"Innovations" Case Studies: Mini Trash Bins

Costs, Economics, and Benefits

• Costs
• Savings
• Labor
• Rent or Own

Costs

The major costs for implementing and running a mini trash bin program are program outreach and equipment costs. Outreach largely involves staff time, but it also includes public relations materials. But most of the program costs will be in procuring equipment-mostly collection containers and the mini trash bins.

Midpoint International Inc., the Canadian company that first marketed mini trash bins, sells its mini bins for $2.20 to $2.90 each (depending on quantity ordered and printing requested). Midpoint’s bins are made with up to 95 percent postconsumer recycled content.

Kalamazoo County spent $2.31 for each of its Rubbermaid saddle baskets (used for trash). The 15-quart Rubbermaid recycling baskets (for paper) cost $2.41 each. Kalamazoo’s total costs for equipment were approximately $2,200.

You Name It Promotions in Oakland provided the mini trash bins for the City of Oakland’s program. The 8-inch high pails (6 1/4 inches in diameter) cost $1.35 to $1.50 each, depending on quantity ordered. The bins are made from all recycled materials with 25 to 30 percent postconsumer content.

In Ontario, Canada, the payback period on equipment, through savings in trash costs, was less than one year.

In Porter County, Ind., the solid waste management district-which has an education department-bought a large number of mini trash bins. They are given to county, city, and town buildings when they want to start a program. Thus, start-up costs for municipalities in the county are minimal.

In San Jose, the city spent approximately $45,000 for equipment for 72 buildings (including facilities such as the convention center and international airport). The city budgets $25,000 a year for advertising, printing, and other promotional activities.

Savings

Because mini trash bin programs reduce materials destined for disposal and increase recycling levels, they tend to reduce overall solid waste management costs.

Many trash haulers charge a fee for each pickup as well as a per-ton tip fee. Even programs that cannot renegotiate for fewer trash pickups have realized savings by having fewer tons landfilled or incinerated. Program managers can negotiate new trash contracts based on lower trash tonnage.

Examples of cost savings include the following:

• In Porter County, Ind., the administration building’s trash costs decreased by approximately one-third after employees instituted a program similar to Max Green.
• The 11-person office of the Journal Democrat newspaper in Rockport, Ind., implemented a Max Green-type recycling program and reduced its trash enough to switch from commercial to city trash service. This resulted in a 40 percent reduction in the newspaper’s trash bill.
• In Kalamazoo County, eliminating the use of plastic trash liners at each deskside saves the county about $4,000 per year.

The City of Oakland’s program is not realizing cost savings through reduced garbage handling fees. The city does not pay its hauler directly for garbage collection from city facilities.

Back to Top

Labor

Many programs have found that custodial labor either decreased or stayed the same after implementing a mini trash bin program. Custodial workers no longer go from desk to desk emptying trash. Instead they go to central bins to collect it.

In a leased building in Toronto, custodial workers saved one-third of their time on a floor of 100 tenants by not going desk-to-desk. Based on actual figures, Max Green can save up to an estimated $50 per person per year in custodial costs. Contracts can be renegotiated to reflect this reduction in work time. Even if renegotiating the custodial contract is not immediately possible, this extra time can be used by custodial workers to perform other duties such as dusting and vacuuming.

In the Mowat block, a government office building in Toronto, building management was able to renegotiate its janitorial contract after implementing Max Green. The new contract, which included custodial workers not going desk-to-desk to collect trash, cost them $48,000 less than it would have without Max Green. This represents a savings of $64 per employee in this building of 750 employees.

St. Catherine’s Courthouse, also in Ontario, was able to renegotiate its contract after implementing Max Green, saving $12,000 per year, or $67 for each of its 178 employees. This was based on the fact that custodial workers are no longer going desk-to-desk to collect office trash.

Whether You Rent or Own

Office tenants can save money whether they rent or own the buildings they occupy. For building owners, changes to trash, recycling, and custodial contracts will impact their costs. Lower fees will be evident almost immediately. Trash fees vary throughout the country and will affect how much can be saved through a high diversion recycling program.

For renters, the effect may be less obvious. Renters can negotiate their next lease based on lower trash fees brought about through a concerted recycling effort. Although service contracts usually are negotiated through the landlord or realty company, renters may also renegotiate their current lease for lower rent based on savings, or for more services (such as more extensive cleaning by custodial staff).

The Green Workplace office occupies one floor of a rented building in Toronto. It is the only floor in the building participating in Maximum Green. The landlord could not renegotiate the custodial contract based on reduction of work on one floor.

Instead, Green Workplace staff members and custodial staff members renegotiated custodians’ work on that floor based on the time custodians saved by not going desk-to-desk to pick up trash or recycling. Now, custodians spend that time vacuuming more often, dusting high places, cleaning the office kitchen, and performing other tasks that they did not have time to do adequately before.

In San Jose, 7 of the 72 buildings participating in the program are leased facilities. In these seven buildings, the city has made arrangements with the building management to accommodate participation in the program.

In three of the buildings, a program staff member working in the general services department collects the recyclable materials and takes it to the city’s central services yard for collection by the program hauler. At two of the buildings, the recycling hauler collects as part of the regular service provision. In the remaining two buildings, employees recycle as part of a larger commercial recycling effort underway at these locations, which encompasses all tenants of the building.

Back to Top | Innovations Home | Next Section

Last updated: October 26, 2007