|
|
|
|
Supes' trash talking likely to lead to fee hikes |
|
|
Thursday, 27 September 2007 |
|
By Jon Klusmire
Register Staff 9-25-2007
After exhaustive research into the cost to provide garbage and trash service to southeast Inyo County, the Board of Supervisors came to the realization that no one in Inyo County is paying enough to keep the county dumps running in top form.
That situation will probably change in the future as the county ponders how to get a little more cash out of every trash-generating county resident.
Current dump fees and dedicated tax revenue are not adequate to cover ongoing operations, and the county is facing a huge bill to complete mandated improvement projects at its dumps.
That revelation created dual decisions by the board.
The county will continue, for the time being, its long-standing practice of providing free garbage service to the small communities south of Lone Pine, from Keeler to Tecopa.
But sometime in the future, all county residents, from Bishop toDeath Valley Junction, should be prepared to pay more than they do now to keep the county dumps from draining the county treasury.
The Integrated Waste Management program ended 2006-07 with about a $100,000 operating deficit which had to be covered with General Fund money, “and that’s a definite problem,” said Fourth District Supervisor Jim Bilyeu.
The Integrated Waste program is not a General Fund program, thus it is set up to cover its own costs. The dumps are funded by a county-wide sales tax dedicated solely to the Solid Waste program and fees paid by residents and commercial waste haulers.
Bilyeu suggested the county undertake a “complete evaluation and analysis” of the Integrated Waste department’s fee and cost structure before making an isolated effort to get some money for trash services from residents of Southeast Inyo.
“I don’t particularly feel we’re charging the correct amount at our other facilities,” Bilyeu said.
While residents of those communities were relieved they would not be losing free use of transfer stations and free garbage pickup service in the immediate future, it was made clear that changes are going to be made in the long term.
Citing the hundreds of thousands of dollars in “unmet needs” pointed out by the state to the county when it comes to the county’s dumps, Second District Supervisor Susan Cash said the state and the county “are headed for a collision in the future.” The board was informed during budget hearings that, at a bare minimum, the county needed to complete about $200,000 worth of projects at various dumps to bring them into compliance with state law. None of those projects were funded.
For 2007-08, the county will spend about $2.1 million to operate its dumps and transfer stations. That figure does not include any of the state-suggested capital improvement projects.
To fund those capital improvements and erase the operating deficit, “at some point there is going to be an increase in fees,” said Cash, and that fee hike “will not just occur along the 395 corridor. It’s going to be countywide.”
First District Supervisor Linda Arcularius was more direct: the county will have to raise dump fees or continue to put off the state-mandated capital improvement projects.
“It’s time to look at the Solid Waste program,” she agreed.
No supervisor had any suggestions about the shape or possible form of any future fee hikes at the dumps.
Currently, the county only generates $484,000 in gate fees from dumps from Lone Pine to Bishop.
Residents currently pay a $2 gate fee at county dumps, and additional fees for specific trash. The gate fees paid by individuals only generate about $120,000 a year, or about 25 percent of the fee revenue collected at the dumps.
Thus, simply raising the $2 gate fee at county dumps won’t generate enough money to cover the list of needed projects. A $1 hike in the gate fee will generate only about $60,000 a year, according to figures compiled by Chuck Hamilton, deputy county administrator and manager of Integrated Waste Management.
Commercial waste haulers have seen their fees increase, too, and those increased dump fees were passed on to their customers.
There is a huge difference in the cost to provide dump services in the north and south ends of the county. But on a per capita basis, the county “subsidizes” trash service at the same rate throughout the county.
It costs about $203,000 for trash work for the 2,000 residents in the southern parts of the county, or a cost of $101 a person.
In the north, dump operations cost about $2.1 million to provide service for about 16,000 people. Deduct the $484,000 in fees and the per capita “subsidy” is about $90 per person.
Trying to recoup some of the county’s $203,000 cost to provide free trash service to its small desert communities would require a new government mechanism or simply handing over the whole operation to the private sector.
One way to create a mechanism to collect trash money would be establishing a Community Service District (CSD), expanding a current CSD, or creating a County Services Area (CSA) in each community. Then those elected bodies could determine how much to charge for various levels of trash service.
However, as Sherry Cosgrove of Darwin noted, running a CSD in “little, tiny communities” can be “difficult.” She and several of her neighbors said they wouldn’t mind paying for their trash service.
The problem, though, is there is no mechanism in place to charge residents for trash service.
Hiring county employees to man transfer stations would cost about $105,000 a year, and generate only about $5,000-$10,000 in fees. (Building the three necessary transfer stations would cost $180,000.)
The other option would be to pull the county bins and dumpsters, close down the transfer stations and have commercial trash pickup be the only garbage option. Costs for such “street-side pickup” would be about the same as charged in Bishop, if not a bit less.
The supervisors will go ahead with a planned community meeting on the trash issue, scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 4, starting at 5 p.m. at Stovepipe Wells.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 14 November 2007 )
|
|
|
|
