Either some information was left out of the article or the county commissioners didn’t apply their brains to the subject. In the article, Mr. Walker said “ECUA would use our central landfill as their transfer station.” The obvious missing information has to do with how the recycle material gets from a residence to the landfill. Reading that the option to re-open previously closed remote recycling sites was too costly, the reader is left to believe the commissioners are banking on residents bringing their recycle material to the landfill. I’ve been to the landfill twice. Each time I waited 30 minutes in a line of vehicles. Keep this in mind.
After hours of research, I could not find hard numbers to tell me how many residences are in Santa Rosa County. I did find information from the 2010 census suggesting there are 50,000 homes within the county. Imagine the traffic nightmare at the landfill if even 10% of these drop off their recycle material with any regularity. Not going to happen. Residents will simply put their recycle material into provided garbage containers; Waste Pro or Waste Management. Good-bye recycling.
A suggestion for the county commissioners to ponder: Before residing in Santa Rosa County, I lived in three communities: San Jose, and Mission Viejo, California and Dallas, Texas. These communities have voted to make recycling simple and cost effective. They all have a recycle line item on the annual property tax bill. The California communities charge $20 per year; Dallas charged $15 per year. While I realize Santa Rosa County isn’t as large as these communities, still there is a thought here. If the annual cost of operating the remote recycling sites is $200,000, what would be the annual cost for each homeowner: $4 per year. Is there someone in the county who couldn’t afford $4 per year? If there is, exempt them.
While the article says there will be no cost to the county for the ‘is a go’ plan, there will be a cost to the homeowner: gasoline. If I take my recycle material to the landfill twice per month, it looks like I would use two gallons of gasoline; I live in the Wallace community area. At $3.50 per gallon, I’d spend $7 per month. The $4 per year idea is much more cost effective for me as one remote site is located a the 5 points area of Chumuckla Highway. I request a $4 per year property tax for remote recycling be added on the November ballot and let the taxpayers decide.
David G. Holt
Pace, FL
This article originally appeared on Santa Rosa Press Gazette: Pay for recycling sites via property tax