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

Browse Search

9 4. Each jurisdiction establishes implements and collects its own fees The Committee had also requested information on what charges would be levied against each jurisdiction if jurisdictions simply received a service charge for Solid Waste Management Plan services to residences and businesses within their boundaries, and the decision as to how to fund this service were left to the governing body of each community. This approach would provide the greatest degree of autonomy by allowing each jurisdiction to provide the additional necessary funds for the recycling program expansion by whatever method it thought most appropriate (fees, taxes, etc.). However, this method is also inconsistent with the notion of a unified and integrated plan for all jurisdictions of Orange County. This plan would require the figuring each year of costs for each jurisdiction. This plan may also encourage jurisdictions to consider requesting different levels of service, since each jurisdiction would be paying a fee for service. Such a trend would be antithetical to the idea of an integrated plan. A plan designed to take full advantage of synergism would find political boundaries irrelevant. Using the benchmark years used to discuss other financing mechanisms, we provide here the estimated charge to be levied against each jurisdiction, for the services available to residences and businesses in their community for the fiscal years 2001 -02 and 2005 -06. A more detailed breakdown of the charges, per community, per year, including the estimated number of residences and businesses is'included as part of Table 1(attached). urisdiction FY 2001 -02 FY 2005 -06 Orange County $872,073 $1,219,135 Carrboro $437,260 $589,169 Hillsborough $198,363 $288,590 Chapel Hill $1,076,448 $1,485,637 TOTAL $2,584144 $3,582,530 5. Solid Waste Management Plan. The implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan is intended to reduce the amount of waste to be landfilled. This reduction would reduce the waste disposal costs to the various communities, and might also reduce the waste collection costs as well. The staffs November 2e'Report to the Alternative Finance Committee (Table 6) investigates the effects of this reduced tonnage and tipping fees for each jurisdiction.. Estimates of the potential for savings in waste collection costs are far more arguable, because there is no ready way to estimate savings from the several possible modifications in waste collection methods, such as: re- routing of collections, reduced collection crew size, reduced collection frequency, etc. An outline of the current implementation schedule for the Solid Waste Management Plan is attached. CONCLUSIONS Without modification of the Solid Waste Management Plan and its implementation schedule, any financing mechanism-would be required to raise between $1.8 and $3.8 million each year for the next decade to supplement the revenue of the present landfill tipping fees. We believe that the sooner a decision is made on how to modify solid waste financing, the easier it will be for the community to afford the programs needed to meet the adopted goals of waste reduction. 2