HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-18-1999 - Attachment 7t
rIT~MQh 1
~a+'
a ~a
Iv~MORANnvIK
TO: Alternative Finance Committee
FROM: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
SUBJECT: Availability Fees and other Financing Mechanisms
DATE: - November 24, 1998
This report and accompanying tables and graphs are intended to answer questions raised at the
Alternative Finance Committee meeting on October 20.
BACKGROUND
The objectives in the creation of the Alternative Finance Committee were to examine the need
for. additional funding sources to provide for the expansion of recycling programs called for in
the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, to examine the risks inherent in the current
funding scheme which relies solely on tipping fee revenues, and the inequities in the current
funding scheme. Excerpts from I~R's report "Alternative Financing Strategies for Solid Waste
Management Programs, Final Report" include the following:
• LOG program funding needs- will increase substantially in future years, as new programs are
implemented to reach the,6196 waste reduction/recycling goal adopted in the Solid Waste
Management Plan.
• A number of local governments in North Carolina have implemented "Availability Fees" to
pay for solid waste disposal facilities as well as waste reduction and recycling programs.
• The LOG should consider the use of Availability Fees to fund current and/or future LOG
waste reduction and recycling programs.
- During. the Committee's discussion of the consultant's report, .the following questions were
raised.
1. ff only tipping. fee revenues were used to finance solid waste management activities, what
would the tipping fees needs to be, and what would be the impact on property taxes?
2. What would be the impact on property taxes if the full costs. were covered directly by
Property taxes? ~ .
,~ .
3. What are the issues raised by each jurisdiction establishing, implementing and administering
its own fees? ~ . -
4. What are the issues raised by non-taxed properties?
2
The committee also asked to reconsider the elements of the Solid Waste Management Plan. That
Discussion is not included in this report. _ ..
DISCUSSION
h 1 identifies the total revenue requirements for each year to finance implementation of the
SWMP and the corresponding "stabilized" availability fee that has been recommended for that
year. ("Stabilized" fees have been adjusted so that they do not rise and fall steeply from year to
year, i.e., the fees in one year may be set slightly higher than needed that year to offset the
relatively high needs projected for the folloa-ing year.)
In each of the different scenarios presented here, we have assumed that the same amount of
revenue needs to be raised, because the costs of implementing the Solid Waste Management Plan
(SWMP) do not .change. We have presented the projected cost to the average homeowner of
each scenario for comparison. For this purpose, we have defined the "average homeowner" as
the owner of a home assessed for tax purposes at $140,000. Graph 2 displays the cost to the
average homeowner of each option for raising the additional revenue. -
I. -Tinning Fee Increases needed if only tinnine fee revenue were used.
Table 1 shows tipping fee revenues as they would be to fully fund solid waste management
activities, assuming:
• no change in the relative tonnage delivered to the landfill from current waste generators;
• a modest increase in waste generated (1/Zgb) annually; and
• impact of the projected effects of waste reduction and recycling programs during each year of
the forecast. .
Table also makes an estimate of the impact on the property tax rate in each jurisdiction,
assuming that would be the method to finance this increased tipping fees.
We believe that the private waste haulers, who now represent 4986 of all waste deposited at the
Orange Regional Landfill, will not continue to take their waste to our landfill if the tipping fees
there are significantly higher than those of other facilities. While the local governments can
agree among .themselves to take all of their waste to the Orange facility, it has been ruled
unconstitutional for a government to require waste haulers to use a particular facility.
Table 2 is an attempt to assess the effects of diminishing in-bound tonnage from private haulers
and generators due to the effect of the tipping fee increases necessary to pay for all future waste
reduction program enhancements. ~ _ .
.~
In Table 2. we examined the possibility that private waste ~ haulers would have the economic
incentive to use alternate disposal facilities, because the differential in tipping fees between the
Orange Regional Landfill and the alternate site would more than compensate the hauler for the
costs of transporting the waste further. The alternate disposal facilities considered in Table Z are
~..
