Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Regional solid-waste authority explains fee formula, flags shared costs

Regional Services and Team Portion · April 2, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff explained that solid-waste administrative fees are assessed as a percentage of tonnage using six months of data to project the remaining year; counties with higher tonnage pay larger shares, and landfill and convenience-site costs are combined on one invoice.

At a regional services meeting, staff described how the regional solid-waste authority calculates budgets and allocates costs across participating counties. A staff member said the authority uses the first six months of tonnage to forecast the rest of the year and sets an administrative fee as a percentage of that tonnage, meaning higher-tonnage counties carry larger fees.

"I look at 6 months worth of tonnage and predict out the remaining 6 months for the year," the staff member said, explaining the basic projection method that feeds the authority's budget and invoice structure. The legal budget sheet included with the packet separates landfill and convenience-site budgets and shows which expense lines are split among counties and which are charged to a single county.

Agency officials noted the three counties that joined to work on site improvements this year and said those costs were reflected in the packet. Officials also said the plan presented includes an indexing assumption of about 2 to 2.5% per year through "fiscal year 33" as shown in the materials provided to boards.

The group discussed operational details that affect costs, including service-hour differences among counties (for example, remaining open during daylight-saving shifts) and a recent move toward enterprise vehicle leasing as a cost-saving approach. Board members were told vehicle replacements and related leasing plans are built into the proposed budget, and that adoption of uniform service days would be a board decision.

No formal motions or votes on the budget items were recorded in the transcript; presenters asked county representatives to review the packet and noted they had already submitted letters earlier in the year.