01-03-1985 Council Packet Special Meeting

Home Browse Search

available to the counties immediately or in the near future is to establish solid waste management districts. Districts have the same duties and authori- ties as counties that are needed to impleeient processing facilities. Districts are more likely to be established once the basic waste management services and facilities are implemented. A third ops.an is for counties to make contractural arrangements with each other. One county could contract for waste processing services with a facility owned by another county. A county could also contract directly with the owner of a waste f•'' The other option is for counties to coordinate their pro- grams or fa The centralize- essing facilities can be owned by the counties, ether pub- lic entities or p.ovate companies. First preference is given to those facili- ties that are privately owned, operated and maintained. With guarantees by the county that mixed waste vill be delivered to the mixed waste processing facility, it will be more likL•y that these facilities will obtain adequate long-term financing. There are several methods by which coun- ties could provide guarantees that waste will be delivered to processing facili- ties. These include contract, with haulers, municipalities or county or a waste designation plan and oriinance. These mechanisms have advantages and disadvantages and the mechanise: used depends on the circumstance, •nd condi- tions under which the guarantee is needed. Contracts with haulers have been used to supply waste to small processing facilities such as mo, ;r cc-bustion units. However, this method has severe drawbacks for larger p-ocessing facil�-_ies where large amounts of waste are needed. Because haulers only own or control the waste when the consumer ;ur- chases the waste haulers's service, there is nothing to prevent consumer; frrm switching haulers a. any time. Contracts with municipalities could o.'rer additional certainty for the county if municipalities could '.rart with the county for waste processing ser 'Ices and with others for come .ion end transport of the waste to the transfer Jr.d/ or processing facilities. However, few municipalities in the Metropolitan Area have municipal or organized collection services. This malt?,, will be explored in the organized �:iliection study to be prepared by the Council in 1985. The use of economic inceirc •._=s eliminates or reduces t.., =parity in tipping fees between the facility and the landfill. Another so..ce of revenue is needed to keep the tipping fee at the facility low enough to ensure that the waste will be delivered to the facility. Determining how to subsidize the tipping fee and convincing the financial community that waste will be delivered to the facility are key disadvantages. Another method to provide waste to a facility is through resignation. A .?esic- nation plan and ordinance established by the county provides a dire t legal requirement that waste be de.!vered to a resource recovery facility. Designa- tion assures a waste supply to a faci'Ity and provides enough certainty to finance the facility. Designation pla,xs amp ordinances must be approved ! *e Council (see criteria for reviewing designation proposals in the appendix 94