SWAB minutes 121202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Solid Waste Advisory Board- -Regular Meeting December 12 , 2002 Government Services , Hillsborough Approved January 9 , 2003 leaving only approximately $ 140 , 000 remaining as the beginning fund balance for 2003 - 04 . To be conservative , we assume a 03 - 04 starting fund balance of $ 300 , 000 , split equally between the equipment reserve and the solid waste fund . Scenario 1 : What is the effect of a sinking fund to cover landfill closure costs ? A graph showed the cash flow deficit for two different situations . Both assume no new sources of revenue . The first is the situation presented to SWAB at the last meeting — without a landfill closure fund . The second situation assumes that , beginning in 2002 - 03 , the department begins saving for the landfill closure expense , estimated at $ 2 . 513 million in 2009 - 10 . It was also noted that reimbursements for the southern Greene Tract are put into this sinking fund to reduce the contributions . The graph showed that the sinking fund increases the deficit over the period 2002 - 03 to 2008 - 09 , but avoids part of the much bigger deficit spike in 2009 - 10 . Specifically , it avoids the $ 2 . 5 million landfill closure costs , but does not avoid the approximately $ 1 . 7 million deficit that is primarily due to lost tip fee revenue when the landfill closes . This again points to the need for some alternative sources of revenue . Scenario 2 : What fees or property tax increases would be necessary each year to balance the budget? The table on the handout showed what fees would be for a particular type of customer in order to balance the budget each year . For example , an urban curbside customer in 02 - 03 would pay $ 3 . 16 for general services (administrative , landfill , hazardous waste , etc . ) and $ 55 . 96 to cover urban curbside services , a total of $ 59 . 12 . It was noted that fees jump in 2009 - 10 because of lost tip fee revenue coupled with landfill closure . Another table in this scenario showed the amount that proper taxes would need to be raised to substitute for the service area [availability] fees calculated in the previous table . For example , if it were decided to cover urban curbside services with a general property tax increase while charging availability fees for all other service areas , the County would need to raise property taxes by $ 0 . 0101 per $ 100 of property value . This is the equivalent of charging all urban curbside customers $ 59 . 12 . Scenario 3 : Increase Property Taxes in 2003 - 2004 , No Availability Fees . This chart showed a property tax increase in 2003 - 04 which equals $ 0 . 0302 $ per $ 100 evaluation . Property taxes are raised once , in 2003 - 2004 to cover all solid waste program deficits . The property tax increase needed to balance the solid waste budget actually fluctuates , but the county commissioners [practically] cannot adjust taxes each year, therefore one needs some sort of average . Looking back at scenario 2 , you can see that the property tax increase needed to cover all services jumps dramatically in 200940 (from $ 0 . 0364 to $ 0 . 0531 ) because of the loss of landfill tip fee revenue . This scenario assumes that , rather than generate too much revenue during the first six years that won' t be spent until the eighth year , a second tax increase will need to be made in 200940 . Thus , the tax increase in 2003 - 04 is set as the average of the increases needed over the period 2003 - 04 to 2008 - 09 . 8