Browse
Search
Item 1 - Agenda 05-05-2004
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2004
>
Agenda - 05-05-2004
>
Item 1 - Agenda 05-05-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2018 4:23:05 PM
Creation date
8/14/2018 4:21:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/5/2004
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
In 2001 the BOCC requested that the Solid Waste Advisory Board take up the issue and <br />offer recommendations to the BOCC. On January 27, 2003, staff presented a preliminary <br />estimate of per household (phh) fees that would be necessary to completely fund <br />recycling in each of those sectors: <br />Urban Curbside - $64.50 Rural Curbside - $46.00 Multi- Family - $34.00 <br />At that time, the Basic Services Fee (previously referred to as a Universal Services Fee) <br />component that would fund the drop -off sites, hazardous waste collection, public <br />education and supporting services had not been completed. In February 2003, the SWAB <br />presented alternative financing recommendations to the BOCC that included a prepaid <br />tipping fee component, making comparisons of those fee estimates with current fee <br />recommendations irrelevant. The prepaid tipping fee would have had the effect of <br />eliminating landfill fees and ensuring long -term stability and predictability of the overall <br />solid waste enterprise fund. <br />Following the discussion last winter /spring, staff have had the opportunity to further <br />consider the various issues raised, have conducted ongoing discussions with the SWAB, <br />have received informal Commissioners' feedback, communicated with the County staff <br />that will have billing and collection responsibilities, and spoken with the Manager and <br />various citizens on the subject. <br />Based on this continuing deliberation staff prepared and presented a preliminary proposal <br />regarding a fee assessment methodology to the BOCC on November 10, 2003. At that <br />meeting the BOCC agreed in principal with the staff approach and directed that the' <br />analysis be completed and a formal proposal be brought back to the BOCC for <br />consideration. <br />While no specific fees were presented at the November 2003 meeting because the <br />analysis was not complete at that time, staff s rough estimate of the possible magnitude <br />of the fees was in the neighborhood of $45 /phh. <br />Staff's understanding of the Board's direction from the November 2003 work session <br />included: <br />• It would be a fee rather than a tax. <br />• It would be assessed on all improved properties, including tax - exempt, residential, <br />non - residential. <br />•. It would be billed on the tax bill, beginning in 2004, but identified as a Waste <br />Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Fee. <br />• The fee would not be assessed to the University. <br />• Philosophically, the intent is that you will pay for the services you receive, that are <br />available to you, or that are performed on your behalf. <br />• There would be four categories of fees: <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.