HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-15-PAYT-rpt.pdf SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Report to the Lexington Board of Selectmen
December 15, 2000
BACKGROUND
1. Appointment
At its meeting on August 14, 2000, the Lexington Board of Selectmen appointed their
PAYTAC with the following parameters:
(1) Members: Seven
One member of the League of Women Voters (Judy Uhrig)
One member from TMMA (Lucy Lockwood)
Two members of the Solid-Waste Action Team (SWAT) (John Andrews and
John Fedorochko)
Three neighborhood representatives (Paul Chernick, Bud Frawley, and
David Kanter)
(2) Liaison. Three
Board of Selectmen (Jeanne Krieger)
Appropriations Committee (Alan Levine)
Department of Public Works (Wayne Brooks)
(3) Term Length. End of the Spring 2001 Annual Town Meeting
(4) Description: The Committee shall examine the benefits of the SWAT proposal
that the Town consider implementing a PAYT system as one way to reduce
the flow of solid waste into the waste-disposal stream. The Committee will
examine the feasibility of implementing a PAYT system and will make
specific recommendations for implementation based on the SWAT's
recommendations (End 1] as well as other PAYT programs already in place in
and outside of the region.
2. PAYTA C Process
a. The Committee held eight meetings during the period
September 6, 2000–December 13, 2000, during which it held discussions, heard guest
presentations, reviewed material (e.g., End 2 & 3], and members talked with residents in
other PAYT towns—all with the purpose of fulfilling the Selectmen's charge to the
Committee [See End 4 for definitions of terms used by the PAYTAC.J
b On October 6, 2000, members of the Committee also visited the contractor which
processes Lexington s recyclable solid waste to better understand the handling of that
portion of Lexington's waste stream.
c. On November 15, 2000, the Committee held a Public Hearing to offer the citizens
of Lexington an opportunity to advise the Committee of their ideas about a PAYT
process. [See End 5 for a discussion of issues about PAYT as brought to the Committee s
attention during the Hearing and by other means.]
Page 1 of 5
W
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Report to the Lexington Board of Selectmen
December 15, 2000
d. The Committee carefully considered whether there were any alternatives to
PAYT which would obviate the perceived need for PAYT, but concluded none had the
potential of PAYT to reduce waste, introduce more equity into the payment for the
Town's trash-management program, and save money at the same time. [End 6]
e. The Committee reviewed the circumstances under which a very few
municipalities in the Commonwealth abandoned a PAYT program (5 out of about 100)
and determined the program contemplated for Lexington would avoid repeating those
same problems. [End 7]
f. On December 6, 2000, the attending Committee members voted unanimously
(6 to 0) to make the findings cited below
g. On December 13, 2000, the attending Committee members voted unanimously
(5 to 0) to approve this report to the Board of Selectmen with the understanding it
would contain the latest enclosure data available when submitted. (An additional
member was reached after the meeting and also concurred with this report.)
3. Findings [Note: Enclosure references have been added for information only.]
a. The waste reduction and recycling increases resulting from a PAYT program can
be expected to provide benefits to public health, the environment, and the economy
[End 3 &8]
b. A properly designed PAYT program can reduce solid-waste-management costs
for the Town of Lexington and for individual households in Lexington. [End 9]
c. A properly designed PAYT program should provide increased fairness in the
costs imposed upon different households by the solid-waste-management program.
[End 10]
d. We have discussed PAYT with a broad range of residents in both informal
contacts and public meetings. We feel that when the program is understood by
residents and especially after experiencing PAYT first-hand, a PAYT program will be
viewed favorably by the great majority of Town residents. [End 11]
e. It is feasible to implement a PAYT program in Lexington. [See End 12 & 13
regarding just two aspects of feasibility.]
f. Lexington faces the need for a timely response to the significant financial
challenges resulting from the continuing growth of our trash volume [End 14], the
increasing per-ton costs of trash disposal [End 9], and the need to establish an
advantageous position for negotiating a new contract when the NESWC arrangement
ends in 2005.
Page 2 of 5
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Report to the Lexington Board of Selectmen
December 15, 2000
g. The implementation of a PAYT-pricing system for waste disposal has great
promise in providing the best response to those challenges in a manner that also
enhances equity in the application of the financial burden on the Town's residents.
h. The program for Lexington should be an integrated package which includes a
PAYT-pricing system, expanded public education, and other elements possibly
including recycling of additional material and increased convenience.
i. There is ample justification to proceed with implementing such a program in the
Town of Lexington—and, if advance preparations begin soon, it should be possible to
implement such a program as early as the middle of calendar year 2001.
j. The PAYT Advisory Committee should continue to work with Town officials &
SWAT to ensure that a suitable Implementation Plan for such a program is developed.
In developing the Implementation Plan, we note that the following items need careful
consideration:
(1) Fiscal aspects of the program (e.g. selecting a proper mix of tax-levy
support and support from PAYT label/tag sales)
(2) Public education on PAYT, recycling, and waste reduction
(3) Making the program as convenient as possible for residents
(4) Increasing opportunities for recycling and waste diversion (e.g., by
increasing the materials recycled, increasing yard-waste pick-up periods,
etc.)
4. Elements of Proposed Enhanced Solid-Waste-Management Program. Although the
PAYTAC considers its efforts still a "work in progress," the following elements of an
enhanced program appear desirable to the PAYTAC based on the work done to date:
a. Timing: Implement as soon as practical in FY2002—while being sensitive that
proper preparation is essential to a successful launch of the program.
b. Scope: The enhanced solid-waste-management program should serve all those
who use the public collection service—approximately 32,000 residents (in
approximately 11,000 households) and all municipal offices.
c. Increased Recyclables: Expand to include all plastic containers with #1 through
#7 labels, inclusive. (Continues to be without charge.)
d. Increased Leaf and Yard-Waste Collections: Four additional collections during
the year—raising the total to 16. (Continues to be without charge.)
e. Reinstate Christmas-Tree Collection. One curbside collection, at no charge, early
in January each year
f. Frequency of Collections: No change—weekly for trash; every two weeks for
recyclables; continue to call for scheduled collection of "white goods" (no charge, at
least initially); same operation of the Minuteman Household Hazardous Products
Page 3 of 5
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Report to the Lexington Board of Selectmen
December 15, 2000
Center on Hartwell Avenue; and continue to sponsor periodic, special, drop-off
collection days for selected banned materials (e.g., cathode-ray tubes [CRTs] and
electronics).
g. PAYT
(1) Reduce the tax-levy funded portion of the solid-waste-management costs to
cover fundamentally just the "fixed costs" of the Town's solid-waste
programs (approximately 68% of the total)—with approximately the balance
of the costs to be funded by the citizens on a unit-based, trash-only (not
recyclables)basis.
(2) Authorize use of both bag tags (to be sold by local retail merchants) and
barrel labels (to be sold by local retail merchants and the Town). Based on
still-draft financial information, the preliminary consensus of the PAYTAC is
to recommend a tag price of$1.50. (There was some support on the PAYTAC
within the range of $1.25 to $2.00.) Based on a $1.50 price for a tag, the
PAYTAC's preliminary recommendation is $50.00 as the label price—valid
for a 6-month period. (Only the Town would sell the labels on a pro-rated
basis for purchase during each such period.) [See End 15 for the implications of
other pricing]
(3) Apply for any relevant state or Federal grants, incentives, or other support, to
ease the transition into the new program as well as to minimize the financial
burden, to the extent practical, on both the tax levy and tag/label sales.
(4) Weight limit for bags would be 30 pounds; for barrels, 50 pounds (which is
the same as the current barrel limit). (If individually tagged bags are put in an
unlabeled barrel, only the bag-weight limit would apply)
(5) Provide each residence using the public collection service an initial book of 10
bag tags at no additional cost to them to facilitate the transition to the PAYT
system. (There was some support on the PAYTAC for a higher allocation
and/or a continuing allocation.) [See End 15 for the implications of other
numbers of such at-no-additional-cost tags.]
h. Public Education & Support
(1) As soon as practical, begin a pro-active, multi-media, program to explain to
all Town citizens the program's broadly based motivation and benefits (e.g.,
to increase the recycling rate, to reduce the volume of materials entering the
waste stream, to reduce the costs and environmental impacts of solid-waste
management, and to finance the curbside solid-waste program in a more
equitable manner), its requirements, and its implementation date.
(2) Continue the education program with at least semi-annual mailings to each
household and additional, periodic, information products.
Page 4 of 5
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Report to the Lexington Board of Selectmen
December 15, 2000
(3) Assign a full-time Town employee to oversee the enhanced solid-waste-
management program with specific responsibility to be the primary point-of-
contact with all Town residents regarding the program—as well as with the
other Town offices.
5. Recommendation. Notwithstanding the preliminary status of the enclosed financial
information, the PAYTAC makes an unqualified recommendation that:
The Board of Selectmen adopt an enhanced solid-waste-management program for
the Town of Lexington that incorporates recycling of additional material, increased
convenience, PAYT pricing, and expanded public education & support.
Respectfully submitted,
The Lexington Selectmen's Pay-As-You-Throw Advisory Committee
15 Enclosures
1. PAYT Recommendation to the Lexington Board of Selectmen (Lexington SWAT,
July 24, 2000
2. PAYT References (Lexington SWAT, Revised December 15, 2000)
3. What is PAYT? (Lexington SWAT,December 7, 2000)
4. PAYT Terminology (PAYTAC, December 15, 2000)
5. PAYT Concerns, Questions, and Suggestions (PAYTAC, December 15, 2000)
6. Review of Alternatives to a PAYT Program (PAYTAC, December 6, 2000)
7 Lessons Learned from Municipalities that Tried and then Rejected PAYT (PAYTAC,
December 13, 2000)
8. Impact of PAYT on the Waste Stream (PAYTAC, December 3, 2000)
9 Overall Budget Impacts of PAYT (Preliminary) (PAYTAC,December 10, 2000)
10. PAYT Household Impacts Analysis (Preliminary) (PAYTAC, 12/13/00)December
14, 2000)
11. PAYTAC's Own Pro & Con Assessment (PAYTAC, October 25, 2000)
12. Laws Relating to Dumping or Littering(Lexington Police Chief Casey Memo to
PAYTAC, December 7, 2000)
13. Preventing Illegal Dumping(PAYTAC, December 14,2000)
14. Analysis of Lexington's Solid Waste (PAYTAC, November 29, 2000)
15. Effects of Program-Parameter Choices on Benefits and Revenues (Preliminary)
(PAYTAC, December 14, 2000)
Page 5 of 5
Lexington Solid-Waste Action Team (SWAT)
PAYT Recommendation to the Lexington Board of Selectmen
July 24, 2000
By a unanimous vote at its meeting of July 13, 2000, the SWAT approved the following
Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) recommendation to the Lexington Board of Selectmen:
WHEREAS the costs of waste disposal to the Town of Lexington has reached historic
highs and has become an increasing burden upon the taxpayers of the Town;
WHEREAS waste disposal techniques such as incineration are major sources of toxic
contaminants such as mercury and dioxin that reenter Lexington in food and are
already present at harmful levels in the bodies of residents;
WHEREAS reducing trash volume and increasing recycling are effective ways of
reducing both waste disposal costs and pollution;
WHEREAS documented experiences in other communities shows that the single most
effective measure the Town of Lexington can take to reduce volume and increase
recycling is to institute a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) pricing system;
WHEREAS a PAYT pricing system has the additional desirable benefit of more
equitably distributing the expenses of solid waste management and rewarding
residents who act to recycle and reduce their waste generation,
WHEREAS a PAYT system provides the individual household with an additional
measure of control over their household waste disposal expenses;
WHEREAS a PAYT system helps address the problem of commercial trash being
illegally put into the municipal waste stream by providing partial cost recovery for the
Town,
WHEREAS over 90 communities in Massachusetts have successfully implemented
PAYT systems and such systems have found broad public support;
WHEREAS the adoption of PAYT systems is strongly urged by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, and the DEP provides financial and regulatory incentives for its
adoption;
WHEREAS proven reductions in our solid waste volume will benefit the Town in
negotiating for disposal contracts that will follow the end of the NESWC contract in the
year 2005;
THEREFORE, the SWAT recommends that the Selectmen take steps to design a PAYT
pricing system for Lexington, to obtain any necessary authorizations for the program, to
apply for state DEP grants and incentives associated with the program, and to
implement the program within the coming year.
Page 1 of 1 Enci 1
LEXINGTON SOLID-WASTE ACTION TEAM (SWAT)
Pay-As-You-Throw References
Revised December 15, 2000
Digital
Ref Ident Document File
Avail
Alameda96 'Waste Characterization Study' EMCON for Alameda County Waste d
Management Authority October 1996
Connett98a Connett, Paul, 'Municipal waste incineration: A poor solution for the d
twenty first century', 4th Annual International Management
Conference, Waste-to-Energy November 1998
DEPOOa "Pay-as-You-Throw: An Implementation Guide for Solid Waste Unit- d
Based Pricing Program?, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Department of Environmental Protection, June 2000
DEPOOb 'Beyond 2000 Solid Waste Master Plan A Policy Framework' d
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection June 2000
DEPOOc 'Guidance for Solid Waste Handling and Disposal Facilities d
on Compliance with DEP's Waste Disposal Restrictions"
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2000
DEPOOd 'Recycling Participation Survey' Massachusetts Department of d
Environmental Protection, June 2000
LEPOOe 'Pay-As-You-Throw An Implementation Guide for Solid Waste Unit-
Based Pricing Programs' Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, June 2000
DEPOOf 'Commonwealth of Massachusetts Municipalities with Pay-As-You- d
Throw Programs' Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, February 2000
DEP96a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 'Mercury in d
Massachusetts: An Evaluation of Sources, Emissions, Impacts, and
Controls' June 1996
DEP99a Skumatz, Lisa A. and Morris, Jeffrey "Recycling 2000'
Recommendations for Increasing Recycling in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Summary ReportII February 1999
EPA94a "Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons
from 30 Communities: EPA530-R-92-015, February 1994
EPA96a Environmental Protection Agency "Pay-as-you-Throw Tool
Workbook" EPA530-R-96-005, September 1996
EPA98a 'Puzzled About Recycling's Value Look Beyond the Bin', EPA530- d
K-98-008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 1998
EPA98b 'Illegal Dumping Prevention Guide" EPA905-B-97-001 U.S. d
Environmental Protection Aoency March 1998
EPA98c 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials d
in Municipal Solid Waste' EPA530-R-98-013, September 1998
EPA99a 'Cutting the Waste Stream in Half: Community Record-setters d
Show How', EPA-530-R-99-013, June 1999
EPA99b 'Getting More for Less: Improving Collection Efficiency", EPA530-R- d
99-038, November 1999
Page 1 of 4 Encl 2
LEXINGTON SOLID-WASTE ACTION TEAM (SWAT)
Pay-As-You-Throw References
Revised December 15, 2000
EPA99c Environmental Protection Agency 'Rate Structure Design Setting
Rates for a Pay-As-You-Throw Program' EPA530-R-99-006,
January 1999
ILSR96a A Non-Incineration Alternative for Mercer County New Jersey' d
Institute for Local Self-Reliance, October 1996
LEX99a Town of Lexington, 'Rules Governing Residential Solid Waste' d
March 1999.
MA00a Skumatz, Lisa A. 'Cost-Effectiveness of Municipal Recycling and d
Yard Waste Programs in Massachusetts' prepared for
Massachusetts EOEA by Skumatz Economic Research Associates,
July 17 2000
MA97a The North East Solid Waste Committee Project: Planning and
Development of a Public Private Partnership' Office of the
Inspector General, State of Massachusetts, December 1997
McNabb00a McNabb, John and Ketelsen, Lee, 'The Citizen's Solid Waste Master
Plan' Massachusetts Coalition to Reduce Waste, June 7 2000
ME95a Sequino, S. Griner G. Suarez, M. Solid Waste Management Options
for Maine: The Economics of Pay-By-The-Bag Systems, Maine Policy
Review, Vol.4 No.2, 1995, pqs. 49-58
ME98a 'User Fee System and Trash Bag Survey One Disposal District's d
First-Year Experience' Pleasant River Solid Waste Disposal District,
Maine State Planning Office. 1998
ME98b 'Pay -as-you-Throw Report' State Planning Office, State of Maine,
1998
ME98c Maine State Planning Office, `State of Maine Waste Management d
and Recycling Plan' June 15, 1998
ME99a Maine State Planning Office, 'Solid Waste Program Costs: A Study of
Selected Maine Communities' December 1999
ME99b Northeast Regional Council for Maine State Planning Office, 'Public
Recycling Program Costs and Efficiencies: A Review and Analysis of
- Available Literature' October 8, 1999
Miranda 96a Miranda, Marie Lynn, and Aldy Joseph, "Unit Pricing of Residential
Municipal Solid Waste: Lessons from Nine Case Study Communities"
Duke University for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency March
1996
Miranda,96c Miranda, Marie Lynn, and Bauer Scott, "The Urban Performance of d
Unit Pricing: An Analysis of Variable Rates for Residential Garbage
Collection in Urban Areas' Duke University April 1996
Miranda96b Miranda, Marie Lynn, Bauer Scott D. and Aldy Joseph E. "Unit d
Pricing Programs for Residential Municipal Solid Waste: An
Assessment of the Literature" Duke University for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency March 1996
Miranda97a Miranda, Marie Lynn, and La Palme, Sharon, "Unit Pricing of d
Residential Solid Waste: A Preliminary Analysis of 212 U.S.
Communities" Nicholas School of the Environment, for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency October 1997
Page 2 of 4 Encl 2
LEXINGTON SOLID-WASTE ACTION TEAM (SWAT)
Pay-As-You-Throw References
Revised December 15,2000
MRI00a `Material Separation Plan for the Diversion of Mercury' submitted to d
Massachusetts DEP by Massachusetts REFUSETECH Inc.,North
Andover MA.