,"
the Waste Management transfer station of Wake County (near RDU Airport, 23 miles away) and
the Republic Industries landfill located in Person County (east of Roxboro, 49 miles away).
Table 2 addresses the possible diversion of waste to both of these facilities.
We have used the general rule recommended by I~R, Inc. to project at which point a private
waste hauler or generator would decide to use a more distant facility with a lower tipping fee:
every additional $1.50 disparity in tipping fee between the Orange Regional Landfill and another
landfill would justify a private hauler transporting his waste an additional 1 mile.
3
To explain this method of analysis through an example, we consider below a scenario where a
front-loading refuse truck, with a payload of 10.5 tons is travelling to the Waste Management
transfer station near the RDU Airport, 23 miles distant from the Orange County Landfill.
Description
1) The "per mile" differential
times
2) additional distance to alternate
dlspOSal ~aclllty
divided liy
3) truck payload (in tons)
Formula
$1.50
times
(one-way distance x 2)
divided by
truck payload
Example
' '$1.50
times
(23 mi. x 2,= 46 mi.)
divided by
10.5 tons
$6.57
In summary, $1.50x46 miles = 69 and 69 divided by 10.5 tons = $6.57.
This example suggests that, if the Orange Regional landfill .tipping fee were at least $6.57
greater than the fee of the Waste Management transfer station. near RDU, a waste hauler would
probably haul the waste to the more distant disposal facility, because the savings in tipping. fees
would compensate for the increased transportation costs.
In each of those scenarios the added travelling distance to the alternate disposal facility,
measured from the Orange Regional Landfill, and the projected tipping fee differential data are
used to project what size payload-would provide the economic incentive to use .the alternate
facility. We have examined the MSW loads delivered to the Orange Regional Landfill from
private haulers during Cktober, 1998 to determine the range of waste payloads used, so we could
estimate the number of tons that would be diverted to each facility.
The estimated loss of MSW tonnage and tipping fee revenue to the Orange Regional Landfill due
to diversion of that waste to alternate disposal sites would need to be accommodated by an
increase in the tipping ~ #ees already projected. Further revising the tipping fee upward to
accommodate that loss of revenue would drive additional tonnage from the landfill, because
4
more haulers would have the incentive to use an alternate site: thus, a spiral of increasing tipping
fees and lost tonnage would continue to feed upon itself. .
Table 2 estimates the loss of tonnage and tipping fee revenue each year, if the tipping fee were
revised to provide the revenue necessary to ,implement .the SWMP; it does 'not attempt to project
the rest of the spiral of continued diversion. Table 2 also shows what the tipping fees would
need to be, assuming the first wave of diversion, to finance the Solid Waste Management Plan.
Raising the necessary revenue for the SWMP implementation solely through the increase in
tipping fees was initially considered untenable by the Landfill Owners Group and was the basis
for the formation of the Alternative Finance Committee to study other options.
Points for Discussion
• If the jurisdictions continue to fund the full cost of tipping fees through property taxes, then
the system will continue to lose any potential revenue from tax-exempt properties which are
receiving waste reduction services.
• The increase in the cost to the local governments of the higher tipping fees .would be the
equivalent of the following in terms of pennies on the tax rate for FY 1999-2000.
Assuming no loss of tonnag e Assuming loss of tonnage
1. Carrboro ~ $0.02048 ~ $0.04331
2. Chapel Hill 0.01972 0.04170
3. Hillsborough ~ 0.03983 0.08401
4. Orange County 0.00416 0.00880
One difficulty revealed through this mechanism is that each jurisdiction will adjust its own
tax rates to fund the increased tipping fees. Orange County would be spreading its increased
tipping fee cost over a tax base that encompasses both .the incorporated and unincorporated
areas of the County. Thus, residents of incorporated Carrboro, Hillsborough and Chapel Hill
would be paying twice, through their county taxes and through their municipal taxes.. This
situation exists now.
