HomeMy WebLinkAboutA032 - Staff Report on Residential Curbside RecyclingITEM #:36
DEPT:PW
August 12, 2025
Staff Report
STAFF REPORT ON RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING
BACKGROUND:
On June 24, 2025, City Council received a staff report detailing conceptual design and
financial modeling for a Resource Recovery and Recycling Campus (R3C). The R3C
represents a new approach for the disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) and is intended to
receive solid waste, recyclables, and yard waste. The facility will become operational in 2027.
The DNR charges landfills a fee on a per-ton basis for the disposal of MSW. The fee varies
based upon the amount of waste that is diverted away from the landfill. The more landfill
diversion occurs, the lower the per-ton fee. Under the terms of Ames' new agreement with the
Carroll County Solid Waste Management Commission, Ames will pay its fees directly to the
DNR, based on the amount disposed of at the landfill. Historically, Ames has accomplished
significant landfill diversion through the waste-to-energy process and recycling that occurs at
the Resource Recovery Plant. As the City moves away from waste-to-energy, the waste
diversion obligations of the City must be met through different efforts.
Under the City’s new approach to waste disposal, it is anticipated that curbside
residential recycling will need to be implemented. Because of the varied needs of
commercial and industrial customers, recycling efforts for these customers would not
be addressed with this program. These customers would be able to contract privately
for recycling collection, or could arrange to deliver their recyclable materials to the
R3C.
Staff is not seeking direction from the City Council at this time. The purpose of this
report, rather, is to introduce the issues related to curbside recycling and prepare the
Council for further discussion and decision-making that will occur at a later date. If the
Council identifies questions that it wishes staff to research, further information can be
brought back to the City Council at that time.
The primary method of public engagement regarding this topic has been the City's annual
resident satisfaction survey. The 2023 survey results suggest support for recycling, with over
80% indicating support for some type of recycling (Table 1). Over 80% also indicated they
would sort glass, metal, and plastic from their garbage (Table 2). These questions were not
included in the 2024 survey. However, in 2024, 70% of respondents selected “Waste-to-
energy improvements/reducing waste emissions" as a top three climate action step, more than
any other climate action step listed.
1
Table 1. Preferred method of disposing of sorted waste items
Method 2022 2023
No-charge
centralized drop-off 30.5%26.2%
Curbside collection
for a fee 23.0%23.1%
Would participate in
either one 30.7%30.8%
Not interested 11.0%14.3%
Other 4.8%5.7%
Table 2. Respondents' preferences for sorting waste types from their garbage
Waste
Type 2022 2023
Glass 54.9%87.2%
Metal 64.0%80.3%
Plastic 64.8%80.0%
Organics 38.4%48.8%
As part of the planning for the R3C, staff anticipates providing free drop-off for
separated recyclable materials. This service builds on the success and popularity of the
drop-off area created at the Resource Recovery Plant. Commingled recyclables would
be accepted at the R3C for a fee.
Curbside Recycling Program
Staff has researched community best practices around recycling program design. Additional
information about existing curbside recycling programs in Iowa, including pricing, is
attached in Appendix A. The following topics are brought to the City Council for initial
discussion and feedback concerning curbside recycling.
1. Level of Access*
2. Provider*
3. Implementation Timeline
4. Container Ownership*
5. Frequency of Service*
6. Contractor Compensation
7. Multifamily Housing (MFH)
8. Story County and Partner Communities
9. Performance Incentives
10. Education and Outreach
The topics above that include an asterisk are those which are accompanied by an initial
staff recommendation and which ultimately will require Council direction at a later date.
The remaining issues are more informational in nature.
2
1. Level of access
Recycling participation rates vary significantly depending on the level of access, community
education and outreach efforts, and cultural factors. Nationwide averages are presented
below, based on data from studies conducted by the Recycling Partnership and the
Sustainable Packaging Coalition. The studies state that 75% of Iowans currently have access
to recycling, 44% through curbside and 31% through drop-off only. The figures below should
be used as rough, order-of-magnitude estimates and not exact projections.