NC97a North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Resources, d
Analysis of the Full Costs of Solid Waste Management for North
Carolina Local Governments' February 1997
NRC00a 'Waste Incineration and Public Health' Committee on Health Effects
of Waste Incineration, National Research Council, 2000
NY94a I 'Solid Waste Ordinances for Tompkins County New York' 1 994 I d
PA87aa "Trash Ordinance, Borough of Perkasie, Bucks County Pennsylvania' d
amended October 5, 1.987
Platt9l Platt, Brenda, Doherty Christine, Broughton, Anne Claire, and Morris,
David, `Beyond 40 Percent Record-Setting Recycling and
Composting Programs' Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Island Press,
1991
Platt92 Platt, Brenda,Friedman, Naomi, Grodinsky Carolyn, and Suozzo,
Margaret, 'In-Depth Studies of Recycling and Composting Programs:
Designs, Costs, Results' Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Island
Press. 1991
RI95 'Rhode Island Comprehensive Waste Management Plan' State of d
Rhode Island, 1995
Skumats93a Skumatz, Lisa A. Variable Rates for Municipal Solid Waste:
Implementation Experience, Economics, and Legislation' Skumatz
Economic Research Associates, June 1993
Skumatz94 Skumatz, Lisa A. Van Dusen, Hans, and Carton, Jennie, 'Illegal
Dumping: Incidence, Drivers, and Strategies" Report No. 9431 1
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, November 1994
Skumatz96a Skumatz, Lisa A. "Nationwide Diversion Rate Study Quantitative
Effects of Program Choices on Recycling and Green Waste Diversion:
Beyond Case Studies Final Report' Skumatz Economic Research
Associates, July 1996
SWAT99a 'Lexington's Solid Waste Future Report of the Lexington Solid d
Waste Action Team to the Lexington Board of Selectmen' March
1999
Tellus99a 'Source Reduction in Massachusetts, A Report to the Massachusetts d
Department of Environmental Protection' Tellus Institute,
December6, 1999
Warner97a Warner Langdon S. 'The Economics of Recycling in South Carolina d
Final Report: Forecasting Change in the Effectiveness of Local
Recycling Programs: A Predictive Model' September 23, 1997
Internet Resources for MSW and PAYT
Massachusetts DEP Recycling Home Page
www.state.ma.us/dep/recycle/recycle.htm
Massachusetts DEP Waste Program Planning
www.magnet.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/dswm/dswmpubs.htm#swmp
Page 3 of 4 End 2
LEXINGTON SOLID-WASTE ACTION TEAM (SWAT)
Pay-As-You-Throw References
Revised December 15,2000
Mercury in Massachusetts DEP Report
www.magnet.state.ma.us/dep/files/mercury.htm
EPA Municipal Solid Waste Home Page
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/programs.htm
EPA Pay-as-you-throw Home Page
www.epa.gov/payt/
Global Recycling Network
grn.com/index.html
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
www.ilsr.org/
Lexington DPW
patriot.ci.lexington.ma.us/DPW/DPWpub.htm
Lexington Solid Waste Action Team
www.lexingtonma.org/swat/HomePage.htm
Maine Surveys of PAYT Communities
janus.state.me.us/spo/wm&r/publications_and_other_resources.htm
Massachusetts DEP Recycling Home Page
www.state.ma.us/dep/recycle/recycle.htm
Minuteman Hazardous Household Products Facility
patriot.ci.lexington.ma.us/OCD/Health/HazWaste.htm
Montgomery County Maryland Solid Waste Programs
www.mcrecycles.org/
Passaic County NJ Waste Reduction Programs
www.pcnjwaste.com/index.htm
Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly
www.monitor.net/rachel/rehw-index.html
Recycler's World
http://www recycle net/
Use Less Stuff
www.stopwaste.org/fsmorelinks.html
Page 4 of 4 End 2
Lexington Solid Waste Action Team (SWAT) • http://www.lexingtanma.org/swat/HomePage.htm
What is
PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT)?
Can reducing the taxpayer subsidy for trash
disposal save money, improve public health, and
promote fairness?
Q: Why are we talking about changes to the trash program
in Lexington? Why don't we just keep doing what we've The Core Idea of Pav-as-You-Throw•
done in the past? When you discard less. you pay less.
A. Several factors are converging to make changes necessary
Trash disposal costs are soaring. The fees we pay for trash Q: What is pay-as-you-throw(PAYT)?
incineration are expected to increase by about 70%by the year
2005. Reducing waste management costs is becoming A. Currently the entire cost of solid waste management is paid
increasingly important. for by local taxes. Residents can throw away as much as they
Lexington's incineration contract with the North East Solid like and the tax levy will pay the entire cost. Under PAYT
Waste Committee(NESWC)is coming to art end in 2005 and about 1/3 of the costs are moved from the tax levy to a per-bag
the,search for new disposal options must begin in a year or two. payment. There still is no charge for recycling. This provides
Lexington needs to verify its ability to reduce its trash volume an economic reward to residents who reduce waste and recycle
in order to negotiate amore cost effective follow-on contract_ more. Households can-and usually will make individual
Health researchers have uncovered widespread new risks decisions to generate less trash and save money(see Figure 1).
frdm the toxic pollutants produced from trash disposal and it
is reasonable to expect new risks to be identified as research
continues. Traditional ways of disposing of trash are no longer
acceptable from a public health perspective. $4.0M -— .Mitflwt ,ith
Slate and Federal regulators are increasing pressures on towns PAYT PAYT
to reduce waste and clean up the waste stream, We need to find
cost effective ways to meet future requirements. 0 .living,
¢ $3.6M - -- -
Q: How can we address these problems? o.a _.
—. - .._
A. Because we are charged by the ton for trash that we I- S2.oM -- ' TAX' . 7AX _
incinerate(paying a 'tipping fee for each ton), we can save fn _ LEVY ' ✓LEVY
money by sending less trash to the incinerator. This requires U 1
recycling more and avoiding unnecessary waste. Reducing J SLOM PER-BAG
trash also reduces pollution. H N PAYMENTS
Q: Why can't we find a better place to dispose of our trash? o . .... •i
A.We are locked into the NESWC contract, with its mandatory 100% 66%
minimum payments, until the contract ends in 2005. And the TAXPAYER TAXPAYER
SUBSIDIZED SUBSIDIZED
closing of all unlined landfills in Massachusetts means that we
have limited options after 2005. We will still be paying some
of the highest tipping fees in the country Figure 1 Waste management costs with and without
PAYT(for typical PAYT program).
Page 1 of 6 Enc 3
Q: Why is PAYT better than the tax-levy system we now Q: What is Lexington doing about PAYT?
have?
A. For the past two years the SWAT has been studying various
A. The advantages fall into three categories: solutions to our solid waste problems.After considering all the
options,the SWAT concluded that PAYT is the single most
ECONOMIC.Because PAYT rewards waste reduction and effective step Lexington could take to reduce waste and save
recycling, it reduces the tonnage on which tipping fees must be money on disposal costs.hi May they recommended to the
paid. This produces a savings in waste management costs. In Board of Selectmen that Lexington pursue implementation of a
addition,there are other dollar benefits resulting from items PAYT program. The Selectmen wanted to give the idea closer
such as health care savings,reduced environmental scrutiny,so they appointed a special PAYT Committee to
remediation, and creation ofjobs in recycling industries. determine the feasibility and desirability of such a program for
Lexington. The PAYT Committee is due to provide a report to
ENVIRONMENTAL/HEALTH:By decreasing the total solid the Selectmen in December. If they report favorably PAYT
waste incinerated and by diverting more materials into will receive further consideration from the Selectmen and the
recycling,PAYT reduces the toxic pollutants released by waste 2001 Town Meeting.
disposal and manufacturing. Trash incinerators are the largest
sources in Massachusetts of dioxin(the prime toxin in Agent Q: How would PAYT work in Lexington?
Orange")and mercury(the cause of statewide advisories
against fish consumption). Dozens of other pollutants are also A. The details of a plan for Lexington remain to be decided,
released by incineration. and will depend upon the recommendations of the PAYT
Committee,planning done by the Department of Public Works
EQUITY. PAYT is a fairer way of paying for trash since (DPW), and citizen input. But we can describe a typical
households producing lower volumes of waste(like senior PAYT program based on trash bags as follows:
citizens,single-person households, and careful recyclers)pay About one-third of the total cost of waste management
only for what they themselves produce and do not have to is removed from the yearly tax levy and funded by sale of town
subsidize disposalfromhouseholds that generate more trash. trash bags.
Bags are sold in supermarkets and convenience stores
Q: Does waste disposal pose a health risk-in Lexington? for$1.50 each.
Or is it just a concern in North Andover where the Up to 30 pounds of trash can be placed in each bag
incinerator is located? (Note:This limit is about twice the weight of a typical filled
trash bag.)
A. Some of the most dangerous pollutants,such as mercury There is no charge for recycled materials or yard waste
and dioxin, are concentrated in the food chain and come into put out on yard waste collection days.
Lexington in food(see Figure 2). Lexington residents are
probably exposed to these chemicals to about the same extent Q•Is this a new idea for Massachusetts?
as people living near the incinerator.
A.No.Over 95 towns in Massachusetts have already adopted
some form of a PAYT system,and the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection is striving to make
'�' i:"•"•f+ *F• �;. INFANT/ N PAYT the standard for the state. Over 4000 communities
"•'' 1' FETUS
tat nationwide have adopted PAYT programs.
ch_
Q: Is PAYT the same idea as the"trash fee"the Town
1 considered a few years ago?
, +r A. No. The 'trash fee' was a proposal to move 100%of waste
INCINERATOR MOTHER
management costs from the tax levyto an enterprise fund.
FOOD SOURCES /
Each household would have paid a fixed yearly trash service
assessment into this fund. This violates the basic principle of
Figure 2 Toxic substances like dioxin and mercury are PAYT which is that you should pay less when you discard less.
emitted by incineration and are concentrated in the food It would not have achieved the cost savings or environmental
chain. Infants(and the fetus exposed through the mother) benefits that can be achieved with PAYT The SWAT,the
are most vulnerable to toxic effects. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,and
the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)recommend
PAYT as the best way to manage trash. None of these
organizations recommends a 'trash fee"as described above.
Page 2 of 6 Enc 3
volume and reduce solid waste management costs. PAYT is
not an unproven experiment it is a proven,prudent
Q After considering both the tax-levy payments and the mechanism for achieving better municipal waste management.
per-bag payments, will I pay more or less for trash disposal
under PAYT?
45%reduction
In trash
A. The SWAT conducted an analysis to see how PAYT would 1.before ®after
affect individual Lexington households. It found that the great
majority of households would pay less for waste management. Discarded' Cost per
Generally only households that continue to put out two or Tonnage •Household
three times the average level of trash will see increased local 3.9,616 $2.26
expenses.The SWAT also found that dollar benefits extend far 363 zs 1x%reduction
Incost
beyond the Town budget to include savings in health costs, — . Recycled
•
environmental costs,property value impacts of incinerators and 22,046 Tonnage
landfills, etc. These benefits are actually greater than the - -/-
3,103 •
savings derived through the Town budget. So they concluded % f
that PAYT is a clear winner in terms of dollar savings.
771
Q: Did the SWAT consider the loss of Federal income tax Figure 3 PAYT implementation in Worcester reduced
deductibility that occurs when a resident who itemizes discarded waste by 45%.
deductions pays lower local taxes for waste management?
A. Yes,this was examined. It is expected that about two-
thirds of total waste management costs will remain on the tax Q: Do people like PAYT?
levy after PAYT One-third will be removed from the tax levy
and this will result in a reduced Federal tax deduction for A. In every community where PAYT is proposed,there are
residents that itemize deductions. This reduces PAYT savings residents who are certain that they won't like the idea. But
for those residents,but does not prevent most residentsfromonce residents see the program in action,it receives strong
saving money with PAYT support from a solid majority of people. This is largely
because of its inherent fairness and the cost savings. The
Q: Why isn't it to my advantage to insist upon getting as degree of public support is evident in the fact that only one or
many free services from the Town as possible? two Massachusetts communities have ever established a PAYT
system and then decided to go back to a tax-levy system.
A.The Town cannot really offer `free' services. In reality,the
Town decides what services will be provided,the Town budget Q: How do we know that PAYT won't be overly
is set to reflect the cost,and the taxpayers get the resulting bill. complicated and inconvenient?
The idea that trash disposal is 'free' is an illusion that results
from the disposal costs being hidden in a combined tax A. A well-designed PAYT program is simple to understand
assessment. One of the reasons PAYT works is that it makes it and easy to use. For instance, it might only mean that you buy
clear to people that additional trash generation costs money a book of tags along with your usual trash bags when you
Some people find this realization painful,but for most check out at the supermarket.Or that you put a barrel label on
residents, PAYT costs them less than 'free' disposal service your barrels once every six months. It is expected that tags and
paid for by the tax levy labels would be sold at a number of local businesses. The
PAYT Committee has been charged to look at the details of
Q: How do we know PAYT will work to increase recycling any PAYT proposal to ensure that it is convenient to use.
and reduce trash volume?
A. Numerous state,municipal,and Federal studies have Q: Would PAYT impose an unfair burden on low-income
residents.
actually measured discarded and recycled tonnages before and
after implementation of PAYT A study of seven communities A.No.Low-income residents will also share in the overall
in Massachusetts showed a 36%increase in recycling in the savings achieved by PAYT And because PAYT restores some
first year of PAYT According to the EPA The average waste measure of individual control over the trash bill, households
reduction reported by pay-as-you-throw communities is that need to economize to make ends meet are given the option
between 25 and 45 per cent.".For planning purposes,it is to do so. Our current system of 100%taxpayer subsidy forces
probably reasonable to assume a 13%increase in recycling rate all households to fund a mandatory high level of disposal
and a 14%reduction in overall waste would accompany a service which some households cannot afford. Because trash
PAYT implementation in Lexington. output tends to increase with income, the subsidies are skewed
in a regressive manner. On balance, PAYT is not
The Massachusetts DEP the U.S.EPA,and numerous state disadvantageous to low income households.
solid waste agencies have concluded that PAYT is the single
most effective action that a community can take to reduce trash
Page 3 of 6 Enc 3
Q: Will residents be given any free tags?
Q: Can we save money by recycling despite the Guaranteed
Annual Tonnage(GAT)requirement under the NESWC A.That is a design detail that will be decided by the Board of
contract? Selectmen as part of any implementation plan.
A.Yes. If we send less than the GAT limit to the incinerator, Q:Will everyone have to use the same size trash barrel?
we can sell the unused tonnage and save money(see figure).
A. Lexington is not considering a system that would require
GAT standard size barrels.
$$.0 M
Q:Will the Town have people inspecting my curbside
$2.5 M trash?
O. $2.0 M _ A. No. But if a tag system is used,the collection truck
y personnel will be required to verify that the bags they pick up
0 $1.5 M -- have Town tags. If tags are missing,they will leave a note
u.
explaining why the trash could not be collected.
-• $1.0 - - -1"Ada4onal
a Q:Aren't there other things we can do to increase recycling
rrldhhI WI 55uo
$0.5 M - °potdd GA i.p ,urc asad I and reduce waste?
I
$o.°M A. Of course.An interim report from the PAYT Advisory
° 4000 8000 12000 15000 20000 Committee(on 10/30/00) suggested that PAYT should be
Discarded Tonnage assessed as part of a package of improvements to the Town's
waste management program,and not a single independent
(SWAT C 17)
Figure 4 Net tipping fees are the costs of tonnage measure The Town and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
purchased less revenues from unused GAT that is have a number of other recycling initiatives underway and they
resold. should help. But none have the potential of PAYT to reduce
waste and save money at the same time.Most other efforts
yardpicked up without such as recycling education- are more effective after PAYT is
Q:Will waste continue to be implemented.
charge? p
A. Yes. One of the goals of PAYT is to reduce the amount of Q:What provisions will be made for a low income
yard debris that is put in regular trash. So yard waste-will be household that finds it an economic hardship to buy tags?
picked up without charge.
A. This question must be addressed while recognizing that it is
also an economic hardship to pay taxes for trash services you
Q: Will there be any charge for recycling, do not use. Low income households share in the cost savings
A.No. Since a goal of PAYT is to increase recycling, there of PAYT and most come out ahead without the need for
special subsidies.However,the implementation plan may have
will be no charge for materials put out for recycling.
a provision for reducing tag costs for qualified households.
Q:Would Lexington use tags or bags? Would I be able to
just buy a label and put it on my trash barrel? Q:What about big items like refrigerators,furniture,and
TVs?
A. These are all options that will be decided when an A. Big items like refrigerators and furniture will continue to be
implementation plan is approved. The PAYT Committee is picked up at curbside by the Town.The implementation plan
seeking citizen input on the approach that is preferred. may ask that tags be put on these items to defray the cost of
However,all these options have been used successfully in disposal. Television sets and any electronic item including a
various towns. cathode ray tube(CRT)are banned from the trash by recent
Q:Will the trash haulers or collection contractors be state regulations. CRTs must to be taken to special collections
that will be announcederiodicall
changed under PAYT? p y'
A.No. Under PAYT the same collection contract will remain Q: Why not put 100%of the waste management costs on
in effect and the same trucks will pick up trash and recyclables. the tag?
Q: Will I have to sign up for a new trash collection service?
A. The Massachusetts DEP recommends against this because
A.No.Residents will not have to sign any papers or fill out any when fixed costs(such as collection contracts)are funded by a
forms when the new system goes into effect. fluctuating revenue stream(tag sales),the program may
become fiscally unstable. Experience shows that the benefits of
PAYT can be realized without putting all costs onto the tag.
Page 4 of 6 Enc 3
A. The 100%taxpayer subsidized service may indeed have
Q:What about other bulky items that won't fit in a bag? appeal to some residents. But we are also trying to find a
solution for households that do not need and can't afford the
The implementation plan will specify how to handle such more expensive tax levy system that results. And all
items. Most PAYT towns allow you to just attach tags directly households,whether they care about expenses or not, will
to bulky items. share in the health benefits of increased recycling.