• Through their tipping fees, privatelcommercial haulers now contribute to the cost of waste
reduction programs.. But, when tipping fees rise high enough for commercial- waste to be
diverted to other disposal facilities, then individual taxpayers would be subsidizing the costs
for commercial waste reduction and recycling programs.
II. - Property taxes as sole source of financing.
The Commitii<e asked what-the impact on property taxes would be if that were the sole support
of the Solid Waste Management Plan implementation. Because the plan was developed as a
unified countywide .plan we have assumed that the question refers to the impact on Orange
County taxes. In this way, all Orange County residents would be charged for solid waste
~~
r~ s
management on the same basis, and would be charged only once.. municipal taxes were used
along with County taxes, municipal residents would pay twice.)
The means of implementing the SW1ViP from revenues raised through property taxes presented in
Table 3. assumes that the Orange County property tax rate would be increased to raise the
additional revenue.
The assumptions made in Table 3 show the FY 1998-99 Countywide property tax base of
$6,009,267,349. The revenue required in each year of the forecast is the same as that presented
in previous models, and the property tax base against which an assessment would be placed is
assumed to increase at l.sgd'o per year.
Points for Discussion
• The SWMP funds would not have the financial support of tax-exempt properties which could
receive waste reduction services, allowing tax-exempt properties io be subsidized by other
sectors.
• By raising the necessary revenue through property taxes, undeveloped properties not
receiving any services under the SWN1I' would be subsidizing those properties receiving
services. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is the largest tax exempt property
owner. It currently funds its own recycling and waste reduction programs.
• Among the alternatives considered here, this would be the easiest one to administer.
• Increasing property tax raze to fund implementation of the SWMP would make this increased
cost to the property owner tax deductible, whereas the Availability Fee would not be tax
deductible.
III. -Each jurisdiction establishes. imulements and coIlects its own fees.
This approach would provide for the greatest degree of autonomy in allowing each jurisdiction to
provide the additional necessary funds for the recycling program expansion by whatever method
each thinks most appropriate. It is also inconsistent with tha notion of a unified and integrated
plan for all jurisdictions of Orange County.
Table 4 displays the additional sum that would be required of each community during FY 1998-
99. Table 4a. specifies the additional sums needed from each communit~+ through the remaining
years of this forecast; based on the same calculation method established In Table 4. The figures
were derived from examining the costs attn'butable to each property in the jurisdiction based on
the type of services received,-and the number of each type of property in that jurisdiction.
-.~
Points for Discussion.
• Contrary to the notion of an into Solid Waste Management system.
6
• Over time, this method could result in individual jurisdictions, in order to reduce their
obligation, trying to negotiate reductions in services which would impact other components
of the Solid Waste system and potentially reduce the achievable solid waste reduction goals.
N. -Availability Fee. .
The use of an Availability Fee makes a direct connection between the level of service provided
or available to various waste generators and the cost that is assessed against them for that
service. The fIDR report of October 20, 1998, titled "Alternative Financing. Strategies for Solid
Waste Management Programs, Final Report", provides further information about availability
fees, and the staff memorandum of October 20th to the Committee, reviews how :the concept
would translate to specific prices in Orange County.
Table 5 shows for each yeaz of the forecast period, the recommended levels of Availability Fees,
the user base (current and projected number of beneficiaries) in each sector, and the total revenue
generated by each sector and total aggregate revenue. These availability fees would generate the
revenue required to fund the solid waste system cost not covered by tipping fees, including the
costs associated with the SWMP, and the level of funding that must be matched by any other
revenue .tool that is being considered. Throughout the analysis presented here, the "stabilized"
availability fee is used as the benchmark for the revenue requirements of the waste reduction
ProS~s•
The Availability Fce is shown in both the "actual" and "stabilized" form. The "stabilized" fee
has bcen modified to reduce the volatility from year to year. By charging a little more in a year
in which revenue needs are lower, it is possible to chazge a little less in a year when revenue
needs are higher, easing both. budgeting and public acceptance.. Graph 1 displays both the total
"actual" and total "stabilized" availability fees over tune to show the effect of fee leveling from
year to year. .
