Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-14-1999 - 2ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 14, 1999 Action Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Matters DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 9/7/99 Carrboro Resolution John Link or Rod Visser, ext 2300 12/30/98 Report from Alternative Finance Committee TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Durham 688 -7331 Mebane 336- 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To discuss the status of the Solid Waste Management Interlocal Agreement and the Construction and Demolition (C &D) Landfill Site Search process. BACKGROUND: Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement It appears that the County and its municipal partners are now very close to consummating an interlocal agreement intended to govern the organization and structure of future solid waste management throughout Orange County. The BOCC approved the agreement at their August 17 meeting, and adopted a resolution at their August 31 work session intended to reassure the Carrboro Board of Aldermen of the County's commitment to several points important to Carrboro. It appears that the Board of County Commissioners and the Chapel Hill Town Council are now essentially in tandem on this agreement. At their meeting on September 7, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen adopted a resolution, also approving the interlocal agreement as approved by the BOCC, with one exception. Carrboro wants the final interlocal agreement to reflect language requiring approval by two towns, in addition to the County, for creation of /increases in certain categories of solid waste fees. Regardless of whether approval of "governmental" and "other" fees requires one or two towns in addition to the County, those fees will be what drive the ability of the County and its municipal partners to implement the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan ( ISWMP). The level of service to be provided for recycling, etc will be dictated by revenue available from these fees. If the parties to the agreement are unwilling to create and /or change fees needed to produce the revenue needed to pay for solid waste reduction strategies, then services /goals contemplated in the ISWMP may have to be modified. As noted in the "Conclusions" section of the December 30, 1998 report from the Alternative Financing Committee to the LOG member governing boards, there will be a shortfall of between $1.8 million and $3.8 million annually over the next ten years, if only current revenue sources are contemplated to finance the programs outlined in the ISWMP. The Alternative Financing Committee concluded its work early in 1999 without reaching consensus on the best mix of revenue streams to finance the ISWMP. With the assumption that the solid waste agreement is finalized and signed by the end of September, and given the 180 day period specified in the agreement as the transition period from signing to transfer of solid waste responsibility to the County, staff believes a reasonable target for handover will be March 6, 2000. This will provide adequate time to: ❑ Complete a job classification study of the 28 positions that will be transferred from the Town of Chapel Hill to the County, and determine each position's classification and salary grade assignment in the County Classification and Pay Plan. ❑ Update and complete the detailed pay and benefits study, and resolve any issues as to the handling to provide for substantially equivalent pay and benefits with the transfer. ❑ Report on the proposed pay and benefits handling to the Board of Commissioners and request approval for the Classification Plan amendments, and pay and benefits handling necessary for the proposed pay and benefits package. ❑ Develop and provide each employee with an information package including specific information as to his or her classification, pay, and benefits under the pay and benefits handling approved by the Commissioners. ❑ As part of the transition, carry out a communications program with employees, including meeting with employees as a group to report on the pay and benefits handling and meeting individually with each employee to review the specific pay and benefits handling for that employee. ❑ Conduct benefits enrollment sessions with employees to complete benefits sign up. ❑ Complete all pay, benefit and other documentation necessary to place employees on the County payroll and in the County personnel system. ❑ Complete a new employee orientation program to orient employees to County policies and procedures. ❑ Train solid waste employees regarding County fiscal and administrative policies and procedures. ❑ Ensure compatibility between the landfill billing and collection system and the County's general ledger, and resolve issues related to money deposit issues. o Accomplish adoption of budget amendment bringing the Landfill Fund into the County's budget and conversion of the accounting structure to one compatible with the County's chart of accounts. Parameters of C &D Site Search The Board may wish to discuss the process pursued during the past few years to select a site for a new construction and demolition landfill, and to discuss next steps in the process. