The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 12-09-1995 - Attachment 1 Orange County Community Health Assessment .: .... . ..:. .... M:: v Aft: �.....:: ,. kick-off meeting X progress update X X X results presentation X priority setting meeting X : .. :...... :: .:.:.:.:.:::.::.:.. ...:: ..:.:... ::. . ........... .... .:... ........ .. .. .. .. ..:'.:.::::...:::.;... Community Diagnosis X X X X health service inventory X X X compile data files X X X secondary data report X X ... ...: ... ..... ...:. ....:.... .:.:. :.... ' content selection X data collection X data analysis/report X X ac s.c�usS�ars:::.::>:: identify group profiles X X recruit, orient moderators X recruit participants X hold discussions X X analysis/report X X .....;::'i..::ii: identify key informants X X select themes X execute interviews X X prepare report X e R;i<;i > :: i < :> is n r p f. ::....... prepare X X disseminate X r ' U) CD O a E �CC G im V N CL O to v E O O O V t-; V a CL C O E 0 0 —. d O O U v N . , V .a O • O i 44 O Q O O v o v Q' LCL M n O . d _ O O to -Cd W cn U 0 't3 vs �n Q 00 to CL •d CD O O +J co L ca o = O x E v ca p� O ca o CD CL 4) ++ _ .cm L C U v 2 a; U .d ,L c • O D O N .o m � U •N O O Z O = L V1 Z1 = L tm O O ' to v C vi p_ a � v o o c L L U o a� c �. •- > o � �a zo o � o 0 w � a� U A.a Q &.-4 0 a O M O , CA cu E ca cn cn cn co N � Q) V U) -a E ° o El w w — w L- 0 0 (n o d +� ►� v o 0u o ° n. o LL U)0 0 L L O L N .� Q "(%� O CL a.;>j 0 1� O CC3 w c U 4O Q to Q. •i �► o Q ° l May ❑ �a °°° ° ° c° N o° x o i c/? C1 Cy D x ° C i 4-j cl cu co ❑ ° ❑ ❑ N C H H • • • O c0 U i � o •N •� a E zo En cu WI., Cn > •c o s 0 C r In ° U) Q O � o to En a� 02 a = O o 0 aQ av c co • a O O co C- 0 Cc 0 ca a ca Cc cn cn pug cu wrange 0.1nunttl Public Works e+ •, P.O. BOX 8181 q 92 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 TELEPHONE NO.: (919) 732-8181 Ext. 2625 688-7331 Ext. 2625 It gets``•• 227-2031 Ext. 2625 968-4501 Ext. 2625 Wilbert J. McAdoo 967-9251 Ext. 2625 DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM To: Orange County Board of Commissioners / From: Wilbert McAdoo, Public Works Director W Date: December 6, 1995 Subject: Summary of Solid Waste Collection Options for Unincorporated Orange County Important considerations when reviewing options for rural collection are: - Roadside collection versus Solid Waste Convenience Centers. - The amount and type of control the County wants to exercise over the collection. - The level of service that the County residents desire and demand. - The best collection system for the individual. - The best collection system for the County as a whole. - Who will pay? - Who will collect payment? - Integration with the Countywide Solid Waste Management Plan. Options for Solid Waste Collection in Unincorporated Orange County: 1) Continue to offer services as currently provided: At present, citizens in rural Orange County have the option of using any of Orange County's six existing staffed solid waste convenience centers (SWCCs) for waste disposal or contracting with a private waste hauler. Approximately 80% of the rural households use the County's SWCCs and the remaining 20% contract with private waste haulers. Those citizens that contract for private waste hauling occasionally use the SWCCs for disposal of bulky waste, white goods, and yard waste. These components of the residential waste stream are not included as a part of their contracted collection services. All residents, rural and urban, may also obtain permits for landfill disposal of loads of non- dumpster compatible residentially-generated wastes such a bulky wastes, furniture, white goods, yard waste, etc. Orange County pays the tipping fee for disposal of these materials. Currently, bi-weekly curbside collection of recyclables is provided to approximately 1 Office Location Highway 86 North Hillsborough 7,057 rural households. Residents may also recycle newspaper, magazines, corrugated cardboard, aluminum and steel food and beverage cans, aluminum foil, plastic six-pack carrier rings,#1, #2, #5, and#7 plastic bottles, and polycoated gable top milk and juice containers at the SWCCs. These recycling programs are managed by Orange Community Recycling and funded from landfill tipping fee revenues. 2) Convert existing Solid Waste Convenience Centers to utilize the 40 Yard Compactor/Collector Center Model: Presently, collection and disposal of most waste at the SWCCs is handled using open-top six cubic yard dumpsters and a front-end loader garbage collection truck. Orange County had anticipated switching from this collection system to one which utilized a stationary waste compactor, enclosed container for household waste and open-top 40 cubic yard roll-off containers for bulky waste. The first site to use this collection method was planned for Saddle Club Road, but construction and site development bids of$215,000 were $60,000 higher than those projected by County staff. The decision was made to postpone a decision until the Weston Study is completed. 3) License all private haulers providing residential waste collection: Orange County may choose to no longer provide any solid waste disposal services directly for its residents and eliminate solid waste convenience centers. Licensing of private haulers would allow the County to exercise a small degree of control over haulers and elimination of County SWCCs would encourage increased subscription to collection services which are provided by the private haulers. Theoretically, the increase in demand for services would encourage the haulers to provide services to a larger area of the County than currently serviced and the free-market system and competition among haulers would help keep subscription prices at a reasonable level. Residents would subscribe to their hauler of choice and payment for service would be made directly to the hauler by their customers. The County could regulate, prescribe the level of service, and issue individual licenses to haulers using the Orange County Solid Waste Ordinance as the enforcement mechanism. 4) Franchise collection of residential waste for the unincorporated area of Orange County to a Large Private Hauler. Collection services and specific service areas could be franchised to a private waste hauler in Orange County capable of providing collection to all unincorporated areas of the County. The County could solicit bids to determine the cost of service to provide collection to the County as a whole. The County could examine each option individually or as a whole and award the franchise based on costs provided by the hauler and choose the system that would be most cost-effective to the residents of the County. Individual residents would contract and make direct payment for collection services to the designated fanchisee. 2 5) Franchise All of Unincorporated Orange County to Current Rural Private Haulers for Service. This option would be comparable to option#4. Current rural residential waste haulers would be licensed and franchised by Orange County. The County would negotiate with and issue franchises to haulers for separate areas of the County. In order to guarantee service to all residents in the County, including sparsely populated areas, franchises would be awarded to haulers to service specific areas. The County would award franchises based on a County-approved cost-for-service. Individual residents would individually contract with haulers and assume responsibility for payment to them. 6) Orange County could provide universal rural residential collection to all rural County residents (eliminate all SWCCs). Orange County could provide universal solid waste and recycling services to all rural County residents by: A. Purchasing collection vehicles and providing service comparable to collection services provided by municipalities in the County. B. Contract with one or more of the municipalities to provide collection to rural residents. C. Issue a Request for Proposals and solicit bids for residential collection services from private haulers. D: The collection services chosen by the County could be a mix of any one of the previous options, based on levels of service preferred, offered, and costs obtained from bidders. Examination of costs for the County to publicly offer collection services, and prices obtained from negotiations with municipalities and private haulers would also influence any decision. E. A number of financing options could be utilized, including each of those presented as a part of Weston's study of an Integrated Solid Waste Management System for Orange County. Financing Options for Collection Systems: Currently, Orange County Solid Waste Convenience Centers are financed by County property taxes. A number of financing options are currently being successfully used by counties in the State to finance solid waste management activities. Most of these alternatives and those chosen for study by Weston are variations of a user fee similar to utility bills. These financing alternatives can increase public awareness of waste reduction, recycling and other waste management costs. They can also be perceived by the public as an equitable way to charge for solid waste services, similar to other public utilities and services. 3 Alternative financing options include: 1. Pay-per-throw system -There are two basic methods for implementing Pay As You Throw - one based on volume and one based on weight. 2. Volume-based- Residents are charges for waste collection according to volume generated. This can be determined either by number and variable, size or cans placed for collection or by use of special trash bags (or tags or stickers). 3. Weight-based system- Household is weighed at the point of collection and the resident is billed for service per pound of refuse he/she sets out for collection. 3. Household or User Fee -Each household is charged a flat fee for Solid Waste Collection and disposal cost. Each resident would be charged the same fee regardless of the amount of trash generated. 4. Property y axes - Historically property taxes have been the method of financing used for Solid Waste Collection. All county property owners pay for household waste collection and disposal based on their property value and not the amount of waste they generate. 