Agenda - 09-16-2010 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Draft and the concept of paying additional fees for services may not be as popularly received as when the work was done. One future planning challenge/decision point will be regarding long term development of a publicly funded and operated commercial recycling program.Alternatives included a . privately-operated program with strict disposal bans that essentially require recycling to comply with the disposal bans as is now the case with cardboard or some type of franchised program that avoids public investment in equipment and labor but still results in diversion of materials from the landfill via franchised recycling haulers. • C&D mana eg ment: While C&D volume is presently declining across the state,the need continues to provide�local means to manage recyclable and waste C&D materials. It will be important to address the question of how to manage the valuable resource that is the C&D landfill as the repository for those construction wastes that cannot be recycled and the considerable investment in processing area and equipment for regulated materials including wood, scrap metal and white goods. • Landfill closure and long-term maintenance: The County is now planning for closure but it will be an expensive task including closure,post closure monitoring and maintenance and hauling of local wastes to out of County disposal facilities.Post closure monitoring is required for a minimum of thirty years according to Federal law.If any environmenta.l problems arise,the County must provide solutions,which are typically not inexpensive. This is an area intimately tied to the long term financial planning and is mandatory. Thus any long term plan will have to take account of these elements and future staff work will provide some options for developing this long term funding. • Conversion to single stream recycling_ While it appears that this approach to recycling is the trend,we do not plan an immediate conversion due to staffing constraints for both management and operations.Long-term single stream does appear to be the direction that curbside programs are headed as they have been in other counties and states. It is not obvious that it is a `best' solution,but certainly increases tonnage into the recycling conta.iner. The single stream conversion at least in urban areas is likely to be able to cover the cost of converting from two recycling bins to rollcarts from increased automated collection efficiency. That issue is more complex in the rural areas as not all areas are suitable for cart-based collection. That sub-issue is undecided at this time and can be determined if the overall conversion to single stream is embraced using carts. • Expansion of rural residential recvcling: There are two phases possible. The first would enable expansion to an additional 1,000 homes focused on infill along existing routes and areas that have expressed interest in curbside. That can be done with no staffing changes provided currently vacant positions can be re-filled. The larger issue is a more universal embrace of rural area curbside recycling to as much as 90%of all households.Now about 65%are served.As expansion to less densely settled areas increases,cost-�ffectiveness of curbside collection declines,but providing the service has added benefits of increased recycling convenience and there is one clear message county-wide about service provision. Levying the 3-R fee on new households would self-finance the expansions. • Franchised waste collections: If there is not to be an in-County operated solid waste disposal facility,then the direct benefit to the County of franchised collections is limited 44