Agenda - 04-14-1998 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

-r._ . 3 The Council consensus is that the "ffistoric Rogers Road Neighborhood" and the Nuns property to the east of the south Eubanks Road cells should be included m any nc�ghborhood benefits. We would generally define this Neghborbood as those rCS along Rogers Road between Tally Ho Trail. and Eubanks Road and adcading east to the Greene tract. The Council also concluded that we would not be interested in installing water filters; a public water system extension would be more effective and efficient. C. Issue: Bent #1- Water /Sewer Extensions: Cost Allocation The County has suggested three options for allocating costs for any water service benefit rely pied - landfill ownxsWp interest; population; and waste generation rates. Are there other methods that should be considered for assessing the shares of the public costs of water line extensions? Comment: We discuss the fiutdiug scenarios presented by the County separatdy: — Q! a thin Interest Proportion The kaxig ownership interest method would assign costs as follows: 43% Chapel Hill, 43% County, and 14 °/9 Carrboro. Under this method Chapel Sill residents would pay twice; once in Chapel EM taxes and once in Orange County taxes. — Waste Deposited Proportion Under this method the County argues that proportions of cost would be simil to proportions of waste delivered by each community: 52.6% Chapel HA 302% Orange County, and 17.2'/9 Casboro. However, only 44.We of waste delivered to the landfill is brought directly by the governmental entities, with the rest from private haulers. Of the total amount delivered to the landfill, the governments' portions are 25.3% Chapel 11i[l, 11.9°/9 Orange County, 7.6'/9 Canboro; and private hauler contribute the remaining 55r /o. — Population PrMrdm Th= are two methods that would be based on population In the first, we would divide the population according to municipal boundaries and unincorporated areas. Chapel Hill would pay 43.1°/9, Orange County 42.3 %, and Carrboro 14.6 %. It is our opinion that all Conroy residents should share equally in &urdiing of any water service lines provided, using the principle of one personlone tax. To avoid double taxation of municipal taxpayers, the County would need to fund the improvements. We support the County either paying from its operating budget or financing the costs through bonds or other instruments. If there is tver any at&'bk evidence of a causative relationship between the landfill and the water quality problems, then we would rewn maid considering using landfill