Springfield Preps to Implement Pay-As-You-Throw
Posted on Wednesday, May 21 2008 by Heather Brandon
It looks as though Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno will finally be able to make good on find a way around his pledge (for now) to eliminate the city’s controversial $90-per-year trash fee implemented last summer.
Through its Department of Public Works, the city has issued a request for proposals for imprinted pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) trash bags, as well as turnkey retail sales and collection management services. The deadline for bids is Tuesday, June 10.
The RFP is advertised as a component of the city’s PAYT municipal solid waste program.
Intended to encourage recycling and enable residents to pay only for what they discard, rather than a flat fee that disregards a household’s amount of waste, the program could commence as soon as August 1. The contract would be good through the rest of the fiscal year, ending on June 30, 2009, and could be renewed up to two times for one-year periods.
According to the bid specifications, the trash bags will come in two sizes—30 to 33 gallons, and 12 to 16 gallons—and may close in a variety of ways (twist tie, handle or draw tape). The city plans for the bags to be blue, and consisting of at least 20 percent post-consumer recycled material.
They will be imprinted with artwork provided by the city, likely including the city seal. The bags will possibly be packaged in bundles of five, ready for retail sales, along with a printed message or brochure, according to the RFP.
As for retail sales and collection management, the city has requested the following four pieces of information in any bid:
1. Methodology and resources.
2. Organization chart with names of key personnel assigned to this program and their years of experience in providing their service function.
3. Description of automated systems the bidder will use to fulfill reporting, record-keeping and financial management functions.
4. Implementation schedule.
Interested bidders may contact Lauren Stabilo at City Hall, lstabilo at springfieldcityhall.com, or (413) 787-7846.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection describes how PAYT works in the state, adding that there are generally three methods for its implementation, which can be used in some combination.
The imprinted bag program, the DEP notes, charges a price for the bags that covers the cost of the bag as well as some of the cost of collecting, transporting, and disposing of it. Waste collectors know to pick up only those specially-marked bags.
The DEP also mentions that building public support for such a program is important, including selling the program to key decision-makers, gathering public input, and educating the public. “Key players from the municipal government and from the community at large must be involved from the beginning of the planning process,” the DEP tells us. Taking the time and committing the resources to build support within both the government and community will minimize confusion about the program from the beginning.”
Further, the DEP is aware that there are common stumbling blocks in implementing PAYT. Here is the agency’s short list of examples:
- Public Perception that the Fee is a Tax. It is possible that residents may perceive the unit-based pricing program as a new tax. To avoid this perception, communities should consider making their programs revenue-neutral, by reducing property taxes or flat fees by the amount that unit-based fees are expected to generate. As a result, residents do not view PAYT fees as taxes.
- Adverse Effects on Low-Income Households. Because PAYT fees for trash service represent a higher percentage of a low-income family’s income, steps should be taken to minimize the impact on these households. Just as electric, gas, and water utilities provide special rates for low-income users, a PAYT program may also include lowered rates for residents who demonstrate hardship.
- Increases in Illegal Dumping. Many solid waste managers have expressed a fear that residents may resort to illegal dumping in commercial waste bins or public trash cans if charged a fee for waste disposal. Studies of communities in Massachusetts and around the nation with PAYT programs indicate that increased illegal dumping is NOT a problem in most communities.
- Higher Administrative Costs. With any new program, additional staff time may be needed for planning and start-up. However, these costs are generally recovered in the long run through savings associated with increased recycling and reduced waste disposal.
The state already has a contract for a PAYT system, which is available also to municipalities (state contract FAC43). The contract is with two companies, Boxes and Bags Unlimited in Lewiston, Maine, and The Bag Company, based just over the river in West Springfield, offering bags in four sizes (ten, 14, 30 and 33 gallons), with a minimum order of 25,000 bags required. The state’s contract is effective through November 10.
Lauren V http://parkwoodspringfield.wetpaint.com
May 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pmI think the increased illegal dumping may end up being a big problem! I don’t know if it would be directly affected by the new program, but I have a feeling if people realize the more they use the more they pay they will find other places to off-load their trash. Like at the end of my street, straight off the edge of the ravine into Forest Park. About 2 weeks ago, I had friends over and I was in the house while they sat on the porch. When I came back out they said they just saw someone pull down to the end of my street (dead-end), get out of his car, take a tire out of his trunk and roll it down the hill into the park. I was enraged, but by the time I got out there, no one was there. At that time I didn’t have a number for a city official to call (I do now! Thank you, Sheila!) so I didn’t report it, but I’m sure the cost and hassle of disposing of it properly led to this dumping. Of course, maybe he would have done it even if it were free to dispose of tires, I don’t know. And of course, this program isn’t going to address tire or appliance disposal, which is an entirely different matter all together.
Another issue is dumping in the retail stores’ dumpsters. This occurs in the parking lots behind the spaces at the X all the time. People actually take the extra time to haul their own household trash to the dumpsters in the parking lots just so they don’t have to pay the extra $90 a year. Is it a matter of principal or sheer ignorance??
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pmThanks, Heather, for, as usual, the complete run down on another important city initiative, and a green initiative at that.
Announcement that the trash fee would be retained pending study and implementation of PAYT came at the tail end of this morning’s control board meeting. As Mayor Sarno explained his decision to a nearly empty hall, he really seemed a new person. His posture was upright, his voice clear, his cheeks pink and his eyes bright. He presented what to many will seem like a broken promise with dignity and confidence.
After the meeting, I congratulated him on making the decision to set aside a campaign promise, and we reminded each other of trash protests past. After changes were made in leaf collection (to some people, paper leaf bags spelled the end of the world) and objections to the rolling trash containers and recycling boxes were major affronts. The Mayor expects to get hammered for this decision by the public, but we can see from these examples, it won’t be long before cooperating with PAYT and increased attention to recycling will nothing more than household routines.
The city would be smart to do its best to heed the stumbling blocks noted by DEP. As for Lauren’s fear about illegal dumping, part of the PAYT public education campaign needs to be information about how to report Midnight Dumpers whether they are rolling tires into the woods or putting household trash in the CVS dumpster.
