Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-01-2014 - 6a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2014
>
Agenda - 04-01-2014 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 04-01-2014 - 6a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/31/2014 9:02:02 AM
Creation date
3/31/2014 9:01:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/1/2014
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Minutes 04-01-2014
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
16 <br /> 1 Chair Jacobs said he and Michael Talbert have discussed this, and both of them feel <br /> 2 that in an effort to be accommodating, options were included that the Board of County <br /> 3 Commissioners has already rejected (the general fund and eliminating rural recycling). <br /> 4 He said there will be two public hearings. He encouraged the public and the Board of <br /> 5 County Commissioners to send factual questions to the manager ahead of time. He said this <br /> 6 will come back at the February 18th meeting, so that these questions and factual responses can <br /> 7 be shared with the Board and the public in a consolidated fashion. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to <br /> 10 remove the following two options from consideration: <br /> 11 <br /> 12 - Item #1. Eliminate Rural Curbside Recycling Services and rely on convenience centers for <br /> 13 all rural recycling; and <br /> 14 <br /> 15 - Item #4: General Fund Support for. <br /> 16 a. Rural Curbside Recycling for the 13,700 existing customers. <br /> 17 b. Existing Urban, Rural Curbside, and Multifamily Recycling. Programs <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Commissioner Gordon asked if this should be done before the Board has heard the <br /> 20 public comments. <br /> 21 Michael Talbert said this has already been done at prior meetings, but public comment <br /> 22 can be heard before making a formal vote. <br /> 23 Chair Jacobs agreed with Michael Talbert. <br /> 24 Commissioner Rich said she recalled that when the Board discussed the public hearing <br /> 25 there was a heading of only one option, and that was the tax service district. She said all <br /> 26 comments on other options would still be welcome, but she feels that the public hearings should <br /> 27 be only on the one item the Board had voted on. <br /> 28 Commissioner McKee said he would prefer to keep his motion as is. <br /> 29 Commissioner Pelissier suggested calling the question. <br /> 30 Commissioner Gordon said her friendly amendment would be to state that this is <br /> 31 because the Board of County Commissioners has already rejected these options <br /> 32 Commissioner McKee agreed to this amendment. <br /> 33 Commissioner Price agreed to this amendment. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 PUBLIC COMMENT: <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Bonnie Hauser said at the Assembly of Government meeting, the towns were clear that <br /> 38 they were looking at a five year projection on fees and there was an indication that there would <br /> 39 be pressure on the County's cost. She said Chair Jacobs assured the towns that the County <br /> 40 would work with them. She said those negotiations have not occurred, and she asked if it is <br /> 41 possible that the towns will now put pressure on the County to provide this service at a higher <br /> 42 fee. She asked how the County would subsidize the service if this happens. <br /> 43 Chair Jacobs said there is an agenda item coming up soon on this issue. <br /> 44 Gayle Wilson said the cost for service for the urban programs is a separate cost center <br /> 45 from the rural curbside program. He said these are not subsidizing each other. He said, with <br /> 46 the 3-r fees, the solid waste department was instructed to keep very meticulous accounting of <br /> 47 those expenditures and those funds. He said those fees are set independently and have <br /> 48 nothing to do with each other. He cannot imagine that this would ever happen in the future. <br /> 49 He said the Town of Chapel Hill has asked for a five year price guarantee, and this is <br /> 50 being worked on. He said those numbers will include full funding for those services. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.