Q: Can I continue to use trash barrels without using bags? Q: The state of Massachusetts gave us a bad deal when
How big can the barrel be? they talked us into signing up for the NESWC incinerator
contract. Is PAYT another big state program we are
This will be decided in an implementation plan. Some towns getting forced into?
allow residents to buy labels for barrels that allow trash pick-up A. PAYT is just the opposite it is a locally-designed program
for six months. to get more local and household control over waste
management costs. If we do nothing,and our trash output
Q: Where will I be able to buy tags? continues to climb,we run greater risk of being forced into
unfavorable arrangements with huge waste processing
This will be decided as the implementation plan is completed. monopolies.
It is expected that tags would be available from a number of
local businesses,including supermarkets and convenience Q: I undertook a home renovation project and had to
stores. throw out a lot of trash. Won't PAYT discourage such
home renovation projects?
Q: What if I have to put out a lot of trash and there is no A. The cost of PAYT tags will almost certainly be a small
way I can recycle more of it or reduce its volume? fraction of the expense of such projects. The PAYT approach
assumes that it is appropriate for people who are generating
A. In most cases,residents will find ways to reduce their such trash to pay a little more for its disposal rather than
disposal volume. But there will be a small number of expecting households that are not rennovating to fully subsidize
households,that will pay more under PAYT despite doing the disposal costs of the reimovation. There are many
best they:Gert to recycle and reduce waste. This is inevitable. opportunities(in the design, materials selection,and
However the number of households being unfairly charged is purchasing phases) to reduce the amount of trash generated
much greater under the flat rate tax-levy system than under during construction projects. It is expected that PAYT will
PAYT ¢ cause a little more attention to be given at such times to
reducing trash generation.
Q: Do w8 need PAYT because Lexington residents aren't Q: Why is it fairer to pay for trash generation? Since
doing-a good job of recycling? taxpayers subsidize schools whether they have children in
A. Lexington is doing about as good ajob as could be the schools or not,why shouldn't taxpayers subsidize trash
expected for a town with our current type of waste collection collection even if they aren't generating much trash?
program. We are considering PAYT because it represents an A. Most taxpayers are willing to subsidize education because
opportunity to do better by improving the design of our it is felt to be in the public interest.But generating more trash
program. Examination of experiences in other towns indicates is not in the public interest quite the opposite. Some
that we can do better with PAYT and reap the resulting taxpayers wish to reduce the subsidy they pay for waste
benefits. generation that can injure their health and their environment.
PAYT tries to strike a balance between taxpayer subsidy and
Q: Will implementing PAYT cause people to hire private user payments.
haulers to collect their trash?
A.This should not happen.Under the anticipated PAYT Q: If I have more trash than will fit into the barrel with the
system,approximately 2/3of the cost of disposal is already free label,is it cheaper for me to buy an extra barrel label
paid for though the tax levy It doesn't make financial sense or just buy bag tags for the excess trash?
for a homeowner to reject Town collection and then pay full
price to a private hauler. The convenience of the town program A. Buying an extra barrel label is economical only if you
also encourages participation. routinely exceed the capacity of the one barrel. Plastic trash
bags themselves cost about 19 cents each in quantity and the
Q: Will I be paying twice for trash collection once through tag is$1.00. The SWAT suggests that you put off buying
taxes and once when I buy tags? barrel labels until the need for one becomes clear. Bag tags
A.No. You only pay once. The total cost of waste can also be used for bulky items.
management will be divided between the tax levy and the tags
you purchase.
Q: What do I do if I am using a labeled barrel and I have
Q: I'm willing to pay more in taxes for the convenience of a more trash than normal and it won't fit in my barrel?
fully subsidized trash service. So why shouldn't the Town
provide such a service?
Page 5 of 6 Enc 3
A. People using barrels have a number of different strategies education may be important for smooth implementation and
for handling excess trash. Most people keep a few bag tags realizing full benefits.
handy for such occasions and put the excess trash in bags.
Some simply keep the excess trash until the next week when Q: Will PAYT require a lot of new rules and regulations
their trash volume returns to normal. that will be hard to understand?
A. The current Town solid waste regulations consist of 6 pages
Q: If I increase recycling,my recycling bin will be too of guidelines and instructions. PAYT will add only a few
heavy for me to carry to the curbside. What am I supposed paragraphs to this document. The basic PAYT idea is very
to do? simple: Just put tags on the bag you put out at curbside. Or put
a label on your barrel.
A. You are not required to use any particular container for
recyclables. If you have a Town recycling bin that is getting Q. I usually put out a number of small trash bags that are
too heavy you should get another container and divide the nowhere near the 30 pound weight limit. Will I have to buy
materials between the two containers. a tag for each bag despite their low weight?
A. A tag will be needed for each bag put out at curbside. But
Q: Would strict enforcement of a mandatory recycling you can save money by putting your small bags inside a larger
bylaw make it unnecessary to consider PAYT? bag and putting a single tag on the large bag. A 45-gallon bag
A. Enforcement of mandatory recycling might increase can usually hold several smaller bags without exceeding the 30
recycling rates,but it would not achieve the very important pound weight limit.
benefits of reducing the volume of non-recyclable trash.
Furthermore, experience in other Towns has shown that strict Q:Under the proposed pay-as-you-throw(PAYT)system,
enforcement is difficult to achieve and can create ill-will won't people buy trash compactors in order to stuff more
- toward the recycling program. Some increased enforcement to trash into each bag?
deal with flagrant violations is worthwhile,but enforcement is A. Under PAYT,there will be a 30 pound weight limit for
not a substitute for PAYT each bag. This will prevent excessive compaction.Filling each
bag right up to the weight limit is a permitted way to reduce the
Q: Wouldn't weekly collection of recycling increase number of tags you use,although we know from experience
recycling rates? _that most people will not bother to do this. The reported
A. Yes. Studies indicate that weekly pick-up might increase increase in trash density in PAYT towns is only about 10%.
our municipal recycling rate by about 5%. However, it
appears that weekly collection would increase collection costs Q:Will increased trash compaction be a problem for the
by approximately$196,000 per year.Because this imposes an PAYT program?
additional expense upon a budget that is already under pressure A.The evidence is clear that trash compaction poses no threat
by the payments under the NESWC contract,the PAYT to the success of PAYT programs.PAYT typically results in
Advisory Committee did not include weekly collection as part over 25%reduction in the total weight of trash sent to
of the proposed PAYT package. The Town might wish to incinerators despite any compaction that occurs.
consider it in the future.
Q: If we want to encourage recycling without increasing Q:Will houses that use trash compactors have an unfair
- collection costs,why don't we collect recycling weekly and advantage over houses without trash compactors?
collect trash bi-weekly? A. Trash compaction is not necessary in order to save money
A. Trash contains food waste, so it is probably not a good idea with PAYT And under PAYT the variation in cost-per-pound
to keep it around for two weeks. between households is much fairer than in the current system in
which charges are effectively based upon tax assessments only
Q: Isn't tax-supported trash collection an expected service
in a first-class town like Lexington?
A. More and more towns with innovative,effective Q: How can I learn more about PAYT?
governments seem to be concluding that 100%taxpayer
subsidy for trash disposal is a mistake. PAYT programs,which If you have Intemet access, check out the SWAT website,
provide excellent trash services with only partial taxpayer http://www.lexingtonma.org/swat/HomePage.htm. Or go the
subsidy appear to be the way of the future. Implementing the EPA website:www.epa.gov/payt Or check out the
PAYT should only enhance the reputation of Lexington as a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
well-run,forward-looking community website:www.state.ma.us/dep/recycle/recycle.htm A set of
reference material is also available from the SWAT(email
Q: Can't we increase our recycling rate through public request to jwa@alum.mit.edu).If consideration of PAYT
education,advertising,prize contests,etc.? progresses this year, a substantial amount of additional
A. Studies seem to indicate that public education does not,by information will be made available for public review by the
itself,result in major changes in recycling behavior unless it is PAYT Committee and the Board of Selectmen to ensure full
accompanied by real changes in the substance of the solid public understanding of program prior to its consideration by
waste program. When substantive changes are made,public Town Meeting.
Page 6 of 6 Enc 3
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT)ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Terminology
December 15,2000
Bag Tag: A peel-off, adhesive-backed, tag that can be attached around the neck of a
plastic trash bag.
Barrel Label. A peel-off, adhesive-backed, label that can be affixed to the side of a trash
barrel.
Bulky Waste: Large household appliances (such as stoves, refrigerators, and washing
machines); or the equivalent in size in furniture and furnishings, plumbing fixtures,
large crates, tools, machinery or parts thereof; and similar items.
Contractor: Waste Management of MA. Inc., 204 Merrimac St., Woburn MA 01801—the
contractor for both solid-waste and recyclable-solid-waste collection and disposal
through FY2003 (i.e., through June 30, 2003), under Town Contracts #98-41 and #98-42,
respectively—or any successor contractor(s) for the Town's waste-management
programs.
Collectors: Employees of the Contractor when performing under the Town's waste-
collection contracts.
Compostable Material: Material acceptable for composting at the Hartwell Avenue site.
Currently this includes yard waste, leaves, and branches less than 1 inch in diameter.
Curbside: Collection method in which material is picked up at curbside.
DPW The Town's Department of Public Works.
Drop-Off. Collection method that requires residents to bring items to a specified site.
Hartwell Avenue Site: The Town-owned site on Hartwell Avenue housing the
Minuteman Household Hazardous Products Center and the Town's composting
operation.
Household Hazardous Products: Items that are not acceptable for curbside collection,
but are accepted as part of special household hazardous products collections.
Implementation Date: The date when the Town's PAYT program begins. (See §1.1
above for the specific date.)
Labels: The barrel labels prescribed by the Town's PAYT program.
Recvclables: Those materials specified by the Town for curbside collection in
accordance with recycling regulations. That includes both the materials covered in the
pre-PAYT program (i.e., newspapers and newspaper inserts, magazines, catalogs,
phone books, junk mail, book pages, office paper, corrugated cardboard, chipboard,
glass food and beverage containers [all colors], tin, aluminum or steel food and
beverage containers; narrow-neck plastic containers with a #1 or #2 label, milk and juice
cartons, and juice boxes) and, starting with the implementation date, expanding the
range of plastic containers to also include all those with #3 through #7 labels, inclusive.
Page 1 of 2 End 4
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Terminology
December 15, 2000
Tags: The bag tags prescribed by the Town's PAYT program.
Trash: That non-recycled portion of the waste stream that is acceptable for curbside
collection and incineration.
Yard Waste: Compostable material such as leaves and twigs collected in special
curbside collection or brought for drop-off at the Hartwell Avenue site.
Page 2 of 2 End 4
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Concerns, Questions, and Suggestions
December 15, 2000
The Committee has solicited input from the citizens of Lexington. Below are some of the
concerns, questions, and suggestions brought to our attention by the public. (Note: There
is no relative significance intended by the order in which these are being listed.]
1. Concern: The cost and inconvenience of PAYT will cause people to turn to private
haulers, filling our streets with their trucks every day of the week.
The cost of handling municipal solid waste includes curbside collection, the hauling
away of both trash and recyclables, and the disposal of trash. It is anticipated that only
the disposal of trash (which is proportional to how much each household throws away)
will be paid according to usage (PAYT). The collection and transportation of trash and
recyclables will be funded by taxes. It is unlikely that a private hauler could compete for
residential business when at least half of the cost of trash removal is paid for under the
tax levy
2. Suggestion: The basic fee (paid under taxes) should include at least one bag, barrel,
or sticker per week per household. Said another way. The first item of trash per
collection should be funded under the tax rate.
Under "hybrid" systems of PAYT, the fixed costs of handling municipal solid waste
(MSW) are funded by the tax base, and the variable cost, which is determined by just
how much trash is thrown away, is borne by the user The Board of Selectmen would
define what is "basic", such as whether or not basic service includes at least one item per
week under the fixed portion.
3. Question. Will there be more illegal dumping under PAYT?
Experience shows that illegal dumping is independent of the method of payment for
trash collection. Nevertheless, when a PAYT program is instituted, it is prudent to
include money to fund both education and enforcement.
4. Question: How will illegal dumping be handled?
Public education regarding illegal disposal will be part of any implementation effort
and continuing public education. The Lexington Department of Public Works (DPW)
will remove any trash left in unauthorized locations. The DPW, assisted by the
Lexington Police Department, will investigate and, if necessary, apprehend and
prosecute persons who engage in continued or egregious illegal disposal.
5. Suggestion. Yard waste should be part of "full service"
The separate collection and composting of yard waste reduces incineration costs and is
better for the environment. Today Lexington provides 12 yearly yard-waste collections.
There is no suggestion that PAYT would reduce this.
Page 1 of 4 End 5
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Concerns, Questions, and Suggestions
December 15,2000
6. Suggestion: Maintain all current solid-waste services. Change only the method of
payment.
PAYT is concerned with each household paying its fair share of the costs of MSW It is
not about reducing services. If money is saved by increased recycling and reduced
incineration, the savings could be used to enhance services.
7 Suggestions: Don't increase taxes. Don't increase individual homeowner's cost.
Under PAYT, taxes support only "fixed" costs or "basic" service, as defined by the
Selectmen. The MSW portion of the tax levy would decrease. The homeowners'
individual costs includes their taxes and the charge for disposing of their trash.
Through increased recycling, it is possible for everyone to pay a smaller total amount.
Still, households that discard trash in amounts significantly above what is provided
under basic service may pay a greater total cost than before.
8. Question: Compactors and disposal units are bad for the environment. Will PAYT
increase the use of compactors and disposal units?
Trash disposal costs at the incinerator (called "tipping fees") are based on the weight of
trash rather than on the volume. Compactors reduce volume without reducing weight.
A PAYT implementation plan will limit the weight per bag or container of whatever is
thrown away Disposal units create sludge that is handled by waste-water management.
9 Question: NESWC (our current contract for incinerating solid waste) was a State
program. Why follow the State now?
It is true that the State DEP believes that PAYT is a better way to pay for MSW But
Lexington's PAYT thrust is local: savings will go to the local residents who generate less
trash.
10. Suggestion. Make sure that everyone knows the details of trash-removal costs:
collection, transportation, and incineration. Publish the formula for trash incineration
costs (NESWC).
If the Selectmen adopt PAYT, many months of public education will follow, including
the clarification of all issues of cost.
11. Question. There are certain basic municipal services for which no user-fee should be
assessed. Education is one. Solid-waste removal is another Most people, even those
with no children in the schools, gladly fund local education benefiting those whose
children attend the schools, and do not expect usage-based payment for schools. Is trash
removal any different?
Every educated child is an asset to the community The same cannot be said of every
ton of trash burned for the community Education is a value; trash removal is a
Page 2 of 4 End 5
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Concerns, Questions, and Suggestions
December 15, 2000
necessity Some people generate and discard more trash than others. Under PAYT, all
trash is collected. Those generating more pay a bit more.
12. Question: Does the thrust to provide incentives for more recycling imply that
Lexington residents have failed to adequately recycle.
Lexington recycles 27% of its solid waste. This is in line with the national average, but is
not an exceptional number. By providing further incentives for recycling, PAYT offers
both equity and economy, and protects the environment.
13. Question: To spur recycling, why don't we reverse the collection pattern to have
recycling collections every week and trash collections every other week?
If the recycling rate increases sufficiently, the Board of Selectman could consider such a
change in service. There are practical matters to consider, such as collection contracts,
and the fact that summer garbage doesn't age well.
14. Suggestion: Add weekly recycling (with or without PAYT) to help promote it.
4This is a matter of economics. The cost of weekly recycling has been explored by the
y!DPW At some time, the Board of Selectmen might be able to add this cost to the annual
town budget.
15. Ouestion: What towns are exemplars for Lexington? Which of those towns now
using PAYT are similar enough to Lexington to allow us project our success based on
theirs?
The available data will be researched to address this question.
16. Question: Who will enforce the rules regarding the separation of trash and
recyclables?
While Town employees can do some spot checking, the Town will rely mainly on the
trash collectors not to pick up trash when it is commingled with recyclables.
17 Suggestion: Present to the Board of Selectmen a balanced viewpoint, including an
analysis of why five communities have switched away from PAYT
This will be done.
18. Suggestion: Interview residents in PAYT communities.
Some of this has already been done—and more is being done.
Page 3 of 4 Enc15
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Concerns, Questions, and Suggestions
December 15, 2000
19 Suggestion. There should be a public place where information too bulky to be
widely distributed, e.g., the NESWC contract, is available for public perusal.
This will be done.
20. Suggestion: One aspect of a PAYT implementation could be to help our citizens limit
their receipt of unsolicited material.
This can be addressed as part of the public-education process.
21. Question: What are the economics of recycling?Who wins or loses?
An analysis of the per-household costs before and after an implementation of PAYT will
be made available to all Lexington residents. This analysis will take note of the
increased Federal tax to those who itemize their Federal deductions.
22. Suggestions: Pursue alternatives and don't rush to judgment.
The PAYT Advisory Committee has considered citizens' input, local, state, and Federal
data, and the MSW-funding experience of Massachusetts towns and towns and cities
around the nation. This committee's months of work follows upon over two years of
effort on the part of Lexington's Solid-Waste Action Team (SWAT). To the best of our
abilities, all useful alternatives have been examined.
23. Question: Lexingtonians should donate serviceable items as a way of recycling. Will
PAYT implementation provide a "take it or leave it" area as part of the PAYT plan?
This is a good way to avoid generating unnecessary waste. Those planning for an
implementation will consider it.
Page 4 of 4 End 5
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Review of Alternatives to a PAYT Program
December 6, 2000
One of the important tasks of the PAYTAC was to determine if there were any
alternatives to PAYT that could be implemented in Lexington and thereby obviate the
perceived need for PAYT The PAYTAC has reviewed possible alternatives and has
determined that none has the potential of PAYT to reduce waste and save money at the
same time. Most other program improvements, such as recycling education, would
most likely be complementary to PAYT and would also be most effective after PAYT is
implemented. Many of these improvements would also make it easier for residents to
reduce their trash volume and thereby minimize both their and the Town's solid-waste-
disposal costs. In this report, we review our analysis of possible alternatives to PAYT
The Committee considered each of the following in the context of the Town's solid-
waste-management program:
1) distribution of better information about the Town's recycling program and its
importance,
2) weekly pickup of materials to be recycled,
3) mandatory recycling and stronger enforcement of waste-disposal regulations,
Q increased oversight of curbside collection to ensure that materials intended for
recycling are not collected as trash,
- 5) an increase in the list of materials that maybe recycled via curbside pickup,
6) an increase in the number of times that yard waste is picked up at curbside,
7) more convenient sales of compost bins, and
8) significant improvement of recycling in the Lexington schools.
