Agenda - 04-13-2004-9c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

In 2001 the BOCC requested that the Solid Waste Advisory Board take up the issue and offer i-econunendations to the BOCC. On .January 27, 200.3, staff presented a preliminary estimate of per household (plil~) fees that would be necessary to completely fund recycling in each of those sectors: Urban Curbside - $64.50 Rural Curbside - $46.00 Multi-Family - $34,00 At that time, the Basic Services Fee (previously referred to as a Universal Services Fee) component that would fiord the drop-off sites, hazardous waste collection, public education and supporting services had not been completed, fii February 2003, the SWAB presented alternative financing reconunendations to the BOCC that included a prepaid tipping fee component, making comparisons of those fee estimates with current fee reconunendations irrelevant, The prepaid tipping fee would have had the effect of eliminating landfill fees and ensuring long-teen stability and predictability of the overall solid waste enterprise fund. Following the discussion last winter/spring, staff have had the opportunity to further consider the various issues raised, have conducted ongoing discussions with the SWAB, have received informal Commissioners' feedback, communicated with the County staff that will have billing and collection responsibilities, and spoken with the Manager and various citizens on the subject. Based on this continuing deliberation staff prepared and presented a preliminary proposal regarding a fee assessment methodology to the BOCC on November 10, 200.3. At that meeting the BOCC agreed in principal with the staff approach and directed that the analysis he completed and a formal proposal be brought back to the BOCC for consideration. While no specific fees were presented at the November 2003 meeting because the analysis was not complete at that time, staff's rough estimate of the possible magnitude of the fees was in the neighborhood of $45/plilt.. Staff s understanding of the Board's direction from the November 2003 work session included: • It would be a fee rather than a tax. • It would be assessed on all improved properties, including tax-exempt, residential, non-residential. • It would be billed on the tax bill, beginning in 2004, but identified as a Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Fee. • The fee would not he assessed to the University. • Philosophically, the intent is that you will pay for the services you receive, that are available to you, or that are perforn~ed on your behalf, • There would be four categories of fees: