Summary of Solid Waste Master Plan Public Workshops

As part of the Pinellas County (County) Solid Waste Master Plan project (Project), the HDR Project Team facilitated three public workshops. Each workshop covered the same material but were held at three different County locations to make attendance as convenient as possible. The first workshop was held in the City of Gulfport at the Gulfport Casino, on April 29, 2019. The second workshop was held at Pinellas County Extension located in Largo, on April 30, 2019. The third workshop was held at the East Lake Community Library in Palm Harbor on May 2, 2019.

The public workshops provided attendees with an overview of the Project, summaries of the current County solid waste system and the County’s goal of zero waste to landfill for the future of the solid waste system. After providing the background information, a discussion was facilitated to obtain the preferences and opinions of the attendees regarding the future of the solid waste system.

This memorandum summarizes the comments and questions of the attendees during the public workshops. Based on a review of the feedback received at each of the three workshops, the main areas of consensus include:

• Requiring recycling for residences, schools and businesses was generally supported by attendees.
• A majority of attendees agreed that standardizing recycling collection, labeling and education would simplify recycling for participants, which could help minimize contamination.
• Enforcement could be considered for those who do not recycle, though consensus was not reached on the best approach for enforcement.
• A majority of attendees agreed that information on recycling and the County’s solid waste program should be incorporated into the Pinellas County Public Schools (PCPS) curriculum, and that every PCPS school should have a recycling program. (It was noted that every school currently decides whether to have a recycling program or not, and some schools no longer have recycling programs.)
• A majority of attendees agreed that additional education efforts of what can be recycled and what cannot be recycled should be provided to residences, schools and businesses through the media (e.g. social media, TV ads, radio ads), not printed ads. In other words, reach a broader audience beyond those who actively participate in recycling programs. Public Workshops 1
• The attendees supported varying collection rates based on cart sizes under a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) system, to more closely align with other utilities by paying based on how much the service is used. Some attendees would prefer to select frequencies of collection services, with rates based on frequency of service in addition to size cart. Many expressed to have less frequent garbage collection service.
• Researching and potentially reducing haulers used in unincorporated area and/or standardizing collection, depending on costs was generally supported by attendees, though some opposed losing the ability to select a hauler themselves. Most expressed concern with the number of haulers servicing their area, including wear and tear on roads and noise.
• Environmentally friendly packaging, extended producer responsibility and purchasing recycled content products was favored among a majority of attendees. The County extending education efforts to include source reduction and environmentally responsible purchasing was generally supported by attendees.
• Questions related to the Waste to Energy (WTE) process and impacts on the environment, particularly air quality, was expressed at each of the workshops. A majority of attendees agreed the County should better promote the environmental benefits of the WTE.
• The importance of diverting food scraps was expressed at each of the three workshops, including discussions on backyard composting for residential food scraps, and the preference for businesses to divert food scraps. A majority of attendees expressed patronage for businesses that divert food scraps and willingness to pay more for food at businesses that composted food scraps.

April 29, 2019 Public Workshop – Gulfport Casino

A total of 52 people attended the April 29th workshop held at the Gulfport Casino. The questions asked and feedback received are summarized below, grouped by topic area.

Source Reduction and Reuse:

• Source reduction and recycling program ideas shared by attendees included:
  • “Junk in the Trunk”
  • School/Home Composting
  • Reusable Water Bottles
  • Improve/Expand WTE
• A majority of attendees would like to encourage reduced packaging (extended producer responsibility), and support encouraging the opportunity to return packaging to businesses like FedEx and Amazon.
• The County could encourage the use of reusable shopping bags
  • Could the County ban disposable shopping bags? (included discussion of current state legislation consideration of “banning bans”, which was ultimately vetoed by the Governor)
• “Swap Shop” concept would be appreciated by some attendees
• It was noted that Catalogchoice.org to reduce junk mail is one option, though not always effective
• It was noted that complaining to grocery stores about packaging might help change packaging materials
• It was noted that “Waste to Value” concept to turn “waste” into something valuable would be beneficial; and the County could promote

Recycling:

