Granting Wishes

Buy a shredder, skid-steer or sandwiches for lunch, and the government taxes you. However, it is possible to get some of those tax dollars back for recycling efforts.

In several states—Illinois, Oregon, South Carolina and Tennessee, among them—grants support recycling projects and initiatives. Funds are available to communities, programs and individuals.

In Oregon, for example, the state has funded $5.4 million dollars in grants since its program began in 1991. Oregon has awarded 262 grants so far, putting the average grant at slightly more than $20,000. South Carolina’s program is a bit richer. The state now awards more than $1 million each year.

"For our current fiscal year, we awarded $1.6 million dollars," says Jana White, section manager for solid waste planning and grants in South Carolina.

Last year’s grants totaled about the same. "Last year our largest single grant was $120,000," she adds.

For the 2008 fiscal year, South Carolina approved 31 grants, including a tri-county application.

Tennessee has awarded more than $95 million since 1992—funding 300 projects in that time. The state’s Recycling Equipment Grants provide financial assistance to local governments and nonprofits to purchase key pieces of equipment for their recycling programs. "This grant is very competitive, with only about one-third of applicants being awarded," says Meg Bayless Lockhart, deputy communications director for the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.

The state has a sister program called Recycling Rebates for the 11 counties and cities in Tennessee that generate the greatest amount of solid waste. "These rebates are non-competitive and based on the amount generated," Lockhart says. Rebates may be used for any recycling purpose, with approximately $600,000 available annually.

In Illinois, the maximum grant is $60,000 for collection projects and small processors and $120,000 for larger processing projects (more than 7,000 tons per year). The grant program requires an applicant investment of cash and/or in-kind services.

For the past few years, Illinois’ grant program has solicited and funded projects associated with the development of an electronics recycling infrastructure in the state. The maximum grant request for electronics is $75,000.

"The goal is to keep solid waste out of landfills," says Cathie Davidson, solid waste reduction analyst in the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. "We make grants each year to local governments for recycling and solid waste prevention or reduction projects," she says.

A portion of the fee paid to dispose of municipal and construction and demolition waste in Oregon landfills, incinerators and energy recovery facilities funds the grants.

As is typical of several states that offer grant programs, by law Oregon grants must go to local governments. However, those local governments may contract with community groups, private individuals, nonprofit organizations, schools, businesses or chambers of commerce to implement grant-funded projects.

Davidson says Oregon’s program is competitive. Last year, the state received $880,000 in requests, but only had $250,000 to award. "Often, fewer than half of the applicants get grants," she says.

GRANT THEMES

Each year, there is a theme to the Oregon grants. For 2008, the theme is commercial waste prevention, which has been the theme for the past few grant cycles.

South Carolina also has grant themes. Recently, the state’s target has been cardboard and paper. "We try to grab the low-hanging fruit," White says. The current year’s focus is on plastics, though paper remains a target commodity.

This year South Carolina also expects to fund some school district recycling projects. "We have a strong educational program in the schools," says Gerald Fishbeck with United Resource Recovery Inc., who also serves as the Advisory Council chair for the South Carolina Department of Commerce’s Recycling Market Development Committee. "We want to build on the school programs and establish collection programs," he says.

According to David E. Smith, manager, Program Management Section at the Illinois Division of Recycling and Waste Reduction in the state Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Illinois offers two programs: The Recycling Expansion and Modernization (REM) Program and the Illinois Recycling Grants Program (IRGP). REM focuses on projects that will help Illinois businesses reduce waste or use recycled feedstocks in their production processes and seeks to divert materials that would otherwise enter the solid waste stream.

IRGP concentrates on projects that develop or expand recycling collection and processing efforts. "A priority goal of the program is to reduce the amount of recyclable commodities entering the municipal solid waste stream while maximizing the economic benefits of recycling, including job creation," Smith says.

While this program has historically supported "traditional recycling" efforts, such as curbside and drop-off recycling that collect fiber, plastic, metal and glass, the program has the flexibility to also seek applications designed to target specific non-traditional recyclables.

"For the past few years, the program has been soliciting and funding projects that can capitalize on the potential economic benefits associated with the development of an infrastructure in Illinois to collect and process computer and other electronic discards," Smith adds.

GATHERING FUNDS

South Carolina offers three separate grant programs. Solid Waste grants are funded by a $2 fee levied on appliances and lead-acid batteries at the point of purchase.

"Part of that fee funds state activities and part goes to local governments, counties or cities for solid waste services," White says.

The other two South Carolina programs are aimed at tires and at motor oil. A $2 fee is collected on tires, and 50 cents of that goes strictly to manage scrap tires. There is a 2-cent-per-quart fee on motor oil. That money is used to recover used motor oil, filters and oil from do-it-yourselfers. "Farmers can use the program, but not commercial operations (like gas stations)," White says.

HOW FUNDS ARE USED

Tennessee’s recycling equipment grants fund local governments and nonprofit organizations working with local governments to purchase key pieces of recycling equipment. Roll-off boxes, skid loaders, shredders, scales, containers and educational materials used to inform the general public all are eligible for funding. This grant is a matching grant up to $25,000, with recipients getting 10 percent to 50 percent based on population and economic ability.

"Without this help we would not be able to serve the county with high-quality solid waste and recycling programs," says Sullivan County, Tenn., Solid Waste Director Lucian Lawson, noting the cuts in the state’s program budget.

"Some projects would not have been undertaken without the grant assistance," says Smith. "Some recycling-related businesses would not have been able to grow as quickly as they have without our grant assistance."

