HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-18-2010 - 1ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 18, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No. ~
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Mana ement Issues/Convenience Centers
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
December 7, 2009 Adopted Transfer
Station Motion Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management
Report -Status of Transfer Station Director, 968-2885
Motion Issues/Actions Willie Best, Assistant County Manager,
Report -Solid Waste Planning Work 245-2308
Group Convenience Center
Recommendation
PURPOSE: To present the Solid Waste Planning Work Group (Work Group) recommendation
regarding future Solid Waste Convenience Center design, operations and financing, and to
present afollow-up report on the status of issues contained in the December 2009 Transfer
Station decision motion adopted by the Board of Commissioners.
BACKGROUND:
December 2009 Transfer Station Motion
The Board of Commissioners (BOCC) adopted a motion (attachment 1) in December 2009 that
concluded the site search process for a waste transfer station that was to manage County solid
waste once the current municipal waste landfill reaches capacity. This motion included
provisions that:
• Authorized the Manager to formalize an agreement with the City of Durham for utilization
of the Durham Transfer Station for a period of 3-5 years,
• That such an agreement would extend priority to Orange County's leadership in waste
reduction and recycling,
• Directed the Manager to work with the towns on amending the 1999 Interlocal Agreement
in preparation for the shift in hauling waste to the City of Durham,
• Work with the towns in examining and reconsidering participation in the current
Interlocal Agreement's other provisions including solid waste planning,
• Directed county staff and the SWAB to develop a timeline and framework for a public
process to evaluate alternative methods of solid waste disposal, including multi-
jurisdictional options, and to return with a proposed framework no sooner than
September 2010,
2
• Authorizes no funding for consultants to pursue these matters without specific approval
of the BOCC, and
• Excludes the Millhouse Road-Rogers Road-Eubanks Road communities from future
waste facilities.
The most practical consequence of the motion was that there was no transfer station site
selected. A report is provided (attachment 2) that discusses the status of the various topics and
issues. included in the adopted motion. The Solid Waste Advisory Board is currently discussing
a recommendation with regard to the framework and timeline for evaluation of technological
alternatives to landfilling. At its October 13 meeting the SWAB endorsed a preliminary set of
recommendations to the BOCC with regard to a new Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste
Management that will be further refined and finalized as soon as possible.
Solid Waste Convenience Centers
Considerable BOCC, SWAB, Work Group and public discussion has taken place over the past
eighteen plus months with regard to the future of Solid Waste Convenience Centers (SWCC) in
Orange County. These discussions included the general role, design, operation, hours, location
and financing of these centers and were originally prompted by proposed budget reductions.
The Work Group has spent considerable time and effort examining various SWCC
improvements and financing alternatives and has received and considered substantial public
input. Both the Manager and Commissioners have indicated the importance of determining a
long-term function and form of these facilities.
The Work Group's adopted recommendation is provided in a report (attachment 3). There was
Work Group consensus that the SWCCs are a core County service and that the existing
configuration and financing structure was not likely sustainable for the long-term. Generally the
Work Group recommendation includes:
• A total of five sites (existing) and the potential for a future sixth site off of Hwy. 57
• A District/Neighborhood model whereby 2 centralized district sites are full
service/extended hour (possibly 6/days week and/or until 7pm) facilities and the 3
neighborhood sites are basic service/limited hour (4 days/week and/or until 7pm)
facilities
• Stationary compactors replacing large numbers of front-loading containers that
significantly improve the efficiency of hauling and create additional space for waste
reduction activities
• Site improvements such as paving, storm water management and improved loading
heights that improve safety, minimize site maintenance, odors and vectors
• Improved signage and education program
• Expanded recycling and waste reduction opportunities at district sites such as residential
food waste, fluorescent lamps, textiles, cooking oil, and enhanced salvage/exchange
opportunities
• Implementation of a household fee similar to or incorporated into the 3-R Fee, possibly
in conjunction with a user fee for bulky or small commercial loads; the primary objective
is to reduce or eliminate reliance on the General Fund
• A phased implementation, beginning with the northern tier (Walnut Grove and High
Rock)
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no financial impacts with regard to receiving and discussing
the attached reports.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the reports on a)
Solid Waste Convenience Centers and b) the update on issues related to the Board adopted
December 2009 transfer station motion and:
Convenience Centers
1) Provide direction or guidance to Staff with regard to the Solid Waste Planning Work
Group recommendations; and
2) Instruct the Manager on how the Board wishes to proceed on the issue of Solid Waste
Convenience Center financing and improvements.
