Trash & Recycling

Orange County's Plans & The Talkin' Trash Survey

Where We Stand: As Orange County develops its long range plan for trash and recycling (known as the Solid Waste Work Group Plan), OCV will advocate for features that are important to rural residents. Our position is based on the results of the Talkin? Trash Survey and what we learn from meetings,  county reports and budgets.

Convenience Centers

• We support the continued operation of five Solid Waste Convenience Centers as the most cost effective way to provide trash and recycling services to rural residents.
• Convenience centers, like libraries, schools, and parks, benefit every resident and should continue to be funded through the general fund (property taxes).
• We believe that convenience centers are safe and effective as is, and improvments should be added as budgets allow. 
• We support reasonable limitations on convenience center schedules and services to avoid tax increases or new fees
• We prefer that services that are not used often, such as furniture, tires, and appliances,  be centralized at Walnut Grove and Eubanks,  or provided one day per quarter.
• If schedules are limited, every center should be open at least one weekend day and one full weekday;  Large centers at Walnut Grove and Eubanks should be open 6 days a week including  Saturdays and  Sundays.
• Schedules should assure that one or two centers are always open.
•  If it can be achieved without a tax increase or new fees, we support modernizing t Walnut Grove and  Eubanks Road with concrete slabs and compactors,

Curbside Trash and Recycling Services

• We oppose waste franchises where the county contracts waste services on behalf of citizens.  Every rural resident already has access to curbside trash pickup services if they want it.  Communities can decide amongst themselves if they want to contract with a single vendor. Vendors that serve the rural area are listed on our website.
• We suoport a voluntary rural recycling program where service and fees are optional
• Rural residents regularly recycle at convenience centers and compost at home.
• The current nandatory rural recycling program is used only by 60% of the residents that receive it.
• New/expanded recycling should focus on schools, multi-unit housing, and churches where recycling is traditionally low.

Service Costs and Fees

• We support continued funding of convenience centers through taxes
• We oppose pay to throw, gate fees, or access fees for residents that use convenience centers.
• We believe that convenience centers, like libraries, schools and social services, benefit everyone in the county not just rural residents.
• We encourage strong fiscal oversight of the SW operation - until the full impact of the landfill closing is understood. 

We appreciate the work of the county solid waste staff, including the convenience center employees, who provide clean, safe and cost effective service. We are committed to work with the county to assure that adequate service levels are maintained while containing costs and avoiding new taxes and fees.

The Talkin? Trash survey is complete!

Nearly 900 households responded from all over Orange County. With the help of demographer/statistician Carl Hoffman, Ph.D., wife/partner Kathleen, and their daughter Ariana, we have analyzed the results and prepared a report for the Solid Waste Work Group, the County Commissioners, and of course the public.

Here?s a quick recap of the results:

• 881 rural Orange County households responded
• There is widespread support for the County-operated Convenience Centers
• 85% percent of folks who responded recycle all the time
• Most rural households use Convenience Centers, including many that also use curbside recycling
• Most people drive 6 - 10 minutes to their local Convenience Center
• Convenience centers are safe, well-run and appreciated by residents.
• Most people are willing to drive a bit (but not much) further to their Center
• There is little interest in new services or fees
• Saturday is the most preferred time to use a Convenience Center
• Tire, yard waste, and bulky item disposal is used the least

For the full report:
Summary Report ? outlining key results and conclusions
Appendix A ? Survey Questionnaire
Appendix B ? Survey Responses (question by question)
Appendix C ? Survey Tables containing the statistical results
Appendix D ? Public Comment containing all written comments provided by respondents

The media reaction to our survey has been positive and encouraging:
Herald Sun, November 20
Herald Sun Editorial, November 20

Is the Talkin' Trash Survey Representative?

Here's one: rural resident's opinion. And here's our response. And here's a follow-up letter from an OCV Supporter.

Find more survey comments in Appendix D

Talkin? Trash Survey and the Solid Waste Work Group

On November 17, OCV leaders presented the Talkin' Trash Survey results to the county's Solid Waste Work Group.

