Laserfiche WebLink
6. Need for Additional Facilities: <br /> This strategy would not necessitate new or <br /> expanded facilities. <br /> 7. Consistency with Local Plans, Policies and Ordinances: <br /> This alternative is consistent with local <br /> conditions, in that County ordinances allow the County <br /> to establish residential refuse collection franchises <br /> and monthly residential collection rates. These rates <br /> currently have first and second can differentials. <br /> S. Institutional Barriers to Implementation: <br /> There would be no institutional barriers to <br /> implementation of differential rates for residential <br /> collection services. However, there would be <br /> considerable resistance from the private sector to <br /> extending control over commercial and industrial <br /> rates. <br /> 9. Cost Estimates for Implementation: <br /> Implementation costs would be insignificant in <br /> that rates charged for first and second cans could be <br /> adjusted so that there is no overall net loss in <br /> revenues for residential refuse collection. However, <br /> as waste quantities decrease, overall rates must rise <br /> somewhat to pay fixed costs which tend to remain <br /> constant during changes in waste quantities. For <br /> instance, the cost of administrative staff, buildings, <br /> and equipment are fairly constant for each refuse <br /> collector. These costs will not vary if this Source <br /> Reduction Strategy is successful. Therefore, if the <br /> Chapter 3 - Source Reduction 11 <br />