The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 10-19-1999 - 9bi ORANGE COUNTY BOARD • COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date' October 19, 1999 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Mebane/Orange County Planning Coordination and Joint Meeting DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig N. Benedict, ext. 2592 Summary (i) See attached (ii) TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane (336)227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive report on progress of discussions with Mebane regarding joint planning and annexation issues. BACKGROUND: Recent annexations by Mebane have raised concerns by adjacent unincorporated communities such as Hebron that there is need for more communication and coordination concerning land use/zoning decisions. The Hebron community began an incorporation process to protect their lifestyle but rule changes at the state level made the prospect difficult. The goal of interlocal cooperation could be achieved through joint planning so,administrative staff have begun a dialogue on the various elements of planning. The meeting dates are noted on the attachment. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time RECOMMENDATION(S): To receive as a report and suggest priorities in the elements of joint planning. To discuss purpose and topics for a joint meeting with Mebane. X. CITY OF MEBANE /ORANGE COUNTY Z Intergovernmental Coordination Issues Correspondence and meetings } A. Draft "Resolution of Agreement Regarding Satellite Annexations" (not acted upon) B. Draft "Resolution of Intent to Pursue Elements of Joint Planning" (not acted upon) C. 4/19/99... Orange County Letter to Mebane D: 4/20/99... Mebane Letter to Orange County E. 4/21/99... John Link to BOCC re: Mebane Meetings F. -4/30/99; 4/29/99... Orange County Letter to Mebane/Hebron Area G. 6/14/99... "Resolution of Agreement Regarding Satellite Annexations" (revised by Mebane) H. 7/20/99... Manager's and Planning Director's meeting to discuss framework of future cooperative planning (no attachment) I. 8/4/99... Planning Director's meeting regarding subdivision/building information exchange (no attachment) J. 8/18/99... Planning Director's meeting to discuss joint planning prioritization system (no attachment) K. 9/1/99.... Planning Director's meeting to discuss Annexation/Urban Growth Boundaries and Water and Sewer Areas (no attachment) 5/28/99... Manager Memo re: "Mebane Resolutions on Joint Planning" II. Elements of Joint Planning to be Pursued A. Annexation 1. Satellite annexations by the City would not be effectuated unless there was an approval by the County or a joint planning agreement between the parties was in effect regarding this issue. 2. Contiguous annexations by the city within the County portion of the ETJ would include a notice provision and a finding of land use compatibility pursuant to a jointly adopted land use plan. B. Water and Sewer Service Plans 1. The collaboration of both parties on water and sewer infrastructure plans would provide a basis of the density and intensity of future land use plans. ' 2. The Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) would address the prof ected boundaries of the service area, the schematic .location of existing and proposed utility lines and a capital improvement program funding and schedule. C. a E. 3 Economic Development Programs 1. An economic development district is noted on the County land use plan within the four quadrants of the intersection of Buckhorn Road and I -85/1- 40. The JPA could address the following issues: a. Economic Development District Design'Guidelines b. Compatibility of residential and non - residential uses and rural transition areas c. Joint marketing of the area d. Economic Development Incentives Transportation Planning 1. Transportation .plans and initiatives in the City - County area are part of a regional program of traffic control and enhancement. 2. The JPA would address the following issues: a. Regional representation on transportation committees on the 185/140 corridor b. Transportation nodes for Park and Ride lots C. Appropriate location of high traffic generation uses d. State road planning and interconnectivity in the subregion Natural Resource Preservation 1. Natural resources are intrinsic to the environment that supports the high quality of living standards expected in the City and County. 2. The JPA would address: a. Watershed preservation b. Conservation Areas P. Public Services 1. The provision of public services can be greatly impacted by growth and development. Sharing information, projecting needs, and gauging the impacts upon services will assist in providing cost and efficient and timely services by both City and County governments to residents and businesses. a. Schools b. Police, Fire and EMS C. Parks and Recreation 2 of 4 4 G. