Agenda - 02-18-1999 - Attachment 7

Browse Search

r~ s management on the same basis, and would be charged only once.. municipal taxes were used along with County taxes, municipal residents would pay twice.) The means of implementing the SW1ViP from revenues raised through property taxes presented in Table 3. assumes that the Orange County property tax rate would be increased to raise the additional revenue. The assumptions made in Table 3 show the FY 1998-99 Countywide property tax base of $6,009,267,349. The revenue required in each year of the forecast is the same as that presented in previous models, and the property tax base against which an assessment would be placed is assumed to increase at l.sgd'o per year. Points for Discussion • The SWMP funds would not have the financial support of tax-exempt properties which could receive waste reduction services, allowing tax-exempt properties io be subsidized by other sectors. • By raising the necessary revenue through property taxes, undeveloped properties not receiving any services under the SWN1I' would be subsidizing those properties receiving services. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is the largest tax exempt property owner. It currently funds its own recycling and waste reduction programs. • Among the alternatives considered here, this would be the easiest one to administer. • Increasing property tax raze to fund implementation of the SWMP would make this increased cost to the property owner tax deductible, whereas the Availability Fee would not be tax deductible. III. -Each jurisdiction establishes. imulements and coIlects its own fees. This approach would provide for the greatest degree of autonomy in allowing each jurisdiction to provide the additional necessary funds for the recycling program expansion by whatever method each thinks most appropriate. It is also inconsistent with tha notion of a unified and integrated plan for all jurisdictions of Orange County. Table 4 displays the additional sum that would be required of each community during FY 1998- 99. Table 4a. specifies the additional sums needed from each communit~+ through the remaining years of this forecast; based on the same calculation method established In Table 4. The figures were derived from examining the costs attn'butable to each property in the jurisdiction based on the type of services received,-and the number of each type of property in that jurisdiction. -.~ Points for Discussion. • Contrary to the notion of an into Solid Waste Management system.