Graph 2 examines the effect of the various funding scenarios discussed here on the average
residential property owner (assessed value $140,000). In that graph, the majonty of the
difference between the "Availability Fee" (top line) and the "County Tax Rate" (2°~ line), is
explained by the fact that the county. tax rate would apply to non-developed properties, which
comprise nearly-?S96 of the total tax base, but which do not receive service under the SWMP.
This inclusion of undeveloped properties would lower the assessment against other beneficiaries.
Points for Discussion
• Because an Availability Fee relates to the level of services or benefits received, revenues to
support the SWMP are provided without consideration of "ability to pay;" therefore, waste
reduction and recycling services. are addressed as any other utility service might be. .
,~
• Availability Fees, unlike Local taxes, are not deductible for purposes of federal income taxes.
1- I
V. - lissaes Related to Tag-eae t Properties.
If the Alternative Finance Committee were to recommend implementation of the Availability
Fce, the fee would also include an assessment. against tax-exempt, developed properties within
Orange County. Because these properties are' exempt from property taxes, the Orange County
Assessor does not have the requisite. information on these properties for the needs of this study.
It would be necessary to conduct a field survey of tax-exempt properties to determine which of
those sites are developed and into what tier of -the commercial properties' price structure each
should be placed. The inclusion of developed, tax-exempt properties would serve to lower the
availability fee levied against commercial and residential properties, but the amount of the lower
assessment cannot be established without first determining which of the tax-exempt properties
would be subject to an Availability Fce assessment.
A review of the owners of record of these tax-exempt properties reveals that of the total 1,630
tax-exempt properties, 1,118 (or 68.696) are held by various local, stag or national governmental
agencies, the University of North Carolina or Duke University.
~I. -Solid Waste Management Plan,
The implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan is intended to reduce the amount of
waste to be landfilled. This reduction would reduce the waste disposal .costs to. the various
communities, and might also reduce the waste collection costs as well.
Waste disposal cost savings can be more readily estimated.based on per household generation
rates and the tonnage records from the last~few years. Table 6 displays:
CB~D and MSW waste tonnage estimates under the proposed SWMP compared with a
recycling program which remains static (based on the FY 1998 program) throughout the
forecast period;
• the level of waste reduction which each jurisdiction might anticipate through implementation
of the SWMP; and
• estimated cost savings in tipping fees to each jurisdiction.
Estimates of the potential for savings in waste collection are far more arguable, because there is
no ready way to estimate savings from the several possible modifications in waste collection
methods: re-routing of collections,. reduced collection crew siu, reduced collection frequency,
etc. There is anecdotal evidence from several solid waste collection programs that there might
be ample, opportunity for cost savings, such as commercial waste dumpsters which are collected
twice each week but are nearly half-empty. However, no attempt has been made to estimate
potential collection cost savings through the implementation of the SWNIP.
8
Without modification of the Solid Waste Management Plan and its implementation schedule, any
financing mechanism would lie, required to raise between $1.8 and $3.8 million each year for the
next decade to supplement the revenue of the present landfill. tipping fees. The financing options.
considered above vary most significantly in which portions of the community may subsidize
other portions. For example, the use of the tax rate would allow tax-exempt properties to be
subsidized by others.. The tipping fee may require subsidy by waste generators that do not.
receive recycling and waste reduction services.. The use of an availability fee may be set to
include or exclude tax-exempt properties and/or undeveloped properties.
Graph 2 suggests that the Availability Fee and an added assessment on the Orange County tax
rate would be the most efficient means to finance the SWMP; that is; the impact on the average
homeowner is the least... We believe that the Availability .Fee provides greater flexibility in
setting charges .against businesses and multi-family developments of varying sizes, while use of
the County Tax Rate would provide a level of administrative ease.
