Agenda - 01-20-1998 - 10a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 acd So'3 to the cost of a $10,000 housa. Based on the dollar' value of $130 million in 1°95-9o contt=uction permits, this fee " level would raise $55,000, the estiaated first year cost for to solid waste plan inspector position, a vehicle, and necessary e~:ipme^_t. Second year costs would be about $35,000 because they would not include a vehicle or significant equipment. Note hoc~rever that if imple.*nented mid-fiscal year (e.g. January 1), first fiscal year costs would be about $37,500 due to only fu:-~ding a half year of salary. ~nir_ile not necessarily required to imple.~nent solid waste manage.*nent planning ordinances, we believe a recycling materials inspector would greatly e.*lhance the overall program, and should be considered in a later budget year. It is likely that the requirements of any solid waste marage.*~ent plan would only require separation of clean wood waste and metals; however, current staff Nould be ur_able to provide oversight to these add=tior_al materials. .f these separat:d materials are delivered to the landfill, a landfill materials i-Spector would be able to ir_sure that the materials were properly segregated when they reached the processing area. Unfortur_ately, requiring sorting of; material at t^e job site is no guararte=_ that it will be ^market_ ready' when it reaches the landfill. The materials inspector ~,vould be able to provide increased martetability for the _ .;taterials by separating higher value delivered materials. •- T?^.e landfill saterials inspector positicn would require a full tine salary anc a vehicle. First year costs could be approximately $44,500, with second year costs.about $29,500. .f implemented .mid-year the first fiscal year costs would be abou~ 530,000. Th15 position could be fur_ded in a similar ma_T.ne_ to ~e inspector, through tipping fees or a mix of fiscal resources. _= both positions were fu.*~ded solely t~-~ough tippl__^_g fens, a 51.12 first yea= increase ($0.74 mid-fiscal year & $0.72 Zr_d _~_ar) to t..e t_ppir_g fee would be requi=ed. If only t'~e Iar_d=i 11 ___spector position were so fur_ded, t!:e ..ippir_g fee would i :crease by 50.50 first _.-ear ($0.34 i*" mid-yea= a:_d 50.33 2nd yea=) . 1_-di,c met :ode available i nclude but a=: not limited t~ 'tiDDi .c =s.s, c=nerai =?Jcation by local ce•~er=~.e-ts, solid waste assessments a.^_c, possibly for one year c :ly, grant fu::ds a-; a_lable• =rom the North Caroli__^_a Di~rision of Pollutior_ _.Vc :Give and _.L1VirollAte_^_tal n5s_sta:?C? ($ee e?ge_^_da ].t~~ -rte) . Coordination of Work 8equirmd With Existing Staff =ssues pertain_-g to organization. a_rd ccordination of wvr''t and d.l=_cation of responsibilities for t^e inspector will =n.~air t~ ~= wor'.ced ou_. rde suggest the position(s) should be par= of t e e:S_Sti ng SOlid ,Taste N~*~agE:^.Ent Depart.:~E t under wratnver cC'v:r =*~ie:lt Or Orga_^_iZat_Or_al StrL:CtL'=E t»at Department lllt~tatEly C~Erat°s. _ r~je beliEVe t?a~ mOSt Of these COO=Ci~atiCn 155ues Can be I'I'c»*ldlc d a~ t_^_E Staff lE'rE~ ].: the Ordl~S~CeS arc Si_*tt1~ ar ir_ nat::_E. 'c-*d --