NEW IPO Logo - by Charles Larry Home Search Browse About IPO Staff Links

MACHESNEY PARK'S RECYCLING
AND COLLECTION PROGRAM

By JEFFREY E. HEID, Director of Public Works and
ROBERT W. MOAKE, Trustee and Chairman of the Public Works Committee

Machesney Park's system of garbage collection prior to incorporating its present system was not unique. The community of 6,700 residences contracted individually with private scavengers for the collection of their refuse. Garbage cans, trash bags, and garbage trucks were seen on the streets everyday of the week. Needless to say, the streets suffered because of the unnecessary wear and tear. Nothing was being accomplished regarding recycling and the average monthly price for the weekly pickup was nearly $11.00 per month.

Because Machesney Park is only nine years old, regulations regarding garbage collection were non-existing. The Public Works Committee felt that the existing system was chaotic. The members of the committee decided that something needed to be done regarding the existing system. The committee thought that changing the system would have a positive impact on the community. In 1987 the committee attempted to incorporate a program utilizing a single hauler and a comprehensive curbside recycling program. Due to public opposition displayed at a public hearing, the committee dropped the idea.

In 1989, the committee felt that with the new state mandates regarding solid waste management, it was time to try again. The committee studied the possibility of the bag method and decided that it would be too costly to the average resident. With only two bags per week at $1.50 per bag ($12.00 per month), the cost would become prohibitive and promote dumping. The Village already had a problem regarding garbage and debris and thought the bag method would exacerbate this problem. The committee approved bid specifications for a single hauler and a comprehensive curbside recycling program. The specifications outlined a program for the weekly collection of garbage and the monthly collection of recyclables. The contractor was to bill the residents and the Village was to place liens for unpaid bills. The bidders were to bid on a per residence monthly basis. The program was to be for three years.

The Board approved the advertisement of bids and bids were received. The committee reviewed the bids and recommended to the board that a contract for the program be signed. The committee also recommended that a public hearing be held to address the issue.

The committee felt that the low bid of $7.75 per month per residence for the refuse collection and recycling program was considerably less expensive than the nearly $11.00 most residents were paying; therefore, the community would easily accept the program. Because of early opposition regarding senior citizen discounts prior to the public hearing, the low bidder volunteered to charge only $5.48 for seniors over 62 years of age.

Five major points were addressed regarding the program at the public hearing held in August 1989. These issues were considered important by the committee. The first issue was that unless steps were taken by the municipalities regarding recycling, the state would mandate these programs at some time in the future. The second issue was that the average costs for garbage collection per month per residence would be reduced. The program that the committee promoted would cost the residences only $7.75 per month. The average cost per month was over $10.00. The contract called for a 5 percent per year cap in increases over three years and the contract would then be rebid in three years. Senior citizens would only be charged $5.48 per month which was comparable to what they were paying. The third issue was that the streets within the Village would not have the unnecessary wear and tear that the present system causes. Five garbage trucks were on the streets five days per week. The proposed program would mean only one truck per week on the streets. The fourth issue was that the program would mandate that all residences would have garbage collection. Over 300 complaints were received per year regarding trash and debris. Most of these citizens did not have garbage collection. This program should elimi-

Page 24 / Illinois Municipal Review / April 1990


nate most of these problems. The fifth point was that the overall cleanliness of the Village will be enhanced by eliminating the placement of garbage on the streets five days per week.

Over 500 residents attended the meeting and opposition was clearly expressed. The citizens felt that they should have the "freedom" to choose their own hauler. They also felt that liens placed by Machesney Park on individuals for lack of payment was unjust. Some of the residents attending the public hearing felt that they could do their own recycling. Others felt that they should have more input into the program. Some of the residents even thought that the program was being "shoved down their throats." A final complaint was that the low bidder was an out of state company.

The chairman of the Public Works Committee felt that the program was doomed. Because of his appeal to the citizens in attendance for input, approximately 12 citizens signed up to sit on an ad hoc committee.

The citizens' committee met three times and presented what they thought was an alternative to the Public Works Committee's proposal. The citizens' committee's recommendation was basically to keep the system as it was with multiple haulers. The Public Works Committee reviewed the citizen's proposal and agreed on one of their seven points: regarding the division of the Village into multiple zones, with each area having its own exclusive day for garbage collection.

The committee felt there was no practical means to implement or measure the success of a garbage collection and recycling program until we can get a handle on the amount of refuse the Village produces, nor will we be able to meet the state's requirements for waste flow reduction and recycling unless we go to a single carrier collection program. There is no way that the Village could continue to have multiple haulers and attempt to implement a Village-wide recycling program. The Public Works Committee's proposed program incorporated both a garbage collection program and a curbside recycling program into one lower cost for most residents. Senior citizens' rates (62 and older) would remain about the same and include a 20 gallon recycling bin. While non-seniors would realize a savings of an average of 23 percent totaling over $115,000.00 annually.