Our analysis of each of these possibilities is given below
Better information and education about recycling
The Committee considered whether a more vigorous education campaign would
improve the recycling rate. Such a campaign could include mailings to all residences,
advertising, prize contests, etc. However, the Town already mails an excellent
informational brochure on recycling to all residences once a year, and a column on
disposal issues is written by a member of the SWAT Committee and regularly
published in the Lexington Minuteman. The SWAT Committee and Citizens for
Lexington Conservation have sponsored programs to stimulate recycling. These are all
useful,but more frequent mailings to all residents and other educational programs may
also be useful. However, studies seem to indicate that public education does not, by
itself, result in major changes in recycling behavior unless it is accompanied by real
changes in the substance of the solid-waste program. When substantive changes are
made, public education may be important for smooth implementation and realizing full
benefits. We do not see a more vigorous educational campaign as a substitute for PAYT,
Pagetof3 End
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Review of Alternatives to a PAYT Program
December 6, 2000
but as a complementary program, and also as a necessary part of the implementation of
PAYT in Lexington.
Weekly recyclingpickup
Currently Lexington recycles about 27% of the materials left at curbside (about 16,000
tons per year in total). We can expect an increase of about 5% if the Town goes from
biweekly to weekly recycling pickup However, it appears that weekly collection would
increase collection costs by approximately $196,000 per year. It also has negative
environmental effects, including an increase in truck traffic on Lexington's streets, fuel
consumption, and air pollution from truck exhaust, that must be weighed against the
projected benefits. Primarily because of the increased expense in a budget that is
already under pressure by the payments under the NESWC contract, the PAYTAC does
not at present recommend weekly collection as part of the proposed PAYT package. The
Town might wish to consider it in the future, after a thorough cost/benefit analysis has
been performed.
An interesting idea was raised at the November 15, 2000, public hearing by one of the
attendees. He suggested that if we want to encourage recycling without increasing
collection costs, why don't we collect recycling weekly and collect trash bi-weekly? The
Committee did not find this proposal to be feasible, since trash contains food waste
which decomposes quickly and weekly pickup is preferable for such material.
Mandatory recycling and stronger enforcement
The Town presently bans the disposal in the trash placed at curbside of materials which
are eligible to be picked up at curbside for recycling. Most yard waste is also banned
from disposal as trash. The question is whether stronger enforcement is feasible and
worthwhile.
While it is possible that a Town employee could on rare occasions ride along with the
garbage trucks and conduct spot checks of materials placed at curbside for trash pickup,
for the most part enforcement must be done by the trash collectors, i.e., the persons
picking up the bags and barrels at curbside. While we must expect the collectors to
reject trash containers that obviously and grossly violate the Town's trash-disposal
regulations,it is understandable that the collectors would be slowed down in their job if
they were to try to carefully examine every bag or barrel to determine the amount of
recyclable material inside before accepting it for collection. Such determination is likely
to be impossible in many cases, such as when trash is contained in opaque bags. It
would also be difficult for them to determine the appropriateness of the presence in the
trash of materials that are generally recycled. For example, corrugated cardboard
should be recycled, but not if it is contaminated with food (such as pizza boxes).
Furthermore, enforcement of mandatory recycling might increase recycling rates, but it
would not produce the same benefit as PAYT with respect to reducing the volume of
non-recyclable trash.
The Town largely relies on the good faith efforts of the residents for the success of the
recycling program and this is as it should be. We believe that the recycling program is
better constituted as a program based on "carrots" rather than "sticks." Experience in
Page 2 of 3 Encl 6
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Review of Alternatives to a PAYT Program
December 6, 2000
other towns has shown that strict enforcement is difficult to achieve and can create ill-
will toward the recycling program. Some increased enforcement to deal with flagrant
violations is worthwhile, but enforcement is not a substitute for PAYT
Increased oversight of curbside collection
This would help reduce collection errors that tend to increase the weight and volume of
the trash stream, and hence the Town's net NESWC tipping fees because recyclable
materials may sometimes be mistaken for trash by the collectors. However, we do not
have an estimate of the magnitude of the volume of collection errors at present. The
Town should put further emphasis in public information on keeping adequate space
between trash and recyclables at curbside. Expected PAYT revenues could be used to
fund increased oversight of trash and recycling collection.
More materials that may be recycled
The Committee recommends that the Town consider increasing the number of materials
to be collected for recycling such as the inclusion of plastics 3 through 7 However,
based on the results from waste-composition studies, we do not expect that this will
lead to a major increase in the recycling rate or a significant reduction in trash volume
tharwould be comparable to the benefits of.a PAYT program. A curbside collection of
weft/dry kitchen waste for composting might have a significant impact on trash weight,
bill such programs have proven difficult to manage and cannot be recommended at the
current time.
More yard-waste collections
m
The Committee recommends that the Town increase the number of yard-waste
collections and consider curbside pickup of Christmas trees. This does not compete
with PAYT, but is complementary to it, and would help residents reduce their volume
of trash. It should be noted that PAYT addresses a major deficiency in the Town's
current yard-waste program: the frequent mixing of yard waste into the trash stream. In
any PAYT program in which tags are required for trash collection, but yard-waste
collection is free, mixing is discouraged. We do not expect that, in the absence of PAYT,
an increase in the number of yard-waste collections would have effects comparable to
those of a PAYT program.
More convenient sales of comoost bins
This is a good idea, but certainly doesn't compete with PAYT in terms of improving the
effectiveness of PAYT in terms of reducing the volume of trash.
lmoroved recycling in the Lexington schools
The schools presently have a limited and rather inconsistent recycling program.
Changes to make the school recycling program more effective are in order whether or
not the Town implements PAYT The SWAT is already working with the School
Committee to upgrade the School recycling program, and the desire to match the
Town's performance under PAYT is motivating this effort.
Page 3of3 Encl6
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Lessons Learned from Municipalities that Tried and then Rejected PAYT
December 13, 2000
To the best of our knowledge, only five towns in Massachusetts have tried and then
rejected PAYT Over 95 towns have adopted PAYT and apparently decided to continue
the program. The following paragraphs describe the five failures and notes the lessons
learned.
Chelmsford
The Town of Chelmsford adopted PAYT in 1990 in order to take the entire cost of
municipal solid-waste disposal out of the town budget. This approach to reduce the
town's expenditures avoided an override vote on the budget. Under PAYT, yearly fees
were $80 for trash removal and (in the second year, to boost revenue) $20 for the pickup
of recyclabes. Trash required stickers, priced at $1 per item, and materials for recycling
were picked up free. Using hindsight, Mr. Bernie Lynch, Town Manager (then and
now), says that charging a fee for both recycling and trash was a mistake. In 1992 the
town rebid its trash disposal contract, reducing tipping fees from $70 to $40 per ton. In
that year there was an override vote; it brought the total cost of municipal solid waste
back into the budget and extended collection to condominiums.
Lessons Learned. Chelmsford violated several of the suggested PAYT guidance from
DEP They put all the waste management costs on the stickers, they charged for
recycling, and they changed the rules in mid-implementation. In Lexington, the PAYT
implementation should be targeted to improve equity, lower total disposal cost to the
residents, and benefit the environment. Chelmsford was seeking none of theses goals.
PAYT was instituted as a political move, to toss trash off budget in order to avoid an
override vote.
Warren
The Town of Warren is an old mill town, now rural, with 4,200 residents. The town
center has a gas station, a coffee shop, and a small grocery store. The nearest food
shopping is 20-minutes away Town services and offices are operated part-time. Warren
has its own landfill to which residents carry their trash and recyclables. The latter are
sorted and transported out. From 1996 until 1998 Warren used a three-tier PAYT
program. taxes (to support the landfill), permit stickers (that allowed the bearer to drive
into the landfill), and Warren-labeled trash bags (priced at $1). Another factor is that
private haulers compete for the trash business. Without curbside service, many people
don't want to tote all their trash to a landfill.
The main complaint was that residents could not conveniently buy the bags, since the
town and its few businesses are open very few hours. (For example, four hours per day
for some town operations; three days per week for others.) People also complained
about paying three times as noted above. So the bags (the PAYT part of the program)
were discontinued and the trash permit stickers were raised in price to $52 per year.
This increased the town's trash revenue, but the citizens no longer complained about
the cost. In the six months after the bags were dropped, more citizens than formerly
signed up for the permit stickers and the total recycling increased.
Page 1 of 3 End 7
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Lessons Learned from Municipalities that Tried and then Rejected PAW
December 13, 2000
This information is supplied by Carol Sanders, formerly the secretary of Warren's Board
of Health, presently at the Water District. Some of her information is at odds with State
reporting, which pegs the town's per item cost under PAYT as $3. Also, the State
reports that one motivation for PAYT was the concern that the landfill was about to be
dosed.But the town did receive an extension on its landfill.
Lessons Learned: While it is difficult to compare Lexington with its curbside service to
Warren and its landfill, it is clear that Warren did not implement an effective sales
program for its bags, and did not properly explain the program. For example, people
stopped complaining about costs after PAYT was shelved, even though the costs had
gone up. A PAY'I' implementation in Lexington should make sure that tags and labels
are available conveniently from a number of commercial establishments.
West Brookfield
According to Sarah Allan at the town Board of Health, West Brookfield, which operated
its own landfill, instituted a PAYT program for two years in 1994 or 1995, providing
residents with 75 bags for $75, with extra bags priced at $1. (Tags were used in the first
year, bags in the second. There were some complaints about the size of the bags.) Even
as the program began, the landfill was being capped. When the landfill was closed, all
to trash service ended. Now residents are served by private haulers operating under
town permit. This BOH has no control over how the haulers handle recycling.
e:.
Thissituation offers little parallel to what Lexington is considering. Note that the large
minimum purchase, that is, 75 bags for$75, is not an incentive to recycle.
Blackstone
The Town of Blackstone set up a PAYT program in 1998 and ended it in June 2000. It
was introduced along with curbside recycling, and started with good public acceptance.
But, according to the town administrator, Mike Guzinski, the town, being small, did not
have adequate administrative infrastructure to handle the details of the program.
Moreover, PAYT was slated to support the entire cost of MSW From the beginning, it
could not cover both fixed and variable costs. In the second year the cost per bag went
to $2 and free recycling was extended to all households. Again, the town lost money
During this period between 500 and 700 households were using private, subscription,
trash haulers, which were not collecting recyclables. These households were not paying
the recycling collection cost, nor were they purchasing municipal trash bags. This year
the Selectmen ended PAYT and assessed a flat fee for trash removal. (That is, MSW is
not paid for out of taxes.) The recent opening of a new power plant will expand the
town's tax base. As a result, the town will probably put trash collection back under the
tax levy in the near future.
Lessons Learned: Blackstone failed to ensure fiscal stability for the PAYT program. In
Lexington, PAYT should ensure fiscal stability by paying for the fixed costs (e.g.,
collection and transport by WMI) as part of the town budget. Also, Lexington's DPW
can be relied on to do a full-time, professional job of running a PAYT program.
Page 2 of 3 End 7
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Lessons Learned from Municipalities that Tried and then Rejected PAYT
December 13, 2000
Norton
Norton had a PAYT program for four years. At a special town meeting in 1997, the
townspeople voted out the whole curbside pickup program, including PAYT Now the
residents must subscribe to one of four private haulers for trash service. Recycling is
handled strictly by the haulers, who report quarterly (The recycling rate is said to be
30% )
Mr Bob Curry of the Norton Board of Health, who provided some of this information,
started a successful PAYT program in Rehobeth, then moved to the Norton post where
after only two months he closed the Norton PAYT He offered a number of reasons for
the demise: The Norton program was run by volunteers. The PAYT bags (at $1.50 per
bag) were cheap and often fell apart. The distribution of bags to businesses where they
would be sold was irregular; often businesses were not billed for the bags they received,
causing monetary shortfalls. No records were kept as to the number of bags bought and
sold, and the amount of trash collected. At the special town meeting that negated the
PAYT and curbside program, basic questions about program costs and expenditures
could not be answered. Recently, the price of private hauling in Norton has jumped
22% It is expected that the town will re-institute curbside collection, putting it on the
tax bill.
Lessons Learned: Norton is an example of the need for sound planning and execution in
launching a new program. If Lexington adopts PAYT, it will rely on town employees,
adhering to professional standards of reporting. Costs and expenditures will be
reported to the Selectmen, Town Meeting, and the citizens at large. Prior to the
beginning of any such program, information will be available, making sure that the
citizens understand what the PAYT program is, and how it affects them.
Conclusions
The assessment of the five communities above underscores the need to design a PAYT
program that reflects lessons learned from the past. Most of the experiences of these five
communities do not apply specifically to the proposed PAYT implementation in
Lexington. This is because the PAYT Advisory Committee and the Lexington DPW
have been careful to follow the guidance of the Massachusetts DEP regarding the
features of a PAYT program that are needed to ensure success. Lexington's PAYT
should be designed to ensure that Lexington's experience is similar to the 95
communities where PAYT has been successful.
Page 3 of 3 End 7
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Impact of Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) on the Waste Stream
December 3, 2000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
After inspection of a wide range of available literature and data, the PAYT Advisory Committee
has adopted the following baseline performance estimates for predicting the effects of PAYT
implementation in Lexington:
A 14% reduction in total trash placed at curbside occurring over a five-year period
A 8% increase in recycling rate occurring over a two-year period
A resulting 23%reduction in tonnage sent for incineration.
1. Introduction town is found,the way in which the data is reported may leave
ambiguities. Here arc some of the factors that influence results.
In predicting the benefits of implementing a PAYT system,the
key quantity to be estimated is the decrease in the total amount of General waste management program characteristics:
trash set out for disposal. It is this part of the waste stream that
determines the total tipping fees paid at the incinerator or frequency of pick-up(weekly,biweekly,seasonal)
landfill.This part of the waste stream also relates most directly to curbside pick-up or drop-off
the pollution generated by waste management. composting program(pick-up,home)
tipping fees(as motivation for program)
Using the SWAT ifiodel for the waste stream, the total discard •citizen support groups/volunteers
tonnage can he computed from two related performance effective town government(DPW selectmen,etc.)
parameters: political disagreements/fights over PAYT
amount of trash from institutions(e.g,schools)
s, the S,gurce reduction achieved relative to the original amount of commercial trash being put into municipal system
baseline trash volume, and • level of illegal diversion
r,the recycling rate achieved •mandatory or voluntary recycling(enforcement)
list of banned materials
The fractional change in the trash tonnage derived from s and r is
PAYT program characteristics:
(1 —s)(I — r)
— 1 intensity of public education effort
(1— rpt use of bags,stickers,or barrels
price charged per unit of trash
where ro is the initial recycling rate prior to PAYT. number of free stickers issued
whether people opt out of the municipal system
2. Factors Affecting Program Performance Community characteristics.
•number of multi-family dwellings
Several studies have been conducted that looked at data from a rural,suburban,or urban character
number of towns and employed statistical analysis to determine demographics: education level,income,transients,age,
the change in the waste stream that occurred with PAYT It is duration of residency,ethnic mix,non-English speaking
tempting to look for a town that appears similar to Lexington and population
just take that town's results as a forecast for Lexington.
However,this is not as reliable a prediction techniques as it first Year-to-year variations:
seems. There arc many factors that can influence results,and it growth or decline in population served
is appears to be impossible to find an example town that is growth in income
similar to Lexington in all regards. Furthermore,even if such a changes in trash composition
•changes in metrics(e.g.volume to weight estimation)
Page 1 of 6 End 8
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Impact of Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) on the Waste Stream
December 3, 2000
weather(storm debris,yard waste generated,snow)
years program has been in effect 3.2 Massachusetts Per Capita Generation
With all these variables,it becomes difficult to find towns that By analyzing reported 1998 trash generation rates for
are entirely similar to any particular community When Massachusetts(Ref.DEP00b),it is possible to compare trash
similarity criteria are made too strict,the number of comparison generation rates in Massachusetts communities with and without
towns becomes too small to provide a reliable prediction. The PAYT. In a recently released set of data(see Figure 3.2)there
best estimates should seek to use a combined result from a are 285 communities with populations below 120,000 that report
number of generally similar communities. both recycling and trash tonnages. For the 209 communities
without PAYT the per capita trash generation rate is 0.380
In any large data set,a fairly large range of performance results tons/person/year. For the 76 towns with PAYT programs the per
can be observed. In applying such data to Lexington,we must capita trash generation rate is 0.267 tons/person/year. Thus,the
ask whether Lexington can be expected to fall in the high end or per capita trash generation rate is 29.7 per cent lower in
the low end of the range. It is reassuring to note that on most communities with PAYT [NOTE: This is consistent with the
points,such as community demographics,citizen support, and 24.6%reduction predicted by the baseline performance
program design, Lexington is typical of communities where assumptions described in this report.]
PAYT works well.The most significant negative factor might be
the question of whether there is a limit to how high the recycling It should be noted that any analysis that compares two groupings
rate can go without changes at the regional or national level. of communities is dependent upon the assumption that the
Recycling rates over 50%are rare,and may indicate that the communities differ only in the presence of PAYT In reality one
amount of packaging and the types of trash acceptable to must ponder whether or not other differences are confounding
available recycling facilities just do not allow much higher rates. the results. Thus this analysis should not be used as a sole
Thus,caution should be observed before assuming that recycling means of determining expected benefits.However it is consistent
rates can go much higher than 50%. with the results obtained by other means.