F
,~
• t
Totd "Actual" Fce 51083 609.00 S l 89 180.42
o ~ 51,847,746.00 52,072,526.88 SVPMP Ftmded tLrooBL Tippha8 Fee
00 Iesa of twmmerchl ~
51433 833.10 S3 028 132.93 S3 71 67.85 468 602.81
52,314,760.85 52,589,903.61 52,917,887.91 53,244,714.81
S3 938.43
53,424,483.60
33 98 857.24
53,600,901.87
S3 533.03
53,687,676.09
33 00 578.40 53,367 076.55
53,742,790.54 ,778,188.76
MSW T 35,88 S6, S S1 42,32 42 401 42 4? 4 42 6l • 42,6 42 7
T e
n P ~ 03 .62 7.39 32.38 1.16 5.63 8.01 50.33 3139 5233
Ort[irrWv PmieeOed Titr Fee -- _- - __- .
NM
MSW T i l6 88 16 51 15 083 12 81 12 403 1 `424 . .1445 12466 1487 12 S%
CA:D T 26400 26 2 26664 798 26932 -27066 27 1 27 38 27 474 27 612
otal Added Coat X38, 5(,053,604 51,177.L37 51,351,730 51,612,575 1,794,841 51,8%,024 1,995,541 52,045,521 52,078,019 52,099,623
onl MSW T e SS 36 028 36 242 31 4 28 4401 4 474 . 4 7 42 619 42 690 42,762
ToW CARD T 28 000 28 140 28 1 28 422 28 564 28 707 28 851 ' 995 29 l40 29 5 29 432
onl MSW+CD T e 83 883 84168 84 22 79 988 70 892 71 l08 71 25 71 1 7!,758 71976 7 194
oW Add7 Coat 51,847,746 52,072.527 ,314,761 52,589,904 52,917,888 ,244,713 53,424,484 53,600,902 33,687,676 53,742,791 53,778,189
!) The toW taunge ~ waste wanld vary accatdht8 to foresaw of wssoa 8areratleu Cates and the effecn pf the eahutced recycliu8 pro8tam;
2) the relative percenta8e of waste 8eaaated by each jtuisd~don and private haobrs would temaht constant based on tawta8e 8eoaatlea is PY 1997-98;
3) the tax base iu each jucLdictiau vril increase by 1-parent per year durio8 the forecast period; and
4) the tax cost increase to the "aven8e" hotuwvvuer hti based on a developed resideutld property which b currently assessed at 5140,000 (source: Orange Comty Tax Atseawr).
Revised: 1 I/19N8 - 3:11 PM SWMP Funding Optlons Avall_Fa &t / TaxOptloru
54,000,000 .:
13.500,000
,:
53.000,000
57.,500,000
z,
s~,oooaoo
sl,sooooo
Sl,ooo,ooo
uooooo
So
Total Revenue Needs
ltcviaed: 1 U 19/98 - 3:11 PM S WMP Funding Opdon~ AvdLFee_6u / TuOpdoat
1 1 $ 4 S .6 7 8 9 l0 11
Flscal Year o[ Analyds
--t-ToW Wvm~sRagoloam~ob -~-TaW'SWdBmd"Fad
Table 2.
8vY14>p Fhnded throa3h Tipplog Fees
ass loss o[cammercW t
1!93.99 19!!-00 2000.01 ~O1-02 2002-03 2003-04 200.03 2003 2006.07 2007-09 2008-09
MSW T e ,
Prajectcd Tip Fee MSW ;•' 660. 664. 6693 176.3 .1 593. .Ol 6102.3 •• • 116.3 Si 19. 121.3
Ti Fee 539.95 541.13 54238 543.63 544.% 31 547.7 9.13 . 50.61 32.13 33.69
LF Ti Fee 560. 564. 569.3 5763 587.1 593.63 598.01 5102.33 51163 5119. 512133
Actual Fee DifferenUd 520.08 523.48 527.00 532.72 542.20 54732 53031 533.20 563.78 566,87 567.64
ludi6ea Usinj new fadlity for
loads u Uuo:
3.44
3.03
2.71 2.30 1.84 1.69
1.64
1.60
1.33
I35 137
~3e 13,646 16,264 16,376 16,842 17,039 17,060 17,079 17,079 17,279 17,279 17,263
5939,177 SI,031,016 1,130,133 51,286,378 51,485,080 51,597,2% ~ 1,674,004 1,747,797 011, 10 ,036,217 ,094,3
Be Ladastries I.andQH Peron Count
eer !!lFa0 500 -02 2002-03 2003.04 2004.05 2005-06 2006.07 2007-Oi 2008-09
• Caleuladam ou the loo ~ overall toma3e and rm~e, and its Impact oa the tIppin3 fee assumes that waste
diverdon wUl be evenly divided betwemt these two altamative dhPonl ficllides.