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Final agreement among the parties on the interlocal agreement will affect the administration of solid waste operations and the Landfill Enterprise Fund. There will be significant dedication of County staff time during the six -month transition period to ensure a smooth handover from the Town of Chapel Hill. However, it will have no direct impact on the County General Fund, which will not be a source of underwriting for overall solid waste management operations. Those will continue to be fully financed by the Landfill Enterprise Fund. Likewise, whatever decisions the Board may reach concerning a new C &D site for Orange County, associated costs will be borne by the Landfill Fund. As is the current practice with the Town of Chapel Hill, the County will recoup some costs from the Landfill Fund to cover staff time and administrative overhead budgeted in the County's General Fund. The reimbursement to the County's General Fund will be determined through an indirect cost allocation review to be completed by an independent third party contractor. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the solid waste matters noted and provide appropriate direction to staff. Sep -08 -99 04:10P Town of Carrbovo 919 968 7737 4 TOWN OF CARRBORO NORTH CAROLINA The following resolution was introduced by Alderman Jacquelyn Gist and duly seconded by Alderman Joal Hall Broun. A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE INTERLOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT Resolution No. 25/1999 -2004 WHEREAS, discussions about a series of draft interlocal agreements on solid waste management in recent months have brought all parties close to final agreement on a document which the County and Towns could approve, and WHEREAS, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen adopted a resolution on August 17, 1999 indicating the Town's preparedness to approve the interlocal agreement under consideration, subject to certain modifications outlined in that resolution, including two constraints on the timing of the transfer of title to 60 acres of the Greene Tract and two revisions relative to setting fees; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners resolved to reaffum its intent to negotiate in good faith with the other parties regarding the ultimate disposition of the remaining approximately 109 acres of the Greene Tract during the bargaining period defined in the interlocal agreement, and states its general support for the use of the remainder of that property predominantly for public purposes; and WHEREAS, the Commissioners reaffirmed its commitment to expeditious provision of public water fines to appropriate and willing residents in the vicinity of the current Eubanks Road Landfill, known as the historic Rogers Road neighborhood. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CARRBORO MAYOR AND BOARD OF ALDERMEN THAT, based upon the Orange County Board of Commissioners' above affirmations and the trust this Board places in them, the Board of Aldermen resolves the following: 1. The Board approves the August 31, 1999 draft of the interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management with the following modification: Part 4 of the Agreement (relating to the setting of governmental fees and other fees) should reflect the language proposed in the June 1, 1999 draft of the Agreement. 901 WEST MAIN STREET. CARRBORO, NC 27.110 • 1019) 942.8541 - PAX 19191 968.7777 - TOD f9191 888.7717 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER S42P -08 -99 O4:11P Town of Carrbovo 919 968 7737 Page 2 Town of Cuftro Resolution No. 25/1999 -2000 5 2. The Board authorizes the Mayor to execute and deliver the final form of the Agreement for Solid Waste Management. The final form of the Agreement shall be in substantially the form of (a) the drab dated August 31, 1999, with (b) the modification described above. The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 7th day of September, 1999: Ayes: Joal Hall Broun, Hilliard Caldwell, Diana McDuffee, Jacquelyn Gist, Michael Nelson, Allen Spalt, Alex Zaffron Noes: None Absent or Excused: None I, Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk of the Town of Carrboro, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on September 7, 1999. MEMORANDUM 6 TO: Carrboro Town Aldermen Chapel Hill Town Council Hillsborough Town Council Orange County Commissioners FROM: Landfill Owners Group Alternative Financing Committee Council Member Joyce Brown Commissioner Margaret Brown Mayor Horace Johnson Alderman Diana McDuffee SUBJECT: Availability Fees and Other Financing Mechanisms for Solid Waste Management DATE: December 30, 1998 At the request of the Alternative Financing Committee of the Landfill Owners Group, the Solid Waste staff has prepared this report to governing bodies of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Orange County. This memorandum reviews the four financing options studied by the committee and requests feedback from each of the governing bodies. Background The Alternative Finance Committee was formed by the Landfill Owners Group in February, 1998, and its objectives were to examine: 1. the need for additional funding sources to provide for the expansion of recycling programs needed to reach the 61% waste reductiontrecycling goal called for in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan; 2. the risks and apparent inequities inherent in the current funding scheme which relies solely on tipping fees; and 3. available alternatives for additional funding. The Committee began meeting in March, 1998, meeting a total of seven times, to determine how future revenue requirements of the solid waste management system could be funded. These requirements included costs associated with solid waste plan implementation and operations as well as the eventual reduction or cessation of tipping fee revenues. It was understood that once significant waste reduction began to occur, the garbage based tipping fee revenue would decrease as the garbage available for disposal decreased. Without additional funding to rectify the revenue shortfall that would occur under the existing funding structure, current and anticipated solid waste management operations could not continue. Additionally, the estimated revenue requirements to be generated through any funding source selected had been based on the financing structure being implemented in FY 1999. However, because it is now clear that the fee structure would not be implemented until FY 2000, the fees would need to be revised to address that change. Discussion Throughout this analysis it was assumed that the alternative funding source, whatever its nature, would be implemented to fund only that portion of projected expenditures th?Uould not be funded by the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Construction and Demolition (C&D) tipping fees, and the modest revenues attributable to the recycling programs themselves. 