Agenda - 09-14-1999 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

MEMORANDUM 6 TO: Carrboro Town Aldermen Chapel Hill Town Council Hillsborough Town Council Orange County Commissioners FROM: Landfill Owners Group Alternative Financing Committee Council Member Joyce Brown Commissioner Margaret Brown Mayor Horace Johnson Alderman Diana McDuffee SUBJECT: Availability Fees and Other Financing Mechanisms for Solid Waste Management DATE: December 30, 1998 At the request of the Alternative Financing Committee of the Landfill Owners Group, the Solid Waste staff has prepared this report to governing bodies of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Orange County. This memorandum reviews the four financing options studied by the committee and requests feedback from each of the governing bodies. Background The Alternative Finance Committee was formed by the Landfill Owners Group in February, 1998, and its objectives were to examine: 1. the need for additional funding sources to provide for the expansion of recycling programs needed to reach the 61% waste reductiontrecycling goal called for in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan; 2. the risks and apparent inequities inherent in the current funding scheme which relies solely on tipping fees; and 3. available alternatives for additional funding. The Committee began meeting in March, 1998, meeting a total of seven times, to determine how future revenue requirements of the solid waste management system could be funded. These requirements included costs associated with solid waste plan implementation and operations as well as the eventual reduction or cessation of tipping fee revenues. It was understood that once significant waste reduction began to occur, the garbage based tipping fee revenue would decrease as the garbage available for disposal decreased. Without additional funding to rectify the revenue shortfall that would occur under the existing funding structure, current and anticipated solid waste management operations could not continue. Additionally, the estimated revenue requirements to be generated through any funding source selected had been based on the financing structure being implemented in FY 1999. However, because it is now clear that the fee structure would not be implemented until FY 2000, the fees would need to be revised to address that change. Discussion Throughout this analysis it was assumed that the alternative funding source, whatever its nature, would be implemented to fund only that portion of projected expenditures th?Uould not be funded by the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Construction and Demolition (C&D) tipping fees, and the modest revenues attributable to the recycling programs themselves. 1