NoPolitician http://
May 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pmIt seems a little foolish to abandon our current automated trash pickup system. Why couldn’t PAYT be implemented in a hybrid way that continues to use the existing containers?
For example, give people the option of a 60 gallon weekly barrel pickup for a flat fee of whatever the cost of 2 30-gallon bags would cost. Or a 90 gallon weekly barrel pickup for a flat fee of whatever the cost of 3 30-gallon bags would cost. This would eliminate the hassle of having to buy bags. Considering that people are accustomed to the “big green barrel”, it will also make for an easier transition — I cringe at the thought of having to buy and store multiple trash barrels again.
I suppose that might defeat the purpose somewhat of the penalty for generating trash vs. recycling — if the fee is flat each week, people might just fill their barrel to the top each week. I don’t think that would be true, though, since recycling is a habit, not a chore.
Even if people abused the “flat pickup”, at least they would be paying the price for this “luxury”, and if that price is high enough, it would still give people incentive to downsize to the next lowest size barrel with bags available for overflows (like Christmas season).
I think that ideally in an urban setting, some amount of trash removal should be free - the lowest amount possible, but it should still be an urban service, something that differentiates us from a smaller town. I’m sure that this could be done in a way that gives incentive to recycle too.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 21st, 2008 at 3:49 pmNoPolitician, can you tell us where you learned that the automated trash pickup system would be abandoned and that the PAYT system would not use existing system of rolling containers and automated one-person trucks? Our current equipment could collect the proposed trash bags just as it does whatever ends up in there now, couldn’t it?
Lauren V http://parkwoodspringfield.wetpaint.com
May 21st, 2008 at 3:59 pmI actually love the bag idea. True, it has a lot of issues that may need to be ironed out, like the illegal dumping, but anything to encourage recycling would be great! I hate that we currently only have recycling pickup every other week. I have two bins and I usually need to put out my own homemade cardboard box as well, and they are still all overflowing! Trash on the other hand I only put out every other week, if that, and it has never been full (just stinky after 2 weeks!) It really varies with every household, so the PAYT system is great, and that way no one has anyone else to blame but themselves.
NoPolitician http://
May 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pmI assumed this could be a possibility based on the article written here which only mentioned bags. I hope that it is not being considered.
However, given the fact that most people already seem to get by with just one 90-gallon barrel, implementing a PAYT for the “excess” would be a waste of time, particularly since we essentially have it now, by affixing stickers to extra bags that we put out.
That seems to indicate that in order for this program to work, to give people incentive to recycle, the size of the barrel will need to decrease.
Given that it’s just $90/year for a 90-gallon barrel, and people are already paying this, I really don’t see any incentive for people to downsize to a 60-gallon barrel (which I think the city already offers) or smaller. In order to give incentive, the cost of the 90 gallon barrel would have to be a couple hundred bucks a year.
The pricing on this is going to be very important. We have a constant — $90 for each 90-gallon barrel. I think that there won’t be a backlash if people can get to the “free” level (if one exists) by simply recycling and/or not having a large family.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 21st, 2008 at 6:07 pmHmmm. The answers to NoPolitician’s important questions may possibly be had by calling the DPW solid waste division, the Mayor’s office or the control board and asking them. These and other operational questions might also be posted on the FCB website with a request that someone knowledgeable about details of the proposed PAYT program respond by posting them here.
Belmont
May 21st, 2008 at 7:47 pmMaybe I’m the only one, but I’m actually happy with the system we have now.
This seems to be something just cooked up so Sarno can live up to his campaign promise, and really if you are still paying for bags….you haven’t eliminated the “unfair trash fee”. It’s still a fee for trash pickup.
Belmont
May 21st, 2008 at 7:49 pmI should add to the above, the only difference being now the inconvenience of having to purhcase bags somewhere and larger items that don’t fit in bags but do fit in our large bins.
Seems like more of a pain in the neck and we still have to pay for trash pickup. Keep it as is.
Rebecca http://www.SpringfieldRail.org
May 21st, 2008 at 10:19 pmWe have a PAYT system and only use one barrel of trash–one barel is free, and the rest goes in a special bag if needed. It’s amazing what is recyclable when you pay attention–from plastic asthma inhaler cases to shampoo bottles….paper of more kinds you can imagine. We’re told it gives our town money everytime we recycle. So waste can generate money….
Between composting (or using a disposal for non-compostable items) and recycling, we have never had a need for a special bag. All of it goes to recycling. We bought an unfinshed wooden cabinet (aka the microwave stand) from the Apartment Shops–it sort of looks like 2 hampers. It has 2 hidden removable plastic bins that open out, one for paper and one for plastic/glass. It’s enabled us to keep recycling easy and out of the way.
NoPolitician http://
May 21st, 2008 at 10:39 pmI hope the Republican article is incorrect, because they say:
and
So unless the article is wrong, this means we will have to double-bag all our trash, and will have to pay for each bags PLUS $90 annually.
That seems like the exact opposite of what Sarno ran on. Sarno supporters were holding signs that said “No trash tax” (and on a side note, anyone notice the tone change on Masslive regarding the city’s latest murder — no chicken little’s posting that “crime is up” even though the police described the murder as “random”. Hmm… makes me wonder if those chicken little’s were coordinated.). Hey, I understand that he can’t remove the $90 fee — I never thought he could, but if he’s going to raise it for everyone, that’s a different story.
I don’t mind PAYT, but I would like the option to have a flat barrel fee. I don’t mind paying more than $90 for such an option, although I think that there should also be a smaller barrel for no cost (supported by the people who pay for larger barrels). Belmont is right — there are things that just don’t fit into a bag but aren’t bulk — like maybe a flagpole, or a piece of wood.
I really don’t want to have to deal with special bags for everything, even if I recycle everything. And at some point, probably around $350/year, it becomes cheaper to just hire an outside service.