1 7 During the Committee's discussions, the following potential funding mechanisms were examined, and are still being considered: 1. revenues from increased tipping fees only; 2. additional property tax revenues; 3. service charge to be instituted against each community to be.financed as they see fit; and 4. availability fees to be charged against service beneficiaries. Each of these alternatives was examined in a November 24th, 1998 report prepared by the Solid Waste Department staff for the Alternative Finance Committee. Please refer to that report (attached) for additional specifics on each of the financing alternatives. Regardless of the funding mechanism selected, the same revenue would need to be raised in order to properly fund the Solid Waste Management Plan The November 24'b staff memo (Graph 1) identifies the total revenue required. The Alternative Financing Committee solicits feedback from the governing bodies on each of the proposed funding mechanisms and which they would prefer to see. implemented. The Orange County Manager is , particularly interested in comments on option #4, whereby service charges would be levied against each community, and each governing body decide for itself the method to fund that service cost. The committee is particularly interested in hearing the impressions from the governing bodies of each jurisdiction by January 15 so that these could be incorporated into the January 26d. meeting agenda packet for the Alternative Finance Committee. I. Tipping Fee Increases needed if only tipping fee revenue were used. If increased revenues from tipping fees were the financial support for the Solid Waste Management Plan, then tipping fees would need to rise to $76.38 in FY 2001 -02 to support $2,590,000 in additional expenditures ; and would rise to $102.33 in FY 2005 -06 to support $3,601,000 in additional expenditures. The Solid Waste Department staff considered the potential effect of raising tipping fees to this extent. They concluded that the private waste haulers, who now deliver 49% of all waste deposited at the Orange Regional Landfill, would not continue to take their waste to our landfill if the tipping fees there were significantly higher than those of other facilities. The projected tipping fees shown above would be considerably higher than future fees expected at competing disposal facilities. The estimated loss of MSW tonnage and tipping fee revenue to the Orange Regional Landfill due to diversion of . that waste to alternate disposal sites, would need to be accommodated by an increase in the tipping fees already projected. Further revising the tipping fee upward to accommodate that loss of revenue would continue to drive • additional tonnage away from the landfill. Estimates are that with the differential in projected tipping fees between the Orange Landfill and competing disposal facilities, and the resulting loss of delivered tonnage, tipping fees would need to be increased an additional $35.01 (to $111.39 per ton) in FY 2001 -02 beyond the original projection simply to accommodate the loss of tonnage. This method would perpetuate a price- spiral of tipping fees required to generate the same revenue from a diminishing tonnage; if this spiral were to continue, only the four governmental entities would be paying the entire cost of the Solid Waste Management Plan through these,, tipping fees. The November 24s' staff memo (Graph 2) projects the tax impact on an average homeowner (home value: $140,000) in Orange County from the use of the various financing mechanisms considered here. The financing options considered in each of these scenarios vary significantly- in which segments of the community may subsidize other portions. For example, the use of tipping fees to fund the Solid Waste Management Plan would require that waste generators that do not receive recycling services to subsidize other portions of the community. 2 8 2. Proaertv taxes as sole source of financin The Alternative Financing Committee asked about the impact on property taxes if that were the sole support of the Solid Waste Management,Plan implementation. Because the Solid Waste Management Plan was developed as a unified countywide plan, this analysis was developed assuming that additional revenues required would be funded through the Orange County tax rate, rather than through adding to the, tax rates of each jurisdiction in the County. In this way, all Orange County residents would be charged for solid waste management on the same , basis, and would be charged only once. The assumptions made in this scenario are that the FY 1998 -99 Countywide property tax base of $6,009,267,349 would increase at 1.5% per year. The Orange County tax rate would need to increase by $0.0406 in FY 2001 -02 to fund the Solid Waste Management Plan implementation and would result in an additional $58.58 in property taxes to the "average" .($140,000 value) homeowner, and the rate would increase $0.05217 by FY 2005 -06 with a tax impact of $78.30 on the average homeowner. Use of property tax revenues to fund the Solid Waste Management Plan implementation would provide a subsidy Of tax- exempt properties by other sectors of the community, and undeveloped properties which do not receive any recycling or waste reduction services would still be paying for those services. 