Agenda - Council - 01/25/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I January 11, 1983 Carl Michaud Page 3 7. Funding: The amount of funding needed to implement these recommendations, of course, can not be pre-determined. Therefore, a certain amount of flexibility in rate setting must be built into the process for whichever funding source is selected. Also whether the facility is publiuly owned and operated, publicly owned and privately operated or privately owned and operated will have a bearing as to funding source. Our suggestions are as follows: A. Publicly owned and operated(assuming county ownership): 1) Funds could be raised from user fees for the Pilot, Direct Costs, Indirect costs and liability fund. (not to be collected from residents.per recommendation 6). 2) Metropolitan Area Wide property tax (not t° be collected from residents per recommendation 6). User fees should be used to fund the liability costs under this option.. B. Publicly owned and privately operated (assuming county ownership)° Funds should be raised from user fees for all compensation costs (not to be collected from residents per recommendation 6). C. Privately owned and operated: 1) Should pay property taxes as in recommendation 1. B. 2) User fees should be used to fund the liability costs (not to be collected from resident per recommendation 6).' 3) Direct and indirect costs would be"paid by the owner as part of the regular operating costs and therefore would be reflected in the normal drop or tipping charges. (not to be collected from residents per recommendation 6).' General: As a matter of policy, the A~ believes that the highest priority should be given to alternative uses of solid waste and landfills should only be used as a last resort. Therefore utilizing "user fees" instead of general property taxes to pay for the "true and full cost" of solid waste landfill disposal may. work as an incentive to promote reuse, recycling, and resource recovery. Compensation to the host communities during the lifetime of a solid waste landfill facility as recommended in the foregoing may appear to some to be excessive and a doubling up on revenue. However, considering that at closure a large parcel of property will probably be off the tax roles in perpetuity and that the potential for resuse will be very limited, it is a relatively small reimbursement and is fair. Especially so when one considers all the other undersireable effects such landfills have on the community and its residents while the facility is in operation. (ode~,~ litter, traffic, noise, environmental degredation, etc.). cc: Interested AMM member city officials