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) 1. The TDR concept is employed to shift residential density or non- residential intensity away from areas with environmental constraints or where rural character preservation is sought to TDR receiving areas where adequate infrastructure is available to land relatively unconstrained by natural resources. 2. The'Buckhorn' Economic Development District (EDD) may be an appropriate area to act as a TDR receiving area and further planning should be considered towards an implementation program. H. Development Process Coordination • 1. A flow chart.of development processing including generalized review and action timeframes and what types of projects would undergo .what level of review should be developed. 2--.- Afterwhich a process implementation program would be approved. A joint development review team may be considered. I. JPA and Amendment Implementation Timeframe 1. The Resolution of Intent and its issue. sections may not be approved in one comprehensive JPA, although both parties will pursue the concept in good faith. 2. The basic. JPA should be approved within 90 days of the last signature to the Resolution of Intent. Certain specific JPA aspects should be approved within 180 days of the last signature. 3. A process of JPA amendments will also be included in the JPA. III. Blue Ribbon Growth Management/Smart Growth Commission The Blue Ribbon Growth Management/Smart Growth Commission strengthens the ability of county governments to coordinate and develop growth plans to manage growth in a region in a comprehensive manner. A. Promote efficient infrastructure provision; B. Preserve natural and cultural resources; C. Foster economic development; D. Ensure compatible land -use patterns; E. Develop walkable communities; and . F. Enhance the quality of life for the citizens of North Carolina.. 3 of 4 5 W. Impact of Potential NC Growth Management Legislation on County - Municipal Jurisdiction Planning The intent of the study commission and the recommendations forthcoming is to create a planning framework that addresses regional cooperation and land use consistency between various jurisdictions. Environment and transportation issues are primary regional effects. Annexation and comprehensive land use compatibility affect the boundaries between local governments. Under some hypothetical legislation; a pattern of future land use would be set by the county with the input from nearby municipalities. These new ED areas would be jointly planned and be the 'pool' of future annexations into unincorporated areas of the county.. Even after annexation the previous land'use pattern would be the dominant-pattern until an amendment, if any, was requested showing a proposed change that met a series of • compatibility requirements.. Growth management and 'smart growth initiatives focus a great amount of review on regional issues as well as the urban growth boundaries. (i.e. county -city interface). Legislation that promotes cooperative planning can become a major. facilitator to enhanced communication between local governments and the corresponding planned progress goal of the area. 4 of 4 RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT REGARDING SATELLITE ANNEXATIONS The Resolution of Agreement is entered into the day of ,1999, by and between the City of Mebane (City) and Orange County (County). WHEREAS, The City of Mebane is located primarily within Alamance County but does have the eastern portion of its jurisdiction and extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) within Orange County; and -WHEREAS, The City of Mebane and Orange County herein acknowledge that joint planning and communication are important facets of quality.. development and effective government; and WHEREAS, Satellite . annexations within Orange County by the City of Mebane are a concern, of the Board. of County. Commissioners and their residents; and WHEREAS, The passage of this resolution is in the best interests of the citizens of the City and County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the aforementioned parties do agreet'o, the following element of joint planning and interest. Section 1. Satellite Annexation Satellite annexations by the City will not be effectuated unless there is written approval by Orange County. Process Section 2. A resolution from the City regarding a satellite annexation request will be forwarded to the. County for action by the County Commissioners within 60 days. An approval or denial will be inAhe form of a County resolution'and a certified copy will be sent to the. City within 5 days of County action. Section 3. Effective Date The effective date of this Resolution of Agreement shall be the date whereby both signatures are finally affixed. Attested to by the undersigned: Alice M. Gordon, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners Q\windows\temp\res5-14b.doc Page 