Revised: l l/19/98 - 4:30 PM SWMP Fending Options Avaii_Fee
Ott / TuOptioas
~i
;.
Fee 51083609 Sl 9180 Si 433
~ 51,647746 .52,072,327 52.314.76]
.009 .34 1 .432. 1:731
E~
Table 3. .
P Fended tbroo84 Comt7 ~7 T~
133 71 68 S3 4 603 938 S3 98 837 S3 33
69.904 52,917.888 53,244.713 53.424.484 53600,902 53.687676
Revised: l l/19/98 - 3:14 PM SWMP Funding Opdoos Avail,.,Fee_Bst/TexOpUoee '
.-
~PdO~.L/TSB-~d-IP~V ~PaO ~!P~3 dWMS
INd 4[ ~£ - 86/61/1 T ~P~1~~~I
86f~' SL' £L8'81L' 999' S'Z8S' t6t' 868'Z£Z' 1SZ' rii'1B 1'6E'li 'ILO L'L T q~w.L
£zo'L9S'1s OIO'Zts'is S£6'9ZS'Ts L£9'S8f'iS 891'Zfir'Tt 089'K£'Tt L81'ZIZ'IS 8ri'9L0'1 696s 8S0'I:LSS 69Z'L8 18S
SYC80a 1~ 90£S f06 66Zs 06 88ZS 6S1.69Zs 909 £SZs G60 SZZS £9 86is LZ LLT S S 8SIS £6L Otis
SLI IZ9s 9U9 T9! OZI £09s 69T 68ts I9L £9SS t£L £Ks L6i' 681s L£f3 ZI Lb£s ZE 19a 6Za • • ~b
S00 S Is ££I Ts 06 9 Is S£i 61 TS 906 £91 Tt 089 080 Is OL- ELO ZL8S t L9Ls SO- 8L9s OZt 06
60•SOOZ 80-LOOL !0-sOOZ s0~y0pZ rO-£OpZ £0-ZOpL 7A~TOOL i0~000Z 00~666i 66~Q66T ~IPIP~p!
' vwvauvs na --u-~r-r a -~ -----Y/ r-w-~wa '
OOL'BSTS 001'OSS OOS'£Yf 006'LSs
ooooa oo•ooa ooaoa oo•ooa ooooa ~+~ ~Ta[1 pd
1£01 6ZS L91 St•1 tb1 ~I~B~S
'99zs ooo's£Is ooo'zls 'vols ooo'zls ~
•aoo zs oo'aoo zs oo•ooo ooooo •ooo • >~ ~l~n pa
££T 69 9 ZS 9 ~8
S'OZ Os Os OZS'OZS!
•sa oo•sa •sa oo•sa oo•sa >*~~tan+~d
41 fl H
'ISLS 69S'06ft " £69'8LS 19L'T8[t
'iSS 00'ISS 00'its 'ISS 'Tts ~J~l+~nr+d
L YT 6I9 6 £ 1 19t £ O p4~+9~5
I~.L
666z ~
• ~ ~
'i~tL_ a~
J
!-
i
~.
~..
