Browse
Search
SWAG agenda 030615
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Solid Waste Advisory Group
>
Agendas
>
2015
>
SWAG agenda 030615
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/10/2018 4:31:33 PM
Creation date
9/10/2018 4:24:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
19 <br />Memorandum <br />To: Solid Waste Advisory Group <br />From: Gayle Wilson, County Solid Waste Director <br />Subject: Solid Waste Programs Fee Discussion /Recommendation <br />Date: March 6, 2015 <br />In order for the individual Town and County elected boards to discuss, and potentially be prepared to <br />reach a consensus at the March 26 joint meeting, staff is presenting the apparent two favored funding <br />options from among the four options discussed by the SWAG over the past 3 -4 months. Staff has <br />resubmitted the financial summary and detail sheets for Option #1 and Option #4 for further discussion <br />in preparation for each Town and the County to discuss individually in preparation for March 26. <br />The attached financial summary has eliminated Option #2 and #3 and has included an Option 1A based <br />on the recent convenience center snapshot survey that indicates about 11% of convenience center users <br />are municipal residents rather than the 33% user projection from an previous survey. Reallocation of <br />convenience center costs in Option #1 significantly increases the Rural Solid Waste Program Fee <br />component of this option. Option #4 is not impacted by the jurisdictional origin of convenience center <br />users as the single fee approach blends the various service level /frequency of use inequities between <br />the urban and rural sector and represents a more integrated solid waste funding system approach. <br />Presentation of only Option #1 and Option #4 does not preclude the SWAG from revisiting the other <br />options. <br />Staff is available for questions as necessary. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.