Culchie
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:55 amForget about the paid for bags! A bag program using carts will have many issues such as; “illegal bags” or just trash put into cart underneath a paid bag, residents have to go out and purchase bags, etc. The preferred plan would be in 2 phases. Phase 1 - offer residents possibly 3 different size carts, 35 - 65 - and 95 gallon and price them in a manner that sends the consumer a signal that “it pays to recycle”. For example; the 95 gal would be $135, the 65 gal - $90 and the 30 gal - $26. In an ideal world the fee would be calculated to cover the disposal costs only and be adjusted to reflect each years decrease/increase. In Springfield actual prices have to be arrived at by backing down from the amount needed in the budget and applying it over the estimated size and number of carts. Remember, the $90 trash fee had nothing to do with recycling but was all about eliminating a $3-4m budget shortfall. The “new” pricing must send a signal to the consumer of savings for those who recycle. The City would send out a bill once per year and then, after payment is receievd, send the resident a yearly sticker to be placed on the cart. In Phase 1there would be an initial capital cost for various numbers of 35 and 65 gal carts. Phase 2 - residents would switch to “single stream” recycling (paper, cans, bottles, etc. all go into 1 cart). The residents would use their current 95 g cart for recyclables that way the capital cost for the existing carts would not be lost. This phase will have to wait until the City can find a facility to take single stream materials. DEP is evaluating the cost of altering the MRF on Birnie Avenue to single stream. There is also a single stream facility being constructed in Hartford scheduled to open in December 2008. The Hartford site would increase transportation costs compared to Birnie Ave. A drawback of switching to single stream is that you will save money on the collection side due to efficiencies but lose it on the revenue side. Without going into detail, single stream recyclables have less value than dual stream.
Single stream recycling operations with a 95 gal cart allow residents to place their recyclables out less often and the carts could be collected with the same equipment as rubbish. Savings will be realized from uniform equipment purchasing, less frequent collection stops, shorter cart pick up times, etc.
In closing, this program must have options analyzed within the context of the entire solid waste program and include an intense public education component for the program selected. The DPW management must consult with DEP experts and take adequate time to formulate a comprehensive plan and not have a Laurel and Hardy production!
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:57 amThanks to Rebecca for sharing her real world experience with PAYT. Practical information like this is really helpful to somebody trying to see how PAYT will change household routines.
As for what’s being considered for Springfield, the sooner the city puts out a simple and informative Q and A on the transition from the present system and details of the new one, the better.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:21 amWebsite with comprehensive information on PAYT including littering, public education and enforcement.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/payt/index.htm
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 pmThe city might look into hiring a public relations firm to deal with the trash collection issue. It’s remarkable to note people saying the $90 annual fee - and its related simplicity - is preferable to the possible confusion surrounding PAYT.
Or, as CBS3 called it in their piece for last night’s news, “Throw As You Go.” With media like this, who needs naysayers? The piece adds, “A new proposal to charge for trash is tossed around.” (Forget trying to watch the video linked from the piece; the TV station has now added slow-loading animated ads to its video pages that take painfully long to finish, and the video does not seem to load at all. If someone else is having a different, better experience with the site do let me know.)
The Republican titled its piece on the subject, “Mayor dumps trash fee vow.”
Regarding the approaches for trash collection being considered, it sounds very much like a work in progress right now. I encourage anyone with clear thoughts about what might work best to write letters to the editor of your media outlet of choice as well as to the mayor’s office, the DPW, and the control board. Perhaps there is an opening for hearing ideas (and if there isn’t, it sure would be nice to see one become available).
The wording in the Republican article simply said the $90 fee will be in effect pending the new program being developed.
How the city is going to work out the seeming conflicts between paid-for city-issued barrels and special bags that must be purchased at retail outlets remains to be seen. And whether the media outlets will tell you what you need to know with any clarity is another hurdle in the public education process.
Matt S http://wmasspi.blogspot.com
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 pmThe wisest action would be this.
Offer smaller bins to residents. The smallest ones would get free pickup. The city would offer special bags for a nominal fee for those who might on occasion need just an extra bag. There would be maybe 2-4 larger sizes that residents could choose from which would carry a higher annual fee. Bags would remain an option for everybody purchaseable through Big Y or the DPW like the bulk stickers are.
That way it would encourage recycling while even letting Sarno save a little face on the fee.
NoPolitician http://
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 pmMatt, I think you’ve got it right. I personally accept PAYT, but a switch to bags over bins is very difficult, particularly if it’s going to cost me more money and be far more inconvenient.
Sarno is really floundering on this one, and he’s taking a serious beating too — and not just from ex-Ryan supporters. Offering a small barrel for free would allow him to claim he removed the trash fee. Charging higher prices (> $90) for larger barrels would give people incentive to recycle more. Coupling this whole thing with some improvements on the recycling end (maybe weekly pickup, maybe larger bins available) would go even further. And he could have easily said “We can’t hire more cops AND get rid of the trash fee, so we decided that public safety is the higher priority”.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 pmI sincerely suggest that interested citizens ask these good questions of people with enough information to answer them definitively. This would be the solid waste division of the DPW, submitting questions via the control board website or the Mayor’s office. If nothing else, directing these excellent questions to any of these sources will send a message to city hall that whatever information already made available to the press hasn’t provided what people need in order to understand the relationship between the $90. fee and PAYT.
Belmont
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:09 pmTrash should not be this complicated.
We have a good system in place now. I’m taught if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
There is no rational to this, other than a political attempt at saving face (somewhat).
Mayor Sarno said it would not be financially feasible to not have a fee for trash pickup. That’s where it should have ended, not with then introducing this unnecessary, cumbersome system. The campaign promise is officially broken now, there is no point to making peoples lives more difficult and costly on top of it.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:51 pmJudging from these posts, these seem to be the questions that seem to need answers. If you have a question that isn’t here, post it. Let’s try to put together a comprehensive list.
1) When PAYT is goes into effect, will residents still have to pay the $90. annual trash fee AND buy approved trash bags? Or will moving to PAYT make the $90. annual trash fee unnecessary?
