Agenda - 11-09-1999 - 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

A. Waste prevention: [The first three items below can be considered by the Landfill Owners Group. The last two -- mandatory recycling and volume -based solid waste costs - could, under current agreements, be enacted by the individual local governments only.] 1. Public education: increases in the amount, type and targeted audiences. 2. Differential landfill fees: We have these in place now for yard waste, clean wood waste and corrugated cardboard. Higher or lower fees could be applied to other materials to encourage their diversion from the landfill in favor of some type of separation. 3. Non - economic incentives : This includes all the other strategies for influencing waste reduction such as the solid waste plans now required for new, non - residential construction in Chapel Hill. 4. Mandatory recycling, Also known as collection bans individual governments could apply a variety of bans in each sector -- residential, commercial or apartments. Some enforcement would be necessary for success. 5. Volume -based fees: Also known as pay -per- throw, treats solid waste as a utility. Under this approach, local governments would set up a system of user fees under which residents and businesses would pay for varying amounts of garbage collected. A proper fee structure with good enforcement has proven to reduce waste in many other communities. B. Collection: [Of solid waste and recyclables] The Owners Group has recommended and the governments adopted a strategy that includes weekly universal recycling collection in incorporated areas for residential, commercial and apartments and also for commercial recycling in unincorporated areas. For the unincorporated areas, in the near term, the Owners Group recommends continuation of every other week curbside recycling in the relatively densely settled subdivisions, combined with the system of sanitation sites such as now exist for solid waste and recycling collection. This means about 50% of residences in the unincorporated areas will receive curbside recycling in the short run. In the longer term, the unincorporated areas may receive more widespread curbside recycling, leaving only those estimated 10%u of homes that are physically inaccessible by large recycling trucks to use solid waste collection centers. Recycling tonnage and costs shown in Table 3 -2 assume this more universal recycling in the unincorporated residential sector. Currently, there is no universal commercial recycling. That would be the biggest single new collection expense; it would also have the greatest potential for increasing recycling. Solid waste collection and management would continue to be under local government control. Their programs are described in each local government's report. It is possible that large increases in recycling may reduce the need for solid waste collection so the local governments may save on collection and disposal costs as the rate of waste generation goes down. 3 -2