Agenda - 09-30-1998 - Additional Information

Browse Search

Margaret Brown Page 2 Therefore, we believe that it would be prudent to establish alternative funding to be incorporated into the Fiscal 1999/00 landfill budget. A necessary step before recycling can be substantially increased is the siting, building and operation of a materials recovery facility. The siting and development of a construction and demolition landfill is needed now to help extend the life of the mixed solid waste landfill- A transfer station may be needed in 2005 -06 when the current landO is M. Therefore, we believe it is advisable to initiate additional funding sources as soon as possible to begin accumulating needed capital funds. A LOG committee is currently exploring financing methods in addition to the tip fee. until that work in completed this sun mw, we would not want to exclude the use of any potential financial source, including pay -as- you -throw fees and the General Fund of any of the governmental bodies. Presently the solid waste operation is an enterprise fimd. It is assumed from this section that the County intends to continue to deal with solid waste matters in the same way, but this is not clearly stated. It would be helpful to have the County say that it intends to continue the solid waste operations as an enterprise fiord. Also a LOG financing committee has been at work for several months and will make recommendations in the fimture to the LOG for review and consideration for all the governing bodies in Orange County. It would be helpful for the County to acknowledge this committee and let us know how it plans to use these recommendations. Point A5: Participation of Carrboro and Chanel Frill in financing community benefits We continue to believe that the issue of double taxation is an important one. We believe that all county residents should share equally in the funding of any water service Imes provided to the community around the present landfill, using the principle of one person/one tax. Several means of County finding could avoid the double taxation of municipal taxpayers. We support the County either paying from its operating budget or financing the costs thorough bonds or other instruments of debt. The use of County sales tax revenues would also avoid municipal taxpayers paying twice. We would emphasize that the use of any resources of the municipalities would constitute double taxation. Point A6: Analysis of indirect costs to be chargeed against the Landfill Fund We are not sure of the benefit of an independent analysis of the indirect costs of administering the solid waste operations. It appears that the County believes that the $115,000 (FY 98/99) that the Landfill Fund pays to the Chapel Frill General Fund for such costs would not be sufficient should the County be the administrator of the landfill. Over the past 26 years, the wort: of the Solid Waste Management Department has grown significantly, but gradually. Therefore, Landfill Fund administration has been gradually incorporated into the jobs of many Town employees, including such positions as revenue collector, payroll clerk, personnel analyst, Purchasing agent, finance director, personnel director and the like. Such work has also become a part of the jobs of the Town Attorney, Assistant Town Manager and the Town Manager' None of these Positions exist solely to serve Solid Waste and in no case does Landfill Fund - related work comprise the full work; of any position outside of those positions that are part of the Solid Waste Department. We believe that the existing cost allocation formula that assigns administrative overhead costs to the Landfill Fund generally provides reasonable compensation for financial, personnel, and general administrative services.