December 2009 Transfer Station Motion
1) Instruct the Manager to continue discussions with the Towns with regard to their interest
in joining with Orange County in delivering their waste to the City of Durham Transfer
Station, at least for an interim period of 3-5 years, including development of an Interlocal
Agreement with the City of Durham for such delivery,
2) Instruct the Manager to continue discussions with the Towns on consideration of
amending the existing Interlocal Agreement, or development of a new Interlocal
Agreement, for Solid Waste Management between the Towns and Orange County, and
3) Provide direction or guidance to the Solid Waste Advisory Board and Staff with regard to
a timeline and framework for evaluation of alternative methods for solid waste disposal.
4
Attachment 1
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to approve- adopting option B- City of Durham Transfer Station:
(1) Authorize the County manager to proceed with validating an interlocal agreement
between Orange County and the City of Durham formalizing future arrangements as an
intermediate solution (3-5 years). Staff should seek in such discussions to assure to the
greatest extent possible Orange County's continued leadership in reducing solid waste
and promoting recycling.
(2) Direct County Management to begin working with the towns on amending the 1999
Interlocal Agreement as necessary with regard to the County obligation to provide solid
waste disposal facilities and formalizing waste stream flow commitments so that any
agreement with the City of Durham provides the towns and county with the best rate
possible over the course of a long term agreement.
(3) Reengage the towns as full, proactive participants in the Inter-Local Agreement and
in solid waste planning, and determine what they are willing to support, knowing
already what they oppose.
(4) Direct County staff and the Solid Waste Advisory Board to establish a discrete
timeline and framework for a public process to evaluate alternative methods for solid
waste disposal, with an emphasis on strategies that are environmentally sensitive,
socially responsible, cost-effective, and multi jurisdictional across county lines. Said
framework for evaluation to return to the Board no sooner than September 2010.
(5) No additional funding for consultants to pursue these matters shall be authorized
without explicit direction from the Board.
A friendly amendment was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by
Commissioner Hemminger:
(6) To exclude the Millhouse Road -Rogers Road-Eubanks Road communities from
any future solid waste facilities.
Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Hemminger agreed with the friendly
amendment.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1
December 7, 2009
5
Memorandum
To: Frank Clifton, County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
Attachment 2
Subject: Follow-up on December 2009 Transfer Station Resolution
Date: November 18, 2010
On December 7, 2009 the Board of Commissioners (BOCC) adopted a motion
(attachment 1) that concluded the transfer station site search process and included six
items requiring Manager/staff follow-up. The current status of these six issues is
provided below:
(1) Authorize the County manager to proceed with validating an interlocal agreement
between Orange County and the City of Durham formalizing future arrangements as an
intermediate solution (3-S years). Staff should seek in such discussions to assure to the
greatest extent possible Orange County's continued leadership in reducing solid waste
and promoting recycling.
The Manager and staff have had discussions with our City of Durham counterparts over
the period following the Board's in-county transfer station decision. The City of Durham
has agreed and acknowledged that they will welcome Orange County's waste either on an
interim basis or more permanently. Nothing is writing has been prepared or executed
pending decisions by the Towns.
The status of the Town's of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough with regard to their
commitment to delivery of waste to the City of Durham's waste transfer facility is
provided in (2) below. While there is still time for the Town's to further consider their
options given that Orange County's current landfill capacity projection has been extended
to about March-June 2013, the County may at some point have to proceed alone if
necessary.
It is my understanding that the City of Durham is still exploring both the development of
anew transfer facility on currently owned City property and major modifications to the
existing facility and decisions will unlikely be based on Orange County's delivery of
waste.
Staff will attempt to reassure continuation of Orange County's leadership in waste
reduction and recycling in discussions with the City of Durham, but it is unlikely that any
agreement with Durham can achieve the overall assurance that Orange County operated
facilities can provide in this regard.
6
(2) Direct County Management to begin working with the towns on amending the 1999
Interlocal Agreement as necessary with regard to the County obligation to provide solid
waste disposal facilities and formalizing waste stream flow commitments so that any
agreement with the City of Durham provides the towns and county with the best rate
possible over the course of a long term agreement.