• Recyclables – Where are they going?
• A majority of attendees support the 75% State of Florida Recycling Goal
• Preference for increased recycling from hotels, etc. (in beach communities) was expressed.
• A majority of attendees supported requiring businesses to recycle
• Some attendees support fines for not recycling
• Concerns for contamination of recyclables were expressed
• A majority of attendees supported offering incentives or requiring residents and businesses to recycle
• A majority of attendees supported requiring recycling for residential and business sectors.
• It was noted that the City of Gulfport has an existing glass recycling drop off
• It was noted that food residuals in recyclables is contamination, residents should rinse first.
• A majority of attendees favored mandatory residential recycling; slightly fewer favored mandatory business recycling
• Can MRFs handle increase in recycling volumes?
• Questions and frustration were expressed for clarity on recyclables – why does it have a triangle if not recyclable?
• Commercial and multifamily residences need to be incentivized to create less waste.
• Suggest need for local/domestic companies to make products out of recycled material
• Some attendees encouraged the use of “makesoil.org” for community organics drop off
• Some attendees want to provide incentives for multifamily and business composting
• There was general support for food waste composting for residential and commercial sector
• A majority of attendees supported food rescue and food waste collection and composting
• A majority of attendees would favor food scraps recycling, less of a majority if there was an extra fee, depending on how much the fee would be
• A majority would favor a restaurant that diverts food scraps even if it increased costs

Electronics

• Electronics are managed by attendees in the following manner:
  • Recycling Events
  • HEC3
  • Store “Take Backs”
  • Keep them working
• Best Buy – $20 fee for e-Waste collection Collection:

Collection:

• Some attendees would like to reduce waste collection, increase recycling collection
  • Some communities have 2 x week garbage, 1 x week recycling or every other week recycling, and would rather see 1 x week garbage and at least 1 x week recycling
  • Some communities have 2 x week garbage, 1 x week recycling or every other week recycling, and would rather see 1 x week garbage and at least 1 x week recycling
• Standardize collection service in the unincorporated area was supported generally
  • Supported researching “Franchise” Service – fewer trucks on streets
• The concept of Pay As You Throw (PAYT), using variable sized carts, especially if residents would be charged less for fewer pickups was generally supported.
• Some expressed a preference for reduced collection service for low volume customers

Processing:

• Question about WTE: Can the WTE Process Plastics? Yes
  • Gas from combustion is controlled/treated and meets all federal and state limits
• When asked about investing in processing technology, around 50% say yes, but prioritize waste reduction

Education and Outreach:

• It was expressed by some attendees that there is a need for more education of what NOT to recycle
• A majority of attendees preferred more media involvement, rather than printed materials
• A majority of attendees supported school presentations on recyclables being a part of school curriculum
  • Facility tours of the Solid Waste Management Campus for students to see what happens to waste would help educate the younger generation
• Outreach preferences noted by attendees:
  • Social Media – A Few o Nothing Printed (Adds to waste)
  • Collaborate with other cities/counties
  • “Get the Word Out” with TV and radio, too
  • Get press releases local – Gabber (City of Gulfport)
• Outreach materials should include communicating the consequences of not recycling correctly

Other

• Some attendees encouraged tracking Florida recycling legislation – noting the County and its residents should get involved, and contact legislators.
• One attendee suggested collaboration by establishing a Solid Waste Authority with the County, each municipality in the County and maybe surrounding counties

April 30, 2019 Public Workshop, Largo

A total of 32 people attended the public workshop held at the Pinellas County Extension located on Ulmerton Road in Largo. For this workshop, the questions asked were tracked separately from feedback received in order to provide the County with potential “frequently asked questions” or other enhancements to education.

The following summarizes feedback received, grouped by topic area:

Source Reduction and Reuse:

• There was generally support for reducing product packaging- extended producer responsibility could be encouraged by working with businesses
• It was expressed that the County could promote the refillable container market
• A majority of the group favored reducing advertising paper in mail.
• One attendee noted that shredded paper- can be used by SPCA for small animal bedding
• Some attendees felt businesses should have take-back programs for packaging and items they sell
• Some attendees supported bag bans, especially to protect the shoreline