5. Combination of the above options. Consider availability fee plus incentive based fees. 4 - � N � O O� M OM Oo N W O\ ^ z z ID LL 0 O O pp pa c1 OZ C] Z >0 Zq Om Q CT M N Q a N W W a ti O z z a j 0 0 0 p U zzwo zw p W a4 U Jo U a z � O U � o 3 a x H w Q 5;� xoN Z E oz w oz F ,`�� C N � z W z aw aw o F Qy W Q � O � ? ° a FW.. � o � ¢ 3 3 3 3 NN o n cn r- � � � � V) n cn �p rLaj cv r �1: Liu Q 3 3 3 3 A ZC14 � a Z Q~ ua cccc Q z z a Q a ¢ Z V W U S Z a ❑ c E E N -* N � O. N dui dW c _c _cc S Q � -ov3 $ c c c c o > > c c cn C? M 0 v a'i ai a"i , O � � ., 3 E E c Gr CIS Q ¢ vii F" 0 0 0 0 O ca C'OOO ca 423 423 O O a fF a`i u v Q Q O Ur � 0 > E E E E O g O g O P CLI zi Q Q _ I I SOLID WASTE FINANCING OPTIONS RURAL ROADSIDE COLLECTION The following info oration is an analysis of variable rate financing for rural solid waste collection and disposal in System 1 of Weston's study of an integrated solid waste management plan for Orange County. The costs used in the analysis are based on information from Weston's Working Paper#3. Much of the information in Weston's study is based on cost ranges and assumptions. This analysis is for comparative purposes; a more thorough exact analysis will be performed as implementation decisions are made. System 1 Collection (assumes curbside collection of residential household waste from 17,000 rural households. All current Solid Waste Convenience Centers are closed except for two Special Waste Convenience Centers. Residents will use these sites for disposal of bulky waste, white goods, tires, yard waste, used oil and batteries. Rural Universal Collection System 1 Collection Costs R rnge Disposal Costs Range Annual Household Charge Collection/Disposal $2,053,000-2,079,000 $162,204-$238,204 $106.75 - $136.31 Disposal Cost Rarwe Annual Household Charge Disposal $162,533 - $238,'9,04 $9.56 - $14.01 Su»ary of Three Intergrated Solid Waste Systems Developed by Weston Consulting SYSTEM WASTE PREVENTION COLLECTION PROCESSING 1 *Differential Landfill Fees Universal At the Source Collection Commingles Materials Recovery for properly sorted All residences and businesses Facility(MRF) material v.mixed loads. get weekly recycling and waste Mixed recyclables are separated and *Collection Bans collections. and processed at a central facility Variable Rates based on Separate Trucks. instead of a curb. weight or volume *No sanitation sites or drop off *Public Education recycling. *Non-economic Incentives *Two special waste sites for motor Centralized Oreanic Composing Waste prevention means actions oil,batteries,tires yard waste of separated materials like wood that are taken before recycling and bulky items. waste and low grade paper.No disposal to reduce the amount mixed waste composing. 2 *Differential Landfill Fees Wet/Dry Co-Collection: Commingled MRF *Public Education Program Each business and residence would Centralized Composting of *Non-Economic Incentives receive collection of separated wet/ source-separated organic materials compostable,dry/recyclable and including food wastes,yard wastes, waste/other material.One truck. sludge,low grade paper. No rural wet collections. 4 sanitation sites. 3 *Differential Landfill Fees Modified Current System: Source Separated MRF *Variable Rates Collection would be similar except Material would be separated when *Public Education Program with more commercial recycling. collected for delivery to the MRF. *Non-Economic Incentives 7 sanitation sites with recycling. Minimal processing at MRF. ' 7 drop-off recycling sites. Mulching of wood wastes. `NOTE: For any of the three systems,a disposal option will need to be selected that could include:a)in-county disposal of all waste remaining after waste reduction,b)out-of-county disposal of all waste remaining,c)a combination of out-of-county disposal of mixed solid waste with in-county disposal of construction and demolition waste. SYSTEM 1 SYSTEM 2 SYSTEM 3 Diversion Potential 35%to 60% 42%to 71% 30%to 49% Cost New Capital $9.0 to$12.1 million $14.5 to$16.2 million $3.6 to$4.6 million O&M $6.4 to$6.7 million $6.5 to$6.6 million $5.9 to$6.2 million Cost/ton(2)(3) $81 to$85 $82 to$83 $74 to$78 Impact on Environment Greatest concerns with Moderate concern with Few potential concerns and Public Health moderate benefits significant benefits or benefits Technical Risk Low technical risk Greatest technical risk Lowest technical risk Likely Opposition Moderate potential Low to moderate potential Low potential for opposition for opposition for opposition (1)Operations and Maintenance(O&M)includes amortized capital. (2)Cost/ton for O&M only(net includes revenues from material sales. (3)Disposal costs not included. MEMORANDUM TO: Landfill Reorganization Work Group FROM: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director SUBJECT: New Organization Structure DATE: November 29, 1995 This memorandum outlines an organizational structure that was defined in general terms by the Reorganization Work Group at their November 3 meeting. Additionally, it suggests other issues for the Group to consider as it further defines a new organizational structure. Background At the November 3 meeting of the Reorganization Work Group, Jake Wicker, of the Institute of Government, suggested that there are two primary questions when considering organization: Who decides? Who pays? and that it would be helpful to decide one in a preliminary fashion, deal with the second, and then go back and confirm the preliminary decision on the first question. In determining who decides, the group consensus was that decisions on waste prevention, processing and disposal should be shared by the participating jurisdictions, and that decisions on waste collection should be made by each jurisdiction. Decisions on collection would necessarily be influenced by both the joint decisions made on the other three program elements and by the Mission and -Goals Statement. Discussion The creation of a new Owners Group structure will require the member governments to confer some of their powers onto the new entity. This can be done through interlocal agreement, as with the current Owners Group, formation of a joint agency (by interlocal agreement) or by formation of a solid waste management authority (not necessarily called an authority, but utilizing the legislation that authorizes their creation) . The choice of how the organization is formed may ultimately depend upon which powers the member governments desire the new organization to have. At the November 3 meeting, the group began to discuss some of the desired powers of the new Owners Group. Prior to beginning a discussion on financing and who pays, we believe it may be beneficial to further discuss the details of who decides. The following are some of the non-financing issues that would need to be addressed when forming the new organization: • purpose • powers, duties and functions - • method of personnel appointment • number of delegates. to represent-member units and method of decision making 2 • present and future ownership in real property • mothods of amending or terminating organizational charter • administration of the organization • t:.ming the creation of the new organization The following sections on each of the above issues note the areas previously discussed by the Reorganization Group and raises additional questions that could be discussed. Purpose As agreed upon at the November 3 meeting, the newly constituted Landfill OxAners Group would be responsible for solid waste prevention, processing and disposal activities. Responsibility for solid waste: collections would remain with the individual governments. Responsibility for recycling collections needs to be clarified and may be dependent upon what collection or processing methodology is chosen. For example if co-collection vehicles are utilized it would be possible for each local government to be responsible for both solid waste and recyclables collection. If the current system of source separated recyclable collection is maintained, it may be advantageous for recycling collections to continue to be contracted out and provided by the Owners Group. Some governnents may not be interested in assuming recycling collection responsibility. Powers of the Board The Reorganization Working Group has expressed the desire to give the new organizational structure more powers than the present Owners Grour to make certain that it is a decision-making rather than an advisory body. All powers delegated to the new structure must be specified in the agreement that forms the new organization. Powers granted to the new entity could include one or- all of the following abilities: • Require participation in recycling programs; • Set and charge fees and penalties for the use and availability of disposal/processing facilities; • Lease property; • Enter into installment contracts; • Own land and negotiate land purchases and sales; • Adopt a budget and approve budget changes; • Ap-prove major construction and bid awards; • App?rove significant changes to construction projects; • Es•:ablish, expand and eliminate solid waste management programs; ; = ` _, The above list is merely suggestive and not an exhaustive list of potential pokers. 3 Method of personnel appointment . At the November 3 meeting, the Group agreed that the new organization should have the power to hire and fire its executive director. All other personnel would be hired by the executive director and subject to the personnel policies of the organization that contracted to administer the personnel system. Number of delegates from member governments and decision makinq In past discussions, the Reorganization Group has made the assumption that each government would have one vote on the- new board, decisions would require a simple majority vote of the board and that board members would be elected officials appointed by the member governing bodies. The Group may wish to revisit these assumptions and further consider the number of delegates from each unit. If there--are an even number of delegates/votes, a tie- breaking methodology may need to be considered. Additionally, rather than having equal representation on the board, representation could be based on any or a combination of the following: population, waste generation, portion of financial contribution/financing methodology, location of facilities, administrative responsibilities or any other identified criteria. Present and future ownership of real property In forming the new organization, the member governments could grant the power to own property and land to the new entity or ownership could continue to be held jointly by the member governments. With joint ownership, the approval of all member governing boards would be required to purchase or sell property. The assets- of the current joint-agreement (primarily land, including the Greene tract, a working landfill, and equipment) could be brought into any new entity through the creating agreement. An interlocal agreement could specify how current assets are owned versus assets acquired under the new organization. Likewise, if so empowered, the new organization could take possession of current assets, but specify that upon dissolution that these assets would be transferred back to the members. Alternatively, the organization could purchase the assets from the member governments. Method of amending or terminating new organization A likely method of amending or terminating the new organizational charter/agreement would be approval of each member's governing board. The agreement could specify that a member may leave the organization given timely notice, a prescribe method of dealing with shared debt and other financial obligations, an agreement regarding delivery of wastes and other conditions agreed to by all the initial members. Landfill Administration Solid waste management has become a more technical and more regulated field than it