2) Under PAYT, will I be able to use the same trash container I’m using now?
3) Under PAYT, will the city use the same automated one-person trucks they use now?
4) How will the city minimize or eliminate illegal dumping in woods areas, commercial dumpsters or neighbors’ trash containers?
5) Under PAYT what would prevent somebody who wanted to beat the system from putting into the trash container waste that is has not been bagged in approved bags? Or from putting such trash under a couple of properly bagged trash?
NoPolitician http://
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:02 pmHow about these two:
6) Will there be an amount of trash that is free each week, as is done in East Longmeadow (one 30-gallon barrel for free per week there, I think).
7) Is there a mechanism whereby a homeowner can pay a flat-rate for an existing 60 or 90 gallon green barrel, thereby eliminating the need to buy bags weekly and re-bag all trash (even if that rate is a lot more than $90).
Belmont, this PAYT is most definitely not Sarno’s idea. Read the minutes from FCB meetings when the trash fee was implemented. The PAYT was the next step that the city was going to take. Our system is not that great now because it does not encourage recycling, and Springfield has a low rate of this. Trash disposal costs money (with costs increasing); recycling brings us money (with revenue increasing). Therefore we need a system that encourages people to recycle more.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:10 amDuly noted. thanks, NoPol.
NoPolitician http://
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:48 amI thought of another one:
8 ) What steps can be taken to make recycling easier, for example, possibly one or more wheeled barrels per house similar to the green barrel, but for recyclables?
mike dobbs
May 25th, 2008 at 12:37 pmAbout a year ago I was the only reporter to pass along the fact that the DPW was considering a PAYT program. The trash fee was described to me as being an interim step. Worcester has had a PAYT program since 1993. I called the trash czar there who said they have very little problem with illegal dumping.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 26th, 2008 at 1:25 pmThanks for question 8 ), NoPol.
From my experience, one thing that makes recycling easier and reduces the amount of space needed to store recyclables is crushing everything that is crushable. This means flattening cardboard boxes, cans, plastic bottles and, especially, plastic milk bottles. Removing the bottom as well as the top of conventional tin cans and stepping on the resulting tin cylinder results in something that takes up very little room in the blue box.
Crushing recyclables means fewer trips out to the garage between trash days for residents as well as fewer trips to the MRF for city trash trucks.
Did you know that 90% of our household trash could be recycled in one way or antoher?
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 30th, 2008 at 7:11 pmOK, Trash Enthusiasts, here are answers to questions from posters here on PAYT from Steve Lisauskas, executive director of the Finance Control Board, in answer to an email. These very complete answers demonstrate the benefit of asking public officials for information over engaging in uninformed speculation. Springfield residents with questions on this or other matters having to do with local governance would do well to ask them via the city or control board websites.
Question 1: When PAYT is goes into effect, will residents still have to pay the $90 annual trash fee AND buy approved trash bags? Or will moving to PAYT make the $90 annual trash fee unnecessary?
Response 1: PAYT would make the trash fee obsolete. Residents would only pay for PAYT bags, not for a fixed fee in addition to PAYT bags.
Question 2: Under PAYT, will I be able to use the same trash container I’m using now?
Response 2: Yes, you will use the same trash and recycling containers you are using today. If you have more recycling than can fit in your current recycling bin you can get additional bins from the Department of Public Works (DPW) or you can use a cardboard box, laundry basket or another container.
Question 3: Under PAYT, will the City use the same automated one-person trucks they use now?
Response 3: Yes. The City will continue to use the same solid waste trucks it uses today. A portion of the City is served by fully automated vehicles and a portion is served by semi-automated vehicles. PAYT will not change the way the City removes trash.
Question 4: How will the City minimize or eliminate illegal dumping in wooded areas, commercial dumpsters or neighbors’ trash containers?
Response 4: According to the Department of Environmental Protection, studies of PAYT communities in Massachusetts and nationally indicate that illegal dumping has not become a problem in most instances. That notwithstanding, the Finance Control Board has authorized the DPW to develop regulations to address these issues and is encouraging information sharing with the more than 100 other cities and towns in Massachusetts – urban, suburban and rural – which have successfully addressed these issues. Control Board staff are working closely with DPW to develop these regulations and to monitor enforcement.
With regard to illegal dumping in general, CitiStat is working with DPW to identify areas that currently receive high levels of illegal dumping. Strategies are being developed to address this, including the use of portable surveillance cameras to record offenders and assist in enforcement. The Police Department will investigate illegal dumping in private dumpsters and neighbors’ trash containers and will pursue offenders using all available remedies under the law.
Question 5: Under PAYT what would prevent somebody who wanted to beat the system from putting into the trash container waste that is has not been bagged in approved bags? Or from hiding such trash under a couple of bags that have been properly bagged?
Response 5: The City will have an active enforcement program regarding PAYT, starting with the bags themselves. The bags will be unique to Springfield – they will have a color not used for general trash bags and will display the City seal. This will allow solid waste employees to easily determine if unapproved bags are in the trash containers or if they are mixed in with approved bags. Unapproved bags will be left behind, thereby creating no incentive to use unapproved bags.
Question 6: Will there be an amount of trash that is free each week, as is done in East Longmeadow (one 30-gallon barrel for free per week, for instance)?
Response 6: The current proposal is to charge residents for each bag of trash. The City could accommodate a program such as East Longmeadow’s but doing so would reduce recycling and increase the cost of PAYT bags. The City is subsidizing solid waste services by more than $2.7 million per year; adopting a “partial free” system would reduce the revenue received to pay for solid waste costs, forcing an increase in the City’s subsidy for trash services (for which it does not have funding) or increasing the cost of PAYT bags.
Question 7: Is there a mechanism whereby a homeowner can pay a flat-rate for an existing 60 or 90 gallon green barrel, thereby eliminating the need to buy bags weekly and re-bag all trash?
Response 7: In a PAYT system, the PAYT bags are useable as trash bags, so there is no need to re-bag trash. It can be thrown directly in the PAYT bags.