3.3 Before/After Data for Einht Massachusetts Communities
3. Reduction in Discard Rate
The Massachusetts DEP has provided before/after per capita
3.1 Available Literature discard rates for eight Massachusetts communities that
implemented PAYT programs(Ref.DEP00a). The discard rates
The available literature includes several statements regarding the are shown in the table below Before PAYT the eight
reduction in discard rates achievable with PAYT Some of the communities averaged 0.33 tons per capita. After PAYT they
estimates are: averaged 0.21 tons per capita,a decrease of approximately 36%.
14-27%decrease in waste landfilled [Miranda97] TOWN BEFORE AFTER
PAYT PAYT CHANGE
'The average waste reduction reported by pay-as-you-throw Foxborough 0.320 0.270 15.63
communities is between 25 and 45 per cent.'[EPA96a] N. Brookfield 0 170 0.150 11 76
27%increased diversion in Massachusetts communities with Merrimac 0.500 0.160 -68.00
curbside recycling[Tellus99]. This figure was obtained by Plainville 0.250 0 180 -28.00
applying national statistics to Massachusetts communities. It Needham 0.390 0.230 -41 03
includes a correction for curbside/drop-off programs and for the
unit price charged.See Figure 3.1 for a plot of the estimated N. Attleborough 0.320 0 180 -43.75
PAYT benefits for Massachusetts communities. Topsfield 0.420 0.360 14.29
28% average reduction in 21 communities with range of 25%to Royalston 0.280 0 160 -42.86
50% [Miranda96b] AVERAGE 0.331 0.211 -36.23
47%reduction in Pleasant River Solid Waste Disposal District, Note:The AFTER PAYT' column is either the first year after
Maine [ME98a] implementation or an average of the first two years when data for
more than one year is available.
Without trying to calibrate these estimates,it should be noted
that they range from 14%to 47%with the most common cited
range being approximately 25%to 45%.
Page 2 of 6 Encl 8
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Impact of Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) on the Waste Stream
December 3, 2000
4. Additional Reported Data for
More than 20%reduction in tonnage in Dover and Crockett.
The following data provide supporting information that can be Less than 20%in 9 other communities. [EPA99a]
used to confirm the reasonableness of the diversion benefits
estimates cited above. Detailed analysis of the per-bag program in Perkasie Borough
(Bucks County)suggested that waste was reduced by 18%. [State
4.1 Increases in Recycling Tonnage of Pennsylvania]
The following increases in recycling tonnage appear in the An 11 percent decrease was observed in Westerly/Hopkinton,
literature: Rhode Island over the first six months of the PAYT program.
25%increase in Maine Communities studied by the Margaret 4.4 Consideration of the Complete Set of Program
Chase Center. [ME98a] Enhancements
27%increase in the Pleasant River Solid Waste District in PAYT will not be implemented in Lexington as an isolated
Maine [ME98a] change. Instead,it will be part of a package of improvements to
the Town's waste management programs.For example,
32-59%increasein 212 communities surveyed[Miranda97] additional materials may be added to the list of recyclables. Yard
waste collection days may be expanded.State PAYT
50%increase [Skumatz99] implementation funds may be used to employ a full-time town
recycling coordinator to work with the SWAT,the schools,and
126%average increase in 21 communities [Miranda96b] businesses to implement recycling and waste reduction efforts
that go beyond PAYT.The SWAT anticipates forming a set of
13 percent-increase in Westerly/Hopkinton,Rhode Island over `recycling block captains' to promote public education,answer
first six months of the PAYT program. recycling questions and encourage participation inthesystem.
These enhancements may achieve more than average benefits
Note that the increase in recycling rate is less than the increase in from PAYT implementation.The use of the isolated PAYT
recycling tonnage since recycling is only a fraction of the total numbers derived above probably underestimates the benefits for
waste stream. Thus a 25%in recycling tonnage may represent the total package of improvements.
only a 10%increase in the recycling rate.
4.2 Recycling Rate Results 4.5 Other Considerations
The following increases in recycling rates are reported in the In some communities included in studies,the PAYT program
literature: was not designed to achieve maximum waste reduction or
recycling. For instance,in some towns PAYT was implemented
8-11 percentage points increase due to PAYT as a single factor as an emergency financial mechanism to avoid imposing new
[Skumatz96] taxes to pay for the closing of a landfill or the construction of a
new transfer station. In some towns, the program uses large
13%increase in communities with curbside recycling standard barrels that do not encourage waste reduction as much
[Tellus99] as pay-per-bag programs. The program proposed for Lexington
is targeted toward achieving the desired benefits,and should do
36%mean increase with 13%median[Miranda97] better than average.
A comparison of PAYT and non-PAYT communities in One caveat concerns the possible limits on the achievable
Massachusetts indicates that the recycling rate is 9%higher in recycling rate due to the difficulty of getting certain people to
PAYT communities. participate or the limitations on the types of materials accepted
for recycling.Lexington does not yet appear to have reached the
4.3 Source Reduction Results limits for recycling.If every citizen took advantage of the easily
available opportunities for recycling,composting,and source
Experts feel that source reduction occurs gradually over several reduction, the Town's recycling rate might exceed 60%. The
years as waste generation habits change. Here are some reports State of Pennsylvania has estimated that it may be possible to
and conclusions: avoid and divert as much as 61%of the waste stream and dispose
of as little as 39%.
14%decrease in total tonnage in communities with curbside
recycling[Tellus99]
Page 3 of 6 Encl 8
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Impact of Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) on the Waste Stream
December 3,2000
5. Baseline Parameters for Lexington ME98a
'User Fee System and Trash Bag Survey. One Disposal
The PAYT Advisory committee wished to adopt baseline District's First-Year Experience' Pleasant River Solid Waste
performance numbers that were somewhat conservative,but not Disposal District, Maine State Planning Office, 1998(d)
so conservative as to misrepresent the potential savings of
PAYT After consideration of the data presented above,the Miranda97
following baseline performance figures were adopted: Miranda,Marie Lynn,and La Palme,Sharon, "Unit Pricing
Preliminary Analysis of 212 U.S.Communities" Nicholas
A 14%reduction in total trash placed at curbside School of the Environment,for U.S.Environmental Protection
occurring over a five-year period Agency October 1997
An 8%increase in recycling rate occurring over a two Skumatz99
year period Skumatz,Lisa A. and Morris,Jeffrey "Recycling 2000:
Recommendations for Increasing Recycling in the
Thus, a recycling rate of 27%would increase to 35%due to Commonwealth of Massachusetts Summary Report" February
PAYT These baseline numbers combine to produce a 23% 1999
reduction in trash sent to the incinerator.( It should be noted that
in the program analysis spreadsheets developed by the PAYT Tellus99
Advisory Committee,these changes are superimposed over other `Massachusetts Source Reduction Report, A Report to
trends that are unrelated to PAYT ) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection' Tellus
Institute, Solid Waste Group,June 10, 1999
Figure 5.1 shows the general consistency of the baseline numbers
for trash reduction with the various reports in the literature.It
should be noted that the Tellus numbers are based on a$1 per
bag fee. If Lexington adopts a higher bag fee,the Tellus
numbers should be increased. The baseline numbers are more
conservative than most of the figures in the literature.
Because of reports in the literature that source reduction
sometimes requires time to reach its full potential,it is assumed
that the baseline increase in source reduction will occur gradually
over a five year period. The recycling improvement is assumed
to occur over a two-year period.
References
DEPOOa
`Pay-As-You-Throw-An Implementation Guide for Solid Waste
Unit-Based Pricing Programs' Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection,June 2000
DEPOOb
`Beyond 2000 Solid Waste Master Plan A Policy Framework'
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection,June 2000
EPA96a
Environmental Protection Agency 'Pay-as-you-Throw Tool
Workbook' EPA530-R-96-005,September 1996
EPA99a
'Cutting the Waste Stream in Half: Community Record-setters
Show How' EPA-530-R-99-013,June 1999
Page 4 of 6 End 8
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Impact of Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) on the Waste Stream
December 3, 2000
Reference:Table 6, Tellus99a"
0.40 '
I / EEL
Increase in total diversion
■ Increase in Total Diversion drop-off program
0.30 ■ ■ / •curbside program
■ ■ ■ ' Increase in recycling rate
• n I
• is ■ • drop-off program
II te„tn tnn ■
r v;;
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Impact of Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) on the Waste Stream
December 3, 2000
80%
Maine
C Pleasant Maine
L 60% "',him et` .e
CO u District 1998
re 1QQR
b
w MA DEP
= 8 Towns
m 40% — EPA Mirada- -- Mass. yi- Tellus 2000' --
1998
U 1996 (SWAT) 1999
a —. r. _Miranda.
7
5 � LJ 1998 _ BASELINE
I
% - ,4 .4,,'"'' taa-- $ - Ft- - t
,gid— iy4i_ X�
(Note:Where a range of values Is given in reference,mid-point is depicted)
Figure 5.1 Reduction in per capita discard rate with PAYT (SWALE.13)
Page 6 of 6 End 8
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Overall Budget Impacts of PAYT (Preliminary)
December 15, 2000
Executive Summary
This memorandum analyzes budgetary impacts from adoption of a pay-as-you-throw
(PAYT) program in the Town of Lexington. For the implementation years
FY2003—FY2008, the expected average savings in Town solid-waste-management costs
are approximately$250,000 per year.
Introduction
This memorandum presents an analysis of the expected impacts upon the municipal
budget resulting from adoption of a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) program in the Town of
Lexington. A simplified model of the municipal waste-management program is
employed that is thought to provide enough accuracy to characterize the effects of
PAYT without being overly complicated or requiring input data that is not readily
available. This memorandum identifies the total savings in solid-waste-management
costs due to PAYT It does not discuss specific revenue streams or how savings are
returned to different households (see other companion memoranda for such analyses.)
Baseline and PAYT Scenarios
Figure 1 presents a spreadsheet analysis of two scenarios for fiscal years 2000 through
2008. The variables appearing in the figure are described in Table 1 and Table 2. The
non-PAYT scenario assumes that no PAYT program is adopted. Under this scenario
there is no source reduction gain, but the recycling rate increases by 0.5% per year due
to other measures taken locally and regionally
The PAYT scenario assumes that a PAYT program is implemented in FY2002. The
performance improvements adopted by the PAYT Advisory Committee are
superimposed upon the baseline rates. These improvements are:
• A 14% reduction in total trash placed at curbside occurring over a five-
year period
• An 8% increase in recycling rate occurring over a two-year period
Page 1 of 5 Encl 9
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Overall Budget Impacts of PAYT (Preliminary)
December 15, 2000
NON-PAYT SCENARIO
ACTUAL
YEAR 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Potential Tonnage 16,230 16230 16717 17218 17735 18267 18815 19379 19961 20560
Source Reduction Rate,s 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recycling Rate 0.270 0.270 0.275 0.280 0.285 0.290 0.295 0 300 0.305 0.310
Discarded Tonnage 11645 11845 12120 12397 12680 12970 13265 13566 13873 14186
Recycled Tonnage 4,385 4385 4597 4821 5054 5297 5550 5814 6088 6374
GAT shortfall t4h9.00i 0 0 0 0 0 0
GAT income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NESWC Tipping Fee $100 115 123 140 150 160 160
Market Tipping Fee (per ton) $55.00 $57.75 $60.64 $63.67 $66.85 $70.20 $73.71 $77.39 $81.26
Collection Cost $1,226,161 $1,226,161 $1,250,684 $1,275,698 $1,301,212 $1,327,236 $1,353,781 $1,380,856 $1 408,474 $1,436,643
PAYT Program Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MRIP Payments $43,850 $45,971 $48,212 $50,545 $52,974 $55,504 $58,138 $60,881 $63,735
Grants 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Tipping $1,362,173 $1 485,760 $1,735,615 $1,902,074 $2,075,132 $2,122,334 $999,858 $1,073,623 $1,152,770
Total Cost $2,544,483 $2,690,473 $2,963,102 $3,152,742 $3',349,394 $3,420,611 $2,322,576 $2,421,216 $2,525,678
PAYT SCENARIO
ACTUAL
YEAR 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Potential Tonnage 162301 16230 16717 17218 17735 18267 18815 19379 19961 20560
Source Reduction Rate,s 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14
Recycling Rate,r 0 270 0.2701 0.275 0.320 0.365 0.370 0.375 0.380 0.385 0.390
Discarded Tonnage 11845 11845 12120 10655 10023 10127 10231 10333 10557 10786
Recycled Tonnage 4385 4385 4597 5014 5761 5948 6138 6333 6609 6896 3
GAT shortfall 449 0 0 741 1373 1269 1165
GAT income $0 $0 $44,948 $87 424 $84,821 $81,801 $0 $0 $0
NESWC Tipping Fee 5 2. 115 123 140 150 160 160
Market Tipping Fee (per ton) $55.00 $57.75 $60.64 $63.67 $66.85 $70.20 $73.71 $77.39 $81.26
Collection Cost 51 726 121 $1,226,161 $1,250,684 $1,275,698 $1,301,212 $1,327,236 $1,353,781 $1,380,856 $1,408,474 $1,436,643
PAYT Program Expenses 0 0 0 45,000 35,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
MRIP Payments $43,850 $45,971 $50,140 $57,612 $59,477 $61,384 $63,332 $66,090 $68,957
Grants 0 $0 $0 $58,000 $58,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Tipping $1,362,173 $1 485,760 $1,595,440 $1,709,400 $1,823,360 $1,823,360 $839,945 $881,942 $926,040
Total Cost $2,544,483 $2,690,473 $2,763,050 $2,842,576 $3,021,298 $3,048,956 $2,172,469 $2,239,326 $2,308,725
ANNUAL SAVINGS $0 $0 $200,051 $310,165 $328,096 $371,655 $150,107 $181,890 $216,952
CUM. SAVINGS $0 $0 $200,051 $510,217 $838,313 $1,209,968 $1,360,075 $1,541,965 $1 758,917
Figure 1 Scenario Analysis
Page 2 of 5 End 9
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Overall Budget Impacts of PAYT (Preliminary)
December 15,2000
The following parameters were used in generating the spreadsheet:
• Potential Tonnage Yearly Increase Factor= 1.03
• GAT (NESWC) = 11,396
• General Cost Inflation Factor = 1.02
• MRIP payment rate $10/ton
• Annual increase in market rate 1.05.
Features of the Model
Some of the relevant features of the spreadsheet model are described below
• Potential tonnage increases at a fixed annual rate.
• Source reduction, s, is measured relative to the baseline year Hence, the source
reduction rate is zero for the baseline scenario.
• Composting is not included explicitly in the spreadsheet. Some of the source
reduction achieved is due to diversion through composting.
• Certain MSW program expenses that are common to all scenarios are not shown. For
example, expenses of basic administration, Minuteman Household Hazardous Products
Facility, contract negotiations, mailing of basic recycling information, etc.
• The cost of the collection contract is assumed to increase with inflation, but be
independent of the tonnage collected. In reality, the situation is more complicated. The
current trash-hauling contract runs through FY2003 and thus cost will not vary with
tonnage in the early years. However, when bids are received on a new contract, the
tonnage growth may result in higher bids. The increase need not be proportional to
tonnage, since Lexington is now served by a single truck and crew If tonnage increases
to the point that two crews must work each day, the collection costs may jump in a non-
linear manner. Thus, the speadsheet does not reflect a potential major cost-avoidance
benefit of PAYT
Table 1 Variables
Item Definition
Potential Tonnage The total potential annual volume (tons) of the waste stream
that would result if no source reduction were achieved.
Source-reduction rate, The fraction by which the potential tonnage is reduced by
s source reduction.
Recycling Rate I The fraction of the generated tonnage that is recycled.
Discarded Tonnage I Tons of trash sent to landfill or incinerator each year.
Recycled Tonnage I Tons of recyclables per year
GAT shortfall The tons by which D falls short of the Guaranteed Annual
Tonnage. Zero if D exceeds the GAT
Page 3 of 5 End 9
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Overall Budget Impacts of PAYT (Preliminary)
December 15, 2000
GAT income Income from resale of unused tonnage when discarded
tonnage is below GAT
NESWC tipping fee The per-ton tipping fee charged to NESWC communities.
Market tipping fee The market rate tipping fee (per ton) for eastern
Massachusetts.
Collection cost The cost of collecting trash and transporting it to its final
destination.
PAYT program Administrative expenses for the PAYT program that are over
expenses and above any baseline MSW expenses. This includes public-
education expenses, enforcement expenses, etc.
MRIP Payments Per-ton payment to the town under the state Municipal
Recycling Incentive Program (MRIP)
Grants Special grants received by the town
Total Tipping Total paid annually for tipping fees for discarded tonnage
Total Cost Total cost of the MSW program
Annual Savings Reduction in total waste-management costs for the indicated
fiscal year.
Cum. Savings Cumulative savings since implementation of PAYT
Table 2 Parameters
Item Definition
Potential Tonnage Multiplier that reflects the annual increase in the potential
Yearly Increase Factor tonnage due to growth in the economy, population growth,
etc.
GAT(NESWC) The guaranteed annual tonnage value
Collection Cost Multiplier that reflects the annual increase in the cost of
Increase Factor collection.
MRIP payment rate The dollars per ton payment under MRIP _
Annual increase in Factor by which market rate tipping fee increases annually
market rate This is expected to be greater than the general inflation rate.
• The PAYT calculations are assumed to apply to the entire municipal-waste stream.
This is a simplification of a more complex reality Only about 80% of the total waste is
generated by residences. The remainder of the waste comes from schools and Town
buildings. Although these generators will not be required to purchase PAYT tags, the
overall PAYT program is motivating improvements in these programs, and the
recycling rate improvements achieved may actually be greater than those achieved with
the residential stream. At this point, a reasonable simplifying assumption is that
improvements in the non-residential stream will match those in the residential stream.
• The market rate value of any GAT shortfall is recovered by resale of the unused
tonnage.
• The state Municipal Recycling Incentive Program (MRIP) is assumed to provide the
current $10/ton incentive for recyclables through 2008.