The Town's and County staffs have conducted two formal meetings and have had various
informal conversations with regard to the Town's intentions in joining the County in an
interim delivery of waste to the City of Durham Transfer Station. The Town's have
apparently been exploring various alternative options in order to identify the most
agreeable solution for their needs and especially to reduce their expected increase in
transportation costs they would incur in hauling to the City of Durham.
We will continue to monitor the Town's evaluation/investigation process in order to
achieve a decision as soon as possible. It is uncertain at this point, from prior discussions
with the City of Durham, that preferential disposal rates can be obtained even if all
governments in Orange County deliver the wastes they controlled/collect to a City of
Durham facility.
(3) Reengage the towns as full, proactive participants in the Inter-Local Agreement and
in solid waste planning, and determine what they are willing to support, knowing
already what they oppose.
The SWAB is preparing to recommend anoutline/framework for a comprehensive new
Interlocal Agreement (IA) that acknowledges the County's decision to deliver its waste to
the City of Durham on an interim basis. The prospective revised IA would recommend
eliminating many of the current (IA) provisions that deal with the Greene Tract and the
transfer of employees and property from Chapel Hill to the County, proposes a new solid
waste advisory board, and a host of other elements that are further presented in an
upcoming report.
The Solid Waste Advisory Board's last two meetings have featured substantive
discussions of the future IA issues. At their October meeting the SWAB reached
consensus on a recommendation that the current IA be terminated and a new
comprehensive IA developed to address the changed conditions in local solid waste
management. The recommendation is intended to be finalized in a report to the BOCC at
the SWAB's December 8 meeting. General elements of a new IA that the SWAB has
agreed should be incorporated include:
• Financial responsibility for closure and post-closure of landfills
• Provision of storm debris management/processing
• Provision of yard waste management/processing
• Greene Tract issues, if any
• Solid waste transfer and disposal
• Local government solid waste advisory body
• Solid Waste Collection systems in Orange County, including Convenience
Centers
2
• State waste planning and plan preparation/coordination
• Provision of recycling and waste reduction services/programs
• Long-term management of solid waste enterprise fund and programs/facilities
Both the Towns and BOCC will be provided the SWAB recommendations when finalized
that will presumably stimulate discussion among the governments that may lead to an
intergovernmental process that could create a new IA.
(4) Direct County staff and the Solid Waste Advisory Board to establish a discrete
timeline and frameworkfor a public process to evaluate alternative methods for solid
waste disposal, with an emphasis on strategies that are environmentally sensitive,
socially responsible, cost-effective, and multi jurisdictional across county lines. Said
framework for evaluation to return to the Board no sooner than September 2010.
Over the past several months various interested residents, SWAB members, the Managers
office, technology vendors, entrepreneurs and speculators have made suggestions toward,
urged investigation of, forwarded information on or raised issues with regard to a number
of disparate and derivative technologies, including mostly what are considered in the
industry as "emerging technologies". The SWAB has previously sponsored speakers on
topics such as waste-to-energy and plasma arc waste management processes. Staff has
observed technology demonstrations and attended conferences and workshops where
various technologies have been discussed.
At the behest of the BOCC a preliminary evaluation of alternative (to landfilling) waste
processing technologies was undertaken by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. In
August of 2008 a White Paper was submitted that considered the county's waste stream
quantities and commitment to waste reduction.
During previous discussions in February 2008 the SWAB developed a set of
issues/questions by which the various technologies could be evaluated. These criteria
include:
• Maturity of Technology
• Public Acceptability
• Space/Buffer Needs
• Minimum Feed for Economic Viability
• Ease of Use/Level of Expertise to Operate
• County vs. Merchant
• Successful US operations
• Permittability
• Nature of feedstock needed
• Residuals-nature and amount
The November 10 SWAB meeting's primary agenda item will be a discussion of a
process and timeline to fulfill this provision of the December 2009 motion, with their
recommendations to be provided as soon as possible.
3
8
(5) No additional funding for consultants to pursue these matters shall be authorized
without explicit direction from the Board.
The array of proven and unproven technologies is considerable and growing. Research
and development of technological waste management methodologies and processes
continues across the world. While the SWAB, staff, various interested citizens and
elected officials can and do receive information with regard to various technologies, the
ability to conduct meaningful and reliable evaluation of the dozens of technologies in
various states of operation, research or development, including associated issues of
economics, applicability, permittability, markets for by-products and specific local
adaptability/suitability, etc., require a level of technical knowledge and experience that
the SWAB and staff do not have.