This group has been discussing options for garbage and recycling services for the unincorporated areas of the county. In particular, the work group is looking at:

• Collection services for garbage and recycling
• Modernizing Convenience Centers including adding compactors, paving, and other features at a cost of $1 million per center
• New fees to fund Convenience Centers, which are currently funded by taxes

The overall goal of the workgroup includes improving recycling and providing alternatives sources of funding for Convenience Centers.

The November meeting focused on discussing ideas for expanding the rural recycling program and options to keep the Bradshaw Quarry Convenience Center open. Here is a summary of how the discussion, and expected recommendations, link to survey results and where OCV stands on the issue.

Where We Stand

Based on survey results, the work group is evaluating reducing weekday Convenience Center hours and services in order to fund the Bradshaw Quarry facility. The work group asked the Solid Waste staff to evaluate whether overall Convenience Centers hours could be reduced to fund the Bradshaw Quarry Center (which, by the way, is now estimated to cost over $85,000 a year, even though the initial budget was $35,000).

Survey results indicate that weekday afternoons and evenings are least popular among residents, so having Convenience Centers open on three full weekdays seems unnecessary. In addition, the survey indicated that many services - especially tires, yard waste and bulky items - are infrequently used, so it may be possible to provide these services at one or two centers or, following Wake County?s lead, allow residents to drop them off once a quarter.

OCV will support a Work Group recommendation to reduce weekday afternoon/evening hours at Convenience Centers - especially if it's accompanied by a flexible schedule where Convenience Center hours are not all the same. We support centralizing non-essential services such as tires or yard waste at one or two centers, or providing them on a periodic (quarterly or annual) basis.

The Work Group may recommend expanding the bi-weekly rural recycling program even though residents have indicated that the program is not convenient or effective. Roughly 40% of survey respondents have access to bi-weekly curbside recycling. Sixty percent of those residents use it (about 25% of the total) and nearly half of those use other services, too. Only 23% of respondents are in favor of expanding it.

In contrast, 85% of respondents recycle regularly - and most of those respondents (73% of total) use Convenience Centers as part of their recycling program. There's no basis to believe that adding curbside recycling (and the $38 annual 3R fee) will enhance the county's recycling program or performance in any way.

OCV opposes expanding mandatory curbside recycling and adding the $38 annual 3R fee for rural residents. If the county wants to improve recycling rates - which are already the highest in the state - OCV suggests investing in education and working with other communities to develop markets for more recyclables. We support efforts to improve the use of the program by those who already pay for it. We also support a voluntary program where only residents that use the service pay for it.

The Work Group is working on plans to "modernize" Convenience Centers. These plans involve investing $1 million or more to pave Convenience Centers, add compactors, and make other improvements. Even though Convenience Center safety is not an issue, this argument is used to justify the improvements.

Fundamentally, today the Centers are not broken and the county is not likely to be able to afford these improvements in the near future.

OCV is against modernizing Convenience Centers unless they are part of a broader, long term plan for a decentralized waste transfer system that allows the county to avoid building a Waste Transfer Station.

The Work Group is working on strategies to stabilize the funding for Convenience Centers. Today, the Convenience Centers cost roughly $2 million a year to operate and are funded by taxes paid by every resident. The survey - which was only completed by rural residents - suggests that the current funding mechanisms are appropriate and that residents value the service. Over 93% are supportive of the county's recycling program and the base $37 3R fee that funds it.

Residents strongly oppose new Convenience Center fees (83% are against Pay to Throw fees; 85% are against gate fees; 61% are against annual access fees). Many residents provided comments stating concerns about rising taxes and fees. Plus the survey responses suggest that, contrary to the belief of the Work Group, fees will not improve recycling rates.

OCV opposes new fees for Convenience Centers - especially since the county has taken no action to reduce costs for unnecessary services and infrastructure. If fees are added, a small Convenience Center fee of $50 or less could be charged to every household, especially if there are no additional 3R fees or fee increases (such as expanded rural recycling).

