SWAG agenda 012915 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

0 Memorandum To: Solid Waste Advisory Group From: George Seiz, Carrboro Public Works Director Lance Norris, Chapel Hill Public Works Director Ken Hines, Hillsborough Public Works Director Gayle Wilson, Orange County Solid Waste Management Director Date: January 29, 2015 Subject: Staff Report — Solid Waste Program Funding Options On November 12, 2014, the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) requested that Towns and County staffs examine the four proposed solid waste program fee options, analyze them (consider including advantages and disadvantages), critique them, and return with their recommendations to their elected officials. The SWAG will then discuss them further. The staffs have met five times subsequent to the November 12th meeting and have had considerable discussion and email exchanges with regard to the funding options. These discussions included examination of the revenue requirement basis for the fees, understanding proposed program expenditures and revenue allocation, consideration of service components and sector impacts, examination of various equity perspectives, assessment of the administrative requirements and ongoing fee management obligations for each option, public perception and ability to understand /explain funding alternatives to the public, service costs versus value of services to residents, exploration of fees /funding mechanisms other counties use for solid waste programs and their features, as well as numerous other associated issues. The staffs also explored minor variations of the existing options. Staffs discussed the attributes to all the options in an attempt to make a singular recommendation to the SWAG; however, there appears to be no ideal or obviously superior option. Each option has advantages and disadvantages, dependent largely on perspective and values. Staffs believe that all options will provide the necessary funding and acknowledge that all options exhibit varying attributes and gradations of equity, depending on individual perspectives. It is difficult determining a recommendation without the SWAG providing guidance regarding principles, standards or other governing criteria. This report and its attachments are intended to guide and inform the SWAG and spur further discussion in order for the SWAG to reach a consensus on one funding alternative and consider how to move forward with implementation once a consensus has been reached. Attachments The staffs have provided two documents for SWAG consideration. The first attachment (Attachment 1) is an additional summary of the financial basis for the funding options that includes cost and annual fee comparisons with the current fee structure. It highlights the key financial components and structure of the fees for each funding option