PDC’s proposed recycling component improves, but still falls short

On the council’s agenda for next Tuesday, October 13, is a recommendation from the Public Works Department to accept Peoria Disposal Company’s (PDC) bid of $5 million annually to collect solid waste, lawn waste, and recycling for the next five years. I did some analysis of the plan last month, but now I’d like to revisit the recycling portion.

First, there has been a new development. According to the most recent council communication, alley collection of recycling will be restored and protected:

If a customer currently places their refuse and landscape waste in their alley for collection then recyclables will be collected from the alley. If a customer currently places their refuse and landscape waste at the curb for collection then recyclables will be collected from the curb. Any changes in set out location will need to be approved in writing by the City during this agreement.

That’s great news! It will reverse a unilateral change in “set out location” (as they call it) by Waste Management, and is a big victory for older neighborhoods.

However, I think it might be helpful at this point to ask what the goal is in offering recycling collection. I’m not sure what it is, but I can tell you what it is not: it’s not to incentivize recycling. There are a couple of big disincentives to participating:

  1. Deposit of $50 for a 96-gallon Toter — Why is Toter rental necessary? It’s not. Consider the fact that you needn’t rent a Toter for refuse, nor do you need to rent a Toter for lawn waste. This means (a) they are capable of accommodating different kinds of waste containers, and (b) they are capable of distinguishing between one kind of waste and another. For the sake of argument, let’s presume that there is some justifiable need for a Toter — why does it need to be supplied by PDC? Why couldn’t a resident use a Toter he or she purchased at the store? Does PDC have Toter manufacture a special, proprietary design for PDC? There doesn’t appear to be any believable reason why a Toter must be rented to participate in recycling. It looks like an arbitrary requirement intended to disincentivize participation.
  2. Infrequency of collection (only once a month) — Given that your capacity is limited to one 96-gallon Toter for a month, how much recycling will you be able to do? Some, to be sure. But, if you have a large family (I have a family of five, for instance), and you’re serious about recycling (like my wife is), you’ll find that most of the waste coming out of your home is recyclable. In fact, we only have one garbage can of regular refuse each week, but fill up a 64-gallon Toter plus one or two smaller bins every other week. If collection goes to once a month, we’ll easily have more recycling than a 96-gallon Toter can hold. What are we supposed to do? Rent a second Toter, so now we’re up to a $100 fee to participate? Or just throw half our recyclables in the garbage, which has no restrictions? Either way, it’s fair to say there’s a pretty good incentive not to recycle.

Local environmental activist David Pittman recently sent me this information:

Peoria Heights has achieved a 50% participation rate with their curbside bi weekly residential recycling program within 6 months. People usually want to recycle if it is easy and convenient and free. Normal is around 40%. Elgin is nearly 60%. Springfield about 40%.

I doubt we’re going to see participation rates that high under the proposed contract. But his comment got me thinking: Why not bid out the recycling separately? That’s how Peoria Heights does it. G & O Disposal takes care of their refuse while Eagle Enterprises takes care of their recycling.

If we bid it out separately, we might get more bids on the recycling portion than just PDC and Waste Management (WM). Perhaps a company that wouldn’t be able to handle all of Peoria’s waste hauling needs could handle just one portion, if you are now considering to start recycling check cheap skip bin hire Melbourne.

Here’s one thing I don’t want to hear when this is discussed Tuesday night: “We can’t afford any more than this.” It’s inevitable that someone (possibly everyone) will argue that the current proposal should be accepted because (a) it’s the cheapest and (b) it fulfills all the criteria they wanted. While that’s true as far as it goes, it’s worth noting that if PDC had suggested once-a-month pickup of lawn waste, the council likely wouldn’t have approved it due to the inconvenience factor. So it will be interesting to hear how much of a priority the council gives to recycling.

Some might protest that it is a priority, but that we simply can’t afford a robust recycling program right now, given the dire economic crisis we’re facing. I would point out that the dire economic crisis is not stopping the council from raising taxes and handing the proceeds over to a private developer so he can build a downtown hotel. I know I’m starting to sound like a one-string fiddle here, but facts are facts. As long as they continue to pursue and defend this non-essential and risky hotel scheme, I’m not buying any argument that says we “can’t afford” this or that. We can afford it, if it’s a high enough priority.