Based on SWAB discussions beginning in 2008 it is the general consensus that such
technologies, as a practical matter, simply can't be evaluated without technical assistance.
Recent discussions by SWAB members on the issue of development of a timeline and
framework for evaluation of technologies again reached the same conclusion. Therefore,
as part of any suggested framework and timeframe for evaluation of alternative
technologies made to the BOCC will of necessity likely include some mention of
technical assistance.
(6) To exclude the Millhouse Road -Rogers Road-Eubanks Road communities from any
future solid waste facilities.
It has been generally accepted by staff, particularly following the decision by the BOCC
that a transfer station would not be considered for existing Eubanks Road landfill
property and adjacent properties, that it would not be politically acceptable for
consideration of future new solid waste facilities. This has been understood to include
lateral landfill expansions, transfer stations, and other waste disposal related facilities.
It has also been understood that existing facilities and operations (recycling, waste
reduction and maintenance or equipment/fleet parking related) can remain and may
occasionally need to be repaired, upgraded, expanded or otherwise modified or improved.
For instance, the existing recyclables processing and transfer pad will of necessity have to
be relocated in 5-6 years as it is currently located in the Construction and Demolition
landfill footprint. It is anticipated that it would be relocated a few hundred feet east
within landfill property and perform essentially the same function as the existing facility.
Also, it is highly likely that the existing SWCC will be improved or upgraded at some
point in the future.
In order to clarify the BOCC intentions on Enterprise Fund property, we suggest,
sometime in 2011, that staff update the BOCC adopted 2001 Eubanks Road property
master plan clarify county intentions, acknowledging that future Boards may pursue other
decisions.
4
Attachrnen~' 3 9
SOLID WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECOMMEl1IDATIONS
THE PROPOSED PLAN
FOR ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE CONVENIENCE CENTERS
CORE ASSUMPTION: The Solid Waste Work Group believes that the SWCCs are a core
County service worth supporting as publicly owned and operated centers for primarily
residential waste and predominantly from unincorporated Orange County.
WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY: The Solid Waste Work Group has
followed a two-year process in considering options for the future of the solid waste
convenience centers (SWCCs) and is now providing the following recommendation to the Board
of Commissioners on their location, design, operation and funding.
1. LOCATION AND DESIGN
a. A total of 5 sites in a "District/Neighborhood" arrangement
i. Two larger District centers at existing sites (Walnut Grove and Eubanks) that
have a full package of services
ii. Three smaller Neighborhood centers at Bradshaw Quarry Road, Ferguson Road
and High Rock that have fewer services but are more convenient to rural areas
b. Design outcomes that are believed to be necessary include:
i. Efficiency improvements from compaction: Compaction of both MSW and
bulky waste in stationary compactors should be implemented as soon as
practical and no later than the close of FY 2013/14 to control SWCC
transportation costs when use of Durham Transfer Station begins
ii. Site improvements to increase diversion opportunities, improve safety,
eliminate vermin, increase efficiency and otherwise lower cost are necessary -
including paving, improved loading heights, enhanced traffic flow with multiple
lanes to speed site usage and minimize waiting times, etc.
iii. Ability to expand diversion by adding recyclable materials (at District Centers)
including at least textiles, cooking oil, residential food waste, fluorescent
lamps, and enhanced salvage/exchange opportunities
iv. Safety/ADA improvements that meet County Master Aging Plan goals
v. Improved signage at each site with locations, hours and instructions for all sites
vi. Education will be key for use of the new system and during transition
c. Design Process
i. Conceptual site drawings/photos of improved sites have been reviewed by the
Work Group and are endorsed as starting points for design process
ii. Education and citizen involvement is key in the design/approval process
iii. Tours of improved sites are recommended as part of the design process
10/27/10 ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page 1 of 8
10
SOLID WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECOMMENDATIONS
2. OPERATION
a. Goal is access to a site at least 6 or 7 days a week for both northern and southern
tiers accomplished through overlapping hours/days of access
i. Strive for simplicity and consistency in hours of access
ii. Some of these hours could extend until 7 pm in the evening
iii. Public input will be used for identifying important access hours
iv. User, as well as operator, needs will be considered in process
b. To reach this goal, priority would be given to adding days and hours of operation
from current base starting point (reduced due to budget constraints) as funding
becomes available
c. Starting point for access is:
i. District centers would be open 6 days per week
ii. Neighborhood centers would be open up to 4 days a week
d. Methodological "recurring evaluation" would be completed the year after each
phase of upgrades is completed and periodically thereafter to evaluate access and
adjust hours as needed to reach goal, to increase recycling capacity, etc.