A split system – where people can pay the $90 trash fee or participate in PAYT – would provide no recycling incentive for those who dispose of a lot of trash. These residents would benefit from the lower costs of the trash fee and would therefore opt into that program, eliminating the incentive to recycle. The lower cost for these residents would be accomplished by allowing them to shift a portion of their cost onto other residents. This would essentially reward those who dispose of a lot of trash while potentially penalizing those who dispose of less trash (and therefore would use the PAYT option) by increasing the cost of PAYT bags or increasing the size of the trash deficit for the City.
I hope this information is assistance to you. Please do not hesitate to call or e-mail me if you have additional questions or if I can assist you in any way. Any transition can be challenging, but PAYT has been successful in over 100 communities in Massachusetts. I have every confidence that Springfield will develop a program that leads the Commonwealth, just as it has done with health insurance and pension management changes, CitiStat, financial management and is planning to do in 311 and other areas.
Very truly yours,
Stephen P. Lisauskas
Executive Director
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
May 30th, 2008 at 7:37 pmThanks for posting Stephen Lisauskas’s response, Sheila. In addition, Mayor Sarno addressed this matter in his podcast today with Kristen Beam (latter half), and his office just released a statement with a similar Q&A format in response to City Councilor Rosemarie Mazza Moriarty’s recent memo posing several questions about the pending PAYT system and its implementation. It includes, at the end, the same Q&A information Lisaukas provided in the exchange with commenters here via Sheila’s memo:
_ _ _
May 30, 2008
Councilor Rosemarie Mazza-Moriarty
Springfield City Council
36 Court Street
Springfield, MA 01103
Dear Councilor Mazza-Moriarty:
I am writing in response to your request for information concerning the City’s efforts to develop a trash collection program for Springfield residents where, rather than paying a fixed trash fee, residents only pay for each unit of waste discarded, commonly called “Pay–As-You-Throw (PAYT).”
As you know, the Springfield Finance Control Board has undertaken efforts for the Mayor and City Council to work on a fiscal year 2009 budget that adheres to sound financial policies. I pledged at the time of my election to find an economically sound means of eliminating the trash fee. However, five months in office have afforded me a much clearer and comprehensive understanding of the city’s fragile financial state. At this time, it is impossible for the City to absorb the cost of waste collection and disposal while responsibly addressing our top priority of public safety. However, what the City can do is make the system fairer and more environmentally sound.
As I have stated, the City’s Department of Public Works will be submitting appropriate applications to Mass DEP to request technical and financial assistance for developing such a PAYT program that promotes environmental benefits and economic savings. Mass DEP has helped over 100 communities implement successful programs.
I have notified the public of this initiative and, as expected, there have been many questions. In addition to your questions, I am including in this letter other FAQs [the information Lisauskas provided]. I can assure you that there will be no changes without adequate public education. We will also rely heavily on the expertise of Mass DEP. These two components are crucial to a successful and smooth PAYT transition.
A PAYT system provides residents an opportunity to save money on their trash costs and promotes fairness because residents pay only for the amount of trash they generate. A PAYT system also increases recycling revenue, composting and reduces waste, thereby improving environmental quality. By diverting recyclables from landfills, PAYT programs decrease trash incineration costs.
Here are answers to your specific questions:
Question: “Will the DPW still provide trash pickup?”
Answer: Yes. Under any PAYT program, DPW collection operations are not anticipated to change in a substantial way. The same equipment will be used to collect trash. The DPW is investigating the utilization of PAYT bags and utilizing the existing inventory of the City-issued trash bins. The trash collection schedule is anticipated to remain the same, with the weekly trash pickup, Tuesday through Friday.
Question: “Will there be lay-offs associated with the privatization of all or part of the trash removal system?”
Answer: No layoffs of the currently employed DPW workforce are anticipated. The FY 2009 budget is based on the elimination of currently unfilled positions.
Question: “If the expected cost is $750,000 what are the projected revenues of a PAYT? Is this what is incorporated in the budget? How was this figure generated?”
Answer: At this point, the estimated cost you refer to is for the purchase of bags for a given fiscal year based on the approximately 50,200 tons of rubbish brought to the incinerator last year. This cost is based on the state procurement list. The City has gone out to bid to find the company that offers the best value. The recommended FY 2009 budget is based on the same revenue expected to be generated by a $90 fee.
Question: “If bids won’t be opened until June 10, 2008, and the program is expected to begin August 1, 2008, what type of information and education will be possible in less than 2 months?”
Answer: August 1st was estimated as the starting date of the contract under the awarded bid rather than a start date for PAYT. If the bid is awarded in response to the current invitation for bids, the winning bidder or bidders will need to manufacture and order inventory and distribute the PAYT bags. The vendor will also develop and implement the retail sales and collection management program. As the City gets closer to a start date for PAYT, with the assistance of Mass DEP, the City will provide residents with detailed information about the new progam. Community forums will provide residents with an opportunity to comment on the new program. We will also communicate with the public through media releases, mailings, on-line material, neighborhood / civic organizations, television and radio announcements.
Question: “What will the $750,000 costs cover?
Answer: The estimated cost of $750,000 is the expected annual cost to the City for PAYT bags. The volume of required bags is linked to the volume of trash taken to the incinerator. The lower the trash volume, the lower the City’s associated cost of necessary bags.
Question: “How are plastic trash bags eco-friendly?”
Answer: Nationwide, PAYT bag quality requirements are based on the capacity, durability, color, imprinted information, type of closure and a minimum of 20 percent recycled content. Since the bags will contain land-filled trash, they will be disposed of using the incineration process. The environmental benefit comes chiefly from the anticipated reduction in the trash volume because of increased recycling.
Question: “What will this mean for all of the green barrels and the DPW trucks equipped to work with the barrel system?”
Answer: We plan to retain the trash barrels currently in use. PAYT bags would simply be deposited into those green barrels. It is estimated that approximately 71percent of all generated trash can be recycled.
