Agenda - 04-15-2008-6d - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

of the three municipalities and the University may opt into a franchise, while the others may decide that their current system is suitable. A final system cost and environmental evaluation will depend partly on the number and proximity of potential customers; that will be determined by which jurisdictions opt in or not. We request that Work Group members express their preference for further development of the franchise concept, state if they are not interested in their government or entity pursuing this further and/or if they need further information to make a decision. Those preferences would give the staff and advisors more guidance on the scope of any future franchise analysis. A secondary set of issues involves the administration, level of centralized control and billing, types of services offered and whether or not recycling is included. Franchisee selection will be handled fairly and competitively to ensure the best pricing for the County and an equitable solution among haulers. Planning Process Issues for Recommendations by the Work Group The list of issues described below are those that the Work Group has received information about and on which they have either made a recommendation or will need to further evaluate for development of an overall draft plan. RRSI and Olver have provided technical papers and analyses on all these issues over the past year. Processing Recyclables: One recent key recommendation the Work Group made in November 2007, was to support development of a shipment point at the Eubanks Road facility to a merchant MRF for all commingled recyclables that the County now collects and is likely to collect in the next year. As program tonnage grows more than 10% over the current tonnage level, it will be necessary to develop expanded recycling transfer capacity at the current site or another site. The decision of whether or not the County should build its own Materials Recovery Facility is hereby deferred as we can use this short-term transfer opportunity to gain experience with the private market and focus on program expansion. Commingling collection allows us the labor to both expand the number of collection sites in existing programs and possibly add programs to increase our recycling tonnage and further decrease landfilling. The Board of Orange County Commissioners has requested the staff to return in April with a detailed implementation plan for this action. ® Rural Residential Waste Services: Last year the Work Group received a technical report from Olver Inc. about providing universal rural residential waste collection using a franchise with one or more haulers with exclusive territories. That solution was evaluated compared to the current system that is a mix of convenience centers and open-market private haulers and found to provide aneconomy-of--scale that made it economically and environmentally attractive, if collection were provided county-wide. Such a system works best when it is either required to be used, i.e. paid for by all eligible users or there are fees charged by volume for garbage disposed at solid waste convenience centers. Charging a fee to cover waste management costs at the centers could then often economically justify households' decisions to subscribe to waste collection from the exclusively franchised haulers) rather than self-haul. The Work Group made no recommendation on this, but will need to address this issue as part of completing a plan. 28