3. Availability Fee. The use of an Availability Fee makes a direct connection between the level of service provided or available to various waste generators and the cost that is assessed for that service, similar to any other utility charge. Most 'nearby counties have levied availability fees to fund solid waste activities, including. Wake, Durham, Chatham and Mecklenburg Counties. The Availability Fee was generated in both the "actual" and "stabilized" form. The "actual" availability fee would simply be that fee necessary to fund Solid Waste Management Plan programs in a single year. The "stabilized" fee has been modified to reduce the volatility of fees from year to year. By charging a little more in a year in which revenue needs are lower, it is possible to charge a little less in a year when revenue needs are higher, easing both budgeting and public acceptance. The projected Availability Fees for each sector in each of the benchmark year are shown below. A more detailed explanation of fees by year and.the recommended level of Availability Fees, the user base (current and projected number of beneficiaries) in each sector, and the total revenue generated by each sector and total aggregate revenue, are included in the November 20 staff report (Table 5). These availability fees would generate the revenue required to fund the solid waste system cost not covered by tipping fees. This is the level of funding needed, regardless of which revenue tool is being considered. Availability Fee Type FY 2001 -02 FY 2005 -06 Urban Curbside $69 $86 Rural Curbside $51 $68 MUW7NMilY $2,300 $2,950 C ommercial $450 $825 � Although residential properties are fairly uniform in their service level, the Solid Waste Department staff is anticipating that there would be a tiered fee structure for the Multi- Family and Commercial units based upon their size and service demands, thus modifying the average prices shown above for those facilities. The use of availability fees as a funding mechanism would allow the flexibility to include or exclude tax- exempt or undeveloped properties and to adjust some fee structures based on the level of service received. 3 E 9 4. Each jurisdiction establishes implements and collects its own fees The Committee had also requested information on what charges would be levied against each jurisdiction if jurisdictions simply received a service charge for Solid Waste Management Plan services to residences and businesses within their boundaries, and the decision as to how to fund this service were left to the governing body of each community. This approach would provide the greatest degree of autonomy by allowing each jurisdiction to provide the additional necessary funds for the recycling program expansion by whatever method it thought most appropriate (fees, taxes, etc.). However, this method is also inconsistent with the notion of a unified and integrated plan for all jurisdictions of Orange County. This plan would require the figuring each year of costs for each jurisdiction. This plan may also encourage jurisdictions to consider requesting different levels of service, since each jurisdiction would be paying a fee for service. Such a trend would be antithetical to the idea of an integrated plan. A plan designed to take full advantage of synergism would find political boundaries irrelevant. Using the benchmark years used to discuss other financing mechanisms, we provide here the estimated charge to be levied against each jurisdiction, for the services available to residences and businesses in their community for the fiscal years 2001 -02 and 2005 -06. A more detailed breakdown of the charges, per community, per year, including the estimated number of residences and businesses is'included as part of Table 1(attached). urisdiction FY 2001 -02 FY 2005 -06 Orange County $872,073 $1,219,135 Carrboro $437,260 $589,169 Hillsborough $198,363 $288,590 Chapel Hill $1,076,448 $1,485,637 TOTAL $2,584144 $3,582,530 5. Solid Waste Management Plan. The implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan is intended to reduce the amount of waste to be landfilled. This reduction would reduce the waste disposal costs to the various communities, and might also reduce the waste collection costs as well. The staffs November 2e'Report to the Alternative Finance Committee (Table 6) investigates the effects of this reduced tonnage and tipping fees for each jurisdiction.. Estimates of the potential for savings in waste collection costs are far more arguable, because there is no ready way to estimate savings from the several possible modifications in waste collection methods, such as: re- routing of collections, reduced collection crew size, reduced collection frequency, etc. An outline of the current implementation schedule for the Solid Waste Management Plan is attached. CONCLUSIONS Without modification of the Solid Waste Management Plan and its implementation schedule, any financing mechanism-would be required to raise between $1.8 and $3.8 million each year for the next decade to supplement the revenue of the present landfill tipping fees. We believe that the sooner a decision is made on how to modify solid waste financing, the easier it will be for the community to afford the programs needed to meet the adopted goals of waste reduction. 