HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-22-2011 - 3ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
• ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 22, 2011
Action Agenda
Item No. 3
SUBJECT• Solid Waste Convenience Center Improvements Proposal
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Agenda Item from November 18,
2011 Work Session
2. Revised Financial Analysis Report
including Financial Forecast
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gayle Wilson, 968-2885
Willie Best, 245- 2308
PURPOSE: To present the Solid Waste Planning Work Group recommendation regarding
• future Solid Waste Convenience Center design, operations, and financing, revised per guidance
provided by the Board at the November 2010 Work Session.
BACKGROUND: As part of the Work Group's efforts related to development of a State required
3-Year solid Waste Plan Update, the issue of convenience centers figured prominently. The
Work Group discussed in considerable detail the issues of the general role of these centers in
the county looking forward, and associated .issues of design, operation, hours, location and
financing. Residents were provided opportunities to offer input and numerous comments and
suggestions were considered throughout the Work Group's deliberations. The resulting
recommendations were presented to the Board of Commissioners and are provided in the
attached November 18 Agenda Report.
The Work Group recommendation included:
• A total of 5 sites in a "District/Neighborhood" arrangement
o Two larger District centers at Walnut Grove and Eubanks that contain a full
complement of services including addition of hazardous waste collection at Walnut
Grove site
o Three smaller Neighborhood centers at Bradshaw Quarry, Ferguson and High
Rock that have fewer services
• Design outcomes that include:
o Efficiency improvements from compaction
o Site improvements to increase diversion opportunities, improve safety, eliminate
• vermin, increase efficiency, reduce maintenance
o Addition of new recycling materials and improved salvage sheds
o Safety/ADA improvements
• Operations that include:
2 .
o District Centers open six days/week, including Sunday afternoon
o Neighborhood Centers open four days/week
o Enabling very small commercial or institutional users to gain access to the site for •
a fee.
Funding:
o Implement 3-R Fee type annual household solid waste financing fee similar to or
incorporated with the existing 3-R fee (creating a potential `4-R Fee' funding
mechanism)
o Gradual reduction in general fund financing of Center operations
Phasing of Center Upgrades:
o Walnut Grove - FY 11/12
o High, Rock - FY 12/13
o Eubanks - FY 13/14
o Ferguson - FY 14/15
o Bradshaw - 15/16
These recommendations also included estimated costs of improvements, phasing plan and
revenue options. At the November 2010 BOCC Work Session the Board provided guidance to
staff that was understood to include:
• If this recommendation is to go forward, an education plan would need to be developed
for the public, especially with regard to the annual household fee
• Prefer a tiered approach whereby the rural, urban and multi-family sectors are assessed
different amounts based roughly on anticipated sector usage
• Prefer a phased implementation approach for the annual fee that began at a lower
amount and escalated over time, but not with the objective of totally replacing general •
fund financing of the SWCCs in the foreseeable future
• Interest in expanding proposed hours of operation
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no financial impacts with regard to receiving and discussing
the attached reports.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board provide further direction
or guidance to Staff with regard to the revised recommendations and instruct the Manager on
if/how the Board wishes to proceed with regard to incorporating these recommendations into
the Fiscal 2011/12 budget process.
•
Attachment 1
•
Agenda Item from
November 18, 2010
ORANGE COUNTYWork Session
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 18, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No. ,~
•
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management issues/Convenience Centers
DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
December 7, 2009 Adopted Transfer
Station Motion
Report -- Status ofi Transfer Station
Motion Issues/Actions
Report -- Solid Waste Planning Work
Group Convenience Center
Recommendation
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management
Direc#or, 968-2885
WiAie Best, Assistant County Manager,
245-230$
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 a follow 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 (B4CC) 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 #o 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 provisians including solid waste planning,
• Directed county staff and the SWAB to develop a timeline and framework far a public
process to evaluate alternative methods of solid waste disposal, including multi-
jurisdictional options, and to return with a proposed firamework no sooner than
September 2010,
3
4
• Authorizes no funding for consultants to pursue these matters without specific approval
of the BOCC, and •
• Excludes the Miphouse 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 landfilfing. At its October 73 meeting the SWAB endorsed a preliminary se# of
recommendations to the BOCC with regard to a new Interiocal Agreement for Solid Was#e
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
Fong-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%xtended hour (possibly 6/days week and/or unfit 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 resid
ti
l
en
a
food waste, fluorescent lamps, textiles, cooking oil, and enhanced salvagelexchange
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 smap 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)
•
5
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 Ci#y 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 Inter{ocal 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 evacuation of alternative methods for solid waste disposal.