Level of
Access Description
Estimated
Participation
Rate
(households)
Estimated
Diversion
Rate
(waste
tonnage)
a) Curbside
universal
access, cart
included
All eligible residents are charged for the service
and receive a recycling cart. This would result in
the highest diversion and participation rates.
However, this model presents the highest risk of
contamination due to the likelihood of some trash
being placed in the carts.
75%30%+
b) Curbside
universal
access, opt-in
cart
All eligible residents are charged for the service
but must opt in to receive a cart. This model
would reduce contamination risks but also reduce
participation and diversion rates. While many
residents would opt in to receive a cart, many
residents would pay for a service they are not
using. This model also adds complexity in
coordinating cart delivery only to those who opt
in.
30% - 40%~10%
c) Curbside
opt-in
Only residents who opt in will be charged for the
service and receive a cart. This would further
lower participation and waste diversion tonnage,
but only charge residents who sign up for the
service. Fees would increase relative to options a
and b, as costs would be spread among a
smaller rate base.
20% - 30%~5%
d) Drop-off
site(s) only
Currently in place. Offering and managing
collection from drop-off locations would be the
only direct involvement from the City in recycling.
10%< 5%
With ongoing education and outreach, along with consistent program offerings, long-term
diversion rates can be much higher. For example, ISU has achieved a landfill diversion rate of
74% and with a goal of achieving 85% by the end of fiscal year 2025.
3
Staff Recommendation:
To achieve meaningful diversion of material from the landfill, staff believes that drop-off
only recycling (Option D) must be supplemented by a broader recycling effort. Curbside
recycling could achieve this. A voluntary-only curbside collection program (Option C)
is not expected to have a significant impact on the diversion of materials. Therefore,
staff believes that Option A (universal access with all households provided a cart) or
Option B (universal access, but opt-in to cart delivery) are the best approaches to
achieve the community’s diversion goals.
In either Option A or B, the charge to the customer will be the same. Requiring each
household to have a cart regardless of whether they wish to use it (Option A) may
increase the likelihood of contamination. Increased contamination can reduce revenues
received for the recyclable commodities. Therefore, Option B, where customers must
call to request a cart, may be a better approach.
2. Provider
For curbside residential collection, there are two alternatives for how a provider will deliver the
service:
1. Require existing haulers to offer curbside recycling as a service . There are seven
existing licensed haulers of MSW in Ames. Two of the haulers currently offer residential
curbside recycling. This approach requires less involvement from the City to establish
and manage the services, instead relying on the private market to handle recycling.
However, this approach would result in a higher volume of truck traffic, varying
services, and little ability for the City to track diversion rates. It may also result in
pushback from those haulers who do not have the resources to offer curbside
recycling service.
Additionally, because recycling is not regulated in the same manner as solid waste,
haulers may choose not to utilize the R3C and directly haul recyclables to the Des
Moines area material recovery facilities. This could make it difficult for staff to accurately
measure the community's waste diversion efforts, and may result in residents
experiencing different rules for disposal depending on which hauler (and disposal
facility) ultimately handles their recycling.
2. City-wide contract with one provider . This approach would involve the City assuming
responsibility for coordinating curbside recycling. Residents would be charged a fee on
their Ames utilities bill. Only one contractor would provide service, minimizing truck traffic
and offering city-wide consistency. However, this approach would also eliminate the
ability to choose a service provider.
In this approach, fees per household for this service would likely be lower compared to
private contracting due to efficiencies gained by the scale of the program. This approach
also enables consistent education and messaging, coordinated by the City in partnership
with the selected contractor. A contract would require timely reporting and provide full
transparency into diversion and participation. The City would also require that all
recyclables be hauled to the R3C, ensuring full utilization of the facility.
Contractor services would not include any processing or final disposal of recyclables.
4
City staff would direct the contractor to deliver the material to the R3C (or other facility as
appropriate) and the fees for disposal would be paid by the City and charged back to
residents through the monthly billing charge. Contractor services would include:
Curbside collection and hauling of commingled recycling, including the following
materials. Materials are specified based on marketability.