Oregon DEQ’s solid waste/recycling grants can be used for salaries and benefits for project personnel and consultants or contractors, administrative costs, publications and publicity expenses, machinery, equipment (such as recycling containers), vehicle expenses, signs, building costs and costs associated with collecting and transporting recyclable materials.

South Carolina grants go mainly to set up or implement recycling programs. "Some of the funds go to local governments to set up a program and some are used for travel, training or to purchase equipment," White says.

Some municipalities target specific government buildings or hospitals for recycling programs, she adds. These projects are well received by the Solid Waste grant committee.

"We will train attendants to divert material from the compactor to recycling bins," White says. In addition, the South Carolina Department of Commerce will provide money for signage (or to translate signs into Spanish, for instance), loaders, roll-off trucks or collection boxes for schools and offices.

Washington County, Tenn., used its rebate grant money to buy four recycling containers for cardboard and two for glass, paper recycling containers for local schools and a 2003 roll-off truck. A grant also allowed the county to buy recycling containers for local businesses and a skid-steer with a grapple bucket.

In South Carolina, almost every applicant receives some funding. "It is competitive," White says, "but only a few are not funded." Top-tier applications will likely be awarded full funding. Those applications in the second tier will be returned to the submitting organization with a chance to make modifications and to re-apply for funding.

"However, applicants do not necessarily get all of the money they ask for," White says. "We have a sort of line-item veto that allows us to fund targeted projects."

COMMUNITY BENEFITS

"As the community benefits, industry benefits," says Fishbeck.

"These programs are of great importance," Lockhart agrees. Nearly $93 million in infrastructure needs have been identified in Tennessee. "These grants provide much needed equipment and financial support to local governments. Many other programs would not be in existence without the Recycling Equipment Grant Program," she adds.

South Carolina is a largely rural state. While the urban centers—Columbia, Charleston and Greenville—have good recycling programs, the state’s largely rural areas can benefit from regional pickup of materials.

"Our grants can, and have, helped create and retain jobs," Smith says. Grants help recyclers grow their businesses, thus expanding local tax bases. "Funded project have also helped businesses reduce their waste disposal costs," he says.

Different Illinois communities have seen different results. "New programs have resulted in recycling rates as great as 35 percent. Expanded recycling projects have helped increase local recycling rates," Smith says.

Currently, Fishbeck’s group is working to fund a study to determine where to locate a MRF (material recovery facility) to do the most good for a large, rural area in South Carolina.

Fishbeck says, "Our most recent study, completed a year ago, showed pretty phenomenal results for employment and revenue generation at the community level." That study, focused on the impact of recycling initiatives on jobs, was a success.

He adds, "We try to influence the objectives for the grants," noting that this year the Recycling Market Development Committee will be looking for programs that build on the educational programs that the committee has funded over the past years. A special focus will be projects that support school districts. All of the grants his group oversees are for county or community projects.

Fishbeck’s committee does not actually grant funds, but recommends where the revenues would be wisely spent. None of the funds goes to private industry. Grants are available for capital projects and educational programs.

The state of Oregon gets grant requests from big cities, such as Portland and Salem, as well as from small towns.

"In the case of a city like Portland, they usually apply for something extra to add to their programs," Davidson says. "But the smaller communities are looking for the basics." A grant to purchase recycling containers would be a typical request from a small town.

The grants make a big difference to towns. "Sometimes a small community can barely pay for its fire department," Davidson notes.

PICKING WINNERS

In Oregon, a team of DEQ policy and technical assistance staff from around the state reviews and ranks each year’s crop of applications. The team uses selection criteria established in the Oregon Administrative Rules. Applicants must be local governments responsible for solid waste management.

The evaluation criteria include:

• Potential for environmental enhancement—whether the project has demonstrable or measurable results.

• Potential for continuity—whether the project demonstrates continuing benefit beyond the time of the funding.

• The type of program—focus-area projects with measurable results receive additional points.

• Program commitment—whether the proposal has a well-thought-out and realistic budget and time line, whether key participants are involved in its development and implementation and whether the applicant provides matching funds, letters of support, etc.

• Need—DEQ looks at whether the proposal fills local or statewide needs in solid waste prevention or management that are not being met and demonstrates an effective strategy to meet the identified need.

• Economics—the proposal must demonstrate cost savings and other indications of cost effectiveness.

Tennessee’s program follows a similar outline, with points awarded to weight various categories. The lion’s share is given for grants that are consistent with regional solid waste plans and that are well designed and efficient.

In addition, priority is given to those who employ the developmentally disabled, with secondary priority given to those requesting funds to establish paint management systems.

The application matrix is similar in most states.

Illinois has some specific eligibility requirements. "For example, we only fund projects that involve solid waste that is not classified as either special or hazardous by the Illinois EPA," Smith notes. "We also require applicants to provide a letter from their local recycling/solid waste management coordinator that attests that the proposed project is consistent with the required local solid waste management plan. (Counties and the city of Chicago were required to develop and implement such plans under state law—the Illinois Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Act)."

Each REM project requires a strategic plan that includes best practices in solid waste management (source reduction or waste reduction, including recycling or reuse) and three goals: potential for increased diversion of solid waste materials from landfills; potential for improved performance of Illinois organizations and businesses (measured by reduced operating costs and/or increased sales revenue); and potential for public economic benefits, such as job creation.

"Statistics show that recycling materials actually provide many more jobs than just disposal of the same materials," says Tennessee’s Lockhart. Therefore, the environmental tax dollars loop back around, helping to strengthen local governments and corporations as well as the general environment.

The author is a contributing editor to Recycling Today and can be reached at curt@curtharler.com.