After years of talk and debate about how the county was going to fulfill its state-mandated requirement to provide recycling options for 90 percent of county residents, it appears officials have settled on a plan.
The county intends to place a $5 assessment on property tax bills annually to pay for drop-off recycling programs in the county. A public hearing for the plan鈥檚 ratification 鈥� municipalities whose combined populations make up at least 60 percent of the county must approve it 鈥� will be 10 a.m. Oct. 5 at the old courthouse.
The fee is expected to generate about $170,000 to $190,000 for the county Solid Waste District鈥檚 budget, which will pay for recycling drop-off centers around the county, establish tire and hazardous waste collection days and develop community outreach and education programs about acceptable materials.
Recycling drop-off programs in the county ended in 2013, in part because of a lack of revenue for the county鈥檚 solid waste district as well as abuse by county residents. The most egregious offense might have been in Windsor Township where one bin was once filled with old house siding 鈥� which is decidedly not on the list of acceptable recyclables.
Drop-off sites are the worst of the available recycling options as they are inconvenient for many residents and easily abused.聽The county had long hoped to find ways to provide curbside pick up to meet the Ohio Environmental Protection mandate, but officials could not find a county-wide solution that met the EPA threshold. The $5 fee is the maximum amount the county is allowed without redrafting the 15-year solid waste plan.
Whatever drop-off sites the county solid waste district does establish must be well secured with video surveillance to keep vandals away. However, unless drop-off sites are made so easy and convenient, and the education around them completely thorough, it鈥檚 hard to see how this attempt will be more successful than the one that ended five years ago.
We don鈥檛 blame the county for this situation. Local officials have worked hard and brainstormed many different solutions in the years since it has set about fulfilling the EPA mandate 鈥� receiving many extensions from the state as plan after plan fell through for lack of funding or feasibility. The onus should be on the state, which issued the mandate in the first place, to help finance it. For example, Ohio is badly missing the boat by not offering 5 or 10 cent refundable deposits available like 11 other states, and by failing to divert more state funding to help local communities.
To read the full story, visit .