Cans
Cardboard
Plastics (1s and 2s)
Mixed paper
Glass
An education and engagement partner that will work to maximize diversion rates.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that proposals be solicited for a City-wide contract with a single
provider. This approach should result in lower fees, consistent service and education
messaging, minimizing truck traffic, diversion reporting, and control over drop-off
location.
Assuming the City Council pursues a City-wide contract, the following additional topics
are presented for consideration:
3. Implementation Timeline
A 9-12 month lead time is anticipated from the time a Request for Proposal (RFP) is issued
until the start of service. The R3C is expected to be operational in mid-2027. If curbside
recycling were implemented in 2026, prior to the R3C opening, recycling would need to be
directly hauled to a facility in Des Moines. This would result in higher program costs that would
decrease when the R3C opens. Depending on the length of the contract, increased up-front
costs could be spread across the life of the contract.
Depending on the amount of diversion achieved in the short term, the potential exists for
significant savings to the Electric Utility if the amount of refuse-derived fuel generated can be
reduced to an amount that can be burned exclusively in Unit 7 before the opening of the R3C
in 2027.
4. Container Ownership
Three models of container ownership were identified to procure, finance, and maintain the
approximately 18,000 carts that would be needed for community-wide curbside recycling:
1. Contractor-owned: The contractor would deliver and retain ownership of all containers.
This approach results in the lowest costs to launch the service, as the cost of carts would
not need to be financed by the customer charges. If the City switched contractors in the
future, significant costs and disruptions to service could occur during the transition as
carts are swapped with those of the new contractor. Additionally, with assets in place, the
existing contractor would also hold an advantage in subsequent bids.
2. City-owned: The City would independently procure bins and deploy them for the
contractor to service. The cost of the carts would be financed through debt service or a
similar mechanism, costing approximately $1,000,000 in capital. Fees would need to be
5
calculated to repay the City for the investment in carts.
3. City-owned, amortized: The contractor would furnish City-branded containers, which
are amortized over five years; after this period, the City assumes ownership. Delivery,
maintenance, and repair services are carried out by the contractor. This would result in
approximately $1 added cost per month, per household, for five years. Containers are
expected to last 15-20 years. If the City engaged a new contractor in the future, the carts
would remain deployed and be serviced by the new contractor, making the potential
transition to a new contractor quicker and less disruptive.
Staff Recommendation:
The City-owned, amortized model is recommended, as it results in the benefits of asset
ownership, including operational control and long-term consistency, while mitigating
up-front costs by spreading them over five years and recovering the investment
through rates. It also addresses maintenance concerns by assigning cart maintenance
responsibilities to the contractor. In the event that the City changes to a different
contractor in the future, no additional lead time would be necessary to procure carts.
Additionally, the carts could be “City-branded” and could include Ames-specific
stickers describing what should and should not be placed in them.
5. Frequency of service
Curbside recycling programs typically operate weekly or every other week service
1. Every other week service is more common because communities have experienced
higher program efficiency through fuller bins and fewer trips. According to the EPA,
collection costs for every-other-week service are 20%-40% lower than weekly collection.
Many communities that have transitioned from weekly to every other week schedules
have not seen significant decreases in participation or diversion rates. Larger carts (e.g.,
96-gallon) would be necessary to accommodate the longer time between pickups.
2. Weekly service could result in slightly higher diversion rates but would also mean
higher operational costs and increased truck traffic.
Staff Recommendation:
Every other week service would meet the community's need for recycling while keeping
fees lower compared to weekly service.
6. Contractor compensation
The total costs to administer a recycling program consist of:
1. Collection and transportation (hauler compensation)
2. Disposal costs (tipping fees)
3. Equipment (carts)
4. Administrative costs (billing, marketing, etc.)
6
The hauler's compensation for collection and transportation is based on the prices bid per
household or per ton collected. The City would pay the hauler for these costs, and would
collect a fee from residents that covers the total of the hauler's compensation, disposal costs,
the amortized cost of the cart, and the City's administrative costs.