Recycling

• One attendee noted that in Scandinavia, there are fines for non-recycling
• It was noted that plastic bags in recycling are not allowed
• It was noted that Publix offers film plastic bag drop off
• One attendee gave a Swiss example: $10 per bag for garbage to create an economic incentive to recycle; Stores provide bins at the exit of store for placing packaging
• A majority of attendees favored requiring businesses to recycling
• A majority of attendees supported requiring residents to recycle
• A majority of attendees supported requiring businesses to recycle
• There was discussion on removing food residuals- to reduce recycling contamination
• It was noted that Pinellas County Public Schools now give each school the option to have recycling programs or not; some schools are dropping programs due to cost
  • Some attendees felt the County should require schools to recycle
• It was noted that some people are putting in the wrong recycling at drop off site

Organics:

• One attendee shared with the group about the Pinellas Community Compost Drop Off- Makesoil.org and Mypcca.org
• It was noted for expired food, a Food Bank should be used instead of throwing it out; people generally need a better understanding of the “Good Samaritan” law to understand the liability side.
• It was expressed that the County could provide classes on how to backyard compost, or promote entities that do
• Some attendees support separate organics collection for compost as part of curbside collections o It was noted that some cities offer discounts for composters
• Some attendees support separate yard waste collection for compost o It was noted that may require paper bags for yard waste/horticultural (not plastic bags)
• One attendee suggested the County could promote Florida friendly landscaping
  • HOA restrictions on composting – would need to work with them o Reuse leaves/grass for mulch
• A majority of attendees’ favor requiring grocery stores/restaurants to divert food scraps; some felt it depends on cost of the increase
• While a majority of attendees supported curbside organics collection, less than half would support an additional fee for service

Electronics:

• It was noted that the County needs more annual electronic waste (e-waste) events
• Attendees acknowledged the need for more convenient drop off for e-waste
  • Not convenient to go to Solid Waste Campus site for drop off

Collection:

• For Unincorporated Area collection services, about 50% favor standardize
  • Concern about monopoly
  • Want competition
  • Want fewer trucks
  • Want flexibility (i.e., opt out)
  • How handle start/stop of service (snowbirds)
• Concern was expressed about inequity in collection services; preference for volume based service
• Some attendees felt PAYT would encourage recycling
• One attendee noted three days of cans on street (Seminole) and prefers one day per week for all collections
• One attendee suggested residents should be able to combine garbage service with neighbors for reduced service
• Several attendees noted the desire for reduced rates for low waste generation
• It was noted that PAYT can have unintended consequences – illegal dumping
• One attendee noted that at the County drop off containers, the openings should be larger
• For the bins/carts/containers for curbside and drop off collection, it would be helpful to have a foot pedal to lift the lid

Processing:

• A majority of attendees supported more WTE; some question the cost

Education and Outreach:

• Recycling education advertisements to general public and schools
• There was general support for more education and agreement it should be made a part of school curriculum
• Some attendees recommend Recycling PSA’s on TV/Radio
• It was noted that images on bins are fading; municipalities and licensed haulers should provide magnets/stickers
• Some attendees felt providers should put education do’s/dont’s on bins to make recycling right very clear
• Some attendees that had not previously seen the Recycling Guide felt the County needed to get it out to everyone
• It was noted by several attendees that to recycle right, we need more education, awareness, ease/convenience
• It was noted that the County should focus on all with outreach – big words, colors, pictures
• It was noted that the licensed haulers do not provide good information and are difficult to reach by phone; could provide a bill insert

Other:

• A majority of attendees supported counties in the region collaborating to address legislative issues
• One attendee requested a semi-annual countywide “Clean Sweep” for anything (i.e. debris, bulky waste)

Questions asked by attendees included:

• What is the MSW to ash reduction ratio?
• How is mulch treated? o Are MRF’s for profit?
• Where does recycling go- domestic? Global?
• Do all MRF’s accept the same materials?
• Does county have influence over municipalities re: outreach?
• How to stop ad mailers? o Would you offer composting rebate?
• What happens to yard waste in bags?
• How can we change municipal collection rules?
• Is soap residue contamination?
• Can openings in containers at recycling drop off sites be bigger?
• What about WTE emissions- How clean? Can emissions ever be zero?
• Can you generate energy from sewage waste?
• How much electronic waste is recycled?
• Do all licensed haulers have the same recycling program?
• What will the landfill become when it is full?
• What is ash used for?

May 2, 2019 Public Workshop, East Lake

A total of 24 people attended the public workshop held at the East Lake Library in Palm Harbor. For this workshop, the questions asked were tracked separately from feedback received in order to provide the County with potential “frequently asked questions” or other enhancements to education.