used to be. Therefore, much of the daily operation is mandated by state and federal regulations, with little policy discretion. Administrative duties related to--day -to day ,activities include the following: facility design and operations, 4 personnel administration, program evaluation, data collection and record keeping, legal support, financial management, purchasing and bill paying, meeting permit requirements, complying with federal and state regulations, writing equipment and contract specifications. While the new organization could be semi-independent, it would likely contract out many administrative duties such as personnel and financial management in order to be cost effective. Potential governments to contract services from include the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough or Orange County. ' Additionally, a private corporation could be hired. Specific administrative powers could be spelled out in the agreement which forms the new organization. Timing the creation of the new organization One area that we suggest needs to be addressed is the timing of the creation of a new organization and the transition from the current Owners Group to the new organization. Timing of the transition could be an important factor in determining who selects the new landfill site, as well as the participation of Hillsborough. The new Owners Group could be formed at any time the member governments agree upon. However, we suggest that the timing of a change would need to take into account ongoing Owners Group activities. It is likely the current Owners Group would dissolve when the new one is formed; however, two groups could exist for a period of time if the member governments identified advantages to having two groups. The new board could be formed to run only the new landfill, or once formed, it could also be responsible for the current landfill. Responsibilities related to post-closure of the Eubanks landfill could be addressed in the forming agreement for any new board. Recommendation That the Reorganization Work Group further consider the above issues related to the creation of a new organization. Then the work group may wish to initially review the question_ of- who pays and financing issues related to the new organization. Additionally, the group could begin to develop a time-frame for the transition to the new organization. Based on decisions made by the group, the staff can work to further develop the details of the new organization and to provide the group with additional information as required. `j DEC MEMORANDUM 4 19ZVb { TO: Landfill Reorganization Work Group -- ;� ,a_ FROM: Sonna Loewenthal, Chapel Hill Assistant Town Manager SUBJECT: Notes on Meeting of November 29, 1995 DATE: December 1, 1995 The Landfill Reorganization Work Group met on November Ch , at Carrboro Town Hall . Hank Anderson, Joyce Brown, Jaquie Gist, Mike Nelson, and Don Willhoit attended. Alderman Mike Nelson chaired the meeting. Jake Wicker, of the Institute of Government, also participated. Alderman Nelson chaired the meeting. In the discussion of the potential new structure to own and operate the next landfill, the following issues were considered: -Whether the collection of trash and recyclables should be done as one operation or separately -Concensus on the powers of the new structure was that it should be a decision-making body with the capacity, at least, to require participation in recycling programs; set fees and penalties; lease property; enter into installment contracts; buy and own land; adopt a budget, approve construction and bid awards; establish, modify and eliminate solid waste management programs -Whether delegates should also be elected officials -How many votes each member jurisdiction should have and how many delegates each jurisdiction should have -Whether debt should be issued by the agency or the participating governments -Whether tip fees should finance all operating costs, and, if not, what other revenue sources should be involved The next meeting will be on Wednesday, December 20, at 5 :30 , at the Homestead Center. Discussion will include a review of the 1994 Womble Carlyle Report on Ownership and Financing Alternatives and the Managers.' February 22, 1995 memorandum, with special emphasis on financing alternatives . Jake Wicker has agreed to join us again. Copies of the report and memorandum-were distributed last April, but if anyone needs another copy of either, _ please call Tracy Dudley in my. office at 968-2743, and she will be happy to send you t what you need immediately._ CUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND This Working Paper(Working Paper#3) is the third step in evaluating solid waste management options for the Orange Regional Landfill Owners' Group (LOG). In Working Paper #1, potential options and evaluation criteria were presented for the LOG's consideration. Based on Working Paper#1 and follow-up meetings, the LOG, with input from the Citizens' Solid Waste Advisory Committee (CSWAC) selected five waste prevention options, three collection system options, and four processing options. The LOG also selected evaluation criteria to be used when analyzing these options. Working Paper #2 evaluated each of the solid waste management options independently based on the evaluation criteria selected. Each option was scored based on the weights assigned to evaluation criteria by the LOG. Once this analysis was complete, the LOG combined the options into three solid waste management systems. This document, Working Paper #3, evaluates solid waste management systems. Each of these systems includes several waste prevention options, a collection option,and one or two processing options. SYSTEMS EVALUATION Systems Selected Tables ES-1, ES-2, and ES-3 show the three solid waste management systems that the LOG selected for evaluation. In order to gain a more precise analysis, the LOG worked to clearly define the specific elements of each of the three systems. For example, for each system, the LOG clearly defined which sectors and jurisdictions received which collection services. This allowed for a narrower range of diversion potential and costs. These decisions are incorporated into the descriptions at the beginning of each of the following sections. It is important to note that these systems were defined solely for evaluation purposes. None of these are necessarily the systems that will be implemented, without changes, by the LOG. To allow analysis of the systems, it was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding future events. The attempt was made to best estimate future events and still provide sufficient variability between systems to reflect the impacts of changes in the future (market conditions, social and economic changes). For example, currently a market exists for many paper materials. A best estimate of future events is that this market will continue. Therefore, it may be best to assume that there is a demand for paper materials (recyclables). However, one of the distinct advantages to having an organics composting facility compared to a yard waste mulching facility is that non-marketable paper from the Material Recovery Facilty (MRF) can still be diverted from the waste stream. Therefore, in System 1, it was assumed that a significant portion of the paper collected in the commingled stream was non-marketable. In System 2, the quantity of NOR/K\WP\10790\RPKDL001.WP S-1 09/95 paper that could be marketed from the MRF was assumed to be similar to current markets. Both these systems therefore have similar paper diversion; however, costs in System 1 are greater due to the additional processing costs associated with "double-handling" of a portion of the paper. The impacts of this assumption are further described in the Summary of Results. The following sections of the report describe which materials were assumed to be marketable for each system. With the exception of mixed paper, the materials included in the collection and processing schemes were based on current markets. Some materials, such as textiles, may have current limited markets (i.e., only small quantities and in a specific form), but were not included in the systems. Further discussion of markets is provided herein relative to diversion potential. Additionally, assumptions were made relative to the level of service provided to each sector. For example, the unincorporated areas of the county have varying levels of residential density, some of which are similar to densities within the incorporated towns. These more densely populated areas, therefore, could have similar levels of service to "urban" areas. An allocation of unincorporated area residents to an "urban" level of service was only included in Systems 1 and 2. System 3 did not include revised residential collection services (all of county assumed rural) and, therefore, did not warrant this allocation. Other important assumptions relative to defining the systems for evaluation include: • In System 1, because universal collection of waste and recyclables will be provided to all residents and businesses, it was assumed that the special waste centers would not accept waste or recyclables. • Generally, the collection of recyclables from the commercial sector is not clearly outlined since these services are typically provided on a site-specific basis. For example, some businesses may generate sufficient quantities of a specific material to warrant source separated (by customer) collection, even though the system offers commingled collection. • A differentiation or assignment was not made between public and private sector collection or processing. For example, currently private haulers collect commercial and multi-family residential yard waste through direct agreements with the owners (jurisdictions do not bear any direct costs). However, because this material is part of the waste generation stream, it was included in each system and is reflected in the cost and diversion results. • The potential for haulers/users to deliver materials to out-of-county facilities has not been considered. Each system is described in more detail in subsequent sections of the report. NOR/K\WP\10790\RPKDL001.WP ES-2 09/95 Y 04 Methodology Each of the three solid waste systems was evaluated based on five criteria selected by the LOG. These criteria are: 1. Diversion potential. The range of diversion from disposal likely to result from each system. 2. Cost. The range of total and per ton capital and annual operating costs for each system. 3. Impact on environment and public health. The environmental and public health issues associated with each system. 4. Technical risk. The experience, reliability and commercial availability of any technology associated with the system. 