INC NEWS - yard waste program
RW Pickle
randy at 27beverly.com
Fri Dec 8 20:47:10 EST 2006
One of the biggest issues in this "roll it out across the City all at one
time and for free" thought process, is the sheer number of carts you'll
need and just what all those carts will cost. Without digging all of it
out and getting the exact figure, it was somewhere near a million dollars
in carts. I don't think you'll get anyone to vote to approve anything like
that. In the past, they couldn't even keep carts of any color. As I
recall, they are about 5,000 green carts behind right now that have holes
in them and are due for replacement. My 2 carts for example; it won't be
long before the whole bottom falls out. But to roll out just the brown
cart program across the City would be too much of a budget crunch.
What I came up with to roll the yard waste fee back to $30 in the first
year. This was the previous fee before it went up to $60. When the fee was
raised, somewhere around 5500 of the customers quit the service. It still
had over 11,000 customers, so it still had income and continued to grow.
And with the increased fee of $60, the service didn't feel the pinch of
those who left. But out there still are the 5500 (or so; it's hard to know
how many now have re-subscribed since then) customers who quit when the
fees went up and they still have brown carts. So if the fee is rolled
back, you can pick up all these folks that left, without the additionl
cost of carts. This is a real bonus since cart funding is an issue. You'd
still need some carts, but you could pick up a big chunk of customers who
had carts already. You could continue to sell the carts even when the
program fee structure was rolled back so that wouldn't really be a cost
except up front. As they were bought, it would replenish the fund that
bought them in the first place. This is a nice idea, but the way the funds
are now, all the revenue generated from cart sales goes back into the
General Fund. For it to continue to fund carts, a better way would be for
the funds to be held in reserve to buy more carts. Because regarless what
you do, you will always have to get the carts.
By the second year, the $30 fee would be dropped. Or maybe run it for a
couple of years for $30 just to generate additional funds. the folks who
had paid $60 would be happy paying $30, the folks who did pay $30 would
rejoin and be happy to be back, and then you can begin to plan for the
eventual termination of the fee completely as it is rolled out across
town. You'll always needs carts; both brown and green, because they just
wear out and get damaged beyond repair by careless automated truck
operators. Personally, I feel if the automated truck drivers were charged
for the damage they do to carts, that damage would reach all time lows.
It's like anything. If there is no repercussion for damaging the carts,
then why should the driver care? If he had to pay for the ones he damaged,
it would stop.
Even if it is free, not all residents would participate. Leaves, grass,
limbs and the materials found in yard waste typically do not smell like
household waste does. So while everyone would use a green can just to get
the smells away from where they live, there are those who would never do
anything with a brown can. If I'm not mistaken, we came up with a figure
around 50,000 that would be all who would participate in any program that
was rolled out throughout the City. Currently I believe that's about
15,000 short of all the current customer base or roughly 25%.
Regardless of what was done, there are some would never care about leaves
in the storm drainage system.
I believe this plan also called for yard waste to be picked up twice a
month. Because without spending funds on new/additional equipment and
manpower, it would have to be rolled back to every other week just because
of the larger customer base. Having spoken to Randy Smith who heads up
Yard Waste, he thought this was doable.
Just FYI, Donald Long and Patrick Baker are on the list server. So
everytime they get added in the cc field, they get duplicates of these
posts. They'll get tired of reading them if we keep this up.
RWP
27 Beverly
> Bill's logic makes sense. However the real problem with accumulating
> leaves isn't that it floods high income basements "..... so low income
> leaves can cause flooding in high income basements."
>
> In reality, backed up storm water in lower income areas flood the homes
> and basements of those that live closest to it. It's those homes that
> can least afford repairs.
>
> Also, fallen leaves left to decompose on lawns, curbs and gutters detract
> from the visual appearance of a community.
>
> An unkempt neighborhood is an attractant for further decay and blight.
>
> Basing a decision on whether leaves directly impact the flood potential in
> my basement is NOT a concern of mine.
>
> How to raise up a neighborhood and participate in a program that
> encourages all community residents to better themselves IS.
>
> Which is why a number of us (generalizing here) feel that leave disposal
> is a general obligation of our municipality responsibilities and thus
> should be built into our tax base and not be fee (or penalty) oriented.
>
> IMHO
> Mike Shiflett
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: TheOcean1 at aol.com
> To: Donald.Long at durhamnc.gov ; bragin at nc.rr.com ; nancyg at centralpets.com
> Cc: council at ci.durham.nc.us ; inc-list at durhaminc.org ;
> Patrick.Baker at durhamnc.gov
> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 1:32 PM
> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Picking up leaves!
>
>
> Having studied the yard waste issue, I'd like to chime in here. In my
> humble opinion, the only logical conclusion is to roll the entire yard
> waste program into the tax base. This is because higher income
> neighborhoods participated in the yard waste program at a much higher
> rate, presumably because it was easy for them to afford the expense.
> Those neighborhood's worked well.
>
> Lower income neighborhoods didn't participate as much, so a greater
> amount of their yard waste ended up in the storm water run off systems.
> Water crosses all economic lines, so low income leaves can cause
> flooding in high income basements.
>
> If the cost per household is $60 per year, it would be great if you
> could get the citizens to pay it, but we've had enough years to prove
> that they won't. Just one house dumping yard waste down the storm water
> systems is enough to offset several others participating. So it's a
> losing bet unless you can get nearly 100% participation, which we can't.
