Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Organics Diversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middletown, other Connecticut towns report higher diversion after food‑scrap collection and pay‑as‑you‑throw pilots
Summary
Municipal pilots combining curbside food‑scrap collection and unit‑based pricing show significant waste reductions and higher recycling in pilot areas, municipal leaders told a joint legislative forum. Middletown reported a 62% capture rate for food scraps in its sanitation district and an overall waste reduction in the district.
Mayor Benjamin Florsheim, mayor of Middletown, described his city’s curbside pilot combining co‑collection of food scraps with unit‑based pricing in the city’s sanitation district and said early results have been encouraging.
“We are the first in the nation to roll out simultaneous, curbside collection of food scraps, as well as the unit based pricing structure,” Mayor Florsheim said, describing the Middletown program that covers approximately 28,100 residential addresses inside the sanitation district and targets areas where residents are often renters.
Middletown told the forum the sanitation district has achieved a 62% diversion rate for food scraps in the pilot area; the mayor said the program had diverted about 47 tons at an earlier report and that the total has since grown to roughly 70–80 tons. Middletown officials also reported a roughly 32% reduction in trash tonnage in the sanitation district since program launch and described changes to billing that combine a reduced flat fee and per‑bag charges for disposal.
Industry vendors and municipal presenters at the forum described two complementary tools for towns: food‑scrap collection and unit‑based pricing (UBP), commonly called “pay‑as‑you‑throw.” Mark Dancy, president of WasteZero, who has worked on SMM pilots, said, “food scrap collection is very popular, it's expensive to collect at the curb,” and described a range of collection options including co‑collection, transfer‑station drop‑off and curbside service. Dancy also cited examples where pairing UBP with organics collection raised capture rates: Woodbury’s pilot increased food‑scrap capture from 15–20% during a pilot to 50–60% after the full program and addition of UBP.
The forum included other municipal examples from the first round of DEEP’s SMM grants. DEEP listed six municipalities that moved from pilot to permanent programs: Bethel, Guilford, Madison, Kent, Middletown and Woodbury. Kent’s small program reported a 12% reduction during the pilot year and more than 30% reduction after permanent adoption, the Housatonic Resources Recovery Authority reported.
Municipal leaders and vendors emphasized the role of education and tailored implementation. Mayor Florsheim said the transition required significant outreach and that results vary with housing type; the sanitation district’s high share of renters complicates passing savings directly to residents because many sanitation bills are paid by landlords.
Why it matters: Food scraps compose a large share of MSW by weight and generate methane in landfills. Pilots presented to the committee showed measurable diversion and early municipal savings in participating service areas. Forum participants urged state technical and financial support to scale programs, noting that transfer stations can often accept food scraps at lower per‑ton cost than separate curbside routes.
Next steps: Municipal leaders asked DEEP for continued grant funding and technical assistance to expand organics collection and to support the education needed to boost capture rates and equitable implementation across rental and multifamily housing.
