Agenda Packets - 2023/03/03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Cities with organized recycling have more control over the details of the recycling system (e.g., list of materials collected; sorting instructions for residents; collection days; collection frequency; etc.). Cities with organized recycling have more control over public education tools, including message content. Also, organized recycling contracts generally leverage more specific public education assignments both for the hauler and for the City. Recycling public education campaigns will be more cost-effective if the outreach tools are consistent in message, continuous in look/format, and concurrent with multiple public education vehicles (brochures and web pages, etc.). Thus, there will be more public education resources spent more cost-effectively. Innovative financial incentive programs such as "Get Caught Recycling" are more feasible with organized recycling programs. Open recycling systems with different collection days are nearly impossible to independently monitor total, longer -term resident participation or even weekly / bi-weekly set -out rates. Cities with organized MSW and organized recycling have the opportunity to reach the same residential audience with multiple service messages. For example, the trash cart can be a public education tool (e.g., variable rate pricing of MSW service levels). Also, resident phone calls about MSW collection questions can also address recycling issues at the same time. Cities with organized MSW collection can more accurately and thoroughly audit households that do not have MSW collection service. Details of MSW versus recycling participation can also be monitored. It is interesting to note that the Re-TRAC data in Figure 3-1 and in Appendix F indicate that there are higher recovery rates in "open MSW + organized recycling" (i.e., 583 pounds per household per year) communities compared to "organized MSW + organized recycling" systems (i.e., 573 pounds per household per year). More thorough analysis on a city -by -city, county -by - county basis would be needed to draw out any conclusions as to cause — effect for this difference. It is possible, however, that municipal recycling staff in the larger cities with "open MSW + organized recycling" systems may be able to concentrate more of their time and other resources into a more focused public education effort on improving recycling services. Another important consideration is the improvement in GHG emissions if cities were to change from open recycling to organized recycling collection programs. Using the difference noted above (579 — 510 = 69 pounds per household per year), applied to the 41 open recycling communities, another 11,000 tons of recyclables could be recovered from these cities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. This is the equivalent of about 32,000 metric tons of CO2e less per year of GHG emissions. 3.5.2 Reporting Data Obtaining data such as material quantities disposed/recycled provides information that can be used to identify potential program needs. The municipal survey included a yes/no question asking if cities required licensed residential MSW haulers to report disposal tonnages. The 66 •Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC R - Analysis of Waste Collection Service Arrangements.doc June 2009