Page 4 of 5 Encl 9
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Overall Budget Impacts of PAYT (Preliminary)
December 15,2000
• Market rate tipping fees ( spot market rates") are obtained from NESWC projections.
It is assumed that after the NESWC contract expires, the Town will negotiate new
contracts for which the tipping fees will approximate market rates. If the new contract
does not achieve such favorable rates, the savings achieved by PAYT would increase.
Sensitivity Analysis
In order to determine the sensitivity of the results to the assumptions, two additional
scenarios were analyzed. The favorable scenario used assumptions that were
reasonable, but which increased PAYT benefits. The unfavorable scenario used
assumptions that were reasonable,but which decreased PAYT benefits.
Favorable Scenario:
• The increase in recycling rate is 13% (from nominal 8%). This is a value
suggested for Massachusetts communities in the Tellus Institute study
(Tellus99a).
• A 10% reduction in the collection costs is realized for years after 2003.
Unfavorable Scenario:
• Source reduction achieved is only 10% (from nominal 14%).
• Recycling increase achieved is only 6% (from nominal 8%).
The average annual savings for the different scenarios are presented in the following
table.
Table 3 Different Scenarios
Scenario Average Annual Saving s % difference from
(FY2002-20081 nominal _
More Favorable $388,764 +52.5%
Nominal $254,845
Less Favorable I $219,898 -13.7%
This analysis indicates that the nominal budgetary impacts do not change dramatically
with moderate variations in the achieved performance. There are savings even with
decreased performance. If collection cost savings can be realized, significant additional
benefits are possible.
Page 5 of 5 Encl 9
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Household Impacts Analysis (Preliminary)
December 14, 2000
1. Introduction
This memorandum presents the results of a spreadsheet analysis of household-budget
impacts of implementing a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) system for unit pricing of
municipal-trash disposal. (Note: Although not addressed here, any discussion of the
total benefits realized by PAYT would need to include benefits beyond those
appearing in the Town Budget—and other analyses have shown those to be
substantial.)
2. Simple Model for Household Impacts
Figure 1 provides model calculations of household impacts for a specific price policy
($1.50/tag, with 10 "free" tags annually), for six types of households: an average
household in terms of waste generation and real-estate valuation; senior citizens with
lower rates of waste generation, lower tax rates, and average or high assessments;
otherwise average households with higher waste generation or higher assessments; and
a household with average waste, but lower-than-average assessment and tax rate.
Income tax rates are rough estimates of typical values in each category Since many
households do not itemize expenses, net costs are shown with and without income-tax
effects.
Names in bold font indicate program parameters that are yet to be selected. Table 1
provides more detail on the computation of each value.
The assumptions that are built into this computation are described below
• The computation is based on data in the Town PAYT spreadsheet for FY2004. This is
the next-to-last year under the NESWC contract.
• It is assumed that any "free" stickers that are distributed, as well as any stickers
purchased, are fully used by residents. In reality, some stickers will not be used.
• The implementation details regarding barrel labels are assumed to be unimportant to
the numbers. The computation deals only with tags. Barrel labels can be thought of as
being equivalent to a certain number of tags.
The spreadsheet assumes that tag and label prices do not affect recycling rates and
source reduction. In reality, PAYT will have a larger effect on the waste stream if
higher unit prices are adopted.
• Savings to the Town budget are assumed to flow through as reductions in household
tax burdens, distributed in proportion to assessed property value. Such savings are
most likely to appear in the form of reductions in tax levy overrides, and may not
appear in the year in which the saving is initially achieved. The spreadsheet simplifies
the timing of savings.
Page 1 of 10 End 10
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Household Impacts Analysis (Preliminary)
December 14, 2000
Business as Pay As You Savings or
Usual Throw Reduction
Common Inputs Inputs and Computations by Scenario
No.of households 11,000 Total Cost of MSW Program $3,349,394 $3,017,331 $332,063
Fraction MSW residential 0.80 Cost per household $304 $274 $30
Res Fraction of Tax Benefits 1.00 Refuse tonnage 12,970 9,740 3,230
(benefits flow to participants) Avg.Bag Weight(lbs.) 16.0 18.0 -2.0
'Free' tags/HH/year 10.0
Typical Property Valuation FY 2000=$383,000 Tags sold/year 755,778
Average assessment varies over time Tag price $1.50
Total tag revenues $1 133,667 -$1,133,667
Total Cost on Tax Levy $3,349,394 $1,883,665 $1,465,729
Fraction of MSW cost from tags 0.38
Avg.Tags per week per HH 1.32
Average Resident Business as Pay As You Savings
Usual Throw
Tags/week 1.32
Assessment as%average 100% 100%
Cost of tags/year $103
Tax levy costs/year $304 $171
Total MSW Expenses $304 $274 $30
After tax,itemizer @ 30%tax rate $213 $223 ($10)
Senior Citizen,Average House
Tags/week 0.66
Assessment as%average 100% 100%
Cost of tags/year $52
Tax levy costs/year $304 $171
Total MSW Expenses _ $304 $223 $82
After tax,itemizer @ 15%tax rate $259 $197 $62
Senior Citizen,High-Assessment House
Tags/week 0.66
Assessment as%average 200% 200%
Cost of tags/year $52
Tax levy costs/year $609 $342
Total MSW Expenses $609 $394 $215
After tax,itemizer @ 15%tax rate $518 $343 $175
Average User,Large House
Tags/week 1.32
Assessment as%average 200% 200%
Cost of tags/year $103
Tax levy costs/year $609 $342
Total MSW Expenses $609 $446 $163
After tax,itemizer @ 30%tax rate $426 $343 $83
Large Disposer,Average Home and Income
Tags/week 2.30
Assessment as%average 100% 100%
Cost of tags/year $179
Tax levy costs/year $304 $171
Total MSW Expenses $304 $351 ($46)
After tax,itemizer @ 30%tax rate $213 $299 ($86)
Modest Home,Modest Income
Tags/week 1.32
Assessment as%average 75% 75%
Cost of tags/year $103
Tax levy costs/year $228 $128
Total MSW Expenses $228 $231 ($3)
After tax,itemizer @ 20%tax rate $183 $206 ($23)
Figure 2.1 Household Impact Examples
Page 2 of 10 Enc110
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Household Impacts Analysis (Preliminary)
December 14, 2000
Table 1 Model for Household Impacts
Item Definition
Total Cost of MSW Total Town budget cost of solid waste management, including
Program curbside collection of trash and recycling, tipping fees,
administrative costs, etc.
Cost per household Town budget costs per household for MSW expenses.
Total— — — —Cost of MSW Program
Cost_per_household=
No._of_households
Refuse tonnage Tonnage sent to the incinerator
Fraction MSW Fraction of the refuse tonnage that comes from residences
residential (excluding schools and Town buildings)
Avg. Bag Weight (lbs.) The average weight of a trash bag set out at curbside.
"Free" tags/year Number of tags given without charge annually to each
- household
Tags sold/year Number of tags sold per year
2000*(Re fuse_tonnage)*(Fraction MSW residential)
X=
Avg_Bag_Weight
— (Free_tags/HH/year)*(No._of_households)
Tag price _ I Price of each tag
Total tag revenues Total revenues to Town from tag sales
X = (Tags_sold/year)*(Tag_price)
Total cost on tax levy Total solid waste management expenses paid for through the
tax levy
X = (Total Cost of MSW Program)—(Total. tag_revenues)
Residential fraction of Fraction of the tax levy raised from residential assessments
tax benefits (not including commercial properties and other revenue
sources)
Avg. tags per week Tags_sold/year
from household No. of households
Tags/week 1 Average tags per week from the example household.
(continued)
Page 3 of 10 End 10
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Household Impacts Analysis (Preliminary)
December 14, 2000
Table 1 Model for Household Impacts (continued)
Item Definition
Assessment/avg The residential assessment for the household divided by the 1
average residential assessment for the Town.
Cost of tags per year Amount spent by the household annually on tags
X = (Tag_price)*[(HH tags/week)*52—(Free_tags/HH/year)]
Tax levy costs per Amount of this households tax levy payment attributable to
year solid-waste-management costs.
(Residential_Fraction_of Total_cost_on_tax_levy)x(Assessment/Avg.)
_Tax_levy ) No._of households
Total MSW Expenses Total waste-management expenses of this household
(including tax levy and costs of tags) J
After tax, itemizer @ MSW expenses, net of income tax deduction for specified tax
% tax rate rate
Savings _ I Net household savings with pay-as-you-throw f
3. Household Impact Tables
The net MSW savings due to Town budget impacts can be computed for a particular
household dependent upon 1) the number of tags used per week and 2) the assessed
value of property on which real-estate tax is paid. This calculation assumes that the
MSW expense allocated to the household is proportional to the fraction of the Town
budget paid in real-estate taxes. Thus,if a household pays 1/12,000 of the Town budget,
then it is assumed to pay 1/12,000 of the Town's waste-management expenses. For all
cases shown, year FY2004 is used for tonnages and expenses.
3.1 Tags Used Per Household
In FY200, the average waste-generation rate for Lexington was about
1.8 pounds/person/day Under PAYT, this is expected to decline to about
1.35 pounds/person/day The table below shows the number of tags that would have
to be used per week for households with the average 1.35 lb./person/day generation
rate. (It is assumed that the label price and the weight limit for barrels would be set so
that calculations for households using barrels would be similar to those for households
using tags.) Two columns are provided to show the tags required with the nominal
18-pound bag weights and the tags required if the household fills each bag to the
proposed 30-pound limit.
Page 4 of 10 Enc110
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Household Impacts Analysis (Preliminary)
December 14,2000
Table 3.1 Tags Used Per Week for Average Per Capita Generation
Persons in At 18 At 30
Household pounds/bag pounds/bag
1 0.5 0.3
2 1.1 0.6
3 1.6 0.9
4 2.1 I 1.3
5 I 2.6 I 1.6
6 3.2 1.9
7 3.7 2.2
It appears that most households could reduce their tag use to one tag per week if they
wished. But considerable variation in tag use is to be expected.
It should be noted that currently some households use several small bags that may
weigh only 4 or 5 pounds each. It is probable that such households would combine
these small bags into one larger bag on trash day in order to reduce the number of tags
required. But again, considerable variation in behavior is to be expected. Households
that are more frugal or for which the savings are more important can be expected to pay
more attention to cost-saving opportunities presented by PAYT
3.2 Variation in Household Impacts
The following tables summarize the net costs for a range of assessments ($300,000 to
$800,000, assuming the average assessment is $450,000) for four tag prices and either
zero or 52 "free" tags per household annually
Several trends worth noting emerge from these tables:
• The majority of households can expect a net benefit from Town budget impacts of
PAYT There are additional costs and benefits outside the Town budget that should be
considered in order to obtain a complete picture of household impacts.
• Savings increase with assessed value. This is because households paying more taxes
benefit more from reductions in the Town budget.
• As the tag price increases, the benefit for low-volume generators increases and the net
cost for high-volume generators also increases. Higher tag prices seem to provide
more motivation for reducing waste, but setting too high a price may also place too
heavy a burden on any households that are in the high-waste category for reasons
beyond their control. These factors are among several that should be considered in
setting the tag price.
• Providing "free" tags tends to reduce the variation in savings with assessed real-
estate value. This is because "free" tags represent tax-levy purchases of solid-waste
services. High-value property owners pay more proportionally for the "free" tags.
Page 5 of 10 End 10
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Household Impacts Analysis (Preliminary)
December 14,2000
• The tendency for trash generation to increase with income levels has been noted in the
literature. Hence, we might expect that more highly assessed properties would
produce more trash on a per capita basis. However in Lexington there are many
instances in which a senior citizen on fixed income who is generating very little trash
is living in a highly assessed property (perhaps one that began as a modest property
but has increased in value through the years). This results in a household that is
higher than average in terms of tax-levy contributions, but lower than average in
terms of trash generation.
Cases in which no "free" tags are issued:
• • tag price = $ 0 50 `free' tags= 0
< No Tags Used Per Week > - - - -
Assessed Val < 05 > < 10 > < 15 > < 2 0 > < 3 0 > < 4 0 >
$ 300000 $ 24 09 $ 11 09 $ -1 91 $ -14 91 $ -40 91 $ -66 91
$ 400000 $ 36 45 $ 23 45 $ 10 45 $ -2 55 $ -28 55 $ -54 55
$ 500000 $ 48 81 $ 35 81 $ 22 81 $ 9 81 $ -16 19 $ -42 19
$ 600000 $ 61 18 $ 48 18 $ 35 18 $ 22 18 $ -3 82 $ -29 82
$ 700000 $ 73 54 $ 60 54 $ 47 54 $ 34 54 $ 8 54 $ -17 46
$ 800000 $ 85 90 $ 72 90 $ 59 90 $ 46 90 $ 20 90 $ -5 10
• tag price = $ 1 00 `free' tags= 0
< No Tags Used Per Week > - - - -
AssessedVal < 0 5 > < 10 > < 15 > < 2 0 > < 30 > < 4 0 >
$ 300000 $ 32 08 $ 6 08 $ -19 92 $ -45 92 $ -97 92 0-149 92
$ 400000 $ 51 44 $ 25 44 $ -0 56 $ -26 56 $ -78 56 $-130- 56-
500000 $ 70 80 $ 44 80 $ 18 80 $ -7 20 $ -59 20 $-111 20
4, 600000 $ 90 15 $ 64 15 $ 38 15 $ 12 15 $ -39 85 $ -91 85
v
100000 $ 109 51 $ 83 51 $ 57 51 $ 31 51 $ -20 49 $ -72 49
$ 800000 $ 128 87 $ 102 87 $ 76 87 $ 50 87 $ -1 13 $ -53 13
• • tag price = $ 1 25 `free' tags= 0
< No Tags Used PerWeek > - - - -
Assessed Val < 05 > < 10 > < 15 > < 2 0 > < 3 0 > < 4 0 >
$ 300000 $ 36 07 $ 3 57 $ -28 93 $ -61 43 $-126 43 $-191 43
$ 400000 $ 58 93 $ 26 43 $ -6 07 $ -38 57 $-103 57 $-168 57
$ 500000 $ 81 79 $ 49 29 $ 16 79 $ -15 71 $ -80 71 $-145 71
$ 600000 $ 104 64 $ 72 14 $ 39 64 $ 7 14 $ -57 86 $-122 86
$ 700000 $ 127 50 $ 95 00 $ 62 50 $ 30 00 $ -35 00 $-100 00
$ 800000 $ 150 36 $ 117 86 $ 85 36 $ 52 86 $ -12 14 $ -77 14
• • • tag price = $ 1 50 `free' tags= 0
< No Tags Used Per Week > - - - -
Assessed Val < 0 5 > < 1 0 > < 1 5 > < 2 0 > < 3 0 > < 4 0 >
$ 300000 $ 40 07 $ 1 07 $ -37 93 $ -76 93 $-154 93 $-232 93
$ 400000 $ 66 42 $ 27 42 $ -11 58 $ -50 58 $-128 58 $-206 58
$ 500000 $ 92 78 $ 53 78 $ 14 78 $ -24 22 $-102 22 $-180 22
$ 600000 $ 119 13 $ 80 13 $ 41 13 $ 2 13 $ -75 87 $-153 87
$ 700000 $ 145 49 $ 106 49 $ 67 49 $ 28 49 $ -49 51 $-127 51
$ 800000 $ 171 84 $ 132 84 $ 93 84 $ 54 84 $ -23 16 $-101 16
Page 6 of 10 End 10
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Household Impacts Analysis (Preliminary)
December 14, 2000
• • tag price = $ 2 00 `free' tags= 0
< No Tags Used Per Week > - - - -
AssessedVal < 05 > < 10 > < 15 > < 20 > < 3 0 > < 4 0 >
$ 300000 $ 48 05 $ -3 95 $ -55 95 $-107 95 $-211 95 $-315 95
$ 400000 $ 81 41 $ 29 41 $ -22 59 $ -74 59 $-178 59 $-282 59
$ 500000 $ 114 76 $ 62 76 $ 10 76 $ -41 24 $-145 24 $-249 24
$ 600000 $ 148 11 $ 96 11 $ 44 11 $ -7 89 $-111 89 $-215 89
$ 700000 $ 181 46 $ 129 46 $ 77 46 $ 25 46 $ -78 54 $-182 54
$ 800000 $ 214 81 $ 162 81 $ 110 81 $ 58 81 $ -45 19 $-149 19
• tag price = $ 2 50 `free' tags= 0
< No Tags Used Per Week > - - - -
Assessed Val < 0 5 > < 1 0 > < 1 5 > < 2 0 > < 3 0 > < 4 0 >
$ 300000 $ 56 04 $ -8 96 $ -73 96 $-138 96 $-268 96 $-398 96
$ 400000 $ 96 39 $ 31 39 $ -33 61 $ -98 61 $-228 61 $-358 61
$ 500000 $ 136 74 $ 71 74 $ 6 74 $ -58 26 $-188 26 $-318 26
$ 600000 $ 177 09 $ 112 09 $ 47 09 $ -17 91 $-147 91 $-277 91
- $ 700000 $ 217 43 $ 152 43 $ 87 43 $ 22 43 $-107 57 $-237 57
$ 800000 $ 257 78 $ 192 78 $ 127 78 $ 62 78 $ -67 22 $-197 22
Cases in which 52"free" tags are distributed:
tag price = $ 0 50 `free' tags= 52
< No Tags Used Per Week > - - -
Assessed Val < 0 5 > < 1 0 > < 1 5 > < 2 0 > < 3 0 > < 4 0 >
$ 300000 $ 23 22 $ 23 22 $ 10 22 $ -2 78 $ -28 78 $ -54 78
$ 400000 $ 30 96 $ 30 96 $ 17 96 $ 4 96 $ -21 04 $ -47 04
$ 500000 $ 38 70 $ 38 70 $ 25 70 $ 12 70 $ -13 30 $ -39 30
$ 600000 $ 46 44 $ 46 44 $ 33 44 $ 20 44 $ -5 56 $ -31 56
$ 700000 $ 54 18 $ 54 18 $ 41 18 $ 28 18 $ 2 18 $ -23 82
$ 800000 $ 61 93 $ 61 93 $ 48 93 $ 35 93 $ 9 93 $ -16 07
• • tag price = $ 1 00 'free tags= 52
< No Tags Used Per Week > - - - -
Assessed Val < 0 5 > < 10 > < 15 > < 2 0 > < 3 0 > < 4 0 >
$ 300000 $ 30 34 $ 30 34 $ 4 34 $ -21 66 $ -73 66 $-125 66
$ 400000 $ 40 46 $ 40 46 $ 14 46 $ -11 54 $ -63 54 $-115 54
$ 500000 $ 50 57 $ 50 57 $ 24 57 $ -1 43 $ -53 43 $-105 43
$ 600000 $ 60 69 $ 60 69 $ 34 69 $ 8 69 $ -43 31 $ -95 31
$ 700000 $ 70 80 $ 70 80 $ 44 80 $ 18 80 $ -33 20 $ -85 20
$ 800000 $ 80 92 $ 80 92 $ 54 92 $ 28 92 $ -23 08 $ -75 08
Page 7 of 10 End 10
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Household Impacts Analysis (Preliminary)
December 14, 2000
tag price = $ 1 25 `free' tags= 52
< No Tags Used Per Week > - - - -
Assessed Val < 0 5 > < 1 0 > < 1 5 > < 2 0 > < 3 0 > < 4 0 >
$ 300000 $ 33 90 $ 33 90 $ 1 40 $ -31 10 $ -96 10 $-161 10
$ 400000 $ 45 21 $ 45 21 $ 12 71 $ -19 79 $ -84 79 $-149 79
$ 500000 $ 56 51 $ 56 51 $ 24 01 $ -8 49 $ -73 49 5-138 49
$ 600000 $ 67 81 $ 67 81 $ 35 31 $ 2 81 $ -62 19 5-127 19
$ 700000 $ 79 11 $ 79 11 $ 46 61 $ 14 11 $ -50 89 $-115 89
$ 800000 $ 90 41 $ 90 41 $ 57 91 $ 25 41 $ -39 59 5-104 59
tag price = $ 1 50 `free' tags= 52
< No Tags Used Per Week > - - - -
Assessed Val < 0 5 > < 1 0 > < 1 5 > < 2 0 > < 3 0 > < 4 0 >
$ 300000 $ 37 47 $ 37 47 $ -1 53 $ -40 53 $-118 53 5-196 53
$ 400000 $ 49 95 $ 49 95 $ 10 95 $ -28 05 5-106 05 $-184 05
$ 500000 $ 62 44 $ 62 44 $ 23 44 $ -15 56 $ -93 56 $-171 56
$ 600000 $ 74 93 $ 74 93 $ 35 93 $ -3 07 $ -81 07 5-159 07
$ 700000 $ 87 42 $ 87 42 $ 48 42 $ 9 42 $ -68 58 5-146 58
$ 800000 $ 99 91 $ 99 91 $ 60 91 $ 21 91 $ -56 09 $-134 09
• tag price = $ 2 00 `free' tags= 52
— - - - - < No Tags Used Per Week > - - - -
AssessedVal < 05 > < 10 > < 15 > < 20 > < 30 > < 40 >
$ 300000 $ 44 59 $ 44 59 $ -7 41 $ -59 41 5-163 41 $-267 41
$ 400000 $ 59 45 $ 59 45 $ 7 45 $ -44 55 $-148 55 $-252 55
$ 500000 $ 74 31 $ 74 31 $ 22 31 $ -29 69 5-133 69 5-237 69
5' '600000 $ 89 18 $ 89 18 $ 37 18 $ -14 82 5-118 82 5-222 82
$ '700000 $ 104 04 $ 104 04 $ 52 04 $ 0 04 $-103 96 $-207 96
$' 800000 $ 118 90 $ 118 90 $ 66 90 $ 14 90 $ -89 10 $-193 10
tag price = $ 2 50 `free' tags= 52
< No Tags Used Per Week > - - - -
AssessedVal < 05 > < 10 > < 15 > < 2 0 > < 30 > < 4 0 >
$ 300000 $ 51 71 $ 51 71 $ -13 29 $ -78 29 $-208 29 5-338 29
$ 400000 $ 68 95 $ 68 95 $ 3 95 $ -61 05 $-191 05 $-321 05
$ 500000 $ 86 18 $ 86 18 $ 21 18 $ -43 82 $-173 82 $-303 82
$ 600000 $ 103 42 $ 103 42 $ 38 42 $ -26 58 5-156 58 $-286 58
$ 700000 $ 120 66 $ 120 66 $ 55 66 $ -9 34 $-139 34 $-269 34
$ 800000 $ 137 89 $ 137 89 $ 72 89 $ 7 89 5-122 11 5-252 11
4. Effect of Federal Income-Tax Deductions
Local taxes can be deducted from income for residents that itemize deductions in their
filings with the Internal Revenue Service. In the United States, only about 30% of
households itemize, but the fraction is certainly greater in Lexington. Because PAYT
reduces the total local-tax burden, it will result in an increase in total household income.