1 of 1 Gleadpl. Stephenson, Mayor City of Mebane 6 GACRAIGMSS- 14.DOC Pagel of 2 7 RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO PURSUE ELEMENTS OF JOINT PLANNING . WHEREAS, Planning and development that occurs within Orange County has an effect on various.public services; and . WHEREAS, The City of Mebane and Orange County herein acknowledge that joint planning and communication are important facets of quality,., development and effective government; and WHEREAS, ,, Joint planning and analysis are becoming increasingly important in Orange County because -the impacts of growth can negatively affect the quality of life for residents; and WHEREAS, This resolution of intent.is a prerequisite document to a joint planning agreement and sets forth our mutual effort to understand and address each other's interests and challenges. in a constructive and coherent process; and WHEREAS, The City Manager and County Manager and their respective Planning Directors are instructed to work towards developing an agreement on which elements would be incorporated in a future Joint Planning Agreement. The timeframe suggested herein to identify specific element topics is 90 days: WHEREAS, The passage of this resolution is in the. best interests of the citizens of the .City and County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the aforementioned parties do attest to; in good faith, the following elements of joint planning, cooperation and interest which may include the following: GACRAIGMSS- 14.DOC Pagel of 2 Various Elements 1. Contiguous /Satellite Annexations 2. Water and Sewer Service Plans 3. Economic Development. 4. Transportation Planning 5. Natural Resource Preservation 6. Public Services 7. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) 8. Development Process Coordination. 9. Cooperative Planning Agreement (CPA) and (CPA) Amendment Implementation. .a): Cooperative.Planning Area (CPA) b). Transition Areas c). Non -urban 10. Land Use Planning . a). Rural Character Preservation b). Impact Fee Participation c). Data Sharing; (Socio- Economic, Construction etc.) Effective Date The effective date of this Resolution of Intent shall be the date whereby both signatures are finally affixed. Attested to by the undersigned: Alice M. Gordon, Chair Glendel Stephenson, Mayor Orange County Board of Commissioners City of Mebane 9 April/ 1999 Mayor Glendel Stephenson City Manager Robert Wilson RE: Annexation/Incorporation Issues Dear Mayor Stephenson: Dear Robert Wilson: We have common interests;. to promote the orderly development of lands while preserving those with historical or environmental character. The Hebron incorporation . request has brought to light the many sensitive issues concerning annexation and incorporation. We believe the issues surrounding growth and annexation into unincorporated areas can be resolved through joint planning. A joint planning agreement would foster enhanced cooperation, coordination and analysis regarding the annexation reserve areas and their transition into the jurisdiction of a town. Land use compatibility and the impact of growth on public service provision and facilities is: of paramount importance because it literally and figuratively taxes the quality . of life of county and town residents. We have noted below some options that can address the needs of town, county and citizens and lead to quality comprehensive planning. TOWN /COUNTY JOINT PLANNING OF ANNEXATION AREAS 1. A Joint Planning Agreement is signed between the town and county for a specific, . planning area where annexation is anticipated. A. Urban Transition Area 1: Higher Density Residential 2: Non- Residential Primary B. Rural Transition Area 1. .Lower Density Residential 2 -5 du/ac 2. Community Scale Non - Residential Annex.doc 10 2. Transition Area can be extended if one of two scenarios occur: A. Town accepts land use plan of county until town develops a land use plan B. Town has developed a land use plan within the Transition Area with public hearing process to permit input from the county and affected citizens/businesses. 3. Voluntary Annexations A. Within ED — Zoning that is in effect or requested to be consistent with the land use plan. B. Outside ED — Zoning must be consistent with-land use plan of county for a period of two years at which time a land use plan developed through a joint planning agreement wold go into effect for the area between the town limits and an area 1000' around the voluntary annexation. 