Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Leftover Paint Collection - Why the Current System is Not Working Charlotte, North Carolina – September 2006 Government Perspective.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Leftover Paint Collection - Why the Current System is Not Working Charlotte, North Carolina – September 2006 Government Perspective."— Presentation transcript:

1 Leftover Paint Collection - Why the Current System is Not Working Charlotte, North Carolina – September 2006 Government Perspective

2 2 State & Local Government Paint Collection Systems, success & failure: four government perspectives California – Glenn Gallagher Iowa – Theresa Stiner Ramsey County, Minnesota – Leslie Wilson Chittenden Solid Waste District, Vermont - Jen Holliday

3 3 Funding & Infrastructure Successful Leftover Paint Collection & Management hinge on two factors: Infrastructure Funding

4 4 Paint/HHW Collection in U.S. Ahead of Curve HHW Programs (CA, FL, MN, WA) – 22% of pop. Some HHW Programs (AK, IA, KS, MO, NC, NJ, OR, TX, VT) – 18% of pop. Less than Average HHW program development (All Other States) - 60% pop.

5 5 Permanent HHW Collection Programs

6 6 Leftover Paint Impact to California Local Government California Government Perspective

7 7 Current Funding Mechanisms in CA Solid Waste Tipping Fee/Surcharge Utility Fee add-on Parcel Fees All paint and HHW collection fees are levied and used at the local level

8 8 Collection & Cost in California Paint Collection from Households since 1984 (mature program) 2.1 Million Gallons collected FY 04-05 Cost approximately $8/gallon to Local Government (no $$ from state)

9 9 Leftover Paint as % of all HHW

10 10 Leftover Paint Collection – 2000-2005

11 11 Proper Collection vs. Paint not Collected (California) 28% proper collection using leftover rate of 10% Chart shows all leftover paint (green=collected)

12 12 Participation Rate by Households In California, approx. 5.5% of Households brought HHW to a facility or temporary event in FY 2004-2005 25% of population (mostly rural areas) have no place to take leftover paint

13 13 Barriers to Increased Collection Funding: Funds often run out 2-3 months before end of fiscal year – stop accepting paint Infrastructure : Collection sites not available in most rural areas (in California, 20 of 58 counties are rural)

14 14 CA – Results & Lessons Learned in 20 years CA Program Mature Infrastructure is OK (not great) Proper collection even with an established program is only 28% Collection & cost increases 9% annually Funding for collection lags behind infrastructure

15 Iowa Perspective

16 16 Iowa’s Collection Infrastructure Of Iowa’s 99 counties; 49 have collection facilities 20 have collection events 30 have no means of collection

17 17 Current Funding Mechanisms in Iowa State Support to RCCs from tonnage fees, FY05 $.21 per pound of hazardous material collected (latex not included) Grants to establish RCCs Local Retained tonnage fee and tipping fee. Charge to CESQGs for disposal

18 18 Collection & funding in FY05 134,766 pounds oil based paint State reimbursement of $.21/pound ($28,300), remainder born by local governments 246,488 pounds latex paint All cost by local government

19 19 Leftover Paint as % of all material collected by RCCs

20 20 Proper Collection vs. Paint Not Collected - Iowa 18% proper collection if leftover rate is 10%

21 21 Disposition of collected paint

22 22 Participation rate by Households Of households with access to an RCC, 2.7% brought HHM to a facility or collection event. 23% of the population does not have access to collection facility or collection event

23 23 Barriers to increased collection One-day collection for counties not served by RCC program is ending. Grant funds for establishing new facilities is decreasing by 66% Local governments afraid to make the commitment to starting a collection facility

24 Minnesota Perspective

25 25

26 26 In 2005: Ave. quantity of HHW collected per vehicle = 76.14 lbs (slightly higher than the 2004 average of 75.68 pounds) Increase due to greater collection of e- waste and latex paint.

27 27 Annual Cost (Recycling portion only) : $650,000

28 28 SWMCB Historical Perspective HHW education & collection mandated in 1992 1988 MPCA Product Stewardship Perspective

29 29 Barriers to Increased Paint Convenient locations Educating Consumers

30 30 Current Financing - Minnesota Solid waste tax at landfills State grants Solid waste fees from property taxes Solid waste fees charged directly to garbage haulers and based on garbage bills Donations – very small amount

31 Vermont Perspective

32 32 Chittenden Solid Waste District Vermont Serving 57,600 households in Chittenden County Mature 15 year program with mobile and permanent component. 298 collection days in FY2006 15% households participate per year Cost of program in FY06 $564,399 Funded by Tip Fee on Trash In FY06, paint was 50% of the program’s waste stream (20,300 gallons latex, 9,300 gallons of oil based paint)

33 33 Latex Paint Management

34 34 Paint Percentage of Material Managed & Disposal Cost

35 35 Annual Participation Compared to Volume of Paint Collected

36 36 Collection Program is Unsustainable

37 37 Problems with the Current Collection System Funding growth is not keeping up with program growth Paint volume increase is disproportional to participation increase All unwanted paint is not being collected Need more markets for recycled paint

38 38  Questions?

Download ppt "Leftover Paint Collection - Why the Current System is Not Working Charlotte, North Carolina – September 2006 Government Perspective."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google