The post you are reporting:
As I recall. The 'part district green waste service' was exactly the deal struck between local government and the contractor. Some places were just too difficult to reach and not everybody has a garden. True, this big-sell was focussed on the fact that if you pay you get the service, no matter if you have not enjoyed the service hitherto. Simply put, this means that those with garden waste, but with better things to do with £40 (over and above council tax) than pay twice for a service, are counting themselves out of the deal.
Come come now Watty: "...collections that are made come out of cost of the licence, therefore it is self financing."
Let us not be silly now. Even if the operatives were on a 'Zero-Hours' contract there is much else that counts as cost to the contractor so there must be a break-even point, and as this responsibility would not be taken on by the contractor it falls to the council to make-up the short fall. That is was 'confidently' predicted that the up-take would be around 8,000 but is less that half of that, as of now - the 22nd of September.
Given the "not very transparent" nature of the figures in the article cited above. The £48k 'cost' must represent something. I pluck from the ether that, this represents a shortfall of about 1,000 customers short of the break-even point. That point where the income (accounted in multiples of £40) falls short of the agreed payment to the contractors and that is hence made-up by the rate-payer.
I could be wrong.