5. Likely opposition. The potential opposition to elements of the system, based on experience in implementation elsewhere and comments from the public and the CSWAC throughout the project. SUMMARY OF RFSUTS The results of the evaluation of the three solid waste systems for each criterion is provided in the following tables. Table ES-4 indicates the estimated diversion from each sector for the systems. Minimums and maximums are provided to reflect the likely range of results. This level of diversion will likely not be achieved during the initial implementation of the proposed system - it is based on a time period (3 to 5 years) after all system components have been implemented. Additionally, it is based on current waste generation (i.e., existing recycling has been added to disposal quantities). Therefore, these diversion estimates are not additive to the existing recycling. Also, existing prevention of waste may be occurring that may impact the estimated prevention component of diversion. Minimum levels of recovery correspond to the estimated low range of participation (i.e., amount collected) and recovery (i.e., level of contamination and, therefore, residue). The maximum case represents the high end of participation and recovery (minimum residue). In the high range of participation, materials that are recyclable but currently do not have readily available markets have been included (for example, film plastic or glass other than beverage containers). As can be seen, System 2 is estimated to have slightly greater overall diversion potential than System 1. System 3 results have somewhat lower diversion potential than either of these systems. It should be noted that when diversion increases, waste to be landfilled decreases. NOR/K\W P\10790\RPKDL001.WP ES-3 09/95 4 In^ S� .c W 0 o X100 U U O U O .0.4 0 U _ � 0 _ U cn We � ►J,y N � U � �., �" U U i••i v1 � U rU.► 0 0 • 'o 1.4 � a N cin cz G1 �i U > rA '� 0 Piz a' o uw 0 V UOV a� Piz CIO � � C � � A •� V � r., o a� o o U AA c •0 ,O U a) � •� GM z O a "O O U COO u U CIZ 0 a z ►� iY •w.l U � � i.r 1.0 U O � � C w ri VA V) o cz ,O cz cz U _ r. U cz ..,.� C'n r3 U cz U 0 0 A L=, > a, Z z 12 sti I all i 92" 1111M I I I & A A Re:I a 2 X C4 MIX I I I I I a C4 MU N 0 C4 Mi a P.v 2 4 Olt 40 Ch fig i 8 f9f G °A A Sa � P. Z a R g n Ing 0 9 n al 0 9 *A; _ 1 gig I I Or I Eli ilk I ki IF I 99f 9 -99 1 1 999 1 1 m Ir I I , EK J 9 E d }" Q eVl ITV S C 0 4i N a Pi 4i a a w •O W. a w a g s g � fi o C4 Ct N of Of V in W � 0.0 r.w ms's Table FS-5 summarizes the costs of each of the systems. Collection costs are provided for the various sectors. These costs represent planning level estimates. The cost ranges correspond to the variation in tonnage between the minimum and maximum diversion estimates. In some cases, because waste prevention results in less materials to be collected and processed, costs in the maximum case are less than the minimum case. When possible, variations in unit costs resulting from economies of scale between the minimum and maximum diversion cases are included. However, typically, the range of costs is based on the range of tonnage applied to an average unit cost. For example, based on literature research, our experience with similar projects, and local information provided by the LOG, an average unit cost to operate a commingled NIRF given the range of tonnages included in the analysis is approximately $55 per ton. This unit cost will vary dependent on facility design, method of operation, and private or public operation. Additionally, the LOG may elect to utilize an existing local facility or regional facility. Since these factors will affect the unit cost to a greater extent than the economies of scale associated with tonnage differences between minimum and maximum diversion, the range of costs provided is intended to represent a reasonable planning level estimate. As can be seen, System 1 and System 2 operating costs are very similar- between $81 and $85 per ton. System 3 operating costs are somewhat lower- approximately $74 to $78 per ton. If the assumptions regarding markets for paper in System 1 (as discussed previously) were made similar to the assumptions for System 2, System 1's costs would be reduced by approximately $480,000 to $720,000 (or $6 to $9 per ton). This reduction in costs is because the materials would not have to be "double-handled" at the MRF and composting facility. System unit costs are based on the total annual operating and maintenance costs over the total generated waste stream. Capital costs include new equipment (without accounting for the sale of existing equipment that is not needed in the proposed system) and facilities/programs. The new facilities and program capital costs are not amortized and included in the annual costs; amortized capital for collection equipment is included because of the typical need for replacement. Table ES-6, ES-7, and FS-8 present a comparative summary of the three remaining evaluation criteria. The information is not all inclusive but rather is intended to highlight significant differences between the three systems. Subsequent sections further describe similar attributes of the systems that were used in evaluating these criteria. NOR/K\WP\10790\RPKDL001.WP ES-9 09/95 Table ES-6 Impact on Environment and Public Health System Strengths weaknesses System 1 • Greater prevention of wastes than The extent of the incentiveidisincentive Systems 2 and 3. programs gives System 1 the greatest potential for illegal disposal (variable • Universal collection allows for rates, collection bans, and differential potentially higher recycling rates than fees). in System 3. • The number of collection vehicles • Greater automation and the absence of (three in the urban areas and two in driver sorting activities can result in rural areas) may create more public less collection worker stress than in nuisance and health concerns than in System J. System 2. System 2 • System 2 has greatest potential to • Public health and environmental recover recyclable materials. concerns are potentially greater than in Systems l and 3, resulting primarily • Co-collection requires fewer collection from the storing of the wet component trucks than in Systems 1 and 3, and at the generator for up to a week. consequently represents lower public nuisance and health concerns from noise and air pollution. • Greater automation, co-collection, and the absence of driver sorting activities can result in less collection worker stress than in System 3. System 3 • The source separated MRF has the • The possibility of collection worker potential for better recovery rates than stress and work-related accidents is the comingled MRF under Systems 1 greatest in System 3, due to driver and 2. sorting activities. NOR/K\WP\10790\RPImL001.WP ES-10 09/95 1 r IVY (k JUMM21 Table ES-7 Technical Risk System Strengths Weaknesses System 1 The collection and processing system • The use of the variable rate bag/tag has been proven more effectively than approach may make a collection ban that described in System 2. difficult to enforce. System 2 • Wet/dry collection and processing systems have a less proven history of operation than those described in System 3. Co-collection vehicles are less proven than vehicles used in Systems 1 and 3. • Inclusion of yard waste in the "wet" stream bags could lead to higher potential for contamination of organics than in Systems 1 and 3. • Potential problems with start-up, reliability, and end markets for organics composting systems using "wet" materials give System 2 additional risks. • Debagging of wastes could represent greater technical problems for System 2. • Enforcement of procedures at convenience centers may be most difficult in this sytem, due to the need to separate wet and dry materials. System 3 • The collection and processing system has been proven more effectively than that describer) in System 2. • The technical effectiveness of System 3 collection has already been tested through the current system. NOR/K\WP\10790\RPKDL OO7.WP ES-I 1 09105 1 Table ES-8 Likely Opposition System Strengths Weaknesses System 1 • Universal collection is likely to be the • The number of incentive/disincentive easiest system for the public to programs may be viewed as excessive understand, and therefore, minimize by some targeted generators. opposition. • The elimination of convenience centers (except for specific materials) may create initial resistance. System 2 • The public may be most attracted to the • The uncertainty in the actual results of ability of System 2 to divert the highest the wet/dry system may result in percentage of recyclable materials. higher levels of opposition. • System 2 will require the greatest i amount of planning and public education. System 3 • System 3 is most similar to the existing system. NOR/K.\W P\10790\RPKDL001.WP ES-12 09/95 , � o § 2 § : § q 3 3 2 a � § § 41 J. 4^ Go � ■ � � 2 '10 � � � ■ CA '2 � ■ ° � 2 7 2 § 2 § § at 42 B bR > $ 2 2 y6 Go I ® ® 44 ■ I w $ a s - c c e a o . ) 22 » . % ■ V k ■ 2 t t 2 7 § I z o U I = @ © § O '§ 2 2 a. o/ $ Jd 2 � k K ) NEXT STEPS Upon LOG selection of a proposed system, WESTON will prepare an implementation guidance document that is intended to include: • Decision-making steps; • Methods for aiding decision-making; • Implementation procedures; and • Assistance in developing a final solid waste management plan that follows state guidelines. It is important to note that because this evaluation is based on planning level estimates, further definition of specific system components would be necessary during actual implementation, as described in the following section. NOR/K\WP\10790\RPKDLOOI.WP 10/95 e ■era �» INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND This Working Paper is the third step in evaluating solid waste management options for the Orange Regional Landfill Owners' Group (LOG). In Working Paper #1, potential options and evaluation criteria were presented for the LOG's consideration. Based on this Working Paper and follow-up meetings, the LOG, with input from the Citizens' Solid Waste Advisory Committee (CSWAC) selected five waste prevention options, three collection system options, and four processing options. The LOG also selected evaluation criteria to be used when analyzing these options. Working Paper #2 evaluates each of the solid waste management options based on the evaluation criteria selected. Each option was scored based on the weights assigned to evaluation criteria by the LOG. Working Paper#2 analyzes each solid waste management option separately. Once this analysis was complete, the LOG combined the options into three solid waste management systems. This document, Working Paper #3, evaluates solid waste management systems. Each of these systems includes several waste prevention options, a collection option,and one or two processing options. Because of the interrelationships between the various components of the solid waste system, revisions/clarifications of the definitions of the options included in Working Paper #2 were necessary. Solid waste disposal options also were evaluated using the same process. First, options and criteria were selected. Then, each disposal facility(one in-county facility and five out-of-county facilities) were evaluated based on the criteria selected. This analysis was presented in two additional Working Papers. The interrelationship of disposal to the three systems defined herein was not included in this evaluation. