Restructuring Local Government Recycling Programs

1. Restructuring Local Government Recycling Programs Presentation to the Special Committee on Local Service Consolidation by Ann Coakley, Director Waste & Materials Mgt, WI DNR

2. Objective Achieve more effective local government recycling through consolidation to: • Reduce program costs to local government • Improve efficiency of recycling services • Expand recycling/recovery opportunities • Create new jobs and business opportunities

3. Recycling Program Background • Recycling Law (1990) requires approved recycling program covering every local unit of government • Option to be individual or consolidated • Current status • # of Responsible Units (RUs): 1060 • Range in population: 200 - 500,000 • 85% have < 2000 population

4. Recycling Program Grant Assistance • State grants to local governments • Funded through landfill tip fee on municipal waste and business recycling surcharge • Current annual grant appropriation is $32M • Voluntary grants program – about 99% of RUs receive grants • All but 40 RUs apply for and receive grants

5. Recycling Grants and Local Cost Share Erosion of Grant Assistance Portion of eligible RU program costs covered by grants has eroded over time In 2009, only 26% of costs covered * Increase in recycling tip fee and/or grant allocation

6. Inefficiencies of the Current RU Structure • Higher recycling collection costs due to lack of market power and experience in contract negotiation • Inadequate outreach and compliance • Confusion among residents arising from differences between individual RU recycling programs, and • Hightstaff turnover and scarcity of staff with the necessary expertise to run efficient programs.

7. 2008 Recycling Costs per Tonby Size of RU • Higher program costs among smaller local government programs.

8. Cost Inefficiencies of Current Structure • Higher total program costs • Smaller RUs average $40/ton more in total program costs Example: Waukesha County RUs • Waukesha County RU (25 member governments, population 273,000) • Program costs $139/ton • Individual RUs within Waukesha County (12 RUs, total population 110,000) • Program costs (average) $180/ton • Missed potential savings: $254,000

9. Examples of Increased Efficiency • Efficiency Examples from Consolidated RUs • Program administration- provide staff, education and administration for members (grants, reports) • Recycling collection – use market power and economies of scale for lower collection costs and expanded services (curbside collection, tires, appliances, oil filters, HHH, yard wastes) • Material processing – lower costs due to similarity in materials collected from different member communities, better market prices because more volume

10. Benefits to Consolidation Local Government Institute (LGI) study concluded recycling programs have high potential for consolidation • Lower local government cost share for program implementation • Efficiencies through economies of scale and market power • Pooling of grants and staff resources, dedicated and experienced staff • More effective use of state grant monies • Provide opportunity for enhanced local services and new business opportunities • Clean Sweep/Household hazardous waste collection • Yard waste composting* • Construction debris and asphalt shingles reuse/recovery* * Denotes emerging business opportunity

11. Regional Collaboration • Brown-Outagamie-Winnebago Agreement • Consolidation of solid waste/recycling services • Teamed to build largest public owned/operated innovative MRF ($10M investment) • Dunn and St. Croix Counties • Information regional solid waste/recycling programs • Exploring expansion to more services

12. Concerns with Consolidation • Pride in local recycling programs • Reluctance to hand over control to another authority • Bad experiences with previous “county” programs • Concern about “level of service maintenance” • Reluctance to change , comfort with current structure • Preference for a voluntary approach

13. A Consolidation Scenario Stakeholder process recommended A “straw dog” proposal • Statutory revision requiring consolidation at the county or regional level • Exceptions made for largest municipalities and tribes • Past voluntary approach (REI grant) not successful • Five year phase in process with DNR assistance • Provisions to ensure service level maintenance

14. County Population Distribution Current situation: • 35 “County” RUs (represent at least 75% of county population) • 14 “County” RUs serve entire county population

15. Funding- A Proposal Maintain current state total grant appropriation ($32M) Each county/RU to receive sum total of grants awarded to RUs in the county • Total grant award for the county is unchanged • Pool grant funding and other resources to county level

16. Wisconsinites Support Recycling • Over 90% of Wisconsinites recycle • Paper and container recycling offered throughout the state • Pride in local program operation  But with consolidation, we can do better AND reduce local government costs

17. Summary • There are over 1,000 local recycling programs. • We can achieve more effective local government recycling through consolidation to: • Reduce program costs to local government • Improve efficiency of recycling services • Expand recycling/recovery opportunities • Create new jobs and business opportunities

18. Thank You • The department offers our support and participation in a work group of stakeholders on this important subject. • Thank you for the invitation to present this data and our expertise to your study committee.

19. Questions • Cynthia Moore, Recycling Coordinator • 608-267-7550 • cynthia.moore@wisconsin.gov • Ann Coakley, Director • 608-261-2449 • ann.coakley@wisconsin.gov