The following summarizes feedback received, grouped by topic area:

Source Reduction and Reuse:

• Many attendees noted they purchase items with recyclable container and/or use reusable bags when they shop
• One attendee suggested refusing Styrofoam with takeout/leftovers at restaurants, and the restaurant will usually oblige with alternative container
• Many attendees use reusable containers for bulk foods
• It was noted that extended producer responsibility can be influenced by individuals (We the consumer have purchasing power)
• Some attendees suggested a “Swap Shop” to increase reuse
• One attendee noted a mall in Indian River County that provides credit for drop off of certain items:
  • Paper/Craft Materials

Recycling:

• One attendee shared that she believed her hauler is not providing dedicated recycling
  • Goes to landfill (Mixing MSW/Recyclables)
  • Hauler does not go to WTE by choice
  • Hauler doesn’t always bring split truck (MSW/Recycling)
• A majority of attendees favored requiring schools and businesses to recycle
• A majority of attendees would support businesses that recycle, even if they had to pay more
• Some attendees feel providers should provide incentives for recycling
• A majority of attendees felt it is best to keep it easy to recycle (convenience)
• A majority of attendees supported requiring residential recycling
• Most of the attendees participate in curbside recycling, a few participate in drop-off
• A few attendees supported stopping curbside recycling and send all to WTE
• A majority of attendees supported event recycling (availability to recycle at events should be improved)
• One attendee noted the doors are covering information sign at drop off location
• One attendee (a student) noted schools not recycling
• Most attendees agreed recycling has to be convenient
• One attendee noted other countries are very strict (fines)
• Some attendees would prefer Bottle Bill/ Deposit approach

Organics:

• Some attendees expressed concern about curbside collection of food scraps regarding “critters”, frequency of collection; cost
• A majority of attendees would favor restaurants that divert food scraps
• Most attendees put their yard waste in trash
• Some attendees have their own backyard composting
• Some attendees noted community gardens as potential for residents to drop off organics

Electronics:

• Some attendees would prefer throwing e-waste along with the trash (i.e. curbside)
• Some attendees prefer special pick-up for electronics or do “events” more often

Collection:

• One attendee shared an HOA in unincorporated area conducted a survey- there were 5 different trucks serving 92 houses
• One attendee noted their HOA chooses hauler and the fee in included HOA Assessment (no choice of haulers for individual households under this HOA)
• A majority of attendees supported researching Universal Collection Service for unincorporated area
• One attendee noted litter from back of trucks is a problem, falling onto streets
• One attendee noted their hauler will not provide recycling bins/carts; resident has to purchase them on their own
• Some attendees noted hydraulic oil spilling issues – Hauler not responding o Could the County have vehicle inspections at WTE?
• Discussion about multiple bins vs. single stream in one cart did not result in consensus (ease/convenience versus less contaminated)

Processing:

• Some attendees expressed WTE emission concerns

Education and Outreach:

• Some attendees favor educating large businesses on recycling and diversion
  • o “Cutting Waste at Work” – was not known by group
• Many attendees feel the school curriculum should include a local focus on waste generation and management
• Many attendees felt the County should better promote how much recycling already happening
• A majority of attendees supported the idea of standardizing messaging/programs
• Some attendees felt the County should get the “wish-cycling” message out
  • Remind people the WTE generated energy
• Some attendees felt the recycling cart/bin labeling should be improved
• Some attendees support quarterly mailer with recycling education; other attendees did not want the extra paper
• Communication preferences expressed:
  • social media, Nextdoor
  • Provide more school presentations
  • Print Ads are counterproductive
  • Make the messaging local
  • Brag about WTE at schools
• Some attendees supported the County providing environmentally preferred purchasing guide (i.e., selective shopping)

Other:

• Several attendees supported teaming with other counties

Questions asked by attendees included:

• Why usable landfill life greater now than historic?
• Only one landfill?
• What can go into the WTE?
• Studies of other communities- Business Recycling?
• Are markets drying up for recyclables?
• Any state incentives for recycling markets?
• How is e-waste recycled?
• How can we make people care?
• Issues with recycling glass?
• Need to pay attention to plastic recycle symbol/number?
• Where should nails go? Trash or recyclables?
• Are schools mandated to recycle?
• Can County assist community gardens?
• How are we using the ash?