SWAG agenda 092614 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

17 some mix of funding mechanisms? Additionally, since the SWAG's stated preference and intentions are that the towns and county staffs collaborate on fee recommendations, that collaborative process is at present untested and may possibly extend the fee determination process. Therefore, it is difficult to say what notification dates will be feasible to any degree of certainty. If a fee recommendation date is mandated that necessitates a staff fee recommendation based on incomplete data, it will be necessary to provide a conservative fee projection that may be greater than otherwise required. The dates contained in the staff interlocal agreement outline [i.e., April 1 — Solid Waste Director recommendation (advisory) and May 1 — County Manager recommendation to the BOCC] are therefore suggested, pending final funding method determinations. Merge of Staff Interlocal Agreement Outline and Draft Interlocal Agreement The SWAG requested that Town and County staffs consolidate the two Draft Interlocal Agreement documents discussed at the September 12 meeting into a single document and to also provide the original Draft Interlocal Agreement for comparison. Staff was also to incorporate edits to the Draft Interlocal Agreement made at the meeting by the SWAG. Process The following describes the staff approach to the document merging process: • SWAG edits are incorporated into the Draft Interlocal Agreement in GREEN and, as requested, do not include a tracking of the changes. • Replaced language is simply deleted. • Staff tried to use verbatim wording from SWAG to the extent possible. • UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare was added as instructed; however, it may not be relevant/ applicable in certain sections of the draft agreement. • Some additional wording adjustments may be necessary. • Outline language is in RED and was inserted as bullets into apparent appropriate section within Draft Interlocal Agreement • Where Outline wording is identical or essentially identical (i.e., duplicative) to existing Draft Interlocal Agreement language, it was not included or merged. • In some cases, existing Draft language may be preferable by staff as opposed to Outline language. • Staff has not incorporated the Outline language into the body of the Draft Interlocal Agreement; it is only illustrated in the appropriate section of the document. Key Issues Staff notes a few key issues for consideration by the SWAG: • UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare — Multiple ILA Section References Incorporating UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare into the existing draft agreement presents some language and format challenges for the following reasons: • neither entity currently receives county recycling services; • each maintains their own internal comprehensive grounds keeping /landscaping services; • both use private waste hauling and disposal facilities; and • they generally manage their own solid waste affairs.