U
6
•
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-S years). Staff should seek in such discussions to assure to the
Brea#est extent possible Orange County's continued leadership in reducing solid waste
and promoting recycling.
(2) Direct County Managemen# to begin working with the towns on amending the 1999
Interlocal Agreemen# 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 tha best rate
possible over the course of a long term agreement.
(3) Reengage the towns as full, proactive participants in the Inter-t_ocal Agreement and
in solid waste planning, and determine what they are willing to support, knowing
already wha# 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 na 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 communiftes from
any future solid waste facilities.
Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Hemminger agreed wifh the friendly
amendment.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1
December 7, 2009
•
Memorandum
To: Frank Clifton, County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
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 Managerlstaff follow up. The current status of these six issues is
provided below:
(1) fluthorize the County rlaa~zager to proceed with validating afz ir7terlocal agreement
betss~een Orange County and the City of Durizan~ forr~ializing future arraf~ge~izents as an
intermediate solution (3-S years). Staff should seek in such discussions to assure to the
greatest extent possible Orange Cou~~ty's contir:ued leadership in reducing solid ~t>aste
and pronYOti~zg recycling.
• The Manager and staff have had discussions with our City of Durham counterparts aver
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 {,Z) 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.
8
(2) Direct County Management to begin tvorki~zg i~~ith the towns on amending the 1999 •
Interlocal Agreenrer~t as necessary tivith regard to the County obligation to provide solid
Z~~aste disposal facilities and formalizing it~aste sheam flow commitments so that any
agree~srent i~~ith-the City of Durham provides the towns and county lvitls the best rate
possible oves• tlxe course of a to~rg ter7~t ag,•ee~saent.
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/investigationprncess in order #o
achieve a decision as soon as possible. It is uncertain at this point, from prior discussions
with the City of Durham, that preferential disposal ra#es can be obtained even if all
governments in Orange County deliver the wastes they controiled/collect to a City of
Durham facility.
(3) Reengage the to3~~ns as full, proactive participants in the Inter-Local Agreement and
in solid waste planning, and determine ~+~h~at they are ~s~illi~tg to support, Inzowi~zg
already ti~~hat they oppose.
The SWAB is preparing to recommend an outline/framework for a comprehensive new •
Interlocal Agreement (IA) that acknowledges the County's decision to deliver its waste to
the City of Durham on ~n 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 can ent 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 lA 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 managementlprocessing
• 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 •
9
• • State waste planning and plan preparationlcoordination
• Provision of recycling and waste reduction servicesJprograms
• 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 a»d the Solid If'aste Advisory Board to establish a discrete
timeline andfranreivorkfor apublicprocess to evaluate atternative »aethods for solid
ia~aste disposal, ~~~ith an emphasis on sh•ategies that are environmentally sensitive,
socially responsible, cost-effective, a»d multi jurisdictional across county lij~es. Said
fiameworkfor evaluationz 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 Iandfilling) waste
processing technologies was undertaken by Geishman, Brickner & Bratton, Ina 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
issueslquestions bywhich the various technologies could be evaluated. These criteria
include:
• Maturity of Technology
• Public Acceptability
• Space/Buffer Needs
• Minimum Feed for Economic Viability
• Ease of UselLevel of Expertise to Operate
• County vs. Merchant
• Suceessfu! US operations
• Permittability
• Nature of feedstock needed
• Residuals-nature and amount
The November 10 SWAB meeting's primary agenda item wi11 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.