Rural Residents Can Influence County’s Plan for Trash and Recycling

Background

Today in-town residents (Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough) have curbside collection services for garbage and recycling for a fee. Out-of-town (“rural”) households have the option to use private haulers like Waste Industries to pick up their household garbage (for roughly $250 a year). Anyone can take their trash to any one of five county-operated convenience centers. Convenience centers are funded by primarily by property taxes.

For routine recycling (paper, cans, bottles, etc), the County provides unstaffed recycling drop off centers throughout the county. In addition, curbside recycling is provided to in-town residents and 2/3’s of the 20,000 households in the rural parts of the county. Every household pays a $37 base 3R fee (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle). Residents that live on county recycling routes pay an additional 3R fee whether or not they use the service. Rural households pay $38 per year for biweekly service, in-town households pay $52 per year for weekly service. For more information on the county’s recycling program and fees, click here.

A Solid Waste Workgroup – consisting of solid waste professionals, elected officials from towns, and at least one county commissioner - has been working for the last 3-4 years on a plan to improve solid waste services. The Workgroup is considering many changes ranging from improving convenience centers to extending curbside garbage and recycling services to every household in the county.

The planning process is looking at new fees and/or taxes for everything. Part of the goal appears to be a transition from tax-based to fee-based services, and to use fees to encourage residents to recycle more (At over 50%, the county’s recycling rate is currently the highest in the state).

It’s unclear whether the Workgroup is attempting to compensate for the loss of landfill revenues and to pay for the new waste transfer station which will add costs for disposing household garbage.

There are features in the solid waste plan that may be questionable for many rural residents. In the near future, the county plans to expand the curbside recycling program to all rural households. This bi-weekly service is already available to roughly 2/3rds of rural residents who are required to pay an additional 3R fee of $38/year for the service. The county reports that less than half the households that pay for the service use it regularly.

The plan also suggests the county could contract with private vendors such as Waste Industries to provide curbside garbage collection to rural households at a cost of $250-$300 per year. If curbside services are adopted widely, the county would reduce the number of convenience centers or eliminate them completely.

The county is also discussing “modernizing” convenience centers and adding new usage fees such as “pay to throw” fees of $1.25 to $2.50 for each bag of garbage. Today, convenience centers are funded mostly by taxes. There’s a belief among some officials that in-town residents never use these centers and shouldn’t have to pay for them – which may or may not be an accurate portrayal.

For more on ideas that are being considered for rural residents, please click here.

For rural residents, it's not just about costs. Curbside services are impractical for many rural households with long gravel driveways and narrow private roads. Having access to nearby convenience centers provides a practical and cost effective way for many rural residents to handle their household garbage and routine recycling.

Though the county’s plan is not complete, it was used to justify closing the Bradshaw Quarry Convenience Center. Click here for county documents In this case, the county staff proposed closing a facility which handles garbage and recycling for 1500 households at a cost of roughly $40 per year per household. They were set to replace it with curbside recycling and add a $38 3R fee to each household (for a total 3R fee of $75 per year). To handle their garbage, residents would have to drive an additional 15-20 miles round trip to another convenience center (vendors do not serve the area). When the commissioners learned the facts, they delayed the closing to have time to reevaluate the decision.

The Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) previewed the county’s plan during their September meeting and rightly questioned its fit for rural residents. SWAB also questioned the proposed spending to modernize the convenience centers given the county’s current fiscal climate. SWAB recommended that the county seek input from rural residents to test their assumptions and recommendations.

The Talkin' Trash Survey

The county’s plan is about to be issued and changes in services will quickly follow, so there's not much time. Rural residents need to weigh in so that commissioners understand their needs and priorities. Without rural input, the county is poised to institute a cascade of inappropriate services and substantial fees at every turn. While all citizens need to “reduce, reuse, recycle,” we can’t afford misdirected solid waste planning and mismatched solutions.

OCV is determined to help rural residents throughout the county voice their views. The "Talkin' Trash Survey" is an extraordinary opportunity for rural residents to demonstrate that "one size does not fit all" and to help Orange County plan solid waste services that truly fit rural communities.