Agenda - 05-05-2015 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I served by the University's separate recycling program. Option 2 would evenly distribute solid 2 waste convenience center costs across all sectors. 3 4 Option 2 5 e Most simplified fee structure 6 e Easiest option to administer, manage, and explain 7 e Includes phased expansion of rural curbside service, increasing recycling and waste 8 reduction rate 9 0 Flexibility in providing services without being constrained by rigid categories is 10 maximized 11 0 Example: If a business is located on a residential route (urban or rural) and generates 12 recyclables in quantities similar to a residence, it can be assigned to a residential route 13 without regard to changing 14 15 Key Factors 16 • Rural curbside service is proposed to be phased in to entire unincorporated area over three 17 year period, equalizing services by the fourth year. The program fee will increase incrementally 18 over phasing period. 19 • All developed properties pay the same amount, although eligibility for services may vary 20 between jurisdictions and sectors. 21 • Efforts to provide more equitable services among all the program users could be implemented 22 over time by improving service efficiencies and availability of services. 23 • This option presents a new funding paradigm and new way of viewing solid waste program 24 funding by offering a singular fee. This holistic approach to funding eliminates any division 25 between rural and urban boundaries, creating a truly integrated and comprehensive approach 26 to program funding county -wide. 27 28 Universal Elements for Both Options 29 • Undeveloped properties do not pay a fee. 30 • All developed properties including tax - exempt properties pay a fee. 31 • The fee structure is stable and predictable. 32 • Fee impacts for potential service expansions, improvements, and changes can be easily 33 determined and made available for elected boards to consider. 34 • Some property owners may consider the proposed fee rates a significant increase because no 35 fee for rural or urban curbside service or multi - family service has been assessed for the past 36 two years. 37 • Failure of elected boards to approve a funding mechanism for the FY 2015 -16 Budget may 38 lead to suspension of services or further debiting of the solid waste landfill closure and post - 39 closure reserves account. 40 • Orange County will continue to provide financial assistance for qualifying low- income residents 41 who are unable to pay for solid waste program fees. In 2014, approximately 700 parcels were 42 provided assistance through the County's 3R Fee Financial Assistance program. 43 • Funding option proposals are based on FY 2014 -15 budget revenue requirements. For FY 44 2015 -16, minor fee adjustments may be implemented to align with the actual FY 2015 -16 45 budget revenue requirements. 46 47 Gayle Wilson noted that the current year's budget was used in this analysis, and the 48 fees in the packet reflect calculations based on the current year solid waste budget and 49 expenditures. He said the rate of the fee could vary next year once the new budget is 50 completed.