Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-05-2004-1
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2004
>
Agenda - 05-05-2004
>
Agenda - 05-05-2004-1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/1/2008 11:32:42 PM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:41:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/5/2004
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
1
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20040505
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
4 <br />Multi-family Fee <br />Each Basic Fee unit receiving multi-family services would also receive the Multi-family Fee (Same <br />ratio as Basic Fee), In the case of fraternities and sororities, each would receive 7 (M) fees. For EAL, <br />facilities, if the (B) fee is 4 units equal one fee, Yhen the M fee will be also applied as 4 units equal one <br />(M) fee. <br />Urban Curbside Fee (U <br />Each Basic Fee unit receiving urban curbside services would also receive the Urban Curbside Fee <br />(Same ratio as Basic Fee). If the (B) fee is 4 units equal one fee, then 4 units equal one (IJ) fee also. <br />Staff does not believe that square footage is a good surrogate for a fee for residential units.. Square <br />footage does not seem to correlate to waste production or recycling usage for residences. Nationally, <br />however, non-residential sector square footage does seem to strongly correlate when used in <br />conjwrction with type ofuse (i.e. warehouse, travel agency, grocery store, convenience store, etc.). <br />Should the Board of Commissioners wish us to make other assumptions regarding any of the above, <br />staff would welcome such guidance. <br />2. Would there be a policy to address low-income residents unable to pay the fees? <br />The WRRRF proposal presented on April 13 does not contain provisions related to means-testing in <br />cases involving low income or an inability to pay. The proposal currently assumes that any <br />govenunental,jurisdictionoray choose to pay all or part of any fee on behalf of any individual or group <br />residing in that,jurisdiction. As noted by the County Manager at the April 13 meeting, the County has <br />historically not waived any fees, but has provided other means to pay those fees. For example, Habitat <br />for Humanity maybe required to pay impact fees for homes they built and then can be reimbursed <br />from a different fiord, rather than the County's waiving the fees, In the event the Board of <br />Commissioners wishes the County to serve the role of assessing the ability to pay and <br />facilitating/subsidizing payments, staff has provided an outline as to how that maybe done. <br />Approximately 18 months ago, based on concerns from the BOCC about helping citizens who might <br />have an inability to pay ambulance bills, staff (Revenue, DSS and Budget) devised an EMS Assistance <br />Program. This program involves staff from the Revenue Department doing refen~als to the DSS staff <br />for determination of income qualification, upon receipt of a request from a citizen who may request <br />assistance in clearing an EMS bill because of their inability to pay it, Eligibility criteria are based on <br />the 200% poverty level determined by Medicaid. The DSS budget includes a line item through which <br />the EMS Uills of qualified individuals can be cleared. Staff propose to work toward devising a similar <br />program to be able to assist eligible individuals in the payment of the proposed WRRRF and to bring <br />back to the BOCC at a later date the program for approval. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.