Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Columbia County hears consultant: solid waste rates could rise to cover $5.6 million cost; fire assessment options reviewed
Summary
Consultants told the Columbia County commission the updated solid waste contract and budget would require roughly $5.6 million in assessment funding for FY27, a per-residence estimate of about $243.36 if fully funded. The board discussed notice, collection timing and options for EMS funding separately.
Consultants presented updated cost projections for Columbia County’s solid waste and fire assessments, telling the Board of County Commissioners the new solid waste contract and budget inputs would require about $5.6 million in assessment funding for FY27.
Jeff Rackley of Stantec briefed commissioners on the legal and technical framework for non-ad valorem assessments and said the solid waste update used the tax collector’s residential dwelling-unit counts (about 23,000 units) and contractual service costs to calculate per-unit rates. “Total assessment funding requirement [is] about $5.6 million,” Rackley said, and showed a FY27 per-dwelling estimate of roughly $243.36 compared with the county’s current $210.50 rate.
The consultant explained assessments must fund only the stated purpose and outlined the schedule and notice requirements if rates rise: adoption of initial resolutions in June–July, mailed notices to affected owners, a public hearing in late August or early September and submission of the roll to the tax collector by Sept. 15 for the November tax bill.
Commissioners asked about newly discovered units that are not yet on the tax roll. County staff said a new position is locating unhashed dwellings and that, practically, most assessments are collected once a year via the tax bill. Staff explained there are limited legal routes to bill mid-year — a separate bill could be sent but is often uncollectible, or the charge can be rolled onto next year’s tax bill with legal steps; staff said they would consult the county attorney and report back at the budget workshop.
Rackley also reviewed the fire assessment methodology, which allocates costs by calls-for-service and excludes EMS costs because courts treat EMS as a benefit to people rather than property. He showed residential properties account for roughly 77% of fire calls and noted agricultural properties are statutorily exempt, which reduces the assessable base. The consultant reiterated the board could adopt a maximum rate in notices to avoid repeat mailings in coming years, but cautioned higher “maximums” can alarm property owners.
The board did not adopt new rates at the meeting; members asked staff to add solid waste and fire assessment options and implementation mechanics to the upcoming budget workshop so they can weigh partial funding strategies and notice trade-offs.
The county will also further research recovery options for newly identified units and present a report on notice timing and legal alternatives before formal rate adoption. The consultant advised the county to coordinate with the county attorney on collection mechanics and with the tax collector on roll timing.