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY System evaluation was based on criteria selected by the LOG: 1. Diversion potential. The range of diversion from disposal likely to result from each system. 2. Cost. The range of capital and annual operating costs for each system. 3. Impact on environment and public health. The environmental and public health issues associated with each system. The impact is ranked as high, medium, or low (negative impacts are assumed to result in high scores). 4. Technical risk. The experience, reliability and commercial availability of any technology associated with the system. The technical risk in implementing this system is ranked as high, medium, or low. NOR/K\WP\10790\M4ML001.WP l 10/95 WNW > rnw �.e...... 5. Likely opposition. The potential opposition to elements of the system, based on experience in implementation elsewhere and comments from the public and the CSWAC throughout the project. The potential for opposition is ranked as high, medium, or low. The methodology for evaluating each system was conducted based on the following steps. 1. Define system components. During June 1995, meetings were held with the LOG to define general system components. Based on the results of these meetings, three general systems were created. A series of clarifications were subsequently provided by the LOG to provide further detail necessary for evaluation. In some instances, WESTON was asked to provide the necessary details to complete the system definition. The resulting system descriptions are provided at the beginning of each subsequent section of this report. 2. Establish baseline system. Because much of the evaluation data for the three potential systems are based on extrapolation from the current system, a general understanding of all components of the current system was needed. Much of this information had been gathered as a result of previous project efforts. Additional information was gathered as necessary to complete this understanding. It is important to note that the quantities and composition of materials, costs, and current diversion of the existing system were developed based on information provided by the LOG prior to the preparation of this report. Baseline quantities were derived from composition analyses performed by the LOG. It was assumed that only the primary MSW materials would be included for this analysis, while construction and demolition debris, hazardous waste, and infectious waste would be excluded. The excluded C&D debris includes clean wood waste, treated wood, and other inert materials. Combining the composition data with actual disposal and recycling data from 1994 allowed for the development of baseline generation quantities, which were used in the systems diversion model for this report. Additional information provided by the LOG allowed for a breakdown of quantities among the commercial, single-family urban, single-family rural, and multi-family sectors. The resulting evaluation model for these three systems has the flexibility to allow adjustments to these baseline data if additional information becomes available or solid waste trends change. 3. Evaluate systems to determine quantity of materials diverted. To create an equitable baseline for comparison of diversion potential, the existing system's waste generation, including disposal and existing recycling, is used as the basis for measuring diversion potential in each of the three systems. Three components of diversion were estimated for each NOR/K\WP\10790\RPKDL001.WP 2 10/95 G Ty system: prevention, participation, and recovery level. It is important to note that measurement of current waste prevention in not possible. To determine the material types impacted by prevention and collection methods, the definition of recyclables was defined for each system and each sector, as described in subsequent sections. The types and quantities of materials included in this definition significantly impacts participation estimates as all three systems require virtually identical sorting procedures for most generators; i.e., commingling of recyclables. Further discussion of the methods used to evaluate system diversion potential is included in each system evaluation. 4. Evaluate the costs and revenues associated with each component and sector of the systems. The evaluation of the systems is intended to provide comprehensive system costs. Therefore, the cost for each component, subdivided by each sector, was estimated. However, it is important to note that the total system costs (and revenues) do not include certain items that are assumed to be the same for each system, including: • Existing administrative costs (only incremental changes are noted); • On-call bulky goods collection for urban residents (included in each system); and, • Franchise fees or other surcharges that may be included in user fees. Also, as stated previously, costs associated with disposal of solid waste or residue from processing facilities are not included. Although information has been provided in a format that is intended to allow selected components to be implemented in phases, determination of the implementation schedule has not been made. As a result, the system costs provided are assumed to be when all system components have been implemented. 5. Evaluate the system-wide impact on the environment and public health. 6. Evaluate the technical risks associated with the system. 7. Evaluate the areas of the system that may result in opposition. Steps three through seven were conducted based on the system definitions, the results of the previous steps, analysis conducted for Working Paper #2, comparison to the existing system, and comparative information from other communities, as it became available. Detailed discussions of the analysis of these criteria for the individual system components is included in Working Paper #2. NOR/K\WP\10790\RPKXWI.WP 3 10195 r NEXT STEPS Although preliminary decisions have been made regarding the ultimate solid waste system, WESTON's intent in our efforts has been to provide comprehensive information regarding solid waste systems for the LOG and member jurisdictions to aid in selection and subsequent implementation of the selected system. To aid in the use of this information and provide the necessary flexibility during implementation of a solid waste system, an implementation guidance document will be prepared. This document will provide the LOG and member jurisdictions guidance during implementation, including a description of decision-making steps (e.g., whether to privatize facilities); methods for further defining system components (e.g., design level necessary to receive system financing, if necessary); and implementation steps based on the decisions (e.g., procurement steps). The guidance document, along with decisions made based on this report, is also intended to assist the LOG in developing a final solid waste management plan that follows State guidelines. Typically, because solid waste management alternatives must adjust to changing local conditions, portions of a solid waste system selected during a planning process such as this must be revised based on further evaluation during implementation. This report has been structured to provide information useful to decision-making as well as to facilitate the planning process. However, additional information will be necessary to implement the system. For example, if wet/dry collection is to be implemented, the co-collection vehicles must be defined prior to purchase. This will include sizing the compartments for wet versus dry based on waste stream monitoring for each sector. Co-collection containers for commercial and multi-family residential units must be sized based on site-specific needs. Similar investigations and decisions will be necessary prior and during the design of processing facilities. Another example of implementation steps that include further analysis is for implementing variable rates. Initial decisions necessary will be the governance/administrative responsibilities. With this information, rates paid to each jurisdiction, private contractor, and/or facility must be determined. Types of bags/tags must be researched. Finally, the mechanisms for sale of bags/tags should be based on research of local options and public input. The implementation guidance document will define these information needs. NOR/K\WP\10790\APKOL001.WP 4 10/95 ORANGE COUNTY NEW RESIDENTS BY TOWNSHIP Township Since 1970 Since 1980 Little River 973 (2.7%) 690 (4.1%) Cedar Grove 545 (l.5%) 525 (3.1%) Cheeks 1,851 (5.1%) 601 (3.6%) Hillsborough 4,281 (11.8%) 1,537 (9.1%) Eno 2,712 (7.5%) 812 (4.8%) Bingham 2,805 (7.7%) 1,230 (7.4%) Chapel Hill 23,117 (63.7%) 11,401 (67.9%) Source: O.C. Population Projections. O.C. Planning, 1992. t b POPULATION DENSITY IN ORANGE COUNTY- 1990 Tom SWZ& 1990 P012 Density Cedar Grove 80.78 s.m. 3,691 45.7 persons/square mile Little River 44.84 2,183 48.7 p/sm Bingham 76.41 5,184 67.8 p/sm Cheeks 51.09 5,422 106.1 p/sm Eno 37.5 5,262 140.3 p/sm Hillsborough 23.59 10,136 429.7 p/sm Chapel Hill 72.97 61,973 849.3 p/sm Totals: 387.2 s.m. 93,851 242.4 p/sm * Towns(also included in Township figures): Hillsborough Town 3.91 s.m. 4,263 1,090.3 p/sm Chapel Hill Town 19.41 38,719 1,994.8 p/sm Carrboro Town 4.07 11,553 2,838.6 p/sm > Overall population density in towns: 1,991 persons/square mile > Overall density outside of towns: 109 persons/square mile (Based on 1990 census data& O.C. Comprehensive Plan land area figures) p gu ) POPULATION DENSITY IN ORANGE COUNTY- 1990 Township Size 1990 Pop, Density Cedar Grove 80.78 s.m. 3,691 45.7 persons/square mile Little River 44.84 2,183 48.7 p/sm Bingham 76.41 5,184 67.8 p/sm Cheeks 51.09 5,422 106.1 p/sm Eno 37.5 5,262 140.3 p/sm Hillsborough 23.59 10,136 429.7 p/sm Chapel Hill 72.97 61,973 849.3 p/sm Totals: 387.2 s.m. 93,851 242.4 p/sm * Towns (also included in Township figures): Hillsborough Town 3.91 s.m. 4,263 1,090.3 p/sm Chapel Hill Town 19.41 38,719 1,994.8 p/sm Carrboro Town 4.07 11,553 2,838.6 p/sm > Overall population density in towns: 1,991 persons/square mile > Overall density outside of towns: 109 persons/square mile (Based on 1990 census data& O.C. Comprehensive Plan land area figures) 1 . O L LM V L O, _ o C) Z v N z ocu Y 0 CL •.� L Go CA co o� o CO Q oo L L, o' O o Tom W Lm 0 L L L CL O V � � o v = c � CaL V o 0 0 Cl 0 �f' N CARRBORO Residential Permit Figures (they go by fiscal year) #Permits& Type Value(if you care...) 1989-90 109 SF $8.9 Million 144 MF $4.2 M 1990-91 75 SF $6.94 M 1991-92 80 SF $6.86 M 1992-93 135 SF $14.42 M 15 MF $ 0.54 M 1 Duplex $ 50,000 1993-94 125 SF $17.28 M 1994-95 134 SF $20.16 M 62 T $4.17M >>> Carrboro's total area is 4.07 square miles. 12/95 i CARRBORO ' Residential Permit Figures (they go by fiscal year) #Permits & Tyne Value(if you care 1 1989-90 109 SF $8.9 Million 144 MF $4.2 M 1990-91 75 SF $6.94 M 1991-92 80 SF $6.86 M 1992-93 135 SF $14.42 M 15 $ 0.54M 1 Duplex $ 50,000 1993-94 125 SF $17.28 M 1994-95 134 SF $20.16 M 62 T $4.17M >>> , Carrboro's total area is 4.07 square miles. 