During FY 2007 the City paid more than $3.6 million in tipping fees for the approximately 50,200 tons of rubbish brought to the incinerator. The City recycled approximately 4,000 tons of trash and received over $161,000 in recycling revenue. Generally speaking, the more recycling is increased, the higher our recycling revenue becomes; and the more trash we remove from the waste stream, the lower our tipping fees become. I will also move to increase the recycling of City Departments through innovative programs.
I hope that this letter has provided some of the information needed to initiate a public discourse of this issue, which is of great financial and environmental importance to the City’s residents.
Here are the additional FAQs I referred to earlier:
[Edited for brevity; these are provided in Sheila's comment above]
Respectfully,
Domenic J. Sarno
Mayor of the City of Springfield
NoPolitician http://
May 30th, 2008 at 9:33 pmI predict that if the PAYT is implemented as described, Sarno will be a one-term mayor.
I know that PAYT has been implemented in many other communities, but how many cities went from a city-provided single barrel system to a pay-per-bag system? The convenience of the barrel is going to be eliminated with the need to bag trash twice. That’s a very steep chasm to bridge. It will not even be possible to pick trash up off the tree belt and throw it in your green barrel — you’ll need to bag it first. Damned if I’m going to clean up the neighborhood anymore — why should I pay to pick up trash from other people’s treebelts?
I think this is a lousy top-down approach to PAYT, one that will make people very, very angry — because it’s going to be much more of a hassle than writing a $90 check.
I predict that we will have significant problems with landlords and tenants, to the point where I suspect the city will stop enforcing the bags in certain high-rental neighborhoods — because you can’t fine a tenant, you can only fine a landlord.
I also predict that we will see a big problem with people putting their non-city-bagged trash in other people’s barrels. Technically speaking, I don’t think this is a crime — since the police have already told me that someone going through your trash is not against the law, since once you put it on the curb it is on public property — it is most likely not a crime to put your trash in someone else’s barrel.
I support PAYT, but I think that the right approach for Springfield is with tiered-pricing. For example:
90 gallon barrel: $180
60 gallon barrel: $90
30 gallon barrel: free
Bags are used for overflow, not for all trash.
There is economic incentive to move from one size to another. It isn’t as granular as paying for each bag, but there is still a clear price signal — if you’re constantly filling up half your 90-gallon barrel, you can save $180 per year by dropping down to a 30-gallon barrel and recycling a little more.
Landlords who have no control over their tenants buying bags will have to suck it up and pay $180 per unit (or more). But if they have a long-time responsible tenant they can offer them a rent discount if that tenant recycles more and uses less trash, thereby saving the landlord the higher fee.
This smacks of a top-down approach that is being pushed on the city, one that will make things less convenient for residents.
bianca
May 30th, 2008 at 9:38 pmNoPol’s plan makes far more sense than the plan description given by Lisauskas.
It will not really be feasible for employees, with an automated system, to have a “lookout person” monitoring that the special bags are being used.
This will defeat the purpose in saving costs - the better plan is exactly as Matt and NoPol laid out -that he special bags should be supplemental - that you pay for the cost of the container on an an annual basis - the cost would be less for smaller containers for small families.
If there is EXCESS trash that does not fit into the size of the contaienr you have opted to pay for annually, THEN you must buy the SUPPLEMENTAL bags.
This system would be less of a hassle for consumers, especially the elderly and infirm who might find it difficult to get out and buy these , and would still encourage recycling.
The city will eventually have to pick up any trash that is in illegal bags, too, since it will create a health hazard or some people will just dump the trash in the regular bags in other places.
Who pays for the bags when the people are renters ? In the current system, the landlord pays the cost of the trash fee and may pass that on in the rent to the tenant or not. Many renters will not bother purchasing special bags - the system is not without merit ,but is flawed.
Sarno and his team would do well to listen to NoPol on this - the plan makes SO much more senses, would be simpler to the consumer and probably more cost effective for all concerned.
bianca
May 30th, 2008 at 9:51 pmWhere can concerned citizens email the Control Board or the Mayor in order to voice our concerns and views on this matter ?
NoPol’s ideas are so much more logical and simple - let’s be real , there will be people whose trash is in unapproved bags who will dump those bags in other people’s green bins or worse .
That is just one reason why it makes more sense to bill annually according to the size of the barrel chosen and people buy SUPPLEMENTAL bags as needed .
This method seems even mroe punitive than a trash fee which is now often regarded as a tax . I don’t want to have to save up 30 gals of trash in my green bin before putting it out for pickup , but I will because of the hassle involved in buying the bags , etc.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
May 30th, 2008 at 10:21 pmTo reach the mayor’s office on this matter I recommend contacting constituent services director Tom Walsh at twalsh at springfieldcityhall.com. If he’s not the right person to speak to he can redirect you appropriately.
To reach the control board you could try their online suggestion box, which also works for an anonymous suggestion, or call (413) 784-1580, or email control board exec dir Stephen Lisauskas at lisauskass at dor.state.ma.us.
Bianca
May 31st, 2008 at 1:48 amThanks for that contact infomation, Heather .
I’m going to contact them with my input and I hope NoPol and others who feel the same way as I do , will contact Mr. Walsh and the Control Board, also .
Culchie
May 31st, 2008 at 7:47 amThe “Keep The Cart” - Stuff The Bags” idea seems to be gaining. Based on the Mayor and Control Board responding to questions generated here in Urban Compass it has become the “public education” vehicle for residents. NoPolitician hit the nail on the head that this program is being driven from the top down and with his idea of the graduated pricing. Anyone who has traveled on the west coast has seen hundreds of cities that have graduated cart programs.The “signal” for residents to recycle is sent with the pricing of the carts. Here are additional questions for the City; (1) What other city or town uses wheeled carts and requires the residents to buy bags? and (2) How many people in the City cost analysis are dedicated to enforcement? Bianca is spot on with the multi family issue and enforcement that will require full time inspectors.
