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
<br />3. Why has the proposal recommended delaying the non-residential component of the fee? <br />Given the extent of the work necessary to develop an accurate and timely residential database, coupled <br />with the fact that less than 10% ofnon-residential type facilities receive a direct service, staff has <br />recommended that for the time being, the non-residential sector pay only an annual Basic Fee (B) of <br />$36 initially. Staff believes that priority should be given to developing and refining the residential <br />billing database, to whom the vast majority of the services are provided and where the majority of the <br />fees will be assessed. Significant effort is underway to reconcile the existing departmental services <br />address database with the tax property identification number database for each recycling service area.. <br />The effort, while considerable, is expected to be completed in time for testing and insertion onto the <br />2004 property bill. This comm~itment to getting the residential billing correct in the limited timefrante <br />requires us to make choices on where to devote our resources. <br />There simply wasn't time to complete anon-residential analysis. hr fact, the BOCC has still not given <br />final approval to the proposed fee and additional changes/revisions could still be required in the <br />residential sector. Hi the staff report of April 1.3, we indicated that we believed the non-residential <br />sector analysis would take place no sooner than FY 2005/06 following implementation of the initial fee <br />schedule. Staff believes this approach to be a reasonable schedule with limited equity or financial <br />implications, especially since significant commercial sector expansions are unlikely in the near teen. <br />Developing the required non-residential fee beyond the simple interim recommendation included in the <br />proposal will necessitate considerable fieldwork. Such anon-residential fee structure would likely <br />include developing groupings by type of business, estimations of square footage, additional <br />address/property identification information, etc. While there are templates available from some other <br />communities, all would require modification specifically for Orange County. Experience in other <br />jurisdictions adopting non-residential fees tied to the size and use intensity of the property showed a <br />year or more lead-time necessary to collect these data, validate them, and gain local approval.. <br />4. What are the plans regarding assessing uninhabited rural structures? <br />For habitable residential type structures in unincorporated Orange County the policy would be to <br />charge a Basic Fee (B), with additional service fees such as (R) charged if applicable. These <br />residences do not have to be occupied, only habitable. Those residential type structures that are not <br />habitable (i.e. used for storage of hay, supplies, equipment, are physically uniriliabitable, not actually a <br />dwelling, etc.) should not be assessed a fee. Those that are billed may appeal that assessment and have <br />the fee assessment eliminated (simple documentation/proof maybe required),. <br />5. What are the plans for private contractor served units? <br />The proposed fees relate to County governmental waste reduction and recycling services and programs <br />provided for and available to the various user sectors, We have not considered private contractor <br />served units in our costs/revenue estimates because the proposed fees da not fund the private <br />contractor services, the private sector provides little or no residential recycling services upon which the <br />fees are based, and the proposed fees do not fund garbage collection or disposal whatsoever. <br />In the case of neighborhoods/developments that have chosen for whatever reason to forgo available <br />publicly provided recycling services in favor of recycling services provided by a private contractor, the <br />various residences will be assessed the appropriate fees based on the type of service the County would <br />provide should the County be asked to provide recycling service. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.