12/95 iQUI rLHNN1NU ULt'l. rax:,9iy-yb:�-Lulu Dec b ',.j5 16:11 F.U2102 N N m O t► N ti Cb 11y L � h # LO IM i r r\ 0 h Q O p ?i � o Z .0 CD `o N � � d Z D i E O r- • SO a.. i %, Z .1 ot 3 E H Z O 0) DEC- 5-95 TUE 2-20 P.M ORANGEICIOUNTlYPLANNING FAX NO, 9196443002 P. NEW HOUSING UNITS BY TOWNSHIP ORANGE COUNTY 1989-1994 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES Note:Orange County/Hillsborough iurisdictiononly. OWNSHIP 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 TO LITTLE RIVER 30 31 37 31 43 M I P. CEDAR GROVE 17 17 is 19 32 23 126 T: CIMM 19 18 21 23 32 40 153 T ... ........ Ai% HILISBOROUGH 22 26 22 49 43 207 ENO 27 16 21 50 57 57 228 BINGHAM 28 38 40 45 4S so 246 N ' 78' r a" HELL 45 70 389 A TOTAL 211• 19S f 241 -- - 267 324 3031 MANUFACTURED HOMES• Orange/HUbborough Jurisdictiononix -TOWNSHIP 1989 ---- 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 TO LITTLE RIVER -16 21 21 14 17 15 104 Z.r. ... ... rv-$k 1* CEDAR GROVE 24 29 19 28 32 28 160 28 34 43 38 28 38 209 I . ..... ... HILLSBOROUGH 35 44 46' 43 45 32 239 3. 39 40 40 49 70 44 282 BINGHAM 44 45 47 43 17 25 'i;:r'A 10. nw'!! CHAPEL HILL 26 47 51 50 51 15 240 Ii-�- 269-' TOTAL 222 25 "' ffillaborough Township totals Include units made the Town of Hillsborough. Chapel Hill totals do not include units in Chapel Hill or Ckrrboro town jurisdiction: Cheeks Township totals do not include UIMU in Mebane city jurisdicum Manufactured home data 1989-1992 includes replacement units. pds/71395 7 ?M A Ji�,I 71Y.p L A,N 1,N 11�1 C, AX 10, '9 '9 NEW HOUSING UNITS BY TOWNSHIP ORANGE COUNTY 1989-1994 1%6 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES Note: Orange County/Hillsborough jurisdiction only. WNSHIP 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 TO___ ............ .................. LIT rLE RIVER 30 31 37 31 43 20 192 F. ............ 'i92 a......... CEDAR GROVE 17 17 18 19 32 23 126 J, -V� CHEEKS 19 is 21 23 32 40 153 d HILLSBOROUGH 45 22 2b 22 M 49 43 207•ENO 27 16 21 50 57 57 228 BINGHAM n 38 40 45 45 50 246 Z.? HELL 45 53 78 77 66 70 389 ......... NO."4 TOTAL 211' 195 241 267 324 303 1541 MANUFACTURED HOMES* Orange/Hillsborough Jurisdiction onlx TOWRSHIP 1989 1990 1991 199 2 1993 1994 -�TO LITTLE RIVER 16 21 21 14 17 15 104 A �v W, 4:4 CEDAR GROVE U 29 19 28^ 32 28 160 ......... ...... CHEEKS I . ....... -128 34 43 38 28 38 .-.. 2 A HILLSBOROUGH 35 44 40 43 45 32 IQ NP, ENO NO. 39 40 40 49 70 44 282 BINGHAM 54 44 45 47 43 17 250 N CHAPEL HILL 26 47 51 50 51 is 240 TOTAL 222 259 259 269 296 189 1484 Hillaborough Township totals include units inside the Town of Hillsborough. Chapel Hill totals do not include units in Chapel Hill or Ckrrboro town jurisdictiont. Checks Township totals do not include units in Mebane city jurisdiction Mmu&ctured home data 1989-1992 includes replacement units. pds/71395 SINGLE SINGLE FAMILY AVERAGE S.F. TOTAL UNITS VALUE VALUE RES-VALUE AUG 72 $9,849,627 $136,800 $10,290,391 JULY 77 $9,906,586 $128,657 $10,602,093 JUNE 69 $8,928,553 $129,399 $9,461,727 MAY 70 $9,155,810 $130,797 $9,623,760 ARRIL 64 $8,835,286 $138,051 $9,419,886 MARCH 80 $10,248,998 $128,112 $11,080,598 FEB 61 $8,505,307 $139,431 $8,887,628 JAN 61 $8,075,715 $132,389 $8,491,511 DEC 40 $5,359,642 $133,991 $6,226,283 NOV 64 $9,107,166 $142,299 $10,151,553 OCTOBER 73 $10,169,636 $139,310 $10,475,221 SEPTEMB 36 $5,203,842 $144,551 $13,331,950 AUGUST 50 $8,890,257 $177,805 $10,272,579 JULY 65 $8,232,517 $126,654 $9,158,129 JUNE 45 $8,047,998 $178,844 $9,065,329 MAY 59 $8,736,838 $148,082 $12,732,413 APRIL 61 $7,714,467 $126,467 $8,963,331 MARCH 90 $12,081,433 $134,238 $13,292,781 FEB 60 $7,628,354 $127,139 $8,531,654 JAN 94 45 $6,812,848 $151,397 $7,373,031 DEC 50 $6,674,598 $133,492 $6,880,398 NOVEM 40 $5,455,280 $136,382 $6,093,286 OCT 44 $6,184,833 $140,564 $6,523,484 SEPT 57 $9,331,835 $163,716 $10,231,735 AUGUST 39 $5,108,757 $130,994 $6,072,607 JULY 62 $9,834,820 $158,626 $10,741,480 JUNE 93 128 $16,724,091 $130,657 $17,882,753 MAY 65 $7,677,978 $118,123 $8,382,323 APRIL 67 $9,869,599 $147,307 $10,570,579 MARCH 63 $7,725,495 $122,627 $8,549,170 FEB 58 $7,664,921 $132,154 $8,264,491 JAN 46 $4,771,009 $103,718 $5,187,244 DEC 92 53 $8,138,471 $153,556 $8,414,416 NOV 32 $3,500,917 $1 09,404 $4,564,106 OCT 58 $5,936,477 $102,353 $6,857,095 SEPT 49 $4,382,256 $89,434 $5,317,446 AUG 53 $4,929,255 $93,005 $5,492,040 JULY 62 $4,880,090 $78,711 $6,228,672 JUNE 69 $8,135,966 $117,913 $9,385,851 MAY 66 $6,979,561 $105,751 $7,753,328 APRIL 59 $5,956,373 $100,955 $6,494,211 MARCH 46 $4,915,294 $106,854 $5,913,922 FEB 61 $5,566,074 $91,247 $6,828,034 JAN 50 $5,169,998 $103,400 $5,994,684 DEC 91 28 $2,891,909 $103,282 $3,642,878 NOV 46 $5,094,693 $110,754 $5,805,846 NON-RES TOTAL PERCENTAGE CHAPEL CHAPEL VALUE NON-RES NON-RES # RES $1,662,165 $11,952,556 13.91% $1,086,535 45 $567,572 $11,169,665 5.08% $214,500 38 $2,000,527 $11,462,254 17.45% $1,383,850 27 $4,093,020 $13,716,780 29.84% $3,955,450 41 $1,998,596 $11,418,482 17.50% $1,025,130 23 $2,121,043 $13,201,641 16.07% $1,378,750 39 $1,824,306 $10,711,934 17.03% $1,571,606 23 $359,217 $8,850,728 4.06% $193,217 24 $1,175,200 $7,401,483 15.88% $1,175,200 21 $620,689 $10,772,242 5.76% $555,600 20 $522,345 $10,997,566 4.75% $418,000 40 $800,271 $14,132,221 5.66% $503,800 16 $832,010 $11,104,589 7.49% $543,250 23 $690,554 $9,848,683 7.01% $457,000 16 $3,557,126 $12,622,455 28.18% $1,637,000 13 $3,747,709 $16,480,122 22.74% $3,153,400 18 $969,054 $9,932,385 9.76% $692,400 19 $1,975,980 $15,268,761 12.94% $1,782,300 42 $507,840 $9,039,494 5.62% $279,000 32 $925,160 $8,298,191 11.15% $860,560 12 $4,587,572 $11,467,970 40.00% $3,235,150 32 $360,745 $6,454,031 5.59% $269,400 21 $566,677 $7,090,161 7.99% $528,500 14 $522,132 $10,753,867 4.86% $271,742 25 $355,321 $6,427,928 5.53% $209,100 11 $554,331 $11,295,811 4.91% $442,395 25 $3,146,388 $21,029,141 14.96% $3,007,018 34 $613,852 $8,996,175 6.82% $267,500 21 $8,994,664 $19,565,243 45.97% $8,887,764 23 $89,400 $8,638,570 1.03% $45,000 26 $2,749,858 $11,014,349 24.97% $1,559,352 23 $131,758 $5,319,002 2.48% $80,900 9. $1,020,742 $9,435,158 10.82% $879,609 22 $2,172,850 $6,736,956 32.25% $1,253,500 8 $617,188 $7,474,283 8.26% $556,350 26 $3,554,964 $8,872,410 40.07% $3,505,014 29 $576,449 $6,068,489 9.50% $362,422 18 $1,706,625 $7,935,297 21.51% $624,400 27 $1,359,817 $10,745,668 12.65% $1,262,417 34 $511,355 $8,264,683 6.19% $427,500 15 $298,150 $6,792,361 4.39% $270,150 26 $2,595,102 $8,509,024 30.50% $2,559,082 20 $265,500 $7,093,534 3.74% $192,500 33 $1,734,367 $7,729,051 22.44% $1,686,867 32 $929,220 $4,572,098 20.32% $919,520 13 $519,600 $6,325,446 8.21% $484,500 17 NON-RES TOTAL PERCENTAGE CHAPEL CHAPEL VALUE NON-RES NON-RES # RES $1,662,165 $11,952,556 13.91% $1,086,535 45 ` $567,572 $11,169,665 5.08% $214,500 38 $2,000,527 $11,462,254 17.45% $1,383,850 27 $4,093,020 $13,716,780 29.84% $3,955,450 41 $1,998,596 $11,418,482 17.50% $1,025,130 23 $2,121,043 $13,201,641 16.07% $1,378,750 39 $1,824,306 $10,711,934 17.03% $1,571,606 23 $359,217 $8,850,728 4.06% $193,217 24 $1,175,200 $7,401,483 15.88% $1,175,200 21 $620,689 $10,772,242 5.76% $555,600 20 $522,345 $10,997,566 4.75% $418,000 40 $800,271 $14,132,221 5.66% $503,800 16 $832,010 $11,104,589 7.49% $543,250 23 $690,554 $9,848,683 7.01% $457,000 16 $3,557,126 $12,622,455 28.18% $1,637,000 13 $3,747,709 $16,480,122 22.74% $3,153,400 18 $969,054 $9,932,385 9.76% $692,400 19 $1,975,980 $15,268,761 12.94% $1,782,300 42 $507,840 $9,039,494 5.62% $279,000 32 $925,160 $8,298,191 11.15% $860,560 12 $4,587,572 $11,467,970 40.00% $3,235,150 32 $360,745 $6,454,031 5.59% $269,400 21 $566,677 $7,090,161 7.99% $528,500 14 y; $522,132 $10,753,867 4.86% $271,742 25 $355,321 $6,427,928 5.53% $209,100 11 $554,331 $11,295,811 4.91% $442,395 25 $3,146,388 $21,029,141 14.96% $3,007,018 34 $613,852 $8,996,175 6.82% $267,500 21 $8,994,664 $19,565,243 45.97% $8,887,764 23 $89,400 $8,638,570 1.03% $45,000 26 $2,749,858 $11,014,349 24.97% $1,559,352 23 $131,758 $5,319,002 2.48% $80,900 9-_ $1,020,742 $9,435,158 10.82% $879,609 22 $2,172,850 $6,736,956 32.25% $1,253,500 8 $617,188 $7,474,283 8.26% $556,350 26 $3,554,964 $8,872,410 40.07% $3,505,014 29 $576,449 $6,068,489 9.50% $362,422 18 $1,706,625 $7,935,297 21.51% $624,400 27 $1,359,817 $10,745,668 12.65% $1,262,417 34 $511,355 $8,264,683 6.19% $427,500 15 $298,150 $6,792,361 4.39% $270,150 26 $2,595,102 $8,509,024 30.50% $2,559,082 20 $265,500 $7,093,534 3.74% $192,500 33 $1,734,367 $7,729,051 22.44% $1,686,867 32 $929,220 $4,572,098 20.32% $919,520 13 $519,600 $6,325,446 8.21% $484,500 17 '`° 1 ' CHAPEL HILL AVERAGE CHAPEL PERCENT TOTAL S. F. COST C.H. S.F. COST TOTAL-RES C.H. NONRES $6,132,434 $136,276 $6,291,934 14.73% $5,261,266 $138,454 $5,423,903 3.80% $3,628,510 $134,389 $4,100,040 25.23% $5,276,214 $128,688 $5,464,304 41.99% $3,688,046 $160,350 $3,876,146 20.92% $4,885,842 $125,278 $5,257,842 20.77% $3,238,707 $140,813 $3,331,707 32.05% $3,678,538 $153,272 $4,008,284 4.60% $2,548,464 $121,355 $2,609,464 31.05% $3,122,170 $156,109 $3,514,880 13.65% $6,403,746 $160,094 $6,501,611 6.04% $3,120,628 $195,039 $11,127,408 4.33% $4,844,428 $210,627 $5,566,428 8.89% $2,386,849 $149,178 $2,722,849 14.37% $2,644,609 $203,431 $2,967,647 35.55% $2,631,378 $146,188 $5,049,842 38.44% $3,036,061 $159,793 $4,187,065 14.19% $5,543,996 $132,000 $5,715,426 23.77% $4,996,863 $156,152 $5,340,077 4.97% $2,300,234 $191,686 $2,438,448 26.09% $4,191,414 $130,982 $4,299,414 42.94% $3,433,000 $163,476 $3,686,500 6.81% $2,027,500 $144,821 $2,208,033 19.31% $4,136,500 $165,460 $4,511,600 5.68% $1,342,800 $122,073 $1,720,950 10.83% $3,343,850 $133,754 $3,861,410 10.28% $4,597,200 $135,212 $5,462,730 35.50% $2,196,500 $104,595 $2,498,216 9.67% $3,250,500 $141,326 $3,657,180 70.85% $2,561,788 $98,530 $3,219,129 1.38% $3,225,200 $140,226 $3,499,430 30.82% $907,500 $100,833 $1,217,210 6.23% $2,814,505 $127,932 $3,955,250 18.19% $858,800 $107,350 $1,509,792 45.36% $2,819,590 $108,446 $3,364,408 14.19% $2,233,074 $77,003 $2,689,774 56.58% $1,631,185 $90,621 $2,018,693 15.22% $1,940,833 $71,883 $2,285,186 21.46% $4,092,360 $120,354 $5,031,895 20.06% $1,949,700 $129,980 $2,629,650 13.98% $2,501,300 $96,204 $2,820,753 8.74% $2,193,600 $109,680 $2,727,778 48.40% $3,012,125 $91,277 $3,852,215 4.76% $3,094,898 $96,716 $3,679,772 31.43% $1,504,900 $115,762 $1,778,736 34.08% $1,643,992 $96,705 $2,002,701 19.48% i PERCENT PERCENT C.H. C.H. OF TOTAL OF NON-RES 61.73% 65.37% 50.48% 37.79% 47.84% 69.17% 68.67% 96.64% 42.92% 51.29% 50.27% 65.00% 45.77% 86.15% 47.47% 53.79% 51.13% 100.00% 37.79% 89.51% 62.92% 80.02% 82.30% 62.95% 55.02% 65.29% 32.29% 66.18% 36.48% 46.02% 49.78% 84.14% 49.13% 71.45% 49.11% 90.20% 62.16% 54.94% 39.76% 93.02% 65.70% 70.52% 61.29% 74.68% 38.60% 93.26% 44.48% 52.04% 30.03% 58.85% 38.10% 79.81% 40.28% 95.57% 30.74% 43.58% 64.12% 98.81% 37.79% 50.34% 45.93% 56.71% 24.41% 61.40% 51.24% 86.17% 41.02% 57.69% 52.46% 90.14% 69.82% 98.59% 39.24% 62.87% 36.67% 36.59% 58.58% 92.84% 36.99% 83.60% 45.51% 90.61% 62.13% 98.61% 57.02% 72.50% 69.43% 97.26% 59.02% 98.96% 39.32% 93.24% i PERCENT PERCENT C.H. C.H. OF TOTAL OF NON-RES 61.73% 65.37% 50.48% 37.79% 47.84% 69.17% 68.67% 96.64% 42.92% 51.29% 50.27% 65.00% 45.77% 86.15% 47.47% 53.79% 51.13% 100.00% 37.79% 89.51% 62.92% 80.02% 82.30% 62.95% 55.02% 65.29% 32.29% 66.18% 36.48% 46.02% 49.78% 84.14% 49.13% 71.45% 49.11% 90.20% 62.16% 54.94% 39.76% 93.02% 65.70% 70.52% 61.29% 74.68% 38.60% 93.26% 44.48% 52.04% 30.03% 58.85% 38.10% 79.81% 40.28% 95.57% 30.74% 43.58% 64.12% 98.81% 37.79% 50.34% 45.93% 56.71% 24.41% 61.40% 51.24% 86.17% 41.02% 57.69% 52.46% 90.14% 69.82% 98.59% 39.24% 62.87% 36.67% 36.59% 58.58% 92.84% 36.99% 83.60% 45.51% 90.61% 62.13% 96.61% 57.02% 72.50% 69.43% 97.26% 59.02% 98.96% 39.32% 93.24% ..