Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
throughout the county, including tax exempt properties, except for UNC-CH properties that are <br /> served by the University's separate recycling program. Option 2 would evenly distribute solid <br /> waste convenience center costs across all sectors. <br /> Option 2 <br /> • Most simplified fee structure <br /> • Easiest option to administer, manage, and explain <br /> • Includes phased expansion of rural curbside service, increasing recycling and waste <br /> reduction rate <br /> • Flexibility in providing services without being constrained by rigid categories is <br /> maximized <br /> • Example: If a business is located on a residential route (urban or rural) and generates <br /> recyclables in quantities similar to a residence, it can be assigned to a residential route <br /> without regard to changing <br /> Key Factors <br /> • Rural curbside service is proposed to be phased in to entire unincorporated area over three <br /> year period, equalizing services by the fourth year. The program fee will increase <br /> incrementally over phasing period. <br /> • All developed properties pay the same amount, although eligibility for services may vary <br /> between jurisdictions and sectors. <br /> • Efforts to provide more equitable services among all the program users could be <br /> implemented over time by improving service efficiencies and availability of services. <br /> • This option presents a new funding paradigm and new way of viewing solid waste program <br /> funding by offering a singular fee. This holistic approach to funding eliminates any division <br /> between rural and urban boundaries, creating a truly integrated and comprehensive approach <br /> to program funding county-wide. <br /> Universal Elements for Both Options <br /> • Undeveloped properties do not pay a fee. <br /> • All developed properties including tax-exempt properties pay a fee. <br /> • The fee structure is stable and predictable. <br /> • Fee impacts for potential service expansions, improvements, and changes can be easily <br /> determined and made available for elected boards to consider. <br /> • Some property owners may consider the proposed fee rates a significant increase because <br /> no fee for rural or urban curbside service or multi-family service has been assessed for the <br /> past two years. <br /> • Failure of elected boards to approve a funding mechanism for the FY 2015-16 Budget may <br /> lead to suspension of services or further debiting of the solid waste landfill closure and post- <br /> closure reserves account. <br /> • Orange County will continue to provide financial assistance for qualifying low-income <br /> residents who are unable to pay for solid waste program fees. In 2014, approximately 700 <br /> parcels were provided assistance through the County's 3R Fee Financial Assistance program. <br /> • Funding option proposals are based on FY 2014-15 budget revenue requirements. For FY <br /> 2015-16, minor fee adjustments may be implemented to align with the actual FY 2015-16 <br /> budget revenue requirements. <br /> Gayle Wilson noted that the current year's budget was used in this analysis, and the <br /> fees in the packet reflect calculations based on the current year solid waste budget and <br />