Agenda - Council - 09/13/1982 - Special

Home

! I I I I I '1 I I I I I I ! I I I 29 METHODS OF FINANCING MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION MEASURES MITIGATION The costs of mitigating the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of waste disposal facilities can be incorporated into the costs of doing business. In the past, many of these costs have not been borne by the waste disposal indus- try or waste producers. Instead, they have been unfairly borne by communities hosting landfills. To balance the financial burden of mitigating measures, financing could be made the responsibility of facility owners or operators. The advantage of this arrangement is that generators of waste will pay their share through higher tipping fees. If landfill developers are responsible for costs of mitigation, they are. more likely to bargain harder with the local community than if they were not res- ponsible for these costs. There are disadvantages to this method, however. The mitigaton costs may add so much to the already substantial investment requirements that a private developer may shy away altogether from building a facility. Also, the tipping fees could be so high the facility may not be competitive with other, well-established landfills. Of course, the competi- tiveness of a new landfill will depend on the number and location of other the landfills. An alternative method of financing mitigating measures is to have the county pay for them. In this scenario, the county would purchase land, build the facility and finance all measures to mitigate all development- and construction- related impacts. The county, in turn, would lease the facility to a private firm. The private firm would bear the costs of financing mitigating measures related to the landfill's operation. The advantage of this arrangement is that the county would have paid for the costly front-end work before selling or leas- ing it to a private operator. The disadvantage is that the county is likely to be subsidizing the disposal of refuse from generators outside the county. Presumably, joint county agreements can resolve this inequity. If the county decides to construct a facility, it can pay for the mitigating measures in several ways. These include a tax on the waste entering the land- fill on a per ton or cubic yard basis, use of a county general fund or imposing a special tax. The tax on waste coming into the landfill has several advan- tages. It is easy to calculate and administer, and it can be assessed against the haulers or the landfill operator. Either way, the operator and haulers would presumably pass their increased costs directly on to their customers. Essentially, the people using the landfill would pay for it. The use of the county general fund relies on property tax revenues to pay for mitigating measures. The general fund distributes the financial burden over all property owners in the county. The problem with the use of the general fund is that the amount county residents pay for refuse disposal is based upon the value of their home rather than upon the amount of waste they generate or~ dispose of in that landfill.