INC NEWS - yard waste and other solid waste issues

Mon Jun 4 13:23:57 EDT 2007

I'm not sure what you think isn't true and would be interested in hearing
what part(s) might be wrong (since there were a number of issues
mentioned). My info, like Barrys', came from the media; mine from a Herald
Sun article (regarding a solid waste fee). Apparently they  were incorrect
in stating it was a plan being put forth by Solid Waste. They didn't
mention it was only one of many options. But it was the first time I think
any of us heard about any sort of flat waste fee being put forth. The
article didn't list the other plans, so perhaps you can tell us what they
are. This list is a great place for feedback since we all are customers
and tax payers.

Regardless, I think we are all concerned about a program that some of us
have worked years to get changed (to no avail even though City Council
charged Solid Waste to fix it). And now that composting is no longer
available for the City, it becomes yet another headache of what to do.
Maybe you could give us your thoughts on that as well.

And while you're at it, maybe you can tell us why Solid Waste cares so
little about collecting the hazardous wastes in this community. Like I
said, it's easier to get rid of a couch, stove, limbs, or just about every
other kind of waste you want to dispose. This noxious waste stream MUST be
a priority since it could damage the very water that runs under our feet.
Not to mention wildlife and plants when discarded improperly. Two days a
week for a few hours on those days just is not good enough. We should want
to get this waste stream removed at every opportunity, especially since
our transfer station is open six days a week for dropping it off.

Randy
27 Beverly

> 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 waste
> program 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 Waste
> has 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 and
> such). 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 enrolled
> in 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 current
> system. 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 everyone
> hauling 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
> proposals
> look 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 must
> be 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 tail
> end 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
>

====================================================================
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.
=====================================================================