Agenda - 06-17-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

gut I Michael Talbert said this issue has been looked at for a little over a year, and there are 2 60 pages of history on where this has been. He said this is not about going over that again, but 3 this is about looking at what the County could do and what the legal options are for the future. 4 He referred to page 4 of the abstract and reviewed the following issues and decisions to 5 be discussed: 6 7 Issues to be discussed at May 13, 2014 Work Session 8 • Discussion of Frequently Asked Questions from the Public Hearings (see 9 Attachment 9) 10 • Does the County want to continue Rural Curbside Recycling, and if so, 11 what is the customer base - the existing rural district (13,700 customers) 12 and /or additional customers 13 • How does the County fund Rural Curbside Recycling for Fiscal 2014/2015 14 • Recycling and Solid Waste issues with the County's partners 15 • Other ways to provide recycling services and look at options 16 • New Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement 17 • A stable funding source for recycling that is fair and equitable 18 • Discuss different options for servicing high density rural residential clusters, 19 including costs /benefit analysis 20 21 Decisions by July 1, 2014: 22 • Does the County want to continue Rural Curbside Recycling, and if so, 23 what is the customer base, the existing rural district (13,700 customers) 24 and /or additional customers 25 • How does the County fund Rural Curbside Recycling for Fiscal 2014/2015 26 27 Michael Talbert said the above decisions are in the budget, and staff is recommending 28 continuation of services to the existing customers and moving forward with the roll carts. He 29 said the proposal for funding at this point is to use the reserves for the upcoming fiscal year. 30 He said a work group, task force, and /or a solid waste advisory board could examine this issue 31 for moving forward. 32 Chair Jacobs said he would be meeting with the Mayors again soon, and this will be a 33 major topic of conversation as they try to find a common approach to this issue. 34 35 PUBLIC COMMENT 36 Jan Sassaman said he understood that no decisions will be made tonight. He said he 37 has some expertise with Orange County's solid waste management systems. He said the 38 Board of County Commissioners needs to decide on funding for rural curbside recycling now. 39 He said the Board has kicked the can so far down the road that it is running out of road. He 40 said whatever decision is made should be: 1) consistent with what is expected from the 41 municipal partners; 2) designed to maximize citizen participation in recycling; and 3) should 42 equitably allocate costs among eligible citizens. 43 He said combining rural, municipal and family curbside collection, paid for by the general 44 fund, may be the most cost effective and equitable approach. He said it would also provide a 45 political incentive to extend curbside recycling throughout the County. He said this would cost 46 about 1.4 cents on the tax rate. He said this solution is not currently before them, so the tax 47 district is still the best interim solution. He said a voluntary subscription service will not likely be 48 cost effective or achieve recycling goals. He said paying from landfill reserves is not prudent or 49 equitable, as these funds were derived from all County and town residents who have used