Agenda - 02-18-1999 - Attachment 7

Browse Search

2 The committee also asked to reconsider the elements of the Solid Waste Management Plan. That Discussion is not included in this report. _ .. DISCUSSION h 1 identifies the total revenue requirements for each year to finance implementation of the SWMP and the corresponding "stabilized" availability fee that has been recommended for that year. ("Stabilized" fees have been adjusted so that they do not rise and fall steeply from year to year, i.e., the fees in one year may be set slightly higher than needed that year to offset the relatively high needs projected for the folloa-ing year.) In each of the different scenarios presented here, we have assumed that the same amount of revenue needs to be raised, because the costs of implementing the Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) do not .change. We have presented the projected cost to the average homeowner of each scenario for comparison. For this purpose, we have defined the "average homeowner" as the owner of a home assessed for tax purposes at $140,000. Graph 2 displays the cost to the average homeowner of each option for raising the additional revenue. - I. -Tinning Fee Increases needed if only tinnine fee revenue were used. Table 1 shows tipping fee revenues as they would be to fully fund solid waste management activities, assuming: • no change in the relative tonnage delivered to the landfill from current waste generators; • a modest increase in waste generated (1/Zgb) annually; and • impact of the projected effects of waste reduction and recycling programs during each year of the forecast. . Table also makes an estimate of the impact on the property tax rate in each jurisdiction, assuming that would be the method to finance this increased tipping fees. We believe that the private waste haulers, who now represent 4986 of all waste deposited at the Orange Regional Landfill, will not continue to take their waste to our landfill if the tipping fees there are significantly higher than those of other facilities. While the local governments can agree among .themselves to take all of their waste to the Orange facility, it has been ruled unconstitutional for a government to require waste haulers to use a particular facility. Table 2 is an attempt to assess the effects of diminishing in-bound tonnage from private haulers and generators due to the effect of the tipping fee increases necessary to pay for all future waste reduction program enhancements. ~ _ . .~ In Table 2. we examined the possibility that private waste ~ haulers would have the economic incentive to use alternate disposal facilities, because the differential in tipping fees between the Orange Regional Landfill and the alternate site would more than compensate the hauler for the costs of transporting the waste further. The alternate disposal facilities considered in Table Z are ~..