Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-16-2010 - 2
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2010
>
Agenda - 09-16-2010 - AOG
>
Agenda - 09-16-2010 - 2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/4/2015 3:24:44 PM
Creation date
9/10/2010 4:38:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/16/2010
Meeting Type
Municipalities
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
2
Document Relationships
Minutes 09-16-2010
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
94
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Draft <br /> 3.A third scenario has very minimal modernization including only compactors to <br /> increase waste hauling efficiency but makes no improvements in site safety,customer <br /> convenience,unloading efficiency or maintenance. <br /> Financing options include maintaining the majority of funding that is not going to be <br /> shifted to the 3-R Fee to come from the general fund.Alternatives reviewed include <br /> adding a variety of tiers and types of household fees to fund various segments of the <br /> remaining operational and capital costs. For example a single flat fee per household <br /> regardless of type or location could be used or a more complex fee structure similar to the <br /> 3-R Fee where the amount levied was related to the likelihood or necessity of use. For <br /> example,rural residents are the most likely users so their fees might be highest while <br /> urban single family use sites less and multifamily are the least likely users, so they would <br /> pay lower fees. These options were all previously addressed. Fees could be used to <br /> capitalize imprqvements which would mean no reduction in the tax burden. If fees were <br /> used to substitute for general fund contributions,there would be no net new funds for <br /> capital improvements. That is a key decision if any improvements are to be made and it <br /> seems imperative to make them and determine how to pay for them. <br /> • Regulatory and economic incentives to promote waste reduction: As corollaries to <br /> implementing expanded recycling collection programs,regulations and incentives can <br /> optimize program results by driving greater usage. Orange County began residential <br /> curbside cardboard collection in November 2008 and banned it from the garbage in <br /> March 2009. Now cardboard is less than 2%of residential waste. Similar bans could be <br /> implemented along with economic incentives such as Pay As You Throw waste <br /> collection. In the short run,there is no political interest in PAYT at this time.Further, it is <br /> not obvious that there is management,enforcement,billing and collection infrastructure <br /> to enable more regulation or incentives. But these tools are available for future means to <br /> increase recycling and decrease waste. <br /> End Chapter 3 <br /> 46 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.