-- ~Jier Dais , 1031 1 Q19 1044 1030 1053 1 Ubv i uo~ t vi t i vio i va i i ua i
ee 10,200.00 5363.709.30 17,746.34 1472,314.46 1548,51452 5636,065.88 1724,479.03 5824,467.80 5887,775.14 5919,250.81 5923,847.06
1JKBAN CURBSIDB
RURAL CURBSIDE 1342 464.22
5207 433.78 1558 820.72
1213 742.43 5633 017.12
5278443.04 51236 338
51008469.40 1 87.19.
51,119131.93 S L 68 3.51
S 1,1 l9 1.53 SI 133 638.13
5977448.60 11 OB 663.20
51 15 864.82 Sl 120 071.91
5954 11.23 S I !41 .93
1471 169.58 1 153 846.
5980 991.15
M1JLTIFAMQ,Y 5236 700.00 5243 801.73 125163450 5285 9 L20 5341014.18 1330 933.07 5359,903.7 5371 4.41 5381075.77 S3 96.01 5403 9903
' 199,009.00 5272,615.51 1272,736.44 5477,848.94 1646,834.55 1730,132.70 1736,968.00 5765,354.81 1771,074.13 5795,743.86 1826,248.61
YemeoEl~eue a 18.7596 113896 110.9096 113496 2.8896 -751'14 12.1996 •10.3596 2.29 2.0151
URBAN CUR850JB
RURAL CURBSIDE
MULTIFAMII.Y 1731026.00
' 1320 20.00
000.00
1310.200.00 1828779.28
5399 1.60
1280 696.50
1363,709 1922164.93
1679 16.24
5295 3332
1417,746.34 11031411.74
1775 663.93
1310 511.48
1472,314.46 11 13 750.69
1873 422.65
1339 .04
1548,51452 i l 17.23
1957 163.97
1368167.72
1636,065.88 11 89 733.83
11026 5835
1383 712.58
,479.03 11 11431.71
11,065,598.68
1399403.69
1824.467. 11 17 988.87
11073,590.67
1408 21.41
,775.14 S 1 24 8.81
S 1,081642.
1417 1832
1919,250.81 11 3I 201.7
S l 089,754.92
1433 85.08
923,847.06
Faant Iowene da 2. 796 11.6996 .8996 12.6696 11.2096 5.34!6 .1596 2.4196 1.4996 0.9396
Tofal Revesue retests 11083 609.00 1l 9 180.42 S 1433 3.10 13 028 132.93 i3 71 .83 i3 468 602.81 i3 938.43 i3 98 857.24 i3 6 333.03 i3 578.40 53 67 076.35
ee 11,847,746. 52,072,326.88 52,314,760.83 52,589,903.61 12,917,887.91 13,244,714.81 53,424,483.80 53,600,901.87 ,687,676.09 ;742,790.54 13,7'78,188.7
l.0ov0~lBCJC!!'CeOt~O /V.LV70 0.7.V~7Y 0.7.VL.7V L7.V77V a~.va~ ~..w,av ~.w.. ......~ ..«...~ „w.. ........
Revised: I1/19N8 - 3:11 PM
SWMP Punding ppdow
Avatl,Fee~st/TuOpdom '
' rash Z
SWMP Implementation Fundh~g Optlona, Impact on Average Homeowner
s14oo0
s12o.o0
Sloooo ,~
s6ooo
e
a
. ~ ~~
saoo
s2o.oo ~"~
so.oo
1996-99 1999-00 2000.01 2001-OZ 2U02-03: 2003-04 2004.05 200.5-06 2006-07 ?A07-08 4008-09
Fiscal Yesr of Iutpiemmtatloa ... '
-i-Tip Fee, tax equivalent (auumea lobs of tonnage)
-+-Availabllity Fee (stabilized) .
-+-County Tax Rate
-~-Ti Fee, tax 'valent. (assume no loan of to )
Av a Homeowna~ Co 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2001x03 21103-04 2004-05 2005-06 .2006-07 2007.08 ZOpg.p9
Tip Fee, ta: egnivalent (a~nmea
inns of tonna )
547.39
553.20 .
