INC NEWS - yard waste and other solid waste issues

Mon Jun 4 14:55:40 EDT 2007

In full agreement with you, Randy.
Make the citizens pay or jump through hoops, and they'll choose the illegal  
dumping route all too often.
In the case of Hazardous wastes, the results, and even our awareness that  it 
took place, may take years to fully recognize.

Bill Anderson

In a message dated 6/4/2007 1:21:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
randy at 27beverly.com writes:

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

_______________________________________________
INC-list  mailing  list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20070604/9c59e8b9/attachment.htm 