Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
One-hundred-forty six businesses and other non-residential entities replied to the survey and <br />there was no clearly favored option. Thus RRSI will present the results of the survey and its <br />analysis and opinions of the various options based on the respondents' preferences and RRSI's <br />own experience designing and implementing commercial waste and recycling systems <br />elsewhere. <br />We request that the Work Group review the options and if prepared, express its preference for <br />one or more of the options if there is a clear preference among the members. The expression of <br />preference and/or the need for more information will provide the staff will appropriate guidance <br />to take the next steps in developing what could be the most complex and challenging single <br />element of the overall solid waste plan. <br />Agenda Item 3. Franchise Commercial Waste Collection. The study from Jeremy O'Brien of <br />Olver Incorporated, one of the County's technical advisors on solid waste, focuses on comparing <br />the option of developing a franchise(s) for commerciaUnon-residential solid waste collection in <br />Orange County to the current system for that sector, which varies among the jurisdictions. A <br />franchise did not appear economically effective but it does have positive potential <br />environmental effects. A summary of potential effects identified include: <br />® reducing costs to customers (this turned out less cost effective than <br />predicted), <br />® reducing garbage truck traffic, <br />® limiting competition, <br />® controlling oversight and waste flow, <br />® presumably directing waste to aCounty-operated facility. <br />Recycling could be part of the franchise or not. The `fairness' issue of how to parcel out <br />franchises to the current haulers active in the County will be one issue that helps determine the <br />acceptability of franchising as a tool to manage solid waste locally. <br />Last year, Jeremy presented results of research that demonstrated it is not cost-effective to <br />provide franchised in only the unincorporated non-residential sub sector of Orange County. <br />There are not enough potential collection stops to create an economy of scale that makes this <br />more attractive than the current open market approach to waste collection. It could be included <br />in a larger system of franchising, but would not stand alone. <br />The Town of Hillsborough operates an exclusive franchise with a contractor for non-residential <br />waste within Town limits; waste is directed to the Orange County landfill as part of their <br />obligation under the interlocal agreement. The Town is currently evaluating its franchise <br />arrangement and hauler. <br />UNC also maintains an exclusive MSW hauling contract for on-campus wastes. 'The evaluation <br />also found ITNC's waste contract is also cost-effective compared to study alternative costs. <br />UNC's waste is currently directed to the Orange County landfill as part of their contract. <br />The current study evaluates the efficacy of franchising if some or all parts of the non-residential <br />sector throughout the County participate and the franchise is divided between two franchisees. <br />That approach may or may not be attractive to all potential users. Some combination of any or all <br />27 <br />