Through this approach, the City maintains more flexibility to adjust rates independent of
contractor costs (to establish a fund balance, to reduce pricing fluctuations that occur in the
recycling commodities markets or fuel market, or to manage related recycling efforts).
7. Multifamily Housing (MFH)
Most communities with single-family home curbside recycling include properties with up to four
units in the program. This would account for approximately 17,500 units in Ames. However,
40% (an additional ~11,500) of housing units in Ames are in properties with five or more units
and would not receive initial access to curbside recycling.
Large MFH presents unique challenges for recycling, including container size and locations,
space availability, contamination, and zoning ordinance issues. Rather than adopting
blanket recycling requirements for this type of housing, staff recommends a MFH pilot
project, where the City would partner with interested properties to pilot recycling.
Resource Recovery or Sustainability funds could be used to share the capital costs to
establish recycling facilities at MFH properties. Through the pilot project, the City and
property owners will gain a better understanding of the obstacles and best practices
surrounding MFH recycling.
At least six Iowa communities require multi-family properties to offer recycling by ordinance.
The City Council could consider such a policy after initially developing the local MFH recycling
market through these strategies.
8. Story County and Partner Communities
Since the Resource Recovery System provided a landfill diversion process for the other
partnering communities in the area, these communities, like Ames, will need to adopt new
methods to divert meaningful quantities of material from the landfill.
If the City Council is supportive of proceeding with an RFP for a provider to offer curbside
recycling collection services, staff recommends including a request for optional pricing of
services for Story County and the partnering communities in the County. This would enable
communities and unincorporated Story County to participate in the same program at
established costs with Ames’ selected contractor, eliminating the need for each partnering
community to issue its own RFP.
An alternative approach may be for the partner communities to collect curbside recyclables by
themselves, or to implement drop-off trailers that could collect recyclables and be hauled to a
facility periodically for emptying. Regardless of the option selected, any agency that signs on
for the City of Ames to dispose of its MSW will be required to implement waste diversion
practices in the form of recycling.
7
9. Performance Incentives
Incentives and/or penalties are important contracting tools for maintaining quality control in a
multi-year contract. They could be structured as payments or payment reductions, liquidated
damages, additional education/outreach programs at no cost, or contract renewals/extensions.
Criteria that could be used to establish incentives and/or penalties include: contractor's
response to complaints, missed pickups, customer satisfaction, accurate and timely reporting,
diversion or contamination rates, or tonnage. Additionally, methods to reduce contamination
include installation of smart cameras for automatic contamination detection and contractor
employee training and incentives for waste diversion and contamination reduction best
practices.
10. Education and Outreach
Education and outreach efforts are the most effective tools for increasing participation and
diversion rates, as well as reducing contamination, especially in a City with high resident
turnover. The selected contractor will be an important partner in these efforts, and certain
education and outreach responsibilities should be clearly outlined in the request for proposals.
Various industry strategies are listed below.
1. Education packages delivered with the recycling cart (magnet, booklet, etc.).
2. Signage included directly on the cart lid or side wall.
3. Contractor participation in community outreach events or initiatives.
STAFF COMMENTS:
City staff intends to present these initial concepts for the City Council to consider on August
12. No action will be requested from the Council at that meeting. Instead, this discussion
is an opportunity to identify any concerns or questions the Council may have about the
implementation of a residential recycling program. Staff will return to the City Council at a
subsequent meeting to follow-up with further information if necessary and to obtain the City
Council's direction regarding how to proceed.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Appendix A.pdf
Residential Recycling.pptx
8
Appendix A: Trash and Recycling Fees in Iowa
*Ames & Ankeny: Free market for trash, pricing varies. Ames is also free market for recycling, the rate provided is an
average of the two haulers who offer recycling.
**Cedar Falls: Free market for recycling, $20 is the rate charged by the only hauler who offers weekly curbside recycling.