2 C &D WASTE DISPOSAL September 1999 Key Questions And Issues: I .Need for a C &D landfill financial considerations 2. Timing alternatives to September 30 alternatives to July 1 3. Siting protected areas (rural buffer, watershed/WQCA) target areas default location 4. Co- location of functions transfer station MRF economic development 5. Aggressiveness model C &D recycling ordinance (site separation) joint EDC /Solid Waste effort to seek grant funding CAwirKbwAtempUESSUP3.DOC 2 Printed: 06 /09/99 Found in the "Approve Budget" 3. The Board of Commissioners shall approve the 1999 -2000 solid Found in the "Approve Budget" waste management operating budget in June, 1999; paragraph near the bottom of page 2 paragraph near the bottom of page 2 * *Of course, this provision may be deleted from the final agreement if this action has occurred before the signing date 4. The LOG shall continue to oversee solid waste management, Found in Part 7 on page 7, and Found in Part 7 on page 7, and operating by consensus and making no major financial particularly the second paragraph of particularly the second paragraph of commitments, until it dissolves, after adoption of the 1999 -2000 Part 7 Found in Part 7 on page 7, and also in Part 7 Found in Part 7 on page 7, and also in budget and no later than August 1 1999; 5. Each government shall appoint two representatives to a Solid Waste Management Advisory Commission, pursuant to an adopted Exhibit C beginning on page 15 Exhibit C beginning on page 17 Interlocal Agreement, which shall succeed the LOG and begin meeting upon dissolution of the LOG and no later than August 1 1999; a ninth seat on the Commission will be reserved for a representative designated by the University, provided that the University commits to participation in the solid waste management system; 6. Solid waste collection /transportation decisions will remain the Found in Part 3 on page 3 Found in Part 3 on page 3 prerogative of each local government entity; 7. The County will pursue a conceptual revenue structure that: This provision is not separately Fees /revenues are discussed • Finances core operations (MRF, MSW and C &D Landfills) included, based in part on discussion at throughout Section 4 on pages 3, 4, 5 through tipping fees prior meeting at which other units and 6 • Finances collection /transportation activities through property indicated there was not need to tie the taxes and collection charges County to any particular methodology • Finances reduction /recycling through tipping fees to the extent practical, with the balance from availability fees 8. The County will finance community benefits through the landfill Found in Part 6 on pages 6 and 7 Found in Part 6 on pages 6 and 7 enterprise fund to the extent legally permissible (unless Carrboro and Chapel Hill agree to earmark a portion of one -cent sales taxes for their share of community benefits). FURTHERMORE The County is willing to entertain assumption by any of the other municipal partners of the lead role in solid waste management subject to the principles and conditions enumerated above. CAwirKbwAtempUESSUP3.DOC 2 Printed: 06 /09/99 to be managed as an 2. The Greene Tract remains a landfill asset (with acknowledgement that the current Board of Commissioners has no inclination to bury mixed solid waste (MSW) or construction and demolition (C&D) waste on this property); 3. There are no restrictions on acquisition of additional acreage at the current landfill (with acknowledgement that the current Board of Commissioners has no inclination to use the Blackwood or Nunn properties); ^4. All entities continue to work through the LOG until such time as the County assumes responsibility for solid waste management to develop options for materials recovery, construction and demolition disposal, and a transfer station (to include examination of . reconfiguring property at the Eubanks Road landfill to accommodate one or more of these facilities); 5. The Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough bear an appropriately proportional share of costs and remain committed partners to make an enterprise operation economically viable, to include current and future operations; 6. Reduction of solid waste and the economic viability of solid waste facilities /operations are made compatible; 7. All parties approve an Interlocal Agreement after the current draft has been revised to incorporate modifications (negotiated by representatives of each governing board); 8. The Countv retains the right to implement fees; and The County is not expected to use general funds to u overall solid waste management activities; 1-ouna in preamble to Fart 4, page 3; see also last paragraph on page 3 and first paragraph on page 4 Found in Part 5 on page 6 in the middle of page 2 paragrapn of Fart r on page 7 page 3; see also Part 2 on page 3 preamble to Part 4,. page led separatelv in the Agreement Found in preamble to Part 4, page 3; this concept runs throughout Part 4 on pages 3, 4 and 5 Found in preamble to Part 4, page 3, and also in the second -to -last paraaraph on oaae 5 i-ouna in preamdie to Fart 4, page 3-4; see last paragraph on page 3 and first paragraph on page 4 Found in Part 5 on page 6 -7 t-ouna in Acquire Property- paragraph in the middle of page 2 Found in second paragraph of Part 7 on page 8 Found in preamble to Part 4, page 3; see also Part 2 on page 3 Found in preamble to Part 4, page 3 Not mcivaea separateiy in the Agreement Found in preamble to Part 4, page 3; this concept runs throughout Part 4 on paqes 3.4. 