>
> So the least expensive choice for all of us is no charge collection at
> the curb.
>
> Think of it just like garbage collection. If there was a fee for that,
> and just 10% opted out and dumped their garbage anywhere and everywhere,
> it would be a great deal more noticeable than leaves dumped down a
> hillside.
>
> But that's what happens with yard waste when we charge for it at the
> curb.
>
> Yes, that means the higher income areas will pick up slightly more than
> their share, and the lower income neighborhoods will get a break with
> their lower tax values. But if it were garbage, instead of leaves, none
> of them would mind, given the choice of Durham looking like a dump.
>
> Those leaves aren't as visible, but they cause more problems than many
> of us realize.
>
> Perhaps someday, we'll all enjoy cleaner streets and the ease of raking
> our yard waste to the curb where efficient vac trucks will suck it up.
>
> Bill Anderson
>
> In a message dated 12/7/2006 10:30:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> Donald.Long at durhamnc.gov writes:
> The City does not currently have leaf vac trucks. We are looking at
> the
> feasibility of requesting them in the next budget cycle.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bragin at nc.rr.com [mailto:bragin at nc.rr.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:02 AM
> To: Nancy Grandjean
> Cc: Ken Gasch; Council Members; inc-list at durhaminc.org; Baker,
> Patrick;
> Long, Donald
> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Picking up leaves!
>
> This is the way it was done in most places i've lived prior to moving
> to
> Durham. The key is to get the leaves picked up on a regular basis
> before
> they enter the drainage system, where they negatively impact the
> system
> both physically and ecologically.
>
> My understanding is that the vacuum trucks, if they do in fact exist
> (i
> haven't seen them myself) are a relatively new investment on the part
> of
> the city.
>
> Barry Ragin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nancy Grandjean <nancyg at centralpets.com>
> Date: Thursday, December 7, 2006 10:52 am
> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Picking up leaves!
> To: bragin at nc.rr.com, Ken Gasch <ken.gasch at hldproductions.com>
> Cc: council at ci.durham.nc.us, inc-list at durhaminc.org,
> patrick.baker at durhamnc.gov, donald.long at durhamnc.gov
>
> > (Sorry if this comes through as a duplicate message; it didn't go
> > through the first time I sent it.)
> >
> > Given that the city already has the leaf vacuum trucks, why can't
> > we rake leaves to the edge of our property and have them vacuumed
> > up, instead of wasting time, money, and environmental resources
> > putting billions of leaves into (relatively small) bags? (Plastic
> > bags would be even worse environmentally.) I'm sure there's a
> > logical reason . . . . (ho ho)
> >
> > Nancy Grandjean
> >
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: bragin at nc.rr.com [mailto:bragin at nc.rr.com]
> > >Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2006 02:30 PM
> > >To: 'Ken Gasch'
> > >Cc: council at ci.durham.nc.us, inc-list at durhaminc.org,
> > patrick.baker at durhamnc.gov,
> > >donald.long at durhamnc.gov
> > >Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Picking up leaves!
> > >
> > >My informal survey, from driving around my neighborhood on pickup
> > day,>shows around 25% - 35% participation in the yard waste program
> > in my
> > >neighborhood. (Every year i tell Claire not to renew our yard waste
> > >subscription, and every year she goes ahead and does it anyway.)
> > >
> > >A couple of years back, i did another informal survey of municipal
> > >policies throughout the state of North Carolina. There were a
> > bunch of
> > >cities that did not have separate fees for collecting yard waste.
> > There>were some cities that charged a fee for a yard waste cart,
> > but not a
> > >subscription fee. There were a few that gave the cart away for
> > free, but
> > >charged a subscription fee. There was one other city (can't recall
> > >which, may have been Winston or Greenville) which charged for both.
> > >Durham was the only one, however, which charged both an initial
> > fee and
> > >a subscription fee which did not have a policy of picking up all
> > leaves>in the city during the fall season regardless of
> > participation in the
> > >program.
> > >
> > >The city does an absolutely terrible job of informing new
> > residents of
> > >the policy that leaves in plastic bags will not be picked up. Why
> > should>we jump directly to fining people for gathering their leaves
> > in plastic
> > >bags when they are at least attempting to keep their yards, and the
> > >streets, free of leaves?
> > >
> > >Addtionally, many of our neighborhoods have large curbside trees
> > >dropping leaves directly into the streets. In my neighborhood, if
> you
> > >were to have seen the piles of leaves at Knox Circle deposited
> > there by
> > >nature last week, you'd realize there is nobody to whom a fine can
> be
> > >given for this.
> > >
> > >Charging citizens extra for leaf pickup in Durham is like charging
> > >citizens extra for clearing the roadways of snow in Buffalo. It's
> > a fact
> > >of life, and should be budgeted for out of general revenues.
> > >
> > >That said, i'm still glad to see that the city is at least thinking
> > >ahead by (apparently) purchasing some hardware and actually
> > putting it
> > >to use.
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > This e-mail was sent using a CentralPets.com WebMail account
> > Get yours at: http://mail.centralpets.com
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
====================================================================
This e-mail, and any attachments to it, contains PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) or
entity named on the e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
dissemination or copying of this e-mail in error is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify
me by telephone (919-489-0576) or by electronic mail to the sender of
this email, RW Pickle (pickle at patriot.net) immediately.
=====================================================================
More information about the INC-list
mailing list