3. FUNDING -The Work Group recommended a scenario that relies on an annual
household fee, tied, if possible, to the current 3-R Fee billing structure (aka a "4-R" fee)
to cover SWCC operation and capital requirements for upgrades with the expectation of
reduced and/or eventual elimination of General Fund support. Key features include:
a. 3-R Fee changed to incorporate SWCC operating and funding requirements
b. Enterprise fund based and use of the General Fund reduced and/or eliminated
c. Could have "level of use component"
i. Based on type of user (rural, urban, multi-family)
d. Allow charging for certain types of items/customers
i. Allow small commercial users and charge on using an account system
ii. Would be ok to charge for large hard-to-handle items (e.g. large bulkies)
RECOMMENDED PHASING AND TIMELINE
The Work Group recommends the following timing for phasing in the SWCC upgrades:
PHASE 1-NORTHERN TIER STRATEGY
• Walnut Grove SWCC fully modernized District SWCC Site by close of FY 2012/13
o Includes added materials, at grade dumping, compactors, HHW, mulch sales, paving
o Open six days a week (closed Wednesday)
10/27/10 ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page 2 of 8
11
SOLID WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECOMMENDATIONS
• High Rock SWCC is first Neighborhood SWCC Site -also by close of FY 2012/13
redevelopment in conjunction with Walnut Grove
o Limited to compacted MSW, bulkies that fit in compactor and single stream recycling.
and current SWCC TRIP materials including motor oil, filters, antifreeze, batteries,
and electronics
o Open four days a week
• Requires design and funding approval during FY 2011/12
PHASE 2 -SOUTHERN TIER STRATEGY
• Eubanks SWCC fully modernized District SWCC Site by close of FY 2013/14
o Based on lessons learned and determination of success with Walnut Grove
o Open six days a week (closed Wednesday or alternate day)
• Ferguson SWCC is second Neighborhood SWCC Site by close of FY 2013/14
• Bradshaw Quarry SWCC is third Neighborhood SWCC Site by close of FY 2013/14
• Requires design and funding approval during FY 2012/13
BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION -DECISION CRITERIA
The Work Group evaluated many different configurations and approaches both on design and
location as well as funding. Decision criteria were used to achieve consensus on the
recommended option. The final recommendation is rated at 4.26 on a scale of 1 to 5 for
Design, Location and Operation, the highest of any configuration that was examined during our
24-month process.
Table 1: Rating the Final Recommendation against Weighted Plan Goals
Neighborhood/
Weighted Criteria Weight District SWCC'
System
Develop a system that encourages recycling - - to reach 61%a waste
d 28
9% 5
00
re
uction goal . .
Promote safe and effective materials handling at home, at convenience
centers and along collection routes by residents, business owners and 18 7a/ 5
00
staff- e.g. low loading heights, closed containers, cars isolated from o .
bi trucks at SWCCs, carts instead of bins etc.
Provide more efficient cost effective operations -lower operating costs 18
6% 3
09
with investment of ca ital where re wired . .
Provide sustainable, predictable sources of funding -retain and expand
program services to reach goals and avoid cutting services during 15.2% 3.25
bud et crisis
Reduce environmental impacts of waste and recycling -air pollution, 12
6% 5
00
noise traffic carbon footprint, road wear and tear, etc. . .
Create Cost Equity -Those who use it more would pay more? 5.9% 3.00
100.0% 4.26
10/27/10 ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page 3 of 8
12
SOLID WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECOMMENDATIONS
BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION -FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
The Work Group evaluated the projected capital and expected costs and operational
efficiencies for the final recommendation. The capital and operating projections developed by
staff and consultant are the basis for the Work Group recommendation and are endorsed by
the Work Group as a starting point for moving forward.
Efficiencies and cost savings are key to the Work Group's final recommendation. The $220,805
in projected savings in hauling labor and equipment (2010 dollars) shown in Table 2 is realized
from a projected reduction of 74,000 miles each year in hauling.
