Agenda - 08-30-2007-4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

opposition to legislation similar to Senate Bi11951 (2006) and any other legislation that would limit local governments' opportunities in their solid waste service delivery to reduce costs, improve the quality of service, and/or meet local waste reduction goals. AUGUST 30, ZD07 UPDATE -Senate Bill 1492 -The Solid Waste Managerrzen.t Act of 2DD7 -ryas aclopted itc t/ae roar:ing Jzorrrs of'tlze 2007 legislative session after rrtzccla. diSCraSSlOlr arad debate. The bill ryas a result of a 2006 short session Bill that created a naOrator'LraraZ ort landfill per•uzittirtg, dr'rected various studies, and required that rterv legislation be considered pr'ior• to tlae expiration of the rrzorator•iurn orz Augzast 1, 2DD7. Tlae gG'rtG'r'aZ LarcdG'r'Standl/Zg of S-1492's original purpose runs to deter waste front entering Nortlt Carolina Porn other states, to increase the State role in local landfill Sitilag dG'CLSLOIZS, to prevent ZargL nZG'ga-laladfi"ZIS, t0 trzsrrre that arry ~r[t-Of-state' W(rStL' that erzteretl.lVor'tlz. Carolina complied with arzy landfill bans/prolaibitivrzs, crud to strengthen. fzraancial resporzsibiliry regrrirerraerzts for landfill permit holders. Tlae legislation that runs adopted runs mach more corrzpr'eliensive rand wide-r•rrrzging tlaarz expected 1t will potentially (cave sigraific~crct irrcpact orr local government provision of waste nacaraagetrzerztseroices, irzclzcding increasing costs. The Department of Erc vironrrzerat arad 1Vatzcr•al Resources (DENR), the Association of CourltJ~ Corrzrraissioraer•s 1VCACC), tlae League of Municipalities (NCLM), grad other pr•gfessiorzcrl and irulrrstry organizations are presently trying to interpret this complicated bill and evaluate its inrplicativr:s and corzsegzrerzces. It is likely tli.at tlae law will r'egrzir•e corrective rer~isioras in tlae 2008 legislative session. As specifically regards BOCCpriorities, it will becvrne rrzucla more dif~carlt to site arzd per'rrzit solid waste facilities due to sigraifzccrrztly increased teclarr.ical regrriremerzts. Tltis will add cost, tirrre, anal comple:~iry to an already stringent siting/permitting process. Tlae bill also requires the Ern~ir'orzmeratal Review Cvnrntission to rer~ierv issues related to tlae frarcchisirzg of solid waste rnaraagerrterztfncilities by units of local goverrunent, with the aclcnoivletlged irctentiora of expanding the role of tlxe State ira. solid waste fraraclaisiug at tli.e expense of local gover•rtrrzeratprerogntives. TILL' bill lrrZpOSes a $2.00 per' tort tax t0 Ilotlc trrrrrriclpal SOZId rVClste arzd L'Orastr'ractl0rl. arzd demolition tivaste, effective Jrrly .l, 2008. Tlae cost to Orange Cozrrzty landfill users, if added to the existing upping fee, will be approximately $148,D00 arzd will be paid by schools, TrlstltlatiOlaS, goveruntertts, businesses, etc. Tlae bill also imposes a series nf' permitting, fees that will add corzsider'able costs to existing pending applications, rzerv applicatr'oras, and artrtzaal fees for sirrzply rnaiutainirzg eristirag permits. Over the nest frve years, staff estimates that Orange Cotrrzry will pay appr'oxirnately $110, D00 as a r•eszclt of tlce rzerv fees. Tlrer•e rraay be negative impacts orz recycling arul waste redractiora statewide as a result of the rzerv fees. Horvever•, Orange County's progrrarzzs will not be impacted to arty significant degree due pr'imar'ily to the Corarcry's alternative rrzetlzod of fiartding recycling services (3-R Fee) arzd the rrrzivccvering cornmitrnerat to waste redzcctiorz locally. Elservlzere, tivhL'i°e larz~'fill fees fzrrid recycling, increased costs of disposal operations rrzay come at tlae expense of waste r•edzzctiorr programs. Ira Orange Corarzry,