538.66
568.96
590.19
' 598.13
5102.79
5107.18
5117.12
$118.73
5119.92
AvailabW Fee (stabllized S51.00 S56.00 562.00 S69.00 577.00 583.00 585.00 586.00 586.00 586.00 586.00
Coun Ta: Rate 543.05 547.81 532.88 558.58 565.35 S71.96 S75.20 578.30 579.40 579.80 ' 579.76
p ee, ta: eq v en assume no
loss of tonnage)
522.03
524.62
527.39
S32.38
541.16
545.63
S48.01
550.33
551.39
552.00
552.33
i99s-99 1999-00 2000-01 2ooi-o2 zoo2-o3 2003-04 2oe4-os 2oos-o6 2ooc-m 2oa7-oa 2ooa-o9
Proecttd'SWMPT a 83,883 84,168 84,522 9,988 70,892 71,106 7,323 71,541 7 ,758 71,976 72,194
S T 83,883 84,302 84,724 85,147 83,573 86,001 86,431 86,863 87,297 87,734. 88,173
T e 0 133 201 3,159 14,681 14,893 15.106 13,3 15.539 1 ,738 15,979
8 PPrnB 8.00 .00 2.00. . .00 146.00 .00 50.00 32.00 .00
A HomeAatatrneet 140,000 141,400 1142,814 5144 2 5145,685 5147,141 148,613 ISO,U99 131,600 133,116 7
e Redaction 0 23 34 . 872 2,481 2 S l7 33 390 627 2664 2 701
oW SWMPSa 10 1910 . 11,429 138.371 1114,146 5120,828 5127,669 1134,669 5170,724 1178,457 1186
Bauble Tax Base 009 9 6099406 39 6190897 455 683 760 916 6 78,017 30 6 473 687 90 6 0 792904 6669 34 798 6 769 95120 6 870 93 046 6974,000087
a in Tu Rau 50. 10.00001 10.00002 10.00061 10.00179 10.00187 10.00194 10.00202 10.00232 10.00260 10.00267
A Haneowoer 50. 10.021 10.033 10.881 52.607 12.746 12.888 13.031 13.823 13.977 14.L32
~ [`~erhero ~
a Reductiau 0 13 23 591 1680 1705 l 729 1734 1779 1804 1 82
ou13WMP 1616 1967 125,983 177,294 181,820 186,432 191,192 1113,607 1120,844 126.195
Ratable Tax Bate 772100 953 783.682 467 795 437 704 807 70 819 79,809 83177 006 844 B 86 856 91 LS 869 766 000 8 81 4 8%034 677
Increase in Tax Rata 10.00000 N 10.00008 10.00012 10.00322 10.00943 50.00984 10.01024 ~ 10.01064 50.01329 10.01369 10.01408
A e Homeowner act 10.000 50.111 50.174 54.642 113.741 114.474 513218 513.973 120.150 X20.939 521.780
e Reduction 0 47 70 1784 3076 5 130 5 5 98 5 73 3449 3 525
o~aISWMPSa 10 51,862 52,922 576,498 5233,517 5247,188 5261,182 1275,504 1349,263 1365,084 1381,232
Bauble Tu Base 2 480 839 9% 2 18 032 3% 33 823 85 94 1 736 2 633 073 147 2,672 3.244 712 657,783 733,347 649 2,794 647,864 2,836,567,382 2 879 116,0%
Increae 1n Tu Rate 50.00000 10.00007 10.00011 50.00303 50.00887 50.00925 10.00%3 50.01001 50.01250 SU.01287 50.01324
A Homeowner 50.000 SO.105 50.163 14365 SI2.920 513.609 514.309 513.019 518.946 S19.707 520.478
iomce: Raubk Tax Bab per jorirdiction is snpplled by,Onmge Oounty Tu Ataeaaor
lanmpdoa growth in all ratable to bate b 1S'b per year
iourrx: Average value of individual retideruial property supplied by OraoBe County Tu Aseuor.
Reviled: 11/19/98 - 4:33 PM Avaii~ee~st /SWMP