These savings are in addition to $140,000 in avoided hauling costs increase that could
otherwise be expected if no changes are made to the SWCCs or hauling schedules once the
landfill closes -that will be avoided with implementation of the final recommendation.
Table 2: Final Recommendation Operating Cost Savings
(When Fully Implemented)
FUNCTION ANNUAL
SAVINGS ' DF~CRIPTION
Direct Costs
~__.
Reduced MSW and Bulk Tri s
y p
__
$
8,419
_. _
Reduced Fuel/Maint from from 74 213 fewer truck miles
labor Costr
., _ _ _
Reduced MSW/Bulky Collection Labor
__.
$
74,679
1.3 less driver FTE needed, including benefits
Reduced OCC Collection Labor
$
15,589 _.
0.3 less driver FTE needed, including benefits
Equipment Savings _ _.
_ _ _ _
Eliminate 2 Front Load Trucks
~._
$
91,826 __ _
:Eliminates 2 @ $270,550 each {$45,913 annually)
'Add 1 Hook Lift Roll-off
{29,707)' Adds 1 Hook Lift Roll-off @ 167,275 ($29,707 annually)
NET ANNUA! SAVINGS $ 220,805
This total of $360,805 in projected net savings (the $220,805 in annual savings from Table 2 and
the $140,000 in increased costs that would be avoided) justifies the $2.5 M in capital required
to move forward with the upgrades -the "business case" for the final recommendation,
providing a payback of less than 10 years and a reasonable "return on investment" for this
public service. The projected amortization is detailed in separate upgrade cost projections and
differs for equipment and site improvements at each site.
Table 3: Final Recommendation Capital Cost Projection
Lapita ost nua
Center Estimate' Amortization
Eubanks {district $1,084,949 $79,798
Walnut district $852,570 $62,581
Ferguson (nei hborhood $194,124 $12,914
High Rock (nei hborhood) $216,112 $13,924
Bradshaw neighborhood $152,414 $12,964
Total costs $2,500,168 $182,180
10/27/10 ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page 4 of 8
13
SOLID WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECOMMENDATIONS
MOVING FORWARD -THE ENTERPRISE FUND AND A HOUSEHOLD FEE
In arriving at its final recommendation, the Work Group considered different funding
approaches and has recommended reliance on an annual household fee, tied, if possible, to the
current 3-R Fee billing structure (aka a "4-R" fee) that would cover SWCC operation and capital
requirements for upgrades integrated into the current Enterprise Fund approach.
The recommendation includes moving towards complete independence from the General Fund
(GF) -either immediately (as shown in Table 4 below) or over amulti-year transition period
(shown in Table 6 below). Notes on each of the line items in these two tables are provided
below as well. The primary difference between the two is the amount of funding sourced from
the recommended per household fee.
Table 4 shows the 7-Year Enterprise Fund forecast for the SWCC system with no General Fund
contribution at all -starting in year 1. The bottom line shows the potential drop in General
Fund support achieved for each year, with current year GF support as the baseline, and then
the GF support drop shown cumulatively over the 7-year period.
Table 4: 7-Year Enterprise Fund Forecast for Final Recommendation
with No Ge~aeral Fund Support - GFEliminated in Year 1
Sanitatom
FY 2011/12 Sanitation
FY 2012!13 Sanitation
FY 2013114 Sanitation
FY 2014115 5anltation'
FY 201511& Sanitation
FY 2016f17 Sanitafion
FY 20171 8 Note
s
Targeted Expenses
-Operating $2,160,312 $2,323,518 $2,427,569 $2,514,388 $2,578,063 $2,655,405 $2,735,067 #1
-New Capital Debt Retirement $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 #2
Expenses Total $2,524,673 $2,687,878 $2,791,929 $2,878,748 $2,942,424 $3,019,766 $3,099,428
Targeted Revenues
-Current 3-R Fee $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 #3
-Fixed General Fund Obligation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #4
-Household SWCC Fee $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $2,750,000 $2,750,000 #5
-Account-Fees (Commercial) $0 $22,500 $33,750 $59,063 $103,359 $118,863 $136,693 #6
Revenue Total $2,661,000 $2,683,500 $2,894,750 $2,920,063 $2,964,359 $3,129,863 $3,147,693
NET SURPLUSI(DEFICIT) $136,327 ($4,378) $102,821 $41,314. $21,936 $110,098 $48,265 #7
CUMULATIVE FUND BALANCE $136,327 $131,949. $234,770 $276,084 $298,020 $408,117 $456,382 #8
POTENTIAL GF TAX DROP $2,160,000 $2,160,000 $2,160,000 $2,160,000 $2,160,000 $2,160,000 $2,160,000 ' #9
CUMULATIVE GF TAX DROP- $2,160,000 $4,320,000 $6,480,000 $8,640,000 $10,800,000 $12.960,000 $15,120,000 #10
Table 5 shows the 7-Year Enterprise Fund household fee required for the SWCC system when
there is no General Fund contribution at all -starting in year 1. Two types of fee estimates are
shown - a flat fee as well as a tiered fee. The flat fee shows the Household SWCC revenue
requirement from Table 4 allocated equally to all 54,150 residential parcels. The fee increases
in three steps as the required funding increases over the 7-year period. The tiered fee shows
the same revenue requirement allocated proportionally among rural single-family dwellings,
urban single family and multi-family parcels according to an estimated intensity of SWCC use.