+:'c�:;>cx o',o.M:.a �c o o .-s e!• o M O o 0 ►� � � ° � 111 ° d d ; o a� kL o o c o Cl, ago cc o of o Ow,o.o � A W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc 0 0 0 0 O w c [-+ a »: O AG >. W a ° o I 0000 0 a a 0 O M O N N O o 00 O O O O O °O O 00 M An o, ........... C� 00 O O O O p N cv 0 0 0 0 0 0 et N O O:kn Im Q O O 'O O ��pp ��pp !V tai p 00 ee��• 1:,:..>:<`::'< ba a (~ O 6� «r ��" �L G > > p «� fir •«F3 im to FA FA ad �4UAt7z zzaaaav=�', E: a � p � �p M fV a � O N Coro G' M O et p Q O 'N 00.O 0� �p 00 "� pp !� Nt QQ1 a` V' 00 r > F b � i► � O ON 0 00 M O O N N ^' H Q t0 N OMO �-+ -: ON W [� to O C N 'G ' C N N O O C' O O O �O N Oho cs:.:o :cw'0.,40 vY .ar. o:'.:- .o o rn -. �q t►'.:a':. a " v7 O O O O .�-i O N .� O O M 00 cc O O 00 H a\ E-4 A w o. cq h O O (m O A O N O cc I � N �► o0 z 4LIA o tn Q� N tn W) O� W OC N!.CO .Q,;,O:,' .:C O�..N..0..O;:y3' M':0::..s..O O 00 h:..tp .� .� ., a to a a eo u b Gn 50 a ddaU� O0z zza. a1% C4 a 1� N: �o:'G M C e+t C, O Q D N. C., OC O N .�4 0 � $ * pd opp ;;; o;;* pQ 00 ..a O QA tn O O CN a QN ti M•: C O' d: O: e+s. O O d en .-+ d: O O O O N N .r 0 0 N 0 0 0 �-+ O C� O o0 M O O N t� O O O O N N 0 N ON ri 00 � a .-i z y O CN O N N 0 cc 0 0 0 0 t of �O rr A �p Yi .......:.. a V 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 en 00 0 0 0 0 00 N CN �p H t� VV W � E .C' ....:>.'O N C:'G3. VY t'=.:;'O;.N, d o W >>:. >::... .. . .. 00 8e > m r� N z � o::.o r .-•e: :;.'i:: i .I,�;i::i::,: :e�•::-,::::- >::-.<:::::`3 ;<:i;.:.:.:- r,. W C� Q1a:`.�Nni ID en _. O O O O N p N 0 0 r- 0 cc 0 0 \D N tp * O47N in in N D Q� 00 N d 00 :rk'e..n:. 0 .o.'a'''.4:.:=::,M c� o o< k:..en>:.o:.,.. o a 00 ..e a Elt :3 93 a so 10 ca M Gr a Qaa000z zzwaw1:4C4r4E-- � .~�i n OG bo qq pa;O 1.4 '.C7: M N nn cog O �O — 0 �1 O O O en �► ,Ny �.N tom;d;C?:O>.�: Q .-� .-+' d O ••� � O ••� O M .r r1 e� �e'� a 0 0000' Np pp .r N:'.!ES`>ws::Cx>::C ':Q'::' ::_d;:..i';y 'C>G .-1:::•.:.'.M .......... ..� � CA ►..� Q :. w.a a"O:';N r� o o O a..o� � 'aa<:►n:ri:;o a r M O M O O O N O e4 V O O M 0 0 0 0 m N h M N M � N -4 W �4 d p o N tri W .Nr N O O O en O ON -4 O O en t- 0 0 0 0 C IV e} wp yM Qt �M z 4. ' �, �. o a c o A M � `M:::IV, a:':'c�. ell .-r 0 C r- en M O O M C4 O O '-+ O O'.01..N O` 0-:-40- N.' O .'-4' G O of SaM ca CL m a d 50 a s c y a W a a a4, Q 0z zzaagogo nE-yA •• Fla V'� I I � 00 C r+ t� aod •� � a �r.00 � C" �O N O �-+ O N O N O O v1 0 0 0 0 M N M � M M ►1 m O G N .tn:.'O O. O O 01 M O e+!''O _G..D Gt:.O `D M r � W4 � 00 N H t— N c o o O N —4 O O It 0 0 0 0 0 C� N 00 8Q -4 O v�n� W av y N t W ►-i A �:.O.: r:::—,C:.O. ; ' N>O"."7 ep W4 E� b H ti wN N M to tn 064 cn In 00. A rr A a a CIVV Z � .� Q �p O% O N O O O N Q 0�0 0 � ..q - H O:::N: O (0 N . 'C4.O ' .O N t` .. ........ sD .H a ila 04 M 04 04 U 0 0 as w ol go FA .P a m U W a d a � aUA0Z � llaapG9 v� v� F � � w war M N M �p vy d E" °c en qtr IT cq. �G %n Cq O -4 O O f N 0 0 v1 in 0 0 0 0 et O M � M r- 1-4 y �G (M� N O �O M c4 O'.Q N M Cr O O O a1 C �O en qRr O O O N O N M O O q1t �c O N O O � a oo tpV M � 00�Q:;<dfS:;l^7:. O.D':Q'<.e-w'.Q: M Q CY O C!'O •r. O .. �: r- (14 r, Ow M N et p$ N O v, Ul o: a Q. �O v1 G0:':N::. W',: N.. en N O N M 0 0 O\ 0 0 0 0 0 N Cl tt) n E,y O!i :;t1::rF'Y`.r;ss;:;Q:':•-S:>;.`O> Ol:l-i::C*ts'�1>!.0:.°C�:d! Gt>::C�:C'-C::..O�'pp N �} �Q 0:,'.-�:...',OF:: W ��::e••iit:"i:::::� i�;;:;�.>i:i:r:::::!"p„<:,:r: e-1:;. .. -..v't. N �O v' :.N: e'er: �� 4 Z ,O r+ a, Cq r+ O O O N 00 O N ON O O M O O O O O O V tN � C7 � `O � z � ., ;e+i::;:-Ir::o.<.o:` a4:.a..u.1:..�''o':o.a Q� O N O O O N 0000 •-+ cc N O O cc O N r� d `O ,.�: c� z'Q;.C3?.G>:1�:,,0: N' N .C7 (Z..:C.. C' O':;o0 M V! ,,,pp d', po N:::::.._:N'...K.. ..:: -' ply. O� iT ^ �p..�. a e`? p ° od ..2 s� .93 q .Se �', yc .Si a'� ►� u m a S a o% top a d du00Z Zxaa � av� �nE- � •» ►r Ol N � N O h h d � F a N --irk'acatv�.oc� � oo ,-, NCr•, 00 «� v °oQBQ o � •., 00 M N O O 00 O N 0 0 0 O O �O M rl ~ N d 'M a 'c ri. :.:G ca o o N et N oo' N t- v� . ... ........ A pp opG� ^00 .M..;O. O. •-r O O ': ''O:O:::O..d OQ AA .N.::M: O O .--+ O O O M M A E� A 1n 4 - S':>;G?'"t. CY: QY:.<-4 O GG.'tn p:::p.O .0 co _�..p0: ON w z cc M N O N O O N a ..� C4., . O: O.N... od t� O O M O O O N O N M O O .+ M O O O O z h 01 0 0 a ,.!::a"a o a. z 00 Cw ba a w a � i dau 0z v � zzaacGaGv� ' E� A t i Fiscal Outlook Orange County 1996-97 December 9, 1995 Orange County Tax Base Growth Total Assessed Value FY 1974 - FY 1997 $Billions $6 1997 estimated at 2.8%Increase $5 F----------------------------------------------- $4 ----------------- - $3 ----------------------------- � I --- - - ----------------- $1 II 11 - - *1975 1980 1985 11990 *19991* Revaluation Years °1996 is estimated December 9, 1995 Page 1 i Growth in the Tax Base 20.00% 18.11% Revaluation 15.00% -------------------------- ) ----------- i � I i 10.00% --------------------------- ------------ 5.00% ----X44%----o------- -4.32°/6-------- --� 2.25% 1.92%.44/0 2.74% 3.3 % 2.83%I 0.00% 1988-89 1989-90 1990.91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 199495 1995-96 1996-97 1995-96 is budgeted increase. 1996-97 is preliminary estimate. i Personal Property, which includes the Motor Vehicles I component of the tax base has become a larger proportion of the total tax base Personal Personal 13.0% 12.0% II All Other 88.0% All Other 87.0% 1992-93 1994-95 I I Note that 1992-93 is prior to revaluation. Had revaluation not fallen within this time period,the growth in the personal property component of the tax base would have been even more. December 9, 1995 Page 2 r Historical General Fund Tax Rates $1.0000 $0.9475 $0.8850 Illl li'l i;l IP II'"i;l!9IIi $0.8425 $0.8360 $0.8050 $0.8000 $0.7650 L dl� IIII Illp;;,l �� 0.7 to $0.645 :dElll $0.6000 l III 1,1,1 I, I1 1 j I I III i I I� II I i � $0.4000 I I I I $0.2000 IIII 11 $0.0000 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 General Fund Revenue from "Current" Property Taxes Millions $60.00 $50.00 ----------------------- 545.11 5450 1.02 $40.00 -------------------------- - 1 -- 54 136:98-- I 529.65 531.67 $30.00 ----------127.43-------; f - -- $24.56 - 521.49 iil7 � $20.00 -- -I -- I $10.00 $0.00 111111 .' III li 111 ;IIII, . 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1995-96 is budgeted amount. 1996-97 estimate is based on current tax rate and collection rate of 97.97%. December 9, 1995 Page 3 One Cent on the General Fund Property Tax Thousands $600.0 - ----- --------------- - - ------- - -- ------- --- ------------------I--- �9_0� .7$500.0 --------- -pas-$476.0- $442.4 $400.0 ------------$358.4 $3653-3375.9 $333.2 $331.8 $300.0 $200.0 - I $100.0 $0.0 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1995-96 is budgeted amount. 1996-97 is based on 2.8%growth and tax collection rate of 97.97%. I Sales Tax Revenue for the Two One Half Cent and the 12 Millions 1 Cent Taxes 1EM-1/2 Cents D 1 Cent 10 ------------------------ 8 ----- ----- 6 - 4 2 11 l ' I ill aI�I i 0 � i6 Ili, 11 iil idiill 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96" 95-96" 96-97— ` Budgeted for 1995-96;""Revised Estimate for 1995-96;Preliminary Estimate 1996-97. December 9, 1995 Page 4 1 Year to Year Change in Sales Tax Revenue 25% 21% 01 Cent IM 1/2 Cents 20% --- II --------------------------------------------- -- �IIII --- �I ------------------------------------------------ 12.23% 10.94°k 10% --- -------------------- 87%- ------- I ---- 8.0 °7e 7.23%7.37% .08% 7.09° 5.06° 5% ------------ 1.54%1.88% 0% III, I -5% ----------- --------------------------- 'I 10% 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Sales Tax Revenue by Quarter Thousands $2,000 $1,500 --------------------- ent Revenue $1,000 ------ - - 1 Cent Revenue $500 I I $0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 December 9, 1995 Page 5 Sales Tax Totals by Source 1 Cent 1 Cent 50% 41% I I 1/2 Cents 1/2 Cent 50% 59% j I 1987-88 1994-95 Licenses and Permits and Charges for Services FiLicenses&Permits ®Charges for Service Millions $4.00 $3.51 $3.62 $3.35 $3.37 ----- - $2.88 - $3.00 $2.32 $2.00 1.56 $1.77 $1.73 - $1.00 I $0.00 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 1995-96 is budgeted amount. 1996-97 is based on 3%growth. December 9 1995 Page 6 New Residential Permits Orange County Permits 1984 - 1994 2,500 4 2,000 1,500 { I 1,000 i 500 j 0 84 86 88 90 92 94 source: Triangle J Council of Governments I Impact Fee Revenue - Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools Collected through 6/30/95 $756,000 I I Preliminary Projections for 1995-96 $855,000 Appropriated for New Elementary School in CHCCS ($294,188) Appropriated for Debt Service for New Elementary School: I 1995-96 ($422,250) I 1996-97*" i ($427,500) I Amount"in reserve"for future $467,312 school space/fund balance **Funds appropriated to pay a portion of the debt service for the elementary school are based on one half the amount projected to be received from impact fees during 1995-96. II i December 9, 1995 Page -7 Impact Fee Revenue - Orange County Schools Collected through 6/30/95 $420,750 I � Preliminary Projections for 1995-96 $337,500 Appropriated for Planning New Elementary School ($50,000) i I Amount"in reserve"for future school space/fund balance $708,250 Intergovernmental Revenue i I ' DSS&Child Support 55.9% Agingrtransportation 3.8% All Other 5.3% ABC/Beer&Wine Health 7.1% 4J"/° Intangibles 23.1% based on 1994-95 actual revenue. December 9, 1995 Page 8 Intergovernmental Revenue Growth has varied, Largely Due to Pass through Funds in DSS 18.00% 16.00% y-Intergovt Revenue Growth ----------------14.72%-------------------------- 14.00% ----------------- - --- -- Wit---------- ------- 12.00% ------------ --------------- 10.2 o 10.00% 9;a - -- --------------------- ----------------- 8.00% ---------------------------------- --------------- 6.00% ---------------------------------- ------4.W6- 4.00% ------------------------------------ 2.00% ---------------- ---------------1- 1° 0.00% 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 I Intangibles Tax Receipts ®Tax Receipts Reimbursement I I State froze total amount distributed to local Thousands government at a 90-91 $2,500 ---------LveY• - ------------------------- --- $2,015 $2,091 $2'218 $2, $2,135 $2,135 $2,000 ------ _ -$1,927 - 063 - $1,642 $1,500 - -- - - $1,000 - - - - - -- $500 - -- $0 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 