provide public education and outreach to schools, WVU and community organizations. Support citizen and commercial customer surveys and interviews. Support solid waste initiatives and coordination and collaboration with other agencies, stakeholders and neighborhoods. 3. Employ an Environmental Engineer to fulfill the leadership functions represented in the EIF services and to assist in the provision of staff services to the Board of Public Works. 4. Establish a Board of Public Works to work with the Engineering Department. (Fitchburg, WI Board also has a recycling committee.) The role of the Board during 2005-2007 would be to review the progress of the EIF services and to make recommendations on such topics as: Developing a comprehensive solid waste management strategic plan in cooperation with the Monongalia County Solid Waste Authority, WVU and the citizens of Morgantown. Considering the possibility of working with the County and the Mon County Solid Waste Authority to establish a free standing public utility responsible to the City and the County which would provide integrated solid waste services for the area. Creating a Request for Proposals for hauler services based on performance criteria. (Examples: Lansing, MI, Arlington, VA, Burlington, VT use multiple private haulers operating competitively.) Planning and preparing for the establishment of a PayAsYouThrow /VariableRate service to be implemented in 2007. Collaborating with the Mon County Solid Waste Authority to expand its transfer station capabilities for processing City waste for landfill, recycling, or resource recovery as well as to facilitate drop-off services, materials exchange, chipping, and storage. Collaborating with WVU to establish voluntary curbside/drop-off composting and brush programs. (Composting programs are available to divert 20-30% of waste stream in most municipalities studied.) 15 Implementing mandatory recycling of the most basic recycled items for residential (and commercial?)customers. (In Durham, NC, the 2001 ordinance specifies that residences, businesses and industries reuse or recycle steel cans, aluminum cans, glass bottles and jars, newspaper, and corrugated cardboard.) (In Ann Arbor, MI recyclable items include cardboard, newspapers, magazines, aluminum cans, batteries, computers and fluorescent lights - as well as certain toxic materials from residential and commercial trash.) Implementing a voluntary commercial recycling initiatives program (Ann Arbor) Making recommendations on the sufficiency of City solid waste and litter control ordinances. Planning and implementing a broad based education initiative which includes new resident information and a web site newsletter to promote successes, identify problems, and to seek public interest and participation. Implementing a home composting program through a public education program Studying with the Mon County Solid Waste Authority the feasibility for the development of a resource recovery facility for specialized waste or energy recovery. List of Municipality Information Sources Albany, GA Albuquerque, NM Allentown, PA Ann Arbor, MI Arlington, VA Athens, GA Athens, OH Austin, TX Beaumont, TX Blacksburg, VA Burlington, VT Carlsbad, CA Charlottesville, VA Cedar Rapids, IA Clinton, NY Columbus, OH Durham, NC Falls Church, VA Fitchburg, WI Fort Worth, TX Hillsborough, NC Ithaca, NY Lancaster, PA Lansing, MI Malibu, CA Oneonta, NY Phoenix, AZ Providence, RI Rutland, VT Sacramento, CA State College, PA Upper Arlington, OH York, PA Additional Resources Franklin County (OH) Solid Waste Management District – Educational Video Library Georgia Solid Waste Management Report 1999-2000 Keep America Beautiful, “Toolbox for Community Change” King, L., “Wasting and Recycling in the United States 2000” 16 Litterbug.org, “Model Community Litter Laws”, “Automated Collection Trucks: A Growing Source of Litter” Mackinac Center for Public Policy, “Incentives and Trash Collection”, Fall 2002 Minnesota State Government Resource Recovery Program Recycling Rate Report, February 2005 Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Div. of Recycling and Litter Prevention, “Ohio‟s Pay-As-You-Throw Municipal Solid Waste Management Programs” Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection: “Hazardous Waste” Web Sites: Casella Waste Systems, Inc. Cornell Waste Management Institute COVANTA Energy – Video Eco-Cycle – Zero Waste: A New Systems Approach Environmental Business International National Solid Waste Management Association ONYX Waste Services Solid Waste Management Association of North America Solid Waste Online Yale Industrial Environmental Management Program Zero Waste Alliance, Zero Waste America West Virginia Solid Waste Plan - 2003 World Bank, “Strategic Planning Guide for Municipal Solid Waste Management” Yale Working Papers on Solid Waste Policy: “No Time to Waste: Time Use and the Generation of Residential Solid Waste” dls 17 SOLID WASTE PLANNING IN-BY-FOR MORGANTOWN Observations and Recommendations III A Proposal For Morgantown City Council March 29, 2005 18