The citizens' committee felt that recycling was a profit making endeavor. The Public Works Committee stated that it is a fact that recycling costs more than the money derived from the recycled material. No carrier would be able to reduce the costs of garbage collection because he is retrieving the recyclable material. None of the bidders for the contract would accept the recycling program without a Village wide collection contract. All the bidders for the recycling portion of the proposed program stated that the cost of equipment and manpower facilitated a significant cost for recycling. Some of the bidders stated that the costs of garbage collection would be used for subsidizing the collection of recyclable material. It is not realistic to anticipate lower rates because the carrier is collecting the recyclable material and keeping the revenue derived from the sale of recyclable materials. The panel also did not address the problem of individuals not having the time or the ability to recycle with as little inconvenience as possible. The proposed program would encourage a citizen that is not recycling, because a 20 gallon container is made available to everyone. The citizen would simply put all of his recyclables in the bin provided and would not have to sort each item as is the case with some programs. The citizen would not have to travel to a recycling center in order to do his part to reduce the amount of refuse in the waste stream. Any citizen using this method of recycling may continue to do so. The recyclables would be picked up once a month, with one additional pick-up per month if requested by the citizen. The proposed program would be less restrictive than other programs and would make it easy for one to recycle.

The citizens' committee recommended that the Village purchase bins and provide one to each residence. The program as proposed would include a 20-gallon container at no additional cost to the resident or the Village.

The citizens' committee also felt that more education must be given to the citizens before such a program could be implemented. The Village had sent three newsletters (the Village has a quarterly newsletter sent to every residence and business) specifically relating to recycling and garbage collection over the last two years. Additional information regarding this subject has been included in other regular quarterly newsletters.

The citizens' committee felt that the Village should make landlords responsible for their tenants' scavenger service payments and not make everyone "suffer" by being billed for the service of garbage collection. The

April 1990 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 25


Public Works Committee stated that under the proposed plan each property owner in the Village would be billed eliminating the need for additional laws mandating landlords be responsible for their tenants' scavenger service payments.

And finally, the citizens' committee recommended that a referendum be held to decide the issue. The Public Works Committee felt it was their responsibility to make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees who were elected or appointed to make decisions that are in the best interest of the Village as a whole.

The citizens' panel did not address unnecessary wear and tear on the streets. Their suggestion was to have five trucks in an area on only one day per week. This suggestion would only make the streets less safe for the children of the community. Whether you have five trucks on the street only one day a week or five days a week, you still have five trucks a week on the street. The proposed program would have only one truck per week on the street.

After comparing the proposed programs, the Public Works Committee again recommended to the board that the contract be signed with the low bidder.

The chairman of the committee began lobbying the remaining Trustees regarding their support for the contract. The remaining members of the board agreed to support the contract if the lien provision was removed. The contractor agreed to this stipulation.

The vote at the board meeting in September was three to three with the Mayor breaking the tie and voting for the contract.

A newsletter was sent in October stating that the contract was approved and that the program would go into effect in January 1990. Seminars were scheduled through the months of October, November, and December. Over 1000 residents attended the eight seminars and displayed their support for the program. For those not able to attend the seminars, a special newsletter was sent in November to all residents explaining the program in detail. Another method of education was the use of cable public access television. A program was taped explaining the garbage collection and recycling program. This program aired ten times at scheduled timeslots throughout the months of November, December, and January.

The contractor, as promised, purchased property in Machesney Park. This move displaced an existing business. Due to this displacement, the former owner of the property built a new building and relocated the business. The contractor incorporated in Illinois and changed its name to Valley Sanitation of Machesney Park.

After three months, the program can be declared a success. The amount of recyclables diverted from the landfills is over seven percent by weight and approximately 20 percent by volume. The Village has received over $1,500.00 in funds from the sale of the recyclables. The money will probably be used to offset any future increases in the garbage collection rate. This is the incentive to recycle. The Village has documented 90 percent participation on a monthly basis. Another benefit of the program is that garbage and debris complaints are down over 75 percent from the same period in 1989. The program was implemented at no cost to the Village and is a model for surrounding communities. Other cities within the area have adopted nearly identical programs. •

Page 26 / Illinois Municipal Review / April 1990


|Home| |Search| |Back to Periodicals Available| |Table of Contents| |Back to Illinois Municipal Review 1990|
Illinois Periodicals Online (IPO) is a digital imaging project at the Northern Illinois University Libraries funded by the Illinois State Library