4. Involuntary Annexations Must be within ETJ and in accordance with an agreed upon joint land use plan. 5. State Legislative "Action. Additional rules would be promulgated concerning annexation that would be directed to promote orderly and consistent growth patterns with that of the county, 6. Town boundary is temporarily fixed. Let's continue our discussions and come to a resolution about joint planning so we can notify interested parties of our jointly shared goals and the direction to achieve said goals. The State Legislature may assist us in come manner. We welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues and begin a process that will augment communication and bolster cooperation. We are anxious to meet, so please contact our offices for a meeting at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Alice Gordon, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners John M. Link, Jr., Orange County Manager Annex.doc • RabextLWflm r 11 8ldne7 atIm 7aekte Motcow Qlaodf! Stopbeoun T�CoAtaar �p. .. . Crfry Bemgema cowu 106 E. Washington Street GillfJdjPallu Ammy7obe Ed HwIz, VwPm Tan Mebane, N.C. 27302 PUBC WorI4DJ #dwFvf Chlff SLaBndley Bob Hupmae . (9-19)563-5901. - Warp lDkvvar ea Dew Ray C8 $'ffWWd VViltdnfea Rea+aatlandEPrQErDJnefor April 20,` 1 Mrs. Alice M. Gordon, Chair Orange County Commissioners 4 A..- � • Z } ,. • � P. O. Box 8181 200 South Cameron Street borough, North Carolina 27278 - DISTRIBUTED Dear Mrs. Gordon: Reference is to your letter of April 19, 1999 regarding the � . J desn' . of 'oinf ' off' Cy /ro%► discussions, and possible written agreement, between the City of Mebane and.Orange County. You refer directly-to the Hebron community incorporation request that has apparently initiated your letter' and suggestions. We have had an opportunity to read Senate Bill DRSA591- LB125(3.23). sponsored by Senator Kinnaird that would restrict the, City of Mebane from any annexation action in Cheeks Township of Orange County for a period of five years (until June 30, "2004);. and ties the act directly to. "a joint planning agreement with Orange County..."), to be evidenced by adoption of ordinances covering such an agreement.. As has been expressed to you, John Link and Senator Kinnaird, the City of Mebane would not react favorably to such legislation: we feel such action would be virtually an insult to the City and certainly would not encourage a quickened.improvement in our workinglconversational relationship: A quick final word about the proposed legislation and then I will speak to the possibility of a joint planning activity, . Since the :action of the Mebane City Council to annex two areas of Orange County.through satellite annexation; seems to havebeen the�cafalyst for this legislation, we would propose that Mebane will not enter into any additional satellite annexations affecting Orange County without the' written consent of the Orange County Commissioners. I believe the Council will approve this action; this would be 'much better for our future relationship than some type of legislative action "aimed at". the City of Mebane. Let's not destroy the relationship that 'has already begun to improve through the several discussions we have enjoyed over the past months. About joint planning: the.City ofMebane would welcome any opportunity to begin discussions about some agreements with Orange County :.. as soon as we can arrange mutually satisfactory dates: Would you like to begin those discussions prior to budget planning? Probably not. I suspect both bodies will be involved with budgeting from very soon well into June. However, perhaps we can set an initial meeting to get our thoughts in order prior to our budget studies, and then continue them after our budgets are completed and in place. I would invite you to have John Link and Robert Wilson work out that date. From statements offered by John in our conversation on Apra l g h, the indication is that ~ putting together a joint planning agreement would take some time and perhaps several meetings.. It is my personal opinion that legislative action described above will be counterproductive to the successful initiation and successful delivery of a joint planning agreement that both Orange County and the City of Mebane .can be. proud of and feel good about.. Your points were well made and understood concerning the problems faced by any county when an adjoining city took action contrary to the county. Comprehensive Land Plan. We respect your position. We sincerely ask that you respect our position, , and. that you consider the potential adverse effects should the above legislative action become law as we move Orange County and the City of Mebane into a more harnionious relationship. I thank you for the two most recent meetings we have enjoyed together. I trust we will move very quickly to expand our conversations to include the matters of this letter. Thank you for your courtesies as you presented your thoughts. We look forward to your early response. Cordially, Glendel Stephenson Mayor Cc: Administration and Council City of Mebane Senator Ellie Kinnaird ORANGE COUNTY HEE SBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA MEMORANDUM TO: .. Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: John M. Link,'Jr., County Manager DATE:. April 21, 1999 RE: Report on Meeting.