***Cedar Rapids: Only offers a 35-gallon trash cart.
$17.86 $17.50 $14.00 $14.65
$20.00
$5.02 $8.50 $4.85
$11.00
$4.58
$37.86
$22.52 $22.50
$19.50
$23.50
$16.81
$23.16
$20.00
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
Ames* Ankeny* Cedar
Falls**
Cedar
Rapids***
Iowa City North
Liberty
Coralville Des
Moines
Dubuque Waukee
Monthly Fees
Trash (65 gal)Recycling Trash (65 gal) & Recycling Combined
9
Trash and
Recycling
Rates in Iowa
(Monthly)
Trash Recycling Trash &
Recycling
Recycling
Access
Recycling Cart
Ownership
Recycling
Collection
Operated By
Ames Free market $11.00 - Drop-off
only Free market Free market
Ankeny Free market $4.58 - Universal Waste Authority Contractor
Cedar Falls $9.46 - $27.84 $20.00 $29.46 - $47.84 Drop-off
only Free market Free market
Cedar Rapids $17.50 $5.02 $22.52 Universal City City
Coralville - - $20.67 - $23.50 Universal City City
Des Moines - - $16.81 - $17.91 Universal City City
Dubuque - - $17.25 - $32.53 Universal City City
Iowa City $14.00 $8.50 $22.50 Universal City City
North Liberty $7.65 - $14.65 $4.85 $12.50 - $19.50 Universal Contractor Contractor
Waukee - - $20.00 Universal Contractor Contractor
10
Residential Recycling Program
Tuesday, August 12, 2025
11
Purpose of Discussion
•No Council direction requested tonight
•Introduction to issues, options, and staff’s initial
suggestions
•Staff will return for direction in September
12
Background
•Resource Recovery and Recycling Campus (R3C)
•Increased recycling will be necessary due to:
•Ending waste-to-energy approach
•Desire to minimize tonnage of waste hauled to
Carroll County
•Iowa DNR fee – incentive to divert
•Alignment with Climate Action Plan
Public Engagement
•2023 Resident Satisfaction Survey
•80+% support some type of recycling
•80+% willing to sort glass, metal, plastic from
their garbage
•2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey
•70% selected “Waste-to-energy improvements/
reducing waste emissions" as a top climate
action step, more than any other step listed.
13
Recycling Program Design
1.Level of Access
2.Provider
3.Implementation Timeline
4.Container Ownership
5.Frequency of Service
6.Contractor Compensation
7.Multifamily Housing (MFH)
8.Story County and Partner Communities
9.Performance Incentives
10.Education and Outreach
14
1. Level of Access
Staff Recommendation:
•Option A (universal access
with all households
provided a cart)
or
•Option B (universal access
but opt-in to cart delivery)
Level of Access Description
Estimated
Participation
Rate
(households)
Estimated
Diversion
Rate
(waste
tonnage)
OPTION D:
Drop-off site(s) only Current approach. Lowest level of waste diversion. 10%< 5%
OPTION C:
Curbside opt-in
Only residents who opt in will be charged for the
service and receive a cart. Higher fees likely, as
costs would be spread among a smaller rate base.
20% - 30%~5%
OPTION B:
Curbside universal
access, opt-in cart
All eligible residents are charged for the service but
must opt in to receive a cart. More complex cart
delivery logistics.
30% - 40%~10%
OPTION A:
Curbside universal
access, cart included
All eligible residents are charged for the service and
receive a recycling cart. Some increased risk of
contamination.
75%30%+
15
2. Provider
1.Require existing haulers to offer curbside recycling as a service
•Residents continue to coordinate services directly with haulers
•Two of seven existing haulers currently offer curbside recycling
•Less involvement from the City to establish and manage the services
•However, higher volume of truck traffic, varying services and
recycling rules, and little ability to track diversion rates
2.City-wide contract with one provider
•All participants charged a fee on their utilities bill.
•Lower fees likely, consistent service and rules city-wide, full
transparency into diversion and participation, reduced truck traffic
•However, eliminates ability to choose a service provider
Staff Recommendation:
•Solicit proposals for a City-
wide contract with a single
provider.
