5/23/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Boa 76 Fa.,E91 was created because of the closure costs associated with Phase I. We should have made some type of allocation to provide for this in other years, but no one really anticipated that the DER would change their rules to mandate all the things that are now required. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know, in regard to the SWDD, why the coverages shown for the Sanitary Landfill on Table 10, Page 165 of the Statistical Section, are so high, and Mr. Fry advised that we backed out the one-time charge for the closure cost; we were attempting to make it so that coverage from year to year was comparable. Commissioner Scurlock continued to question the coverages shown which range during the 10 year period from 1.42 to 3.73 and then in 1987 and 1988 up to 5.83 and 5.28. He believed we are only required to have a coverage of 1.25 and felt the lay person would be asking why we have 5 times the coverage that is required. Finance Director Fry explained that what has happened is that we have been able to hold the expenses at a relatively stable level, but with the growth of the county and the addi- tional usage of the Landfill, we wound up with much larger revenues than we anticipated. Commissioner Scurlock felt, in -that case, the question from the public will be why then are we looking for a significant increase in our Landfill fees. Mr. Fry believed one of the things that possibly is misleading on the debt coverage is that it does not take into consideration the other restrictions that funds have to be set aside for. The Board has to look not only at what your coverage is for your debt service, but also must provide funds for Renewal & Replacement of assets that are in place, and on the Landfill the closure costs that are involved. County Attorney Vitunac asked if Mr. Fry was saying that if you put the closure costs of Cell I in this year, the coverage 36 r _I