-With Mebane Officials. I wanted to.provide a brief report on the meeting that Chair Gordon* and I had with the Mayor, Manager and two Councilmen-of a City of Mebane, on Monday, April 19. The representatives of Mebane expressed co rn and. anger about the prospect of a Legislative Moratorium on Annexation by. e witihin Oralige t : The source of .their concern focused the Bing "single, from the ot} r Orange County. They belied th y sues of �,d coda around the area subject ta anne o ugh and Durham..In s Moratorium. Chair Gordo ' ~ v 'tter approved . by the BOCC exp j M r 'Meb ane. The Chair also ' .� r w > � � 'ssioners with greater freq.. a citizens ..,.. o. ;... - felt that the BOCC is tlte"i cedad re �`""" I s. urtlier, the point was made that satellite annexati ons, such.as the 'one close to Hebron, were most aggravating to citizens living in the affected area since the existing land use plan was changed by government officials for whom they could not vote. As discussion proceeded, there were expressions by .all :of us indicating -a deeper understanding of the issues faced by the other party. Mebane officials .indicated a Willingness to pursue the concept of joint planning with Orange County: With regardL to a : - moratorium, Mebane officials agreed to look at the proposed legislation; and there were expressions made that a moratorium o& on satelliteannexations and only until joint planning was in place may be more acceptable than their understanding of the present drafted legislation. Discussion was concluded with the agreement that Mebane would respond. to the County letter within a week. 13 14 Orange County Commissioners ~- P. O. Box 8181 200 S Cameron Street Zovotp of r Hillsborough, NC 27278 ate° +* °ham Alice M. Gordon, Chair + Stephen H. HaWods, Vice Chair 17 7A ° h2 Margaret W. Brown Moses Carey, Jr. Barry Jacobs artb Cato``,�a MEMORANDUM TO: Interested Citizens FROM: Alice M. Gordon; Chair Orange County. Board of Commissioners SUBJECT: Joint Planning with, Mebane DATE: .April .30,1999 The attached letter to Lynne Holtkamp outlines the steps that. Orange County is taking with respect to joint planning with the City of Mebane. An identical letter was sent to James Randy Kinley; who. also spoke at a recent County Commissioners meeting about a proposal for incorporation of Hebron and related land use considerations. We are sending you a copy of this letter because we are aware of your interest concerning land .use issues ln'your area. if, you would like more information on this general topic or you. know anyone else who would like,to receive information, please contact Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the County Commissioners at 732 -8181, ext. 2130. You Count In Orange County AREA CODE (919) 732 -8181: 968 -4501: 688 -7331: 227 -2031: FAX (919) 644 -3004 Ext. 2130 Orange County Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 200 S. Cameron Street Hillsborough, N.C. 27278. 15 Alice M. Gordon, Chair Stephen H. Halkiods, Vice Chair Margaret W. Brown Moses Carey, Jr. Barry Jacobs April 29, 1999 Ms. Lynne Holtkamp 2004 Ben Wilson Road Mebane, NC 27302. Dear Ms. Holtkamp: Knowing of your concerns as expressed in the past regarding a satellite annexation by Mebane in the vicinity of the Hebron Community; the Commissioners wanted you to be aware of productive outcomes in recent discussions with the City of Mebane. Based on these discussions, the City of Mebane and Orange County are in the process of committing to a jointResolution of Intent to Pursue Joint Planning to be signed within the next thirty days: This resolution would articulate principles of joint planning to be followed by both jurisdictions. A point of agreement that we believe is of great interest to you is thestated intent by the City of Mebane that it. does not plan to enter into any additional satellite annexations affecting Orange County without written consent of the Orange County Commissioners. Other elements that could be: included in the joint, planning process are: • a process for contiguous annexations, to be discussed • collaboration on water and sewer extension plans • collaboration on efforts within the Economic Development District (EDD) in the 1-8040 Buckhorn area • protection of natural resources including watershed preservation • coordination of transportation initiatives ,,particularly related to the I40/1 -85 Corridor • shared information as to the impacts of development in areas of mutual interest, to include impacts of service requirements; i.e.* fire, law enforcement, schools, recreation, and so forth. You Count In Orange County AREA CODE (919) 732 -8181: 968 -4501: 688 -7331: 22.7 -2031: FAX (919) 644-3004 EA% 2130 18 RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT. REGARDING SATELLITE ANNEXATIONS. 