INC NEWS - yard waste and other solid waste issues

[bragin at nc.rr.com]

Thank you Mr. Long. I believe that, like police and fire protection,
waste collection and disposal is an essential city service which needs
to be provided to all city residents, and paid for by everyone in the
most equitable way possible.

The concern arises, i think, from an article in the N&O last week
(Durham May Set Flat Fee For Trash;
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/durham/story/586013.html) which states
"City residents would pay a single annual fee of $51.48 to have garbage,
yard waste, recycling and bulky items collected from their curbsides, if
the City Council approves a proposal from Solid Waste Management
Director Donald Long."

I suspect that any attempt to charge an additional fee for mandatory
services (even if it's less than the fee for the voluntary yard waste
program) will be met with resistance, and will probably be challenged in
the courts by people wishing to opt out of the program and dispose of
their trash on their own. It will likely cause an increase in illegal
dumping, and we'll also probably see more people doing things like
burning trash in their backyard (and yes, i have had a neighbor within
the past 5 years burn household trash, including old rugs, in their
backyard.)

Pick up everyone's trash and yard waste. Pay for it out of the general
fund. If you can find a way to turn some of the recycling and yard waste
back into revenues to mitigate the costs of the program, that's a bonus.
But first, get the trash picked up.

Thanks,
Barry Ragin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Long, Donald" <Donald.Long at durhamnc.gov>
Date: Monday, June 4, 2007 6:53 am
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - yard waste and other solid waste issues
To: randy at 27beverly.com, bragin at nc.rr.com
Cc: inc-list at rtpnet.org

