What Comes Next? The Avondale Estates Pause Opens Compost Funding Conversations
- David Paull
- 6 days ago
- 7 min read
The Avondale Estates Community Composting Program was paused just four months short of completing its year-long pilot due to a freeze on federal grant funding. While the pause was unexpected, the early success of the program highlights the growing demand for scalable composting systems and the crucial role that funding plays in sustaining and growing these types of programs.
Over the course of eight months, the Avondale Estates Community Composting pilot saw incredible engagement. The 534 participating households diverted 80,243 pounds of food waste from the landfill–more than 10,000 pounds per month! Instead of becoming a source of methane emissions in a landfill, this food waste became part of a local loop: collected weekly, turned into compost, and destined to enrich soil for edible landscapes and libraries in DeKalb County through partnership with Food Well Alliance and Roots Down.
The early program success is worth celebrating as it was the result of a shared vision and strong collaboration between local leaders and service providers. Through targeted marketing and outreach efforts from the City of Avondale Estates and DeKalb County Super District 6, more than 350 households had signed up before the program collections began. The City of Avondale Estates and CompostNow launched this curbside pilot in two months after securing grant funding.
This momentum offers a valuable proof of concept: when programs are accessible and communities are engaged, composting works. But it also raises an important conversation about the future: How do communities fund and sustain composting programs, even when federal grants are uncertain?
Funding Strategies for Composting Infrastructure
As demand for accessible municipal composting programs continues to increase, communities will need to establish long-term funding strategies for these programs. While federal grants like the USDA's Composting and Food Waste Reduction (CFWR) cooperative agreements have been helpful in launching pilot programs, long-term success of local programs and municipal services depends on diversified funding strategies.
For city leaders or community advocates interested in addressing this barrier, we've compiled a high-level list of examples of funding methods used across the U.S.
Landfill Disposal Surcharges: States or municipalities add surcharges to each ton of waste disposed in landfills or incinerators. These fees are typically earmarked to support composting, recycling, and other waste diversion programs.
The purpose: Generate revenue to fund local waste diversion infrastructure, including composting programs. These surcharges also create a small disincentive for landfilling.
Who pays this: Waste haulers or landfill operators pay the surcharge, which may be passed on to residents and businesses via higher trash collection fees.
Example: Minnesota applies a state-level solid waste management tax and local surcharges that help fund county-led organics collection and education programs.
Municipal Fee Adjustments: Cities can adjust existing service fees, such as trash collection charges or landfill tipping fees, to allocate more funding toward composting programs.
The purpose: Create a stable, locally controlled revenue stream for composting by adjusting current municipal service fees.
Who pays this: Residents and businesses pay slightly higher fees through their municipal utility or waste collection bills.
Example: Portland, OR incorporates composting into residential service fees, and larger trash bins come with higher monthly costs.
A Note on Public Perception While these strategies offer long-term stability, public perception can be a major barrier to adoption. Residents often push back against composting fees—not because the costs are necessarily high, but because there’s little transparency or understanding around what waste services actually cost. Landfill disposal is often subsidized, and residents may not realize they’re already paying for trash and recycling. When introducing new cost-sharing models like Municipal Fee Adjustments or Utility-Based Billing, it’s essential to provide clear context: how much each service costs (landfilling, recycling and composting), how they are currently subsidized, and what composting would cost per household. Education and transparency are just as critical as funding itself when building public support.
State and Local Grants: Many states and local waste authorities offer grants to support community composting efforts, including equipment purchases, program pilots, and education initiatives.
The purpose: Provide seed funding for the launch or expansion of composting programs, especially for underserved communities or innovative approaches.
Who pays this: Funded by state or local government budgets; awarded to cities, nonprofits, or businesses through a competitive application process.
Example: Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division (EPD) supports innovative diversion projects in the state through the Solid Waste Trust Fund Grant Program.
Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT): PAYT is a pricing strategy where households are charged based on the amount of trash they produce, rather than a flat fee. Composting and recycling are often offered at little or no extra cost, making them the more affordable option.
The purpose: Encourage waste reduction by aligning cost with behavior—residents pay less if they throw away less. Composting becomes a cost-saving alternative.
Who pays this: Residents pay per bag, per tag, or based on bin size. Higher waste output = higher cost.
Example: In Worcester, MA, residents purchase official trash bags, while compost and recycling are collected at no additional charge.
