Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Solid Waste Advisory Board - - Regular Meeting <br /> December 12 , 2002 <br /> Government Services , Hillsborough <br /> Approved January 9 , 2003 <br /> marketing person was hiring to Help bring in trash, which actually produced more revenue for <br /> the County . <br /> We looked at several long -term options for the landfill : ( 1 ) Get out of the business and sell ; <br /> (2 ) Lease out the operation to the Private sector ; (3 ) Close the landfill altogether ; (4 ) <br /> Consider alternative funding ; ( 5 ) Generate Fees and (6) Impose a tax levy . <br /> We developed pros and cons with each citizen committee for each option . <br /> 1 . Our citizens did not want to sell the land because they would lose control . <br /> 2 . The Private sector operator — they did not see that that solves the problem (the County <br /> would incur similar costs as before and the private contractor would still likely want to <br /> import trash to malice the money) . <br /> 3 . Close the landfill — there would still be debt payment to worry about, there would be <br /> closure cost, the landfill would be closed earlier than anticipated due to increased waste <br /> brought in . <br /> 4 . 5 , or 6 The Countywide user fee , the biggest con was this new fee on the tax bill . Many <br /> elected officials would think negatively about adding such a fee . This would be a new fee <br /> that would be added to the tax bill . <br /> With the options available , the two committees conducted surveys with the private sector <br /> businesses , meet with the Chambers of Commerce , held public meetings , and met with <br /> several Homeowners Associations . Flyers were made available at the Public Library to let <br /> them know the options and situations . The feedback from citizens was : ( 1 ) the importing of <br /> trash and what is it going to do to the life of the landfill . (2 ) Would a fee imposed to cover <br /> landfill costs affect the prices changed by the private haulers (3 ) charge a fee or tax just to <br /> cover the landfall , (4) why should the county be in this business . After further discussions <br /> with the Board , four options were considered . With the four options a matrix was developed <br /> with each of these issues that were expressed as concerns or impacts from the citizen ' s ( 1 ) <br /> Solid Waste Fee — keep the truck traffic local (i . e . don 't import trash) . If the fee was left at <br /> $ 70 . 00 (per household) with no tipping fee . One of the benefits of having this fee would be to <br /> stabilizing the revenue . (2 ) Continue to import trash and keep the higher volume of truck <br /> traffic . The larger haulers haul more trash and charge higher prices . The smaller guys have <br /> nowhere else to go . ( 3 ) Blended User Fee — where some of the cost would be added to the tax <br /> bill but some fees would still come from the landfill . The larger haulers liked this idea . (4 ) <br /> General Fee Subsidy - tax increase or levy 5 % on the assessed value for the property . <br /> A couple of public hearings were held before the Board of Supervisors . This plan was <br /> worked on for 2 1 /2 years before it was presented . Most citizens supported keeping the <br /> landfill . Other systems were researched which both had generator fees . We worked very <br /> closely with the County Attorney ' s office for legal advice . The rate was based on a single <br /> family home as the primary measure of waste generation . The amount of waste generated for <br /> a single family home . Each home on an average generates a total of 1 . 3 tons of trash each <br /> 3 <br />