Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br />neighbors. We believe the governing bodies could appropriately spend other public funds <br />on community benefits in this area. <br />6. Seek an economically viable system where waste reduction does not result in a financial <br />hardship for the remainder of the operations <br />We agree that waste reduction is a desirable goal and that we must provide adequate <br />financing for all operations. We believe that an independent source of enterprise fund <br />revenues, such as an availability fee, should be considered. The Landfill Owners Group <br />Finance Committee is scheduled to make a report to the LOG at the November meeting <br />regarding the issue of alternative financing. <br />Community Benefits <br />A. Financing water line extensions to landfill neighbors through the one -cent sales tax revenue, <br />or alternatively, funding the water service through LOG resources <br />We reiterate that we believe that the issue of double taxation is an important one which the <br />one -cent sales tax proposal does not resolve. We believe that all county residents should <br />share equally in the funding of any water service lines provided to the community around <br />the landfill, using the principle of one person/one tax. Several means of County funding <br />could avoid the double taxation of municipal taxpayers. We support the County either <br />paying from its operating budget or financing the costs through bonds or other instruments <br />of debt. The use of County sales tax revenues would also avoid municipal taxpayers paying <br />twice. The use of any resources of the municipalities would constitute double taxation, in <br />our opinion. <br />Only if there is credible evidence of a causative relationship between the landfill and the <br />water quality problems would we recommend considering using landfill funds to provide <br />water service. Even then we would suggest using landfill funds only if financially feasible, <br />given the other demands on the fund. In our opinion, it would also be improper to use the <br />proceeds from a solid waste availability fee to fund neighborhood benefits, based upon the <br />same rationale which restricts how tipping fee revenues can be used. <br />Governance/Management <br />A. If agreement is reached on other points. the County could assume responsibility no earlier <br />than October 1. 1999 <br />We think it desirable that the County assume operational control concurrent with becoming <br />responsible for the budget. It would be difficult for one manager to be responsible for the <br />budget and the other for operations. From a budgetary perspective, July 1 would be the <br />most desirable time to implement the transfer. From a personnel perspective, January 1 <br />would likely be the most desirable. However, we agree that an October 1 st transfer of <br />operations is feasible. <br />