Page 8 of 10 End 10
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Household Impacts Analysis (Preliminary)
December 14, 2000
This will result in an increase in Federal tax liability for households that itemize
deductions.
It should be noted that from a townwide perspective, a significant fraction of tax
payments to the Federal level are returned to the community in the form of grants,
subsidies, and Federal contracts to local companies. This return is not received from a
payment that is consumed in trash-disposal expenses, such as cleaning equipment at
the NESWC incinerator. Thus, it is probably improper to consider Federal revenues to
be a 100% loss to a household. Nevertheless, the conservative 100% figure will be
employed in the calculations below
We will employ the following notation:
C Cost of tag purchases under PAYT
f Marginal Federal income tax rate
S Net savings due to PAYT
ST Household savings on local taxes due to PAYT
For a household that does not itemize:
S = ST - C
For a household that does itemize
S = (1-f) ST - C
Thus, the total additional tax paid is f*ST Some examples of the savings after Federal
tax are shown in Table 2.1. For these cases the Federal tax impacts reduce net savings,
but do not eliminate the savings. Note that the effects are less with lower marginal rates
(Case 3) that are more typical of senior citizens living on fixed incomes.
Page 9 of 10 Encl l0
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYT Household Impacts Analysis (Preliminary)
December 14,2000
Table 2.1 Effects of Federal Tax Deductions
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 I Case 4
Marginal Federal Tax 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.32
Rate, f
Assessed Value _ I $500K I $500K 1 $500K $800K
Tag Price $1.25 I $1.25 I $1.25 $1.25
"Free" tags per year I 52 I 52 I 52 52
Tags Used Per Week I _ 1.0 I 1.5 1.0 1.5
Savings if do not itemize $89.01 I $24.01 $56.51 $57.90
Additional Federal tax $15.82 I $15.82 I $11.30 $28.92
Savings less Fed Tax $73.19 $8.19 $45.21 $28.98
liability
Townwide, the total local tax reduction for FY2004 is approximately $328K. The total
increase in Federal tax liability for an average marginal tax rate of 28 per cent would be
$92K.
Page 10of10 End 10
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
PAYTAC's Own Pro &Con Assessment
October 25, 2000
More-Significant Pro
;Provide greater fairness in charges
Reduce environmental impacts of disposal
Reduce health risks from trash pollutants
dit‘ Reduce overall costs to residents
Provide more control over household expenses
Discourages illegal disposal of commercial trash
Compliance with DEP regulations
Contribute to solution to global warming
Enhances other waste-management programs
Lexington be a state leader in progressive waste management
Recycling jobs and health cost reduction
Not Significant Will reduce frequency and size of tax-levy overrides
Deprive incinerator of quality Lexington trash
Increases revenues to Town
Risk that implementation will fail
Avoids risk that nearby towns will adopt PAYT first
PAYT is a reduction in service
Can increase illegal-disposal problems
Inconvenience caused by learning new system
More-Significant Con
Page 1 of 1 Enc!11
LEXINGTON POLICE CHIEF CASEY MEMO TO LEXINGTON PAYTAC
Laws Relating to Dumping or Littering
December 7,2000
Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 270 s17
Whoever disposes of household or commercial refuse by placing it in a trash barrel
placed on a public highway by the commonwealth, or any political subdivision for the
convenience of the traveling public, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $200.
One half of the fine is to be paid to the city or town.
MGL Chapter 90 s22g
The Registrar may, after a hearing, suspend for a period not exceeding seven days the
license or permit to operate motor vehicles or the right of a person to operate motor
vehicles in the Commonwealth of any person who litters, or knowingly permits, as the
operator, occupants of his vehicle to litter, public or private property through the
disposal of trash or garbage from the motor vehicle.
MGL Chapter 270 s16
This Chapter deals with the disposal of trash along public ways and waterways. It is
lengthy
Town General By-Laws
Article 25 sections 22 No person, without having the authority to do so, shall throw
sweep, place, or drop and suffer to remain on any street or public place, any papers,
ashes, earth, garbage, rubbish, litter, manure, refuse or any noxious liquid or solid
substance, or any glass, nails, tacks, scrap iron or similar articles.
A.25 s. 23 No person, unless having authority to do so, shall dump or deposit any ashes,
rubbish, refuse, offal or decayed animal or vegetable matter on any public or private
land contrary to the rules and regulations of the Selectmen.
A.24 s 23A No person shall throw, dump, or cause to be deposited in any brook, stream,
water course or drainage facility within the town any trash, rubbish, debris, refuse or
other material such as grass clippings, brush, tree limbs or similar items which will
obstruct or impede the free flow of water. The penalty for violation of this by-law shall
be one hundred dollars for each offense.
Lexington Conservation Land Regulations
It is forbidden.
Regulation #8. To discard litter except in designated receptacles; or to post, paint, affix
or display any sign, notice, placard or advertising device.
Regulation#9. To dump materials of any kind
Lexington Park Rules and Reg's
Regulation #9. No dumping of any kind shall be permitted within any park grounds,
school grounds and recreation areas. NMT$100.
Other references to dumping and litter are found in Lexington Board of Health
Dumpster Regulations, Board of Health Regulations concerning Nuisances and Public
Works rules governing residential solid waste.
Page 1 of 1 End 12
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Preventing Illegal Dumping
December 14, 2000
1. Introduction
Concerns that implementing a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) system will result in problems
with illegal disposal have been expressed during the public-comment meeting. The
PAYTAC has obtained quite a lot of information on the experience with illegal dumping
in other towns that have implemented PAYT systems. This memorandum provides the
results of this research and the conclusions drawn.
2. Ouotes from the Literature
The following paragraphs are the results of a literature search on the question of the
effects of PAYT on illegal dumping:
"Studies of communities in Massachusetts and around the nation with unit-based
pricing programs indicate that increased illegal dumping is typically not a major
problem and can be easily addressed. Composition analysis of illegally dumped
materials shows that the largest components are commercial construction and
demolition debris. The primary household component is bulky waste. Therefore, it is
important to have a bulky goods program in place." [DEP00a, p 33]
"When a hybrid pricing system is in place, the incentive to illegally dispose of trash is
practically eliminated. Since residents are paying a portion of the service from property
taxes or flat fees, they are more inclined to use it and less inclined to discard trash
illegally .And, potential violations can be averted through advanced preparation such
as establishing fines, hiring enforcement officials, and notifying commercial
establishments to lock dumpsters. In fact, municipal officials in Taunton feel that illegal
dumping has become less of a problem due to the city's public awareness campaign and
the threat of fines. "[DEP00a, p. 33]
"Illegal dumping or burning of refuse is a possible adverse effect of variable refuse
rates. This has rarely presented an ongoing problem, however, since communities have
found a variety of ways to stop illegal dumping." [EPA94a, p 22]
"Preliminary research shows that communities with "pay-as-you-throw" or unit-based
disposal programs do not experience continuing dumping problems. Although such a
community may experience increased illegal dumping when new programs are
launched, once the public understands the system the problem diminishes. Maintaining
educational programs is important to avoid an ongoing problem." [EPA98b, p. 5]
Page 1 of 7 End 13
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Preventing Illegal Dumping
December 14,2000
Yearly Breakdown of Illegal Dumping Cases
1
300
ter r
250- P or _f
Orli 1
200 oror
a
a
150 7 - .n,. : ; ■Remaining cases
®Cases resolved
i1 1'< a
I00
50 9 p4 dr:. s„ lit ,,,t
„ " " ‘1 t%
0 do 4 1 ..„cr-n.titS A 3 {e'•. . . r«S44.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
The above figure shows statistics on the number of illegal-dumping incidents in
Tompson County, New York, over an 8-year period. A PAYT system was initiated in
1993. The number of cases of illegal dumping appears to have declined slightly after
PAYT was enacted. Note, however, that greater efforts were made to resolve cases after
PAYT went into effect. Over half the cases of illegal dumping were resolved. In about 10
per cent of the cases, a fine was collected. [NY97a]
"IllegalFDumping—While we cannot be sure what happened in this area, there have not
been reports made at the transfer station of any increase in this activity " [ME98a, p 12]
"Illegal dumping: .Because each individual is directly paying for their trash, there is
some incentive for residents to illegally dump their trash. Ten towns noted that they
encountered some level of problems with illegal dumping. According to the Margaret
Chase Smith Institute study from 1995, illegal dumping is common for the first six
months or so. After this, residents adjust to the system and illegal dumping lessens. It is
noteworthy that over 30 town reported that there was no illegal dumping problem in
their municipality As one municipal official noted, household garbage is too easy to
identify; however, bulky waste dumping (tires, furniture, etc.) continues to be a
problem." [ME98b, p 2]
"Illegal dumping—short term (usually six months or so) increase in illegal dumping of
trash alongside roads. This activity usually returns to pre fee' levels as residents adjust
to the system." [ME98c]
Page 2 of 7 Enc113
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Preventing Illegal Dumping
December 14, 2000
DIDN'T
NO KNOW
CHANGE 27%
46%
ki\\.\\\.\\.
DECREASED
K.. 6%
T pa'
INCREASED
19%
Response to question of whether illegal diversion had changed since start of unit pricing
program.
[Miranda 97]
"Approximately one-third of communities note temporary problems with illegal
dumping as a result of implementing pay-as-you-throw programs." [RI95a]
"Virtually every community we have interviewed reports that illegal dumping should
not be considered a barrier to implementing variable rates. In conducting case studies
with many communities that have already implemented variable-rate systems, illegal
dumping has mostly been characterized either as a temporary problem that they were
able to handle, or as not a problem at all. However, some caveats to this finding may be
appropriate. .Interviews with haulers indicate that illegal dumping in and around
commercial/multifamily dumpsters is often a significant problem and is not generally
reported to city officials because collection is usually handled by private companies."
[Skumatz93a]
"A number of reports from around the nation conclude that there was illegal dumping
- before variable-rate systems went into place and that there will be illegal dumping after
the implementation of variable rates. However, overwhelmingly, cities with experience
in variable rates conclude that illegal dumping should not be considered a major barrier
to implementing variable rates and that the problem can be handled with planning."
[Skumatz93a]
"Statistical work in Seattle could find no relationship between garbage rate changes and
the quantity of illegal dumping. Other surveys have reported moderate problems. For
example, a survey of 10 Illinois communities rated illegal dumping problems a 2.4-2.9
on a 5 point scale. There is also some evidence that the presence of white goods or bulky
item programs may reduce the impact of illegal dumping." [Skumatz94a,p. 3]
"Concerns about illegal dumping have been an important barrier to the implementation
of variable rates in communities across the nation. In a detailed discussion on the topic,
a Reason Foundation study discusses findings from interviews with over a hundred
communities and haulers. The study notes that overwhelmingly, illegal dumping was
characterized as a temporary problem they were able to handle, or as not a problem at
all. The study noted several caveats regarding the results that might imply some under-
Page 3 of 7 Enc113
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Preventing Illegal Dumping
December 14, 2000
reporting of problems, but the overall conclusion was that although a priori perceptions
and fears about problems were common, the actual incidence was relatively low"
[Skumatz94a, p. 4]
"A survey of Massachusetts communities also revealed that concern of illegal dumping
increases was greater in program planning than during implementation. Respondents
were asked to rate the importance of increased illegal dumping as a concern prior to
and during implementation on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being very important. Prior to
implementation the 30 respondents averaged a 3 while during implementation they
averaged a 2." [Skumatz94a, p. 5]
"The available studies indicate that the bulk of illegal dumping comes in the form of
construction and demolition (CDL) waste, appliances, and organic materials(yard
waste). In Seattle, Washington, an informal review of illegal dumping clean-ups
indicate that about 60-80% is from CDL, appliances, and remodeling Officials from a
Bay Area community estimate that 75% of illegal dumping is commercial."
[Skumatz94a, p. 5]
3. Ouotes from Massachusetts PAYT Communities
On June 8, 1999, a solid-waste-management workshop was held in Lexington. The
workshop, presented by the Massachusetts DEP, featured presentations on solid-waste
management by a number of town officials and solid-waste experts. Panelists from
PAYT communities in Massachusetts were asked whether illegal dumping had been a
problem in-their towns. The following are their replies.
o, we have not seen any increase."
- Bill Guistis, Financial Officer, Merrimac, Massachusetts
"Illegal dumping? We just haven't seen it. We've had only two instances—in
commercial dumpsters in the downtown area."
- Kristine Carbonneau, Program Manager, Dedham, Massachusetts
"We have some beautiful fields and forests in Concord that would be places for
illegal dumping. But we see absolutely no illegal dumping in our fields. We have
seen some illegal trash put in dumpsters."
- Ann Dorfman, Recycling Coordinator, Town of Concord
"In fact, illegal dumping is actually less of a problem now due to the provision of
new services, including a free bulky waste collection and an annual hazardous
household products collection day"
- Bob Fiore, DPW, Worcester
4. Inspection
The Town of Concord has a PAYT system and may be used as an indication of what to
expect should a PAYT system be implemented in Lexington. A visual check for illegal
dumping was made in the Town of Concord by driving through various sections of the
town for an hour. Entrances to two conservation areas were inspected on foot
Page 4of7 End 13
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Preventing Illegal Dumping
December 14, 2000
(especially near the gates where a car engaging in illegal dumping might be expected to
unload). The overall impression was that the town was exceptionally free of trash and
litter No large items were observed. Only one bag of trash was found. It consisted
entirely of beer cans (which are recyclable and not subject to PAYT payments).