16
3. Implementation Timeline
•9-12 month lead time (RFP to start of service)
•R3C is expected to be operational in mid-2027
•If curbside recycling were implemented in 2026,
recycling would need to be directly hauled to a facility in
Des Moines
•Potential benefits to the Electric Utility of increased
diversion near-term
17
4. Container Ownership
Approximately 18,000 carts would be needed. Under each option, the contractor would
handle container delivery, maintenance, and repair services
1.Contractor-owned:
•Contractor delivers and owns all containers
•Lowest costs to launch the service
•However, if the City switches contractors in the future, significant costs and
disruptions to service could occur during the transition
2.City-owned:
•City independently procures (approximately $1,000,000). Fees would need to be
calculated to repay the City for the investment in carts
3.City-owned, amortized:
•Contractor furnishes City-branded containers, which are amortized over five
years; after this period, City assumes ownership
•~ $1 added cost per month, per household, for five years
•Containers are expected to last 15-20 years
Staff Recommendation:
•City-owned, amortized
model
18
5. Frequency of Service
Programs typically operate weekly or every other week
1.Every other week service
•More common nationwide
•Higher efficiency: fuller bins and fewer trips
•~20%-40% lower operational costs than
weekly collection
2.Weekly service
•Could result in slightly higher diversion rates
•Higher operational costs and increased truck
traffic
Staff Recommendation:
•Every other week service
Image: https://www.rawpixel.com/image/5920049
19
6. Contractor Compensation
Total costs to administer a recycling program consist of:
1.Collection and transportation (hauler compensation)
2.Disposal costs (tipping fees)
3.Equipment (carts)
4.Administrative costs (billing, marketing, etc.)
Hauler compensation and equipment costs established through a
competitive request for proposals process
City determines resident fees based on total costs of program
Allows the City flexibility to adjust rates independent of contractor
costs
Image: https://www.rawpixel.com/image/9658286/image-public-domain-2022-work
20
7. Multifamily Housing (MFH)
Most communities include properties with up to four units in curbside
recycling programs.
MFH presents unique challenges for curbside recycling. Larger MFH
properties would not receive initial access to curbside recycling.
6+ Iowa communities require multifamily properties to offer recycling.
Property Type Approximate
Housing Units
Four or less units 17,500 (60%)
Five or more units 11,500 (40%)
Staff Recommendation:
•MFH pilot project to learn
best practices before
broader MFH
implementation
21
8. Story County and Partner Communities
Other Resource Recovery System partners will also need new
methods to divert meaningful quantities of material from the
landfill.
Different ways to approach this:
•Mobile recycling drop-off trailer(s)
•Curbside recycling program
•Ames’ Recycling RFP can include ability for other
communities to “tag along” with Ames’ contract, at set
rates (avoids the work of each community conducting its
own RFP)
•Communities could issue their own RFPs and negotiate
their own services and rates
Staff Recommendation:
•If an RFP is issued, include
optional pricing of services for
Story County and the partnering
communities.
22
9. Performance Incentives
Incentives and/or penalties can help maintain quality control. Potential options include:
•Contractor's response to complaints
•Missed pickups
•Customer satisfaction
•Accurate and timely reporting
•Diversion or contamination rates
•Tonnage collected
Could be structured as payments or payment reductions, liquidated damages, additional
education/outreach programs at no cost, etc.
Contamination reduction methods include use of cameras, contractor employee training and
incentives for waste diversion and contamination reduction best practices.
23
10. Education and Outreach
Education and outreach are effective tools to:
•Maximize diversion and participation
•Minimize contamination
Contractor expectations should be clearly outlined. Strategies could
include:
•Education packages delivered with the recycling cart (magnet,
booklet, etc.).
•Signage included on cart lid or side wall.
•Contractor participation in community outreach events or
initiatives.
24
Next Steps
•No Council direction requested tonight
•Staff will return for direction in September
25