Utility-Based Billing Models: While it's less common, some cities bundle composting with trash and recycling on monthly utility bills, making it part of standard services and reducing participation barriers.
The purpose: Normalize composting access by integrating it into essential municipal services.
Who pays this: All residents through a combined service fee, regardless of usage level. This is another model where it's important to educate residents on all costs of waste disposal and recycling.
Example: Boulder, CO includes composting in residential utility bills, with services provided by licensed haulers.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Though not yet widely implemented for composting, EPR policies shift the financial burden of packaging waste (including compostables) to manufacturers.
The purpose: Hold producers accountable for the end-of-life management of their products, encouraging less wasteful design and supporting recovery systems.
Who pays this: Product manufacturers, often through fees or material recovery obligations.
Example: States like California and Maine are exploring EPR models that may include compostable packaging in the future.
Carbon Markets or Environmental Credits: Some large-scale composting operations are exploring carbon credit systems that reward them for reducing methane emissions and improving soil carbon storage.
The purpose: Monetize the climate benefits of composting to support operations and attract private investment.
Who pays this: Carbon credit buyers—typically corporations or governments looking to offset emissions voluntarily. This means they are not required or used for compliance within regulatory frameworks.
Example: While still an emerging framework, several U.S. compost facilities have registered with voluntary carbon markets.
The Economic Case for Scalable Composting Infrastructure
Building composting infrastructure and implementing services comes with costs. To gain traction and secure funding, composting programs not only need to demonstrate environmental benefits, but also the economic value.
Here are three strong arguments for composting that local advocates and stakeholders can take to decision makers:
Job Creation: According to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, composting creates twice as many jobs per ton as landfilling and 17x more than incineration. These jobs span collection, processing, compost sales, and agriculture and create opportunities for both public and private sector employment, especially in local economies.
Landfill Life Extension: Landfills are expensive to expand or replace. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), food is the single largest category of material placed in municipal landfills, where it emits methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Diverting food waste significantly reduces the volume of landfilled material, which helps extend the life of existing landfill infrastructure, translating to major cost savings over time.
Soil & Food System Resilience: Finished compost is a valuable resource for growers. When returned to farms and gardens, compost reduces the need for costly fertilizer inputs, improves soil health, and boosts water retention, all while supporting more resilient, local food systems.
Understanding Key Program Differences: Drop-off vs. Curbside
Every city is different, and program types should be chosen based on community goals, infrastructure, and available resources. Depending on the model you’re considering, program costs will vary, so it's important to understand key differences between these two common collection methods:
Drop-off Programs: These programs are typically lower-cost and easier to launch, but they are less convenient for residents, which can lead to lower participation. They can be good for introducing composting or offering a supplemental option to residents only. As an example, Cary, NC co-locates compost bins with hard-to-recycle material collection sites, making it easy for residents to drop off multiple materials in one stop.
Curbside Collection: These programs often have higher upfront costs but are more convenient which yields higher diversion and participation rates. It’s a strong fit for communities with sustainability or zero-waste goals and the budget to invest in infrastructure. A collection or pick-up program can be modified to accomodate businesses more easily than a drop-off program. The City of Avondale Estates, GA program page provides detailed information on this type of program with common FAQs by residents.
CompostNow supports both models and can work with public partners to find the right fit.
We're Not Done Yet
This pilot program shows us that when cities invest in accessible composting programs, residents participate. While federal funding can provide a spark, the future of composting programs depends on a bigger shift: one where funding is diverse, infrastructure is scalable, and programs are grounded in community needs.
The Avondale Estates program may have paused, but we think the early impact of this pilot is worth celebrating. At CompostNow, we believe every community deserves access to composting services. Whether through federal grants or local funding, we’ll keep showing up as a partner ready to help launch and grow the systems that make it possible and address common barriers, like funding, along the way.
If you’re a city planner, sustainability leader, or community advocate looking to bring composting to your area, let’s talk.
About CompostNow
Founded in 2011, CompostNow is a solutions provider for organics recycling with expertise in hauling, logistics, consultation, production, and distribution of compost. Their collection services and network of facilities help thousands of homes, businesses, and municipalities divert and compost over a million pounds of pre-consumer and post-consumer organic waste each month.
CompostNow’s work is rooted at the intersection of healthy people and healthy planet, and their mission is to rebuild the health of our soil by diverting waste from landfills and using it to create compost for our communities. B Corp Certified
Comments