Browse
Search
Agenda - 01-16-1999- 3
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1999
>
Agenda - 01-16-1999
>
Agenda - 01-16-1999- 3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/4/2015 3:47:05 PM
Creation date
8/5/2009 3:17:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/16/1999
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
3
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19990116
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS <br />Costs <br />When the existing WTMP proposal was presented in the late 1980's, David M. <br />Griffith and Associates conducted the study to establish the fee level and other <br />related financial considerations. The fees approved for the implementation of the <br />program were approximately one -half of the DMG recommendation and one FTE <br />was funded to start the work. At present, the direct fees account for approximately <br />one fourth of the FTE salary costs and the percentage of fee reimbursement <br />gradually increases each year. Because the DMG methodology was based <br />primarily on direct costs, staff doesn't believe it to be the best way to approach the <br />estimation of costs for the expansion. <br />The Institute of Government is conducting a study of the costs for environmental <br />health services in several counties across North Carolina which is based on a more <br />comprehensive cost allocation model. The first draft of this study is due out soon <br />and should offer a more accurate way to look at the actual costs of providing <br />education and inspections. When finalized and if fees are part of the funding <br />mechanism, staff will prepare a fee schedule for the committee's review based on <br />the IOG methodology and findings. CIP needs' such as computers, technical <br />equipment and vehicles will also be figured into the fee base. <br />The direct costs for each inspector will be salary and fringes, vehicle, computer <br />equipment, field equipment, and office furniture. <br />Funding — <br />There are several options for paying for this program expansion. It is staff's <br />recommendation that the option selected also be used to fund the existing WTMP <br />activities. <br />General Fund — The general fund is the first option for covering the expenses of <br />this program. The principal argument against using the general fund is that <br />municipal citizens would be paying for inspection of county resident's septic <br />systems. However, it must be considered that the watersheds for the three main <br />impoundments (and a proposed fourth) serving the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill <br />and Hillsborough are mostly comprised of county lands served by on -site septic <br />systems. This expansion will be a benefit in the protection of those reservoirs. <br />The general fund approach would also eliminate take the "ability to pay" and non- <br />,, payment issues and be much easier to administer from the Health Department's <br />perspective. <br />Special Fund — Although a special fund, even an enterprise fund, could be <br />considered, there was not much support for its use with the committee. This <br />method would allow for the charging of a monthly fee to each enrolled owner for <br />Page 10 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.