By the way, double bagging will be necessary unless you want to keep a 30 gallon open bag in your kitchen for a couple of days. Now thats real “green” - more plastic bags. Let me think how I can decorate around a colored plastic bag with the city seal imprinted.
When I think of this issue and possible solutions I try to remember that the fees have to total approximately $3m. The trash fee is all about not laying off “safety personnel” and very little, if anything, to do with recycling.
aminspfd
May 31st, 2008 at 11:27 amMore questions–
I pick up at least 5 5-gallon buckets of litter on my street each week. I use a bucket and the “grippers” so I know that this amount is accurate.
Why should I now have to PAY to throw away someone else’s litter? The City should provide a certain # of free bags to folks like me.
=====
Currently, to buy a bulk sticker- I have to leave the City to purchase it at Big Y in W-Spfd or E-Longm b/c they are the closest. That’s ridiculous!
Are we certain that bags will be available at numerous locations in every neighborhood?
=====
Why is there a belief that having 90 gall trash container mean that we don’t recyle?? Our barrel is usually 1/3 full and we have 4 recycling bins.
But…for those times when we clean out the basement, attic, have bulky trash….the barrel is needed.
===
How many CITIES with similar populations and neighborhoods have PAYT?
===
PAYT will not work for keeping properties clean. Do we really believe that landlords cleaning out vacant apts. or management companies cleaning out foreclosed properties will BUY trash bags?????
======
Contractor bags- rehabbing and maintaining an old home means having debris. We bring alot to ReStore but there are those weeks when we get rid of contractor bags of sawdust etc.
Does this mean the end of contractor bags???
=====
Finally, if I wanted to fool around with trash– bagging and double bagging the dirty cat litter for instance….I would live in a rural TOWN, not in the city- where I should not have to worry about bags!
===
aminspfd
May 31st, 2008 at 11:30 amOOPS- one more question..
I heard bags would be selling for around $1.35. If you put out 4 bags a week, that’s way more than the $90.
How much will this really cost???
m m
May 31st, 2008 at 8:33 pmDear Springfield,
I have an idea how to solve the trash collection problem. It will simplify pick up, encourage recycling, and still bring in revenue. It’s fair, good for the environment, and politically viable.
The plan is for color coded barrels and a menu
choice of 1-4 pick ups a month.
$90 per year-
pick up weekly . RED stripe on the barrel
$45 per year-
pick up twice a month. YELLOW stripe on the barrel
$22.50 per year-
pick up every 3 weeks. BLUE stripe on the barrel
$11.25 per year-
pick up once a month, GREEN stripe on the barrel
It could be a stripe or some kind of stencil. The plan gives people an incentive to make less trash and be rewarded for doing so. Seniors who make less trash will pay less. Recycling could be done weekly and the money made on that will offset the loss of the blanket $90 fee. It’s a win win without the complication of printing bags, educating the population, hiring inspectors etc.
Please consider this simple and effective way to solve the Springfield trash fee once and for all so we can move on to the bigger challenges our city faces.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:28 amMemo to aminspfd: Additional questions about PAYT should be addressed to the control board suggestion box using the link Heather provides above. To phone in suggestions to the Mayor’s office, call 787-6100.
Let’s all hope that a comprehensive and detailed Q and A on PAYT will be posted asap on the city and DPW home pages.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 pmFrom the DPW webpage:
Municipal Trash Service
Starting October 1, 2008, the City of Springfield plans to change the way how the municipal trash service is paid for. The annual trash fee will be replaced with a more fair Pay-As-You-Throw system.
Department of Public Works would like to remind customers participating in the City’s trash collection that the current trash fee program will remain in effect until September 30, 2008. Fiscal Year 2009 1st quarter invoices will be issued on or about 06/15/08, and must be paid to continue trash service.
The new Pay-As-You-Throw system will relate the cost of trash collection and disposal services more directly to the volume of trash produced by each property serviced by the City. The service users will need to buy City-regulation bags at participating retailers and put them in the existing City trash barrels for collection. The number of bags necessary to dispose of each user’s trash will depend on the trash habits, and increased recycling will reduce the service cost.
NoPolitician http://
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pmThis seems like an awfully big change to be made with exactly zero public input. It’s obvious that this is a done deal. It is also very clear that this is not coming from the mayor, although he’s the one who will take a severe political hit for it. Remember, 1/5 of the city will be putting their trash into city-purchased bags on election day…
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 pmYes, as the DEP site notes, building public support is important. “Taking the time and committing the resources to build support within both the government and community will minimize confusion about the program from the beginning.”
Officials have pointed to the fact that many other communities in the state have a PAYT per-bag system.
However, I think it’s a valid question to ask how many of them have transitioned to a PAYT per-bag system from a municipal barrel system, and how the two work together, or how the transition can be made smoothly.
Is what’s happening now prompting more frustration and controversy than the plan to implement the trash fee in the first place, roughly at this time last year?
NoPolitician http://
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:18 pmI find the new plan more frustrating because I can comprehend the need for the city to get some extra revenue from a per-use service that has rapidly rising costs, one that is common elsewhere. I get that.
I also get the concept of eliminating flat-rate disposal fees, because charging a flat rate does not give incentive to recycle.
However, I don’t understand why we need to jump to the most onerous form of charges, one which will require a lot of extra effort on everyone’s part. Why not transition to a plan that uses either different sized barrels, or different pickup frequency?
I understand that this will not send the best possible price signals to people. However, is the extra inconvenience and effort really worth the slight gain in efficiency? That’s a question that needs to be asked.
I currently have a 90 gallon barrel. I also recycle quite a bit. Could I recycle more? Yes, possibly a bit more — I’m not as fastidious on recycling in every room, I sometimes throw out paper or a water bottle in a room other than the kitchen. And if I understood the rules better, maybe I could even do more — for example, I’m not sure if plastic wrap is recyclable, etc.
Could I get down to a 60 gallon barrel? I think I possibly could. I think that I would personally be more likely to do this to save $90 per year rather than $1.75 per week.
However, I would like the option of paying for the convenience of not having to meter my trash. Not for unlimited disposal, just for the ability to use the same barrel that I have been using.