5. Conclusions
It should be noted that in the most extensive survey of conducted [Miranda97a], the
number of PAYT towns reporting illegal dumping increases is approximately was 19%
while 6% of towns reported a decrease. If the towns where dumping changed for
reasons other than PAYT are excluded, the number of towns with increases actually
caused by PAYT is probably below 10% Many of these towns are in rural areas where
trash burning is a traditional way of disposal, and PAYT causes some households to
revert to burning. Other illegal-dumping problems involve people placing untagged
bags in dumpsters at multi-family dwellings, people leaving untagged bags at drop-off
stations, and dumping of "white goods" Lexington is a largely suburban community
The Town has a small proportion of multi-family dwellings. Lexington has curbside
collection (not drop-off). Lexington is not changing its "white goods" collection
program. It can be inferred that the number of communities with characteristics similar
to Lexington that report illegal-dumping problems cannot be more than a few percent
and may be zero.
The evidence collected seems to indicate clearly that an increase in illegal dumping is
unlikely to be a continuing problem with implementation of a PAYT system in Lexington. In
fact, the most likely result is that no increase in illegal dumping will be noted. This
conclusion is based upon experience in other towns, and not upon arguments regarding
human behavior.
The intuitive explanation for this conclusion might be as follows: Illegal dumping of
residential trash is a highly inconvenient and risky undertaking. The dumper has to be
exceptionally careful to remove all identifying items from the trash (such as pieces of
mail, bills, invoices, etc.). Then the dumper has to place the trash in their personal
vehicle and go out, usually under cover of darkness, to find a isolated place to dump
the trash. After all this effort, the savings can evaporate if the dumper is observed and
fined. Few people are inclined to engage in such antisocial activity, and those that are so
inclined are often smart enough to realize that it doesn't pay The alternative is a
convenient pick-up right at your doorstep for a couple of dollars per week with no taint
of illegality It should be reiterated that the PAYT Advisory Committee is not basing its
conclusions on the above argument regarding human motivation: Conclusions are
being drawn from actual experience in PAYT towns.
The most likely form of illegal dumping that would result from PAYT in Lexington is
the unauthorized placing of trash in dumpsters. Indications are that this is a transient
problem that can be resolved with education and some attention to enforcement. Most
people who engage in such dumping do so because they have convinced themselves
that no one will mind. Simply telling them to stop usually resolves the problem.
Page 5 of 7 Enc113
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Preventing Illegal Dumping
December 14,2000
The PAYT Implementation Plan will include provisions for resolving any instances of
illegal dumping observed during implementation of the PAYT program. Steps that
might be included are:
• Public education on what is illegal and why it is illegal.
• Distribution of warning labels to be placed on dumpsters.
• Working with dumpster owners to prevent illegal trash deposits. (Among
other things, encourage labeling of dumpsters and locking of dumpsters.)
• Distribution of free stickers at program start-up to avoid problems with people
who forget to buy stickers.
• Investigation and enforcement for continuing violations of dumping bylaws.
References
DEP00a
"Pay-as-You-Throw. An Implementation Guide for Solid Waste Unit-Based Pricing
Programs", Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental
Protection,June 2000
EPA94a
"Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30
Communities:, EPA530-R-92-015, February 1994
EPA98b
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Illegal DumpingPreventionGuide", EPA905-
B-97-001, March 1998
ME98a
"User Fee System and Trash Bag Survey One Disposal District's First-Year Experience",
Pleasant River Solid Waste Disposal District,Maine State Planning Office, 1998 (d)
ME98b
"Pay-as-you-Throw Report", State Planning Office, State of Maine, 1998 (d)
ME98c
State Planning Office, "State of Maine Waste Management and Recycling Plan", June 15,
1998
Miranda97
Miranda, Marie Lynn, and La Palme, Sharon, "Unit Pricing of Residential Solid Waste:
A Preliminary Analysis of 212 U.S. Communities", Nicholas School of the Environment,
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1997 (d)
RI95a
"Rhode Island Comprehensive Waste Management Plan", State of Rhode Island, 1995
(d)
Skumatz93a
Page 6 of 7 End 13
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Preventing Illegal Dumping
December 14,2000
Skumatz, Lisa A., "Variable Rates for Municipal Solid Waste: Implementation
Experience, Economics, and Legislation",Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 160,June
1993 (d)
Skumatz94a
Skumatz, Lisa A., Van Dusen, Hans, and Carton, Jennie, "Illegal Dumping: Incidence,
Drivers, and Strategies", Report No. 9431-1, Skumatz Economic Research Associates,
November 1994
Page 7 of 7 End 13
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Analysis of Lexington's Solid Waste
November 29, 2000
Tons annual %
97 Trash 98 Trash 99 Trash 00 Trash change
JAN 891 79 873 98 879 91 -7 3
FEB 734 54 721 08 761 87 15 7
MAR 852.29 874 34 964 93 3 6
APR 965 42 978 01 914 35 7 0
MAY 999 97 810 10 1 100 02 11 1
JUN 1 ,044 62 1,126 20 1 ,222.26 8 5
JUL 866 10 1 ,020 53 977 76 6 4
AUG 915 71 944 17 980 32 3 5
SEP 1,000 73 1 044 34 1 ,081 59 4 0
OCT 963 23 974 00 994 29 1 6
NOV 896 69 930 23 977 52 4 5
DEC 976 10 938 02 990 65 0 7
Average 5 0
1400 --
1200 - ,
1 000 . , - .. ? i . ' • #::1:4%, 7 t,'r':
Si _ '
800 ~ri rid., ` ®97 Trash
ai,= _•� _ s
> E ' s ■98 Trash
n 600 s 099 Trash
R - I _ ❑00 Trash
I— 400
200 _
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV OEC
Month
Page 1 of 1 End 14
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Effects of Program-Parameter Choices on Benefits and Revenues (Preliminary)
December 14, 2000
This memorandum provides an analysis for assessing the effect of the different design
parameters for a PAYT program. Parameters that are examined are the tag price (unit
price) and the number of tags paid for by the tax levy and distributed without
additional charge to each household.
Analysis of Savings Per Household
The tables show the net savings (tax-levy savings less tag purchases) fora $500,000
assessed-value property in a year in which the overall waste-management budget for
the Town saves $250,000 through PAYT It can be seen that low-volume generators
benefit from higher tag prices. This is because when tag prices increase, high-volume
users contribute more to paying the costs of waste management. "Free" tags tend to
increase net savings by moderate amounts up to the point at which all the household's
tags are paid for by the tax levy Beyond that point, additional numbers of "free" tags
reduce household benefits because high-volume generators use the extra tags to shift
the revenue burden back to the tax levy, and the low-volume household will pay part of
the resulting tax increases. This contradicts a common misperception that generous
distribution of "free" tags always helps low-volume producers.
Some caution should be used in interpreting the extreme values in these tables since the
model employed assumes that the reductions in the total Town trash volume are
constant with the changing program parameters. In reality, if the tag price becomes too
low or the number of"free" tags becomes too great, the motivation for waste reduction
and recycling is eroded. Thus, the tables should be considered most reliable for tags
prices of$1.00 to $2.00 and "free" tags from 0 to 52.
Tags used per week =0 50 Assessed value= $500000
Town MSW budget savings = $ 250000
>>> NET SAVINGS (TAX SAVINGS MINUS TAG PURCHASES) <<<
- - - - < Tax-levy Tags Per Year Per HH > - - - -
Tagyrice < 0 > < 10 > < 26 > < 52 > < 104 >
$ 0 50 $ 42 18 $ 42 74 $ 43 63 $ 32 07 $ 8 96
$ 0 75 $ 53 17 $ 54 01 $ 55 34 $ 38 01 $ 3 34
$ 1 00 $ 64 16 $ 65 27 $ 67 05 $ 43 94 $ -2 28
$ 1 25 $ 75 15 $ 76 54 $ 78 77 $ 49 88 $ -7 90
$ 1 50 $ 86 14 $ 87 81 $ 90 48 $ 55 81 $ -13 52
$ 1 75 $ 97 14 $ 99 08 $ 102 19 $ 61 75 $ -19 14
$ 2 00 $ 108 13 $ 110 35 $ 113 90 $ 67 68 $ -24 76
$ 2 25 $ 119 12 $ 121 62 $ 125 62 $ 73 62 $ -30 38
$ 2 50 $ 130 11 $ 132 88 $ 137 33 $ 79 55 $ -36 00
Page 1 of 5 Enc115
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Effects of Program-Parameter Choices on Benefits and Revenues (Preliminary)
December 14, 2000
Tags used per week =1 00 Assessed value= $500000
Town MSW budget savings = $ 250000
>>> NET SAVINGS (TAX SAVINGS MINUS TAG PURCHASES) <<<
- - - - < Tax-levy Tags Per Year Per HH > - - - -
Tag_price < 0 > < 10 > < 26 > < 52 > < 104 >
$ 0 50 $ 29 18 $ 29 74 $ 30 63 $ 32 07 $ 8 96
$ 0 75 $ 33 67 $ 34 51 $ 35 84 $ 38 01 $ 3 34
$ 1 00 $ 38 16 $ 39 27 $ 41 05 $ 43 94 $ -2 28
$ 1 25 $ 42 65 $ 44 04 $ 46 27 $ 49 88 $ -7 90
$ 1 50 $ 47 14 $ 48 81 $ 51 48 $ 55 81 $ -13 52
$ 1 75 $ 51 64 $ 53 58 $ 56 69 $ 61 75 $ -19 14
$ 2 00 $ 56 13 $ 58 35 $ 61 90 $ 67 68 $ -24 76
$ 2 25 $ 60 62 $ 63 12 $ 67 12 $ 73 62 $ -30 38
$ 2 50 $ 65 11 $ 67 88 $ 72 33 $ 79 55 $ -36 00
Tags used per week =1 50 Assessed value= $500000
Town MSW budget savings = $ 250000
>>> NET SAVINGS (TAX SAVINGS MINUS TAG PURCHASES) <<<
- - - - < Tax-levy Tags Per Year Per HH > - - - -
Tag_price < 0 > < 10 > < 26 > < 52 > < 104 >
$ 0 50 $ 16 18 $ 16 74 $ 17 63 $ 19 07 $ 8 96
$ 0 75 $ 14 17 $ 15 01 $ 16 34 $ 18 51 $ 3 34
$ 1 00 $ 12 16 $ 13 27 $ 15 05 $ 17 94 $ -2 28
$ 1 25 $ 10 15 $ 11 54 $ 13 77 $ 17 38 $ -7 90
$ 1 50 $ 8 14 $ 9 81 $ 12 48 $ 16 81 $ -13 52
$ 1. 75 $ 6 14 $ 8 08 $ 11 19 $ 16 25 $ -19 14
$ 2 QO $ 4 13 $ 6 35 $ 9 90 $ 15 68 $ -24 76
$ 2 25 $ 2 12 $ 4 62 $ 8 62 $ 15 12 $ -30 38
$ 2 50 $ 0 11 $ 2 88 $ 7 33 $ 14 55 $ -36 00
Tags used per week =2 00 Assessed value= $500000
Town MSW budget savings = $ 250000
>>> NET SAVINGS (TAX SAVINGS MINUS TAG PURCHASES) <<<
- - - - < Tax-levy Tags Per Year Per HH > - - - -
Tag_price < 0 > < 10 > < 26 > < 52 > < 104 >
$ 0 50 $ 3 18 $ 3 74 $ 4 63 $ 6 07 $ 8 96
$ 0 75 $ -5 33 $ -4 49 $ -3 16 $ -0 99 $ 3 34
$ 1 00 $ -13 84 $ -12 73 $ -10 95 $ -8 06 $ -2 28
$ 1 25 $ -22 35 $ -20 96 $ -18' 73 $ -15 12 $ -7 90
$ 1 50 $ -30 86 $ -29 19 $ -26 52 $ -22 19 $ -13 52
$ 1 75 $ -39 36 $ -37 42 $ -34 31 $ -29 25 $ -19 14
$ 2 00 $ -47 87 $ -45 65 $ -42 10 $ -36 32 $ -24 76
$ 2 25 $ -56 38 $ -53 88 $ -49 88 $ -43 38 $ -30 38
$ 2 50 $ -64 89 $ -62 12 $ -57 67 $ -50 45 $ -36 00
Page 2 of 5 End 15
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Effects of Program-Parameter Choices on Benefits and Revenues (Preliminary)
December 14, 2000
Tags used per week =3 00 Assessed value= $500000
Town MSW budget savings = $ 250000
>>> NET SAVINGS (TAX SAVINGS MINUS TAG PURCHASES) <<<
- - - - < Tax-levy Tags Per Year Per HH > - - - -
Tag_price < 0 > < 10 > < 26 > < 52 > < 104 >
$ 0 50 $ -22 82 $ -22 26 $ -21 37 $ -19 93 $ -17 04
$ 0 75 $ -44 33 $ -43 49 $ -42 16 $ -39 99 $ -35 66
$ 1 00 $ -65 84 $ -64 73 $ -62 95 $ -60 06 $ -54 28
$ 1 25 $ -87 35 $ -85 96 $ -83 73 $ -80 12 $ -72 90
$ 1 50 $-108 86 $-107 19 $-104 52 $-100 19 $ -91 52
$ 1 75 $-130 36 $-128 42 $-125 31 $-120 25 $-110 14
$ 2 00 $-151 87 $-149 65 $-146 10 $-140 32 $-128 76
$ 2 25 $-173 38 5-170 88 5-166 88 $-160 38 5-147 38
$ 2 50 5-194 89 $-192 12 $-187 67 5-180 45 5-166 00
Considerations in Setting the Tag Price
The following factors are among those which decision-makers might consider in setting
the tag price:
• The tag price should be high enough to motivate recycling and waste reduction.
• The tag price should be high enough to cover at least the variable portion of the MSW
budget (i.e., that portion that increases with increasing discarded tonnage). This
protects the taxpayer against the dumping of commercial trash into the municipal
stream.
• The tag price should not be so high that it results in a significant amount of the fixed
costs of MSW management being paid for through tag sales. This is a consideration of
fiscal stability that is important for a new PAYT program.
• The tag price should not be so high that it encourages households to drop out of the
town collection program and dispose of trash through private haulers. (This could
change the character of the program, create uncertainty in program planning, and
might require additional regulation of private haulers in order to maintain townwide
recycling performance.)
• The tag price should not be so high that it imposes a financial hardship upon any
low-income households that cannot avoid generating large amounts of non-recyclable
trash. This is admittedly a rare situation, and could conceivably be addressed by
providing special hardship waivers (e.g., allocation of tax-levy tags to households that
claim hardship). However, moderate tag prices reduce the likelihood of encountering
such cases.
• The tag price should not change significantly from year to year Such changes
interfere with public education and make it difficult for households to adjust their
waste-disposal habits appropriately
Page 3 of 5 Enc115
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Effects of Program-Parameter Choices on Benefits and Revenues (Preliminary)
December 14, 2000
Program Parameters from PAYT Communities in Massachusetts
Table 1 below provides some examples of program parameters for a sampling of PAYT
towns in Massachusetts [from reference DEP0Oe]. The flat fee is an annual assessment
against each household that receives municipal services. The tag fee entry has been
adjusted to show price per 32 gallons. The table is ordered from the lowest fee to the
highest.
Table 1 Some Massachusetts PAYT Communities
Town Tag Fee Flat Tax-Levy("free")
(per 32 gal.) Fee Tags per
Household Per
Year
Manchester $0.40 I I 0
Amherst $0.50 I $197 I 0 I
Worcester $0.50 I I 0
Needham $0.80 $20 0
Gloucester $1.00 0
Maynard $1.00 I I 52
Scituate $1.06 - I 0 _
Foxborough $1.33 $148 I 0
Topsfield $1.33 I "1 decal'
Concord $1.41 $102 0
Norfolk $1.60
$35 0
Sudbury $1.60 I $100 I 0
Williamstown $1.60 $50 0
Holliston $1.83 52
Milton $1.88 I I 0
Oak Bluffs $3.00 I I 0
Great $3.09 I I 0
Barrington
Edgartown I $3.25 I $5 I 0
Covering Variable Costs
One of the Massachusetts DEP design recommendations for PAYT programs is that tag
prices should approximate the variable costs of the municipal waste management
budget. Tipping fees are the bulk of the variable costs if we assume that collection costs
vary little with trash volume. Figure 1 shows the fraction of total MSW expenses that
are covered by tag revenues assuming different design parameters. The points at which
tipping fees are covered are shown. Because NESWC tipping fees are approximately
double the market rate tipping fees, separate lines are shown for pre-NESWC and post-
NESWC years.
This figure implies that with no tax-levy stickers the desired price in the NESWC era
should be $1.50 or less. Should the Town succeed in achieving lower tipping fees post-
NESWC, the tag price would have to be reduced or the number of tax-levy tags
distributed would have to be increased to remain within the recommended range.
Page 4 of 5 End 15
SELECTMEN'S PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (PAYT) ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAYTAC)
Effects of Program-Parameter Choices on Benefits and Revenues (Preliminary)
December 14, 2000
0.8
0.7 Taxleuyarage______ �.
per HH p;r year
0
0.6
m 10
r
c 0'
U 26
_NESWC tipping
,
• 0.4 j teas covered
2 by tags
▪ 0.3
~ '.2
0 02 -_— ___ __ —maket rate
tipping
fees covered
L
0.1 by tags
0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.C3
Tag Price($)
Figure 1 Fraction of total MSW costs covered by tag revenues.(SWAT C.21)
References
DEPOOf
"Commonwealth of Massachusetts Municipalities with Pay-As-You-Throw Programs",
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, February 2000
Page 5 of 5 End 15