5 and 6 paragraph on page 6 1. The County will assume solid waste management responsibility six This is the point of Part 1 on pages 1 This is the point of Part 1 on pages 1 months after all parties have approved the Interlocal Agreement to and 2; effective date provision is the and 2; effective date provision is the include current and future operations; paragraph at the bottom of page 2. paragraph at the bottom of page 2. Also see the last paragraph on page 14 Also see the last paragraph on page 14 2. The County will accept transfer of all Chapel Hill solid waste Found in the "Take on employees" Found in the "Take on employees" management employees; paragraphs at the bottom of page 1 paragraphs at the bottom of page 1 CAwhdowsUwnpwESSUP3.DOC 1 Printed: 06 /09/99 4 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: County Commissioners John Link, County Manager COMPANY: DATE: September 14, 1999 FAX NUMBER: RE: Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement PHONE NUMBER: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 2 ❑ URGENT Q FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES /COMMENTS: In consultation with the Chair, the staff and I have developed the accompanying draft resolution for the Board's consideration at this evening's work session. The Board may wish to consider adoption of this, or a similar resolution, as a means of ensuring there is documentation in the public record of an important point related to the solid waste interlocal agreement. The one significant point remaining unresolved relates to whether the approval of one or two municipalities, in addition to the County, wi11 be required for the creation of or changes to certain categories of fees. Regardless of which of these two choices is ultimately agreed to, it will be essential to the County's ability to successfully carry out the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for all parties to approve the fee saucture and revenue streams necessary to support the new programs, processes, and facilities that will produce the targeted waste reduction goals. The proposed resolution would provide an "audit trail" of the BOCC having made this point plain to its municipal partners before the signing of the interlocal agreement. DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE NEED FOR ALL PARTIES TO SUPPORT A REVENUE STRUCTURE SUFFICIENT TO FINANCE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the governing boards of the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange County have upon several occasions in the past expressed their formal support for the implementation of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan and its inherent solid waste reduction goals of 45% by the year 2001 and 61 % by the year 2006; and WHEREAS, progress towards those goals will be dependent on the successful implementation of new strategies, processes, programs, and facilities that will expand the types and amounts of materials to be reduced, reused and recycled; and WHEREAS, the December 30, 1998 report from the Solid Waste Alternative Financing Committee pointed out that there would be an annual shortfall in the Landfill Fund budget during each of the next ten years of between $1.8 million to $3.8 million, which would need to be made up with alternative revenue sources if the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan were to be carried out as contemplated; and WHEREAS, the Alternative Financing Committee also discussed the feasibility of employing solid waste service district taxes to finance differing levels of recycling /reduction/reuse activities in different jurisdictions or different geographical locations; and WHEREAS, the employment of various alternative revenue sources will require the support of the County's municipal partners if the parties are together to make reasonable progress towards the mutually established solid waste reduction goals; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DOES HEREBY reaffirm its commitment to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan with its inherent solid waste reduction goals and urges the governing boards of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough to do likewise; and does hereby urge each municipal governing board to affirm its commitment to ensure that the fees and charges necessary to carry out the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan are approved and put into effect in a timely and unambiguous manner so that it will be possible to successfully implement this plan. This, the 10' day of September, 1999. 5 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON BEHALF. OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL TO SELECT THE NEXT CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION LANDFILL IN ORANGE COUNTY (99- 9- 13/R -12) WHEREAS, construction and demolition waste materials represent approximately one third of all wastes disposed in Orange County; and WHEREAS, the existing construction and demolition landfill is expected to reach capacity in the summer of 2000; and WHEREAS, the governing boards of Orange County and the Towns of Catrboro and Chapel Hill have all indicated, either through the LOG process or through their individual boards, their commitment to pursuing an in- County construction and demolition facility to replace the current facility when it is full; and WHEREAS, it is important to reduce confusion among County citizens regarding site selection decision making responsibility and to allow a more effective public participation process; and WHEREAS, it is recognized that eventual transfer of solid waste management decision - making authority to Orange County appears imminent; and WHEREAS, there are significant time pressures associated with a September 30 expiration of an option to purchase one of the sites and to have a new site available when the current facility reaches capacity; and WHEREAS, the Board of Orange County Commissioners have requested that the Town Council cede its shared decision making responsibility regarding a final construction and demolition site decision to Orange County, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Board of County Commissioners on behalf of the Town of Chapel Hill to select a new construction and demolition landfill site, provided that this authorization may be revoked by future actions of the Town Council This the 13`x' day of September, 1999.