I think that such a plan would also mesh better with landlords, who will now be on the hook for their tenants not using the correct bags. It will also prevent problems with people dumping trash in other people’s barrels, and will not require the inspection of every single barrel (which you know isn’t going to happen, which means that the honest people will be the ones paying this fee).
A study I linked to showed that of 3 large cities (Austin, San Francisco, and Portland), all charged by the container, not by the bag. Another study that listed other cities in MA that implemented this didn’t list any having single-container pickup before the switch. In fact, at least one didn’t even have curbside pickup before the switch, so the residents saw it as a benefit.
Not here.
Culchie
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:56 pmPublic participation is a must. Any report by DEP, the EPA or any advisory committee states it is crucial to have “buy in” from public officials and public imput to achieve success. Of course, at the present, Springfield is managed by edict not public officials elected by the residents. This PAYT program seems to be driven by someone with a task on their agenda that lists “start PAYT by 9/1/08″ or someone knows a bag salesman. A very helpful web site for what is - and what is not recyclable in Springfield is the state owned recycling center on Birnie Avenue. I checked saran wrap and it is not recyclable for various reasons. The site has a 5 page pamphlet available just regarding plastics. The site is http://www.springfieldmrf.org.
I don’t think the local landlord organization has publicly weighed in yet - when they do I would expect it to be negative.
I cannot find a PAYT program anywhere that has residents put paid bags in a cart.That speaks volumes about the research, or lack threof, that went into this scheme. From an operations standpoint, a program that has the waste pickup frequency varying from 1 to 4 weeks it would be difficult to schedule routes efficiently. The idea goes against two critical criteria in routing trucks. The goal is to even out the number of stops or tonnage in order to reduce the number of trucks required and to have the personnel and equipment in the act of collection for the maximum amount of time. Idle trucks and long travel time are lost time and wasted capital.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:23 pmFor detailed information about what is recyclable and what is not go to
http://www.springfieldcityhall.com/DPW/ and click on “Solid Waste” on the menu on the left; then “Recycling (English)” on the drop down menu. You will find an illustrated sheet telling you what is and is not recyclable.
Note to NoPol: plastic wrap is not recyclable.
A lot of fuss would sure have been saved had the decision to transition to PAYT been made in time to have had multi-media public education materials all ready to go when the announcement was made.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:39 pmMichael Gorski of the state DEP’s western regional office responded to a May 20 letter Mayor Sarno evidently sent requesting assistance in developing a PAYT program in Springfield. Azell Murphy Cavaan in the mayor’s office shared it with media today. I’m pasting it in below. It addresses financial and technical resources available to the city at this time through the DEP office.
–
June 3, 2008
The Honorable Domenic J. Sarno
City of Springfield
36 Court Street
Springfield, MA 01103
Dear Mayor Sarno,
Thank you for your correspondence of May 20, 2008. Your letter requests assistance in the development of a Pay As You Throw (PAYT) solid waste collection program for the City of Springfield. As you know, MassDEP strongly supports community adoption of PAYT programs, and has provided assistance to over 100 communities across the Commonwealth in PAYT development and implementation.
Your letter specifically requests technical and financial assistance from MassDEP. To that end, effective immediately, MassDEP has assigned two Springfield based staff to provide technical assistance on developing a successful PAYT program in the City. MassDEP will commit up to 100 hours of staff time to provide direct program assistance in this effort.
As the City develops a PAYT plan in coordination with MassDEP, financial assistance of up to $100,000 for PAYT implementation can be made available through MassDEP’s Municipal Sustainability Grant program. Provided that the City’s PAYT program meets grant conditions, and that the FY09 MassDEP grant budget is appropriated, financial assistance can be obtained by applying for an FY09 Municipal Sustainability Grant. Awarded funds would be disbursed over two years, in FY09 and FY10. The FY09 grant application will be available online in July 2008
MassDEP awarded the City a $40,000 grant in FY08 to hire a Mandatory Recycling Enforcement Coordinator; grant funds were to be disbursed over FY08, FY09 and FY10. The City sought to fill the Enforcement Coordinator position this spring, but has not yet found a viable candidate and has expended only a small portion of that grant. With the City actively pursuing a PAYT program, MassDEP proposes to reassign the $40,000 grant to a PAYT implementation grant, with all $40,000 to be disbursed to the City in FY09. The City would still be eligible for an additional $60,000 in PAYT implementation funds, as discussed above.
In response to your request to shift to a single-stream recycling operation at the MRF, MassDEP has requested its operator, Waste Management Recycle America (WMRA), to assess the associated financial and operational issues. We expect a response from WMRA within the next several weeks. While we do not anticipate that this transformation could occur quickly, we will keep the City updated on any developments towards a single-stream operation.
If you have any questions or need additional information, the designated contact person in my office for the City’s PAYT implementation project is Justine Fallon. She can be reached at 413-755-2286, or via email at Justine.Fallon [at] state.ma.us.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Gorski
Regional Director
Cc:
Greg Cooper, MassDEP Boston
Steve Ellis, MassDEP
Justine Fallon, MassDEP
Brooke Nash, MassDEP Boston
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
June 4th, 2008 at 8:26 amVery informative. Thanks, Heather.
mountainbmike
June 11th, 2008 at 1:28 amThe present system is convenient, simple to understand and is helping to control some of the illegal dumping. Much of the “real”illegal dumping is of odd material (tires, furniture mattresses etc.) If we limited the container number and size to what we have now then the large producers of trash would have to recycle and improvements could be made in that area. If we had a covered bin for recycling and on wheels then i’m sure it would lead to increased recycling. (where the city can earn more income). I can’t see how any bag system will help to clean up the city.
Urban Compass | Blog Archive | Councilor Ferrera to Offer PAYT Opposition Resolve; City Wavers http://urbancompass.net/?p=1431
June 12th, 2008 at 5:25 pm[...] on Monday, June 16, strongly opposing the proposed pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) trash program currently under development and consideration by city [...]