19 The Resolution of Agreement is entered into the Ids day of 1999, by and between the City of Mebane (City) and Orange County Coon WHEREAS, the City of Mebane is located primarily within Alamance County but. does have the eastern portion of its jurisdiction and extra- territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) within* Orange County; and WHEREAS, the City of Mebane and Orange County Herein acknowledge` that joint planning and communication are important facets of quality development and . effective government; and WHEREAS, satellite annexations within Orange County by the.City of Mebane are a concern of the Board of County. Commissioners and their residents; and WHEREAS, the passage of this resolution is in the best interests of the citizens of the City and County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the aforementioned parties do agree to the following element of joint planning and interest. Section 1. Satellite Annexation. The General Assembly of North Carolina has determined that under certain narrowly defined circumstances; cities in North Carolina may exercise the power of annexation as to satellite areas not located contiguous to a City's primary corporate limits. Nothing contained herein shall be construed or interpreted to limit . -the ability of the City of Mebane to *exercise these` powers granted . to cities. by the. Legislature.. Recognizing that Orange County currently exercises zoning control throughout. the County in areas not regulated by cities, the City of Mebane acknowledges that legitimate interests of Orange County require that the County have an input in the decision making process 'when Mebane considers satellite annexations within-Orange County. Section 2. Process Upon receipt of a request .for satellite annexation, the City will forward such request to the County prior to. taking any action on. said request. The City will not take further action on said request until the County has had an opportunity to review the proposed satellite, annexation. and forward its comments with respect to same to the City. If no comments are received.within sixty (60) days, the City may proceed without further consulting with the County. 21, ORANGE COUNTY -~ YI T1 ,T OROUGlz Noncan CAROLINA MEMOPUk"C)'114 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: Jahn Link, County Managed - DATE:. May 2s.199 RE: Periodic Updates on Significant Topics I have several updates for you as summarized below and in the enclosed attachments; 1. Mebane Resolutions on Joint Plan ninn Resolution I am collaborating directly with Robert Wilson, City M40ker of Mebane, on r *Q ,-ons for joint planning. We . are•giving first priority to a Reso13'#on ogreement ony�atellite Annexa#ioi� governing bodies would hopefully �i4 i� .wy "`,ir''as.pf� �, p y agree.to before the s bred L,'A, vti ca iy iP ��de ',a . �nt 1a: Robert is trying to - this r •.�, ' '•` . J1 rq. i°u. ACM• get this ari his Council's* agendsr' -' - -w"" •. x�_... VIM „,�, �►; Y'r • U;• :L �: ;'4 }�i�t��vCSW •tiY�rr �..�r shf,j . . ��a •?SIY2 r. 6. ^ s• DR1.,l ,��y4�iria!''- 'r*"'):'flJ�?..'. its.,'• F` 4' xfi '}7iw°•5,+ti�{"y"r""�t'_'"tY3` 5 e.'j,�":�:: r•eiw•:i^::4 w,�7Y'' S�i. """'' �2`•e fi.N ., I have also discussed. the ather,aemr;F Cent;t�it 7c�rw.t p� �(cr� {with Roberta He believes `.� -k" n tT fi b~ ` �} On- lr�e a `° �r laming directors and I agree, that t . '. Q ?qrk c ►' ; P � x b �?"r'i,..� :► � "..,.M.,a•'A.; �' fir; ' - „_. .. a. %:a: ^1Yrx�?tx{{�•s-'; _ . during the course of the s 'Z i�Wd.,cih, a etne3n 4nr gtx l3�`• ri,, the next few weeks, I kS `!s .7Y, ri wt cMS.Uy,'�.r!! �q x u.: +. 1r r P^�xdY1 +"1isJ ^.: =LJn �, 1G believe that would be a slgx£�#sk:'�"� •,.�' ',•i`4�ti. +!a. :� �?��''� ..,•. F�s�Y. r) �`•' ; "^ �c:rn.�,,a,i�af's- tY.'s��.,f l�i, yr�i�. ...ar. K�r.. d, _..,- ":9al+x.vus.in>�'i" r Tc:ie i::'. "at .+� �hi�+W t�4' a�. •.l+w..,... - 2.' Solid Waste Financing :Alt&%atiW— The Solid Waste.Alternative Financing Committee met a number o f times earlier this fiscal year to consider options to generate additional revenue to support the new facilities and programs that will be necessary to meet our solid waste reduction goals. One idea that has been suggested is a set of service districts in which ad valorem taxes could be levied at different rates'as necessary to support the specific level of solid waste services that might be provided in those individual districts. °fhe materials at Attachment 2 were provided to the .Chapel Hill Town Council as an analysis of the feasibility of solid waste service districts. We are passing this along now, as ii seems That with the County's pending assumption of solid waste management responsibility, it is unlikely that the Alternative Financing Committee will meet again and likely that the Board of Commissioners will make the ultimate decisions on solid waste financing 'mechanisms. AREA CODE (919)'732-8181 • 968 -4501 • 688 -7331 • 237.2031 • FAX (919) 6443004