Again with step increases each two-year period as the General Fund contribution is eliminated.
10/27/10 ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page S of 8
14
SOLtD WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 5: 7-Year Enterprise Fund Household Fee Required for Final Recommendation
with No General Fund Support - GFEliminated in Year 1
Fl'2011112 ~?012113 F't'2013114 FY2014115~ FY2015/16 FY~2016117 FY 2017718
Flat Fee
Flat Fee -all Households $44 $44 $48 $48 $48 $51 $51
Tiered Fee
Tiered Fee -Rural $79 $79 $86 $86 $86 $91 $91
Tiered Fee -Urban $35 $35 $38 $38 $38 $40 $40
Tiered Fee -Multi Family $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7
Table 6 shows the 7-Year Enterprise Fund forecast for the SWCC system with General Fund
support phased out by the close of the sixth year. Years 1 and 2 have $1,200,000 in GF support,
declining to $800,000 in years 3 and 4, $400,000 in years 5 and 6 and zero GF support in Year 7
and after. Again, the bottom line shows the potential drop in General Fund support each year
and cumulatively over the 7-year period.
Table 6: 7-Year Enterprise Fund Forecast for• Final Recommendation
with General Fund Support Phased Out over 6-Year Period
Sanitation
FY 2011112 Sanitaton
FY 2012113. Sanitation
FY 2-013/14 Sanitation
F1' 2014115 Sanitation ~
~' X015116 Sanitation
Fl' 2016/17 Sanitation
Fl' 2017118 Note
s
Targeted Expenses.
-Operating $2,160,312 $2,323,518 $2,427,569 $2,514,388 $2,578,063 $2,655,405 $2,735,067 #1
-New Capital Debt Retirement $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 #2
Expenses Total $2,524,673 $2,687,878 $2,.791,929 $2,878,748 $2,942,424 $3,019,766 $3,099,428
Targeted Revenues
- Cun-ent 3-R Fee $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 #3
-Fixed General Fund Obligation $1,200,000 $1.,200,000 $800,000 $800,000 $400,000 $400,000 $0 #4
-Household SWCC Fee $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,800,000 $1,80Q,000 $2,200,000 $2,200,000 $2,750,000 #5
-Account-Fees (Commercial) $0 $22,500 $33,750 $59,063 $103,359 $118,863 $136,693 #6
Revenue Total. $2,661,000 $2,683,500 $2,894,750 $2,920,063 $2,964,359 $2,979,863 $3,147,693
NET SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $136,327 {$4,378) $102,821 ' $41,314 $21,936 > ($39,902) $48,265 #7
CUMULATIVE FUND BALANCE $136,327 .$131,949 $234,770.- $276,084 $298,020 $258,117 $306,382, #8
POTENTIAL GF TAX DROP $960,000 $960,000 $1,360,000 $1,360,000 $1,760,000 $1,760,000 $2,160,000 #g
CUMULATIVE GF TAX DROP. $960,000 $1,920,000. $3,280,000 $4,640,000 $6,400,000 $8,160,000 $10,320,000 #10
Table 7 shows the 7-Year Enterprise Fund household fee required for the SWCC system when
the General Fund support is phased out by the seventh year. Again, two types of fee estimates
are shown - a flat fee as well as a tiered fee. The flat fee shows the Household SWCC revenue
requirement from Table 4 allocated to all 54,150 residential parcels. The fee increases in three
steps as the required funding increases over the 7-year period. The tiered fee shows the same
revenue requirement allocated proportionally to rural, urban and multi-family parcels, again
with step increases each two-year period as the General Fund contribution is eliminated. In
both the flat and tiered fee, estimates are initially lower in this "GF support phase out" strategy,
but eventually reach the same level in year 7 as the earlier "no GF support" strategy.
