Minutes - 19970605 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. 3 1 • • When the issue of how to fund this effort is discussed, staff will provide several options to be 2 discussed. 3 The State is requiring this plan, however, there will not be significant consequences for not 4 reaching those goals in the time frame indicated 5 • If several counties joined in the effort to finance a MRF and then committed to using the facility 6 it would be less expensive for both units of government. 7 • If Orange County committed to building a MRF there would be very little difference for the 8 citizen except that they would be able to recycle more items for pickup. We are currently 9 limited by the number of sections each truck has for sorting. The MRF would have all sorting 0 done at the facility. 1 • It is yet to be decided who would own the trucks. The LOG members have discussed leaving 2 residential as it is being handled now and then provide collection themselves to the commercial 3 sites. 4 The cost of additions and expansions on page 25 of the Solid Waste Management Plan were 5 reviewed and discussed. 6 • Having deposits on bottles, if it were instituted by the Legislature, would add up very soon. 7 However, the bottle deposit requirement would have to be statewide in order to be effective. 8 • Endorsing this proposed plan would be an endorsement for rural curbside pickup where that 9 would be feasible. That feasibility would be determined by analyzing the housing patterns and 0 transportation routes. It is assumed that the convenience centers will continue to be staffed. 1 • It is important to analyze the expansion so that there is clarity about the point of diminishing 2 returns. It would not be feasible to recycle at each individual home. 3 4 There was no action taken on adoption of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. 5 There will be further discussion at either the next regular Board of Commissioners meeting on 6 June 30th or at one of the earlier budget worksessions. 7 8 SOLID WASTE REORGANIZATION: John Link mentioned that the Reorganization Work Group 9 will meet at the end of the month to discuss reorganization in light of the comments made at this 0 meeting. The following comments, suggestions and questions were presented: 2 Chapel Hill currently manages the landfill operations as an enterprise fund which is held 3 separate from the General Fund. The Town Manager has been responsible for managing the 4 collection and the Town of Chapel Hill has funded part of his salary for that purpose. Last July 5 they created a new department and removed the responsibility for garbage collection from the 6 Manager's Office. This has always been a debt of the Town but it has been held separately. 7 All revenues come from tipping fees, interest on reserve funds, or revenues from recyclables. 8 • There are four Reserve Funds which have the following balances: Acquisition & Construction - 9 $830,550; 2) Reserve for Eubanks Construction $1.4 Million. This will be spent this year for a 0 new cell; 3) Equipment Replacement - $417,000, and 4) Undesignated or Contingency Fund - 1 $568,000. 2 The Town of Chapel Hill owns the operations facility and UNC owns the property. At some 3 point in the future the location will probably change. Then Chapel Hill would pay their portion 4 of the transfer. It will continue to be an enterprise fund. 5 The equipment is worth between 2 and 2 /12 Million dollars 6 The Town of Chapel Hill's Council is primarily involved in this through the budget process.