Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-08-2004-9b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2004
>
Agenda - 06-08-2004
>
Agenda - 06-08-2004-9b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2008 7:11:50 PM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:43:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/8/2004
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20040608
(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.
/
7
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
~°®~lf~ ®F' CAR64~®R® <br />NORTH CAROLINA <br />WWW TOW NO RCARRRORO ORG <br />Urange County Board of Commissioners <br />Mr. Barry .Jacobs, Chair <br />P.0 Box 8181 <br />Hillsborough, NC 27278 <br />May 26, 2004 <br />Dear Conunissioner .Iacobs: <br />I wish to tharIl< you and your colleagues for delaying a vote on the new Waste Reduction, <br />Reuse, and Recycling Fee. The Canboro Board of Aldermen and i appreciate your <br />willingness to hear from other elected officials in the county on this important matter.. <br />We also appreciate the detailed presentation we received on May 20, 2004 from Gayle <br />Wilson, Orange County Solid Waste Management Director. Mr. Wilson's presentation <br />was instructive, <br />The Board of Aldermen and I have discussed this matter and have the following <br />comments. We believe: <br />1) The fee is regressive-an owner of a $lmillion home pays the same amount <br />as the owner of a $100,000 home. <br />2) A tax, as opposed to a fee, is a more progressive and fairer inshument <br />3) Supporting a waste fee instead of a tax is philosophically inconsistent with our <br />community's values. In particular, we believe that this fee seriously undercuts <br />the argument the county has made in years past when seeking enabling <br />legislation for an impact tax instead of an impact fee <br />4) A ice, unlike county property tars, cannot be deducted from ene's income <br />taxes. A tax is preferable because this deductibility increases affordability and <br />is particularly important to those of us of modest or average means.. <br />5) The costs should be shared equally amongst all residents of the county. Mr. <br />Wilson's report suggested that a fee is more equitable because owners of <br />unimproved property do not benefit from recycling services. We strongly <br />disagree with this position and believe that recycling and reusing materials is a <br />significant comnnmity benefit. The obvious analogy is with public schools. <br />We all pay for the schools whether or not we have children or whether or not <br />our children attend private or public schools. We believe it is not consistent <br />with our cormmunity's values to start down the slippery slope of assessing fees <br />301 WEST MAIN STREET. CARRBO RO. NC 27510 1919) 9428541 FAX 1979) 918-4456 TDD (800) 826-7653 <br />AN EQUAL OPPO RTU NITV PROVIDER <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.