Although the total amount distributed to local govemments was frozen,the actual amours cllfir uted vas based on percentage of actual co#echons. For 1991-92,Orange County's percentage was lower than the prior year,therefore the percentage of the 6stribution was less December 9, 1995 Page 9 Earnings on Investments General Fund Thousands $1,200 $1,000 $ss� ------------------- - -- -- $829 $800 $800 ---- - - ------ --- I $600 -------------- 77 I i j $400 ------ ----------------- I $200 ------------------------------------------------- $0 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 1995-96 u axpsW wwuM 1995-96 is" „msa. Undesignated Fund Balance as a j Percentage of Expenditures is not expected to Change Significantly 12.00% ----- 10.00% --9..50% 9.48%----------------9.80%----- 9.00% 8.00% --------- 6.00% ------K25% ssax 4.00% ---- 2.30% i 2.00% 0.00% 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 i i December 9, 1995 Page 10 School Enrollment (K-12) Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Orange County 1974 - 1995 8,000 Students Chapel Hill/Carrboro 6,000 -------------------------- ------- i i Orange 4,000 ------------------------------------------County-- I i 2,000 -- ----------------------- ----------- 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 Growth in Student Average Daily Membership by District For Past 10 Years 600 OCHCCS mOCS 500 ----------------------------- 47-2-- 400 -------376-- 311 300 ------------------------ 255 - 200 ----- 188 -- -- -- 88- -- - 155 113 97 98 45 10 ' 100 - ------- -- -- -- - - - 55 54 25 13 0 -21 -5 -100 -57 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 December 9, 1995 Page 11 Total Growth in Student Average Daily Membership For Past 10 Years 700 acHCCS MOCS1 64' 600 ---------------------------------- ---------- 500 ---------------------------------- -------486_ 442 409 400 ----------------------------- - - I 300 -------------------------- 210 188 200 ------------- - - I 113 100 --Z9----58-- - - II I 0 -21 -5 -100 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 I !I Student Population Planning Allocations 800 700 ---667----------------------------------- 600 -------------------------------- 500 500 500 ®OCS 400 - 93CHCCS • III 111 ' I IIII� ill 315 pl�300 lilt I' III,IIIII :� IIII IIII - III 200 Ili X11 lily 1, I i 11 .I III 'l� I III i 'I I li III I I I ' �I I I I I ! IIII III I III III i I III I I I I I, III I II I 100 IIIIII IIIIII II'lil'' IIII - l II it _ II;: ;III - I;II'll I!l II 0 lll !'I Illllli'�il'I''I; fill III lill � ; I�IIIII IIIIII I ill 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 1996-97 is estimated for planning purposes only December 9, 1995 Page 12 Per Pupil Current Expense Appropriation --------------------------------- ---------- __$_1_,5_71 I ------------ $1363 $1,451 ----------$1,310--$4,310--- ---- $1,175 r-------$1,057-------- L $967 � J I i - I a i i I 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Fiscal Year Ending 19_: *Does not include Chapel Hill/Carrboro Special District Tax or Capital/Debt Funding. Per Pupil Current Expense j Appropriation Percentage Increase 14% I I 4L5°�_-_ '� -11:2%--------11.'2% -- ------------ I 10% -9.-3-%- -------------------------- 8.3% a% -------------------- 6.5% s% -- 4.1% 4% 0% 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 E*scal Year Ending 19_ Does not include Chapel Hill/Carrboro Special District Tax or Capital/Debt Funding. December 9, 1995 Page 13 Current Expense Total Appropriation Millions $25.00 ----------------------------------------------- $21.18 $20.00 ------------------------ -- -- $49,% --, $17.26 $15.00 -------- $14.86 $15.71 j "IIII $13.06 $10.00 $5.00 III $0.00 !!I 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 'Does not include Chapel Hill/Carrboro Special District Tax or Capital/Debt Funding. Current Expense Percentage Increase 16.00% ----------------------------------------------- 14.50% 13.81% ------------------------------ 14.00% _ - i 12.00% -----------------10.86% 46.88% 10.00% ---------------- 8.00% -------- 6.00% ------- ! III 4.00% III iI!II Ii- ! 2.00% ! ( IIII ! III u II I II a I. - iIlIl., I0.00/ III ! i,�!IlIi 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 `Does not include Chapel Hill/Carrboro Special District Tax or Capital/Debt Funding. December 9, 1995 Page 14 1 Additional Costs Identified by CHCCS for New Schools for 1996-97 New High School $1,428,200 New Elementary School $753,900 I Less Items Funded in 1995-96 Budget ($690,100) Total Identified $1,492,000 Identified by CHCCS during 1995-96 budget To appropriate on a per pupil basis,to fund$1.5 million in start-up costs for CHCCS,the appropriation to OCS would be about$1 million,bringing the total Current Expense Appropriation increase to$2.5 million. If Current Expense is appropriated at historical levels: Increase Appropriation Per Pupil Increase of 6% (from $1,571 to $2,096,396 $1,665) Based on 10% $2,117,531 increase in CE December 9, 1995 Page 15 1 Debt Service on General Obligation Bonds and Private Placement Financing Existing Debt** LiSchools ®County OCounty Courts/Jail 0 Millions 8 - ---------------- --------------- 6 rN ------------ 4 2 --- 0 Ll 11 1. 11 ..L, 11 1 Fiscal Year Ending —Includes debt service on$2 million private placement financing to be issued in January 1996. Other Issues • Impact of Welfare - Block Grants ?? • Opening of new jail expansion - additional staff plus operations i • Results of Efficiency and Innovation Committee December 9, 1995 Page 16 In Summary: • Tax Base Growth estimated to be just under 3%generating additional$1.5 million • School Opening costs($2.5 million) • Additional Student Enrollment(at current per pupil will equal about$786,000) • Debt Service will be at about the 1995-96 level �I I • Impact of Welfare Reform-Block Grants (??) • Additional jail operations -will be partially offset by additional revenue • Results of Efficiency and Innovation Committee il I December 9, 1995 Page 17 000 00 N 08 t` eh� ON �r ,Q Ndo O OO O N ^ } 00N pn 00 � 00 00 N ~ N as �6 O 69 00 N 69 69 69 bA b19 0 as O N O V) t` h to o M 00 N 00 l� 00 00 M rN-. 6R O� O� i pp� M A N N O, M N N C� N O 69 C, N 69 64 69 6O 64 M h t- W) ON 00 00 dr- �O M 00.0 r tn a s n 000 00 QN 00 N 69 6A 69 NC MM 69 69 69 `p � O '�� N M r- � 000 6�T N M dw M t-- t- 00 t- O N r- N 0o0 V�1 t6 M cam+) M M 00 00 N M 69 69 69 C64 6R p o N N O� to Oh tn d3 S ., N N V1 00 O\ 00 t� 00 1n 1 00 M t O N O M M Mme' M 00 _00 64 rl M 69 69 64 69 � 6R �o 00 Q O 00 p S 6i} M aN 8 l� N VV p w kn Cn to 0 00 00 69 69 69 64 NN 69 69 69 00 N IC t` ON 00 t- O o t- oo 00 M O V) tl- 00 69 O (7� ON 00 V) M N CA V7 M 00 M t- - (7, N D\ --i N t- 00 O% N t- 00 00 (3 Q\ M O M 00 - - M ON N � � 6) 69 !l O� 0 M �o 0 N 000 000 V�j 00 to � 4 1 nt N 00 O 00 IC M M to N O ON rz big 4K 69 69 69 _6A 6R i U .d Con .+ y U F" k w C y O Uw y eO0 0U0 y yy� pa [ t.wav� �a ,� c� 5 � [-» w G7 December 9, 1995 Page 18 1 Historical Expenditures 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 199394 1994-95 Avg Annual ACTUAL ACTUAL Actual Actual Actual Actual %Inc since 1991-9 Commissioners 235,481 243,983 279,301 282,652 300,465 315,765 4.18 Courts 9,343 5,157 12,405 9,857 18,758 18,980 15.23 Elections 164,197 183,156 197,465 206,860 217,712 204,357 1.15 Soil&Water 122,620 133,031 147,358 154,269 163,316 173,359 5.57 Sub-Total 531,641 565,327 636,530 653,638 700,251 712,461 3.83 GENERAL ADMIN -1.41% 6.34% 12.59% 2.69% 7.13% 1.74% Manager 387,026 404,280 489,481 489,357 519,120 544,388 3.61 Budget 104,271 113,910 136,185 139,537 149,579 162,987 6.17 Personnel 282,635 303,202 323,364 325,761 362,466 379,032 5.44 Finance 195,009 209,467 221,121 230,597 244,061 260,754 5.65 Purchasing 125,606 134,543 142,687 148,662 157,617 167,249 5.44 Central Services 484,467 562,076 537,483 591,199 613,726 537,524 0.00 Data Processing 333,752 354,744 351,907 396,038 430,266 480,132 10.91 Sub-Total 1,912,766 2,082,222 2,202,229 2,321,151 2,476,835 2,532,066 4.76 7.52% 8.86% 5.76% 5.40% 6.71% 2.23% TAX AND RECORDS Register of Deeds 457,783 493,398 543,710 546,192 570,327 603,131 3.52 Land Records 220,855 235,816 283,572 285,645 316,951 353,805 7.65 Tax Assessor 587,574 664,911 685,789 713,390 728,911 756,412 3.32 Tax Collector 228,802 267,100 286,668 295,135 301,183 326,931 4.48 Sub-Total 1,495,014 1,661,225 1,799,740 1,840,362 1,917,372 2,040,279 4.27 6.65% 11.12% 8.34% 2.26% 4.18% 6.41% COMM PLANNING Planning 965,653 1,029,356 1,093,702 1,112,064 1,182,744 1,272,483 5.18 Economic Development 125,112 176,421 177,428 173,768 175,856 187,704 1.89 Sub-Total 1,090,765 1,205,777 1,271,130 1,285,833 1,358,600 1,460,187 4.73 14.46% 10.54% 5.42% 1.16% 5.66% 7.48% HUMAN SERVS Social Services 5,288,153 6,365,679 7,362,149 8,261,730 9,184,285 9,583,422 9.19 Health 2,404,831 2,708,623 3,018,449 3,201,418 3,355,118 3,696,880 6.99 Cooperative Extension 232,955 220,281 236,441 227,637 249,554 266,553 4.08 Recreation and Parks 408,200 457,974 495,422 511,129 489,486 492,206 (0.22) Aging 450,675 456,773 496,755 502,745 523,073 555,768 3.81 OPT 98,745 123,760 227,503 309,959 416,409 465,211 26.93 Human Rights and Relations 42,968 45,637 44,717 58,636 73,902 110,331 35.13 Orange Co.Library 0 0 0 124,227 398,392 409,039 Child Support 168,933 194,555 258,924 274,036 394,612 457,754 20.92 Sub-Total 9,095,460 10,573,282 12,140,361 13,471,516 15,084,831 16,037,164 9.72 9.79% 16.25% 14.82% 10.96% 11.98% 6.31% PUBLIC SAFETY Sheriff 2,784,821 3,060,967 3,397,456 3,598,927 3,966,971 4,403,316 9.03 Emergency Services 1,417,234 1,529,772 1,711,886 1,795,353 1,902,082 2,055,593 6.29 Sub-Total 4,202,055 4,590,739 5,109,342 5,394,281 5,869,053 6,458,909 8.13 14.01% 9.25% 11.30% 5.58% 8.80% 10.05% PUBLIC WORKS Buildings&Grounds 1,248,579 1,171,237 1,264,836 1,372,022 1,483,803 1,464,935 5.02 Other 144,130 181,678 169,221 168,262 206,863 179,304 1.95 Motor Pool 82,144 89,436 75,292 113,806 46,939 63,616 (5.46) Sanitation 579,751 753,458 770,834 881,573 944,034 766,705 (0.18) Sub-Total 2,054,604 2,195,809 2,280,182 2,535,662 2,681,639 2,474,560 2.76 17.03% 6.87% 3.84% 11.20% 5.76% -7.72% EDUCATION Current Expense 11,403,973 13,057,549 14,861,157 15,713,450 17,258,306 19,098,062 8.72 Recurring Capital 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 0.00 Long Range Capital 91,252 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 12,995,225 14,557,549 16,361,157 17,213,450 18,758,306 20,598,062 7.98 -4.16% 12.02% 12.39% 5.21% 8.97% 9.81% NON-DEPARTMENTAL Contribs to O/S Agencies 1,840,377 1,945,868 2,025,770 2,037,018 1,965,162 2,144,023 1.91 Miscellaneous 158,359 178,683 173,371 139,611 126,052 225,139 9.10 Transfers to Other Funds 5,574,174 4,003,209 3,735,249 3,631,350 3,791,476 5,436,286 13.33 Debt Service 1,933,536 2,874,149 3,031,497 3,057,090 5,606,265 6,404,390 28.31 Sub-Total 9,506,446 9,001,909 8,965,887 8,865,069 11,488,955 14,209,838 16.59 80.03% -5.31% -0.40% -1.12% 29.60% 23.68% GRAND TOTAL 42,883,976 46,433,839 50,766,558 53,580,962 60,335,842 66,523,526 9.43 15.16% 8.28% 9.33% 5.54% 12.61% 10.26% December 9, 1995 Page 19