10/27/10 ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page 6 of 8
15
SOLID WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECOMNtENDATlONS
Table 7: 7-Year Enterprise Fund Household Fee Required for Final Recommendation
with General Fund Support Phased Out over 6-Year Period
FY 2011112 FY 2012113 >='f 2013!14 F'l 2014195 ~' 2015116 FY 2fl16117 FX 209 N18
Flat Fee
Flat Fee -all Households $22 $22 $33 $33 $41 $41 $51
Flat Fee
Tiered Fee -Rural $38 $38 $59 $59 $72 $72 $91
Tiered Fee -Urban $17 $17 $26 $26 $32 $32 $40
Tiered Fee -Multi Family $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7
The following notes #1 through #10 provide background on the line items and numbered note
references shown in the 7-Year Enterprise Fund forecast in both scenarios.
1. Operating costs that incorporate the savings projected for the more efficient sites are
shown, building from a baseline direct cost structure in FY 2010 of $1,793,609 increased at
3% per year, plus the Sanitation Division's allocation of environmental services
administrative charges (currently funded only by the landfill and 3-R programs) to arrive at
the $2,016,312 identified in the FY 2011/12 expense line item in Table 4 and Table 6.
2. Capital debt retirement for the SWCC upgrades that is assumed to be the annualized
amortization of capital for the Neighborhood/District SWCC System financed over 10 years
@ 5% ($323,751) plus amortization for replacement of existing SWCC capital (Sanitation
Division rolling stock amortization estimated at $40,600).
3. The 3-R Fee Contribution is pro-rated based on the portion of each SWCC site used for
recycling. That has been fixed at $261,000 each year, though it could increase based on the
square footage at the SWCCs that's taken up by recycling activities including wood, metal,
etc, in addition to the conventional recyclables.
4. The General Fund contribution is assumed to be eliminated effective year 1 in Table 4 and
phased out over six years as shown in Table 6.
5. The Proposed Household Fee, discussed as part of an expanded 3-R Fee, is calculated based
on required funds, shown in Tables 5 and 7 as both flat fees across all parcels or pro-rated in
a tiered structure to the different sectors as a function of frequency of use.
6. The Account-Based Fees would come from fees charged to small commercial and
institutional users that would now be allowed to use the larger District sites -with an
assumption of 15,000 uses and a $10 net revenue (over costs) for each use of the service,
Use is projected to escalate 20% per year as these small haulers learn how to use the site
after the landfill closes and the Durham Transfer Station is the next nearest disposal site.
7. The Net Surplus/(Deficit) shows revenues minus costs for that year -indicating whether the
Enterprise Fund has covered its obligations for that year or would need to draw on
cumulative Enterprise Fund reserves if a deficit is shown.
8. The Cumulative Net Surplus/(Deficit) shows any build up of reserve in the Enterprise Fund
generated from the SWCC program, funds which serve as a contingency should a deficit
result in any one year.
10/27/10 ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page 7 of 8
16
SOLID WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECOMMENDATIONS
9. The Potential General Fund Tax Drop shows the amount of General Fund support that
previously would have gone to SWCC funding ($2,160,000 in the current fiscal year) that
would be freed up if the recommendation is implemented as shown in that scenario.
10. The Cumulative Potential General Fund Tax Drop shows the total amount, accumulated over
the multi-year period of these General Fund tax dollars that would no longer be spent on
the SWCC system if the recommendation is implemented as shown in that scenario.
The forecast shows a sustainable fee based SWCC system operating within the Solid Waste
Enterprise Fund structure, with no General Fund contribution. This approach, recommended by
the Work Group, would allow the SWCC system to be operated in a way that meets the primary
core objective that the Work Group identified -that the SWCCs are a core County service worth
supporting as publicly owned and operated centers primarily for residential waste,
predominantly from unincorporated Orange County with some small commercial user waste.
10/27/10 ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page 8 of 8