Agenda - 05-21-2013 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

13 1 3. If either the Solid Waste Management Authority or the County-Wide Solid Waste Tax 2 Service District approaches are not acceptable, then some configuration of a modified franchise 3 approach to providing both solid waste and recycling services within the unincorporated areas 4 of Orange County on a voluntary participation basis offers a solution. It allows existing 5 participants in the unincorporated areas to gain the services (and pay for them directly) and 6 does not require persons not using the services to pay for services they are not using (even 7 though the services are available). Towns can pursue individual franchise agreements for 8 services and/or be included in the County's efforts if they choose. (Again, the Basic 3R Fees 9 could remain in place to supporrconvenience center operations.) 10 11 He said that the third option is more complicated due to the requirement to send out 12 individual notices to each property owner involved, which would be 13,000 plus notices. 13 He said that, in concept, the issue is to address what is in front of the Board now; but 14 the reality is that there is an opportunity to pursue a more comprehensive approach and long 15 term solution. 16 He pointed out that this is not a staffing issue with the County. He said that the 17 employees at the landfill are being transferred to other open spots. He pointed out that the 18 County currently contracts the curbside services within all three towns. The county crews only 19 pick up at multi-family units and governmental bui|dinga, and the other areas are on month to 20 month contracts for curbside recycling pickup. 21 Chair Jacobs said, after receiving a letter from Mayor Stevens, he asked Mayor Stevens 22 if he were amenable to working with Orange County. He said the Mayor indicated, yes. 23 Chair Jacobs spoke with Mayor Chilton yesterday and was told that he was interested 24 and Chair Jacobs received a letter las month indicating that the Town board would be 25 interested in maintaining the same system and was interested in working with the County. 26 Chair Jacobs said he had lunch with Mayor Kleinschmidt last week and brought up this 27 issue. 28 He said that if a tax service district is to be conaidered, that would involve the towns. He 29 would like to talk to the three Mayors to flush out what would be possible. 30 Frank Clifton said if a solid waste authority or tax district were innp}emented, it would not 31 apply until the next fiscal year. 32 Commissioner Price asked what would happen to private haulers under options 2, 3, 33 and 4. 34 Frank Clifton said there could be more than one hauler, even under a franchise 35 situation. He said either the authority or the tax districts can maintain services as they are now, 36 though the fee structure may have to change. 37 Commissioner Price said she is more concerned about the 12 private haulers and their 38 sustainability. 39 Frank Clifton said right now there is no relationship with these haulers. He said it is an 40 open market system. 41 Chair Jacobs said, if it is a taxing district for recycling, there would be no effect on 42 municipal solid waste haulers who are currently picking up household garbage. 43 Commissioner Dorosin said Chair Jacobs talked with the jurisdictions and he needed a 44 clarification on the options. He said that he understood that the taxing districts in 2, 3 and 4 45 don't require the municipalities to participate and the only one that requires participation is the 46 solid waste management authority. He asked if any of the conversations with town leaders had 47 included discussions of involvement in a solid waste management authority. 48 Chair Jacobs said the conversations were addressing the current integrated recycling 49 system, and the mayors were supportive of options that maintain this system and were 50 theoretically committed to participation. He only brought up the waste authority option with one