> Tha's not true Randy. I favor an all user-tax based program.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org <inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org>
> To: bragin at nc.rr.com <bragin at nc.rr.com>
> CC: inc-list at rtpnet.org <inc-list at rtpnet.org>
> Sent: Sun Jun 03 17:46:59 2007
> Subject: INC NEWS - yard waste and other solid waste issues
> 
> I've been away, so I missed this issue when it first reared its head.
> 
> But this last year marked the first time in the history of the yard 
> wasteprogram that it funded itself. That is, those who wanted the 
> service were
> paying for it. That's why we saw several years of increasing fees as
> adjusted itself. It has been stable at $60 since. And as far as I have
> heard, breaks even as it currently is.
> 
> But if Solid Waste has their way, you won't have a choice when your
> current yard waste enrollment expires. Under the recent plan Solid 
> Wastehas put forth, EVERYONE will be charged a single SOLID WASTE 
> FEE. It has
> been set at $52 and some change. This covers green can, brown can, tin
> can, and bulky waste disposal. One fee covers it all and it will be
> mandated that all pay (no idea how that works for rental properties 
> andsuch). Sort of a Solid Waste Tax (SWT) I guess. Where once our 
> green can
> disposal was paid for from our property tax dollars, I guess it 
> will now
> come from the SWT... Or that is what I was lead to believe.
> 
> But there should be no reason for complaint from those currently 
> enrolledin the yard waste program; it reduces our overall fees paid 
> by almost
> $8/yr. So it gets cheaper for those of us who have supported the 
> currentsystem. No mention of how carts will be distributed or 
> charged. But carts
> have been a huge budget item that has never been funded at adequate
> amounts. Just guessing, yard waste carts for the rest of those not
> currently enrolled would amount to $2M or more. So that's a big 
> chunk of
> change just for the carts (just to buy them for resale; that money, if
> they are sold, would go back into the General Fund). I see this 
> "one fee
> covers it all" as just the beginning of what will continue to increase
> year after year. Especially when Virginia passes its "trash tax" 
> laws that
> are currently in their legislature. See, VA is getting tired of 
> everyonehauling their trash to VA. After all, they're for lovers, 
> not trash. They
> have already shut down trash by barge to ports in VA and now the 
> proposalslook to tax trash as it comes across the borders. That'll 
> add between
> $.25-$10.00 a ton depending what amount they pass. And this just 
> sets up
> yet more price increases down the road. So it's not going to be any
> cheaper.
> 
> We find ourselves (our City/County) in a serious jam when it comes 
> to yard
> waste disposal as we once knew it. The State has new regulations 
> that make
> composting (as we once tried it) cost prohibitive due to the new
> regulations. All of this started when we popped up on the radar 
> after the
> mulch fire. Since then, it's been tough and it'll continue to be 
> tough. I
> believe in the recent past we signed a contract for another $300K 
> just to
> keep our grinding operation going (for large tree/limb grinding into
> mulch). As it is now, about all we can do is collect it... 
> Everything else
> has to be dealt with in a different manner than we once did. Things 
> mustbe so bad at the landfill, that I see where General Services 
> has started
> their own mulch pile operation beside their new facility. No idea 
> if that
> needs a permit as well...
> 
> As far as transporting yard waste in the same truck as domestic waste,
> this is perhaps not as big of an issue as you might think. ALL of the
> waste is packed in packing unit (compactor) so as to make the 
> "package" as
> dense as possible. You can easily make the front of a load (or the 
> tailend of a load) yard waste and there will be a distinct 
> delineation of the
> two when it comes to dumping them. They will be two distinct 
> "packages".The one truck doing them both isn't that far fetched if 
> they're doing it
> this way. If they're just dumping them both together (as in mixing 
> them in
> the same package), then as a governmental body, we are paying much 
> more(the same price actually) for the cheaper yard waste disposal than
> necessary. It is costing us the same regardless of which waste 
> stream it
> is. And if that's the case, wouldn't you like to be on the 
> receiving end
> of all of our waste?  And if they're mixing it at the transfer 
> station,why not go to a "one can" system? I think federal laws 
> regulate this, so
> it can't be happening like you think (or at least I should hope 
> not). It
> has to be collected and disposed of differently. But getting it to
> disposal in the same truck may just be a formality. As we have 
> heard, it
> saves some money. And two distinct packages on the same truck probably
> does save an extra trip.
> 
> A much larger issue for me is our disposal of hazardous and household
> hazardous waste. Currently, these noxious waste streams can only be
> disposed of for a few hours on two days a week . This is insane. If we
> don't get this "bad" waste into the solid waste system, it will end 
> up in
> our water supply sooner or later. It's easier to get rid of a stove or
> couch in this community than it is to get rid of waste that could 
> kill us
> all eventually. And what kind of sense does that make?
> 
> RWP
> 27 Beverly
> 
> 
> >
> > For the nearly 80% of Durham households that do not currently
> > participate in the yard waste program at all, that's not really 
> an issue.
> >
> > for me the issue is why am i continuing to pay for a service that 
> i'm> not receiving?
> >
> > I already compost 75% of my yard waste. For $60 bucks, i can save 
> the> larger stuff and rent a chipper once a year to bring that up 
> to 100%.
> >
> > Will i do that when my current enrollment expires? Damn straight 
> i will.
> >
> > Barry Ragin
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rkitchin at aol.com
> > Date: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:39 am
> > Subject: Re: INC NEWS - INC-list Digest, Vol 29, Issue 28
> > To: inc-list at rtpnet.org
> >
> >> Hello from the "delegate" who raised the question about yard waste
> >> at this
> >> week's meeting.
> >>
> >> My takeaway is this: we shouldn't mix our yard waste in with our
> >> regular
> >> garbage because when the program reverts to its most
> >> environmentally friendly
> >> procedure, we would have to "relearn" not to mix at the curb.
> >>
> >> I look forward to meeting Mr. Long at the next INC meeting.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> rkitchin at aol.com
> >> Rosemarie Kitchin
> >> President
> >> Kitchin's Ink, Ltd., a deliberately low-profile
> >> marketing services firm based in Durham
> >> 6702 Glen Forest Drive
> >> Chapel Hill, NC 27517-8647
> >> 919/768-0749
> >> 919/724-3723 cel
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>