Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
From: Jan Sassaman <br /> Phone Number: 919-933-1609 <br /> Message: <br /> Dear County Commissioners: <br /> Unfortunately, I cannot be at your meeting this evening, but would like you all to hear (or read) <br /> what I would say about Action Agenda Item 7b a?" Rural Curbside Recycling were I able to be <br /> there. <br /> I am somewhat dismayed that such a proposal has come before you. After months of <br /> discussions among elected officials and managers of the three towns and the county, all <br /> parties seemed to have come together and the towns, especially Chapel Hill, have come to the <br /> conclusion that it is in the best interests of their residents for them to work with the county and <br /> to have the county take the lead in recycling. To that end, it is my understanding that the towns <br /> will collect a mandatory fee from residents and that the proceeds of that fee will be used by the <br /> county for curbside recycling within the individual towns. It was also my understanding (based <br /> on discussions at county, town, and joint meetings of elected officials) that the county would <br /> collect funds for rural curbside recycling by means of a district tax structure within those areas <br /> of the county where recycling would be collected at the curb. <br /> As I read it, the proposal before you would establish a Rural Curbside Recycling Subscription <br /> Service to be operated by the county and necessitating up front purchase of two new recycling <br /> vehicles and up to 11,000 roll carts, as well as paying for the first six months of service to <br /> those rural customers with $315 K from general funds. Based on this understanding, I have <br /> several questions that I hope you will ask of staff and for which you will require detailed and <br /> satisfactory response before approving considering a subscription-based rural curbside <br /> recycling program. <br /> 1. The action item abstract is based on an expectation that only 20% of the existing <br /> 13,700 households currently receiving curbside collection will opt out of the service, thus <br /> necessitating purchase of 11,000 carts. Currently, with a service not covered by a fee and <br /> essentially paid up front, we have significantly less than 80% participation. I understand on the <br /> order of 60% participation. Given the high level of educational outreach to date, it is <br /> unreasonable to expect that significantly more households will now elect to pay for a service <br /> that at present they do not use, despite the fact that it is already paid for. Lack of an adequate <br /> subscriber base will likely require a significant increase in the annual cost of the program per <br /> subscriber, resulting in additional erosion of the subscriber base and potentially leading to an <br /> upward spiral of costs and a downward spiral of the program. Alternatively, it may result in the <br /> need for additional subsidies from the general! <br /> fund. Thus success of this program would depend upon enrolling 80% of the eligible <br /> population in the program. Such a key factor, and evidence that 80% participation is not <br /> assured, warrants additional evidence and assurance from staff that education and outreach <br /> would increase participation rates. <br /> 2. If this program is approved as outlined in Action Agenda Item 7b, there are a number of <br /> potential pitfalls. As outlined, the county would purchase 2 trucks, and more importantly, up to <br /> 11,000 roll carts would be purchased to be placed in service no later than January 1, 2015. If <br /> significantly less than 11,000 customers elect to continue service, we can have a significant <br /> sunk cost of those carts not needed. As the individuals in the customer base change as <br /> people move, decline service, etc., how will county staff keep track of who has paid for the <br />