•
10
(S) IVo additional fu~uling for co~~sultants to pursue these ~r~atters shall be authorized •
~t~ithout explicit directio~z, 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, pernuttability, markets for by-products and specific local
adaptability/suitability, etc., require a level of technical knowledge and experience that
the S WAB 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 1Llillhouse Road Rogers Road-Eubanks Road communities from ar7y
future solid it~aste 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 xecyclables 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 staffupdate the BOCC adopted 2001 Eubanks Road property
master plan clarify county intentions, acknowledging that future Boards may pursue other
decisions.
•
11
SOLID WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECOMMENDAT101VS
•
THE PROPOSED PLAN
FOR ORANGE COUNTYSDLID 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
foifawed 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. ~.OCATION 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 safiety,
eliminate vermin, increase efficiency and otherwise lower cost are necessary -
including paving, improved loading heights, enhanced traffic flaw with multiple
lanes to speed site usage and minimize waiting times, etc.
iii. Ability to expand diversion by adding recyclable materials (at District Centers]
inclciding at least textiles, cooking oil, residential food waste, fluorescent
lamps, and enhanced salvage/exchange opportunities
iv. SafetyJADA improvements that meet County Master Aging Plan goals
v. Improved signage at each site with locations, hours and instructions far all sites
vi. Education wilt 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
•
IO/27/10 ORANfE COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page 1 of 8
12
SOLID WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECONIMENI~ATIONS •
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 ofi access
ii. Some of these hours could extend until 7 pm in the evening
iii. Public }nput wil! 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. FUiUD1NG -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 "4R" feej
to cover SWCC operation and capital requirements for upgrades with the expectation ofi
reduced and/or eventual efim}nation of General Fund support. Key feafiures inctude:
a. 3-lt 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. AIJow 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, atgrade dumping, compactors, HHW, mulch sales, paving
o C-pen six days a week (c}osed Wednesday)
•
10/27/IO ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page 2 of 8
13
SOLID WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECOMMENDATIONS
• Hi h Rock SWCC is first
g Neighborhood SWCC Slte -also by close of FY 2012/13
redevelopment in conjunction with Walnut Grove
o Limited to compacted MSW, bulkies that #it 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
• Requ€res 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.
-<a.-
si'r
?s
Y;~
~w:_,:_::,r
~~
_==-~~~z::. ~ :,~~,._•.{sa=R
:i~
,__~~
'
`
;a
-` r n~~._~ f3~s11~O~I]OO.~Ia
~.
~
.
,
_
.
..;
,«
~
~
,
_
_
_
~{ y
V1/Bi l~tei~'_C\L~~. ..._~-:y~-:~~ ?:=1~4 ~~:T: ''~~^ ~M ~
9~
4'1a ~_:.~_1r~ ~=
•
~
~ :~-
:~
~
~ w',T..'}~-iti-`ern'
_
~W~1Q~ hi _
'l
t+S Jxt:.+
Y<~-•~;'!. ..yy-?__. ^-{
<P s#richSif~i:CC•
_ :;
_ _..
_-
.
,.,..
.~
:-
:.~
~x
f
-~i'+
___ -
.-i'~.^
r
~~._
4.-
ar
si-~= ?:
=i
=
`
'
is
i~
inn='~
: % -
.
:
.
.:
-=
~,
_,
,
::
L;
,.-.
.;.;ryc
~
.
ii.
~::~i
a.~i .
-
~
..:~..~.. ~
~
~.
~..
.
: s Vim;,
Develop a system that encourages recycling - - to reach 61'Y6 waste
reduction goal _ 28.9% 5.00
Promote safe and effective materials handling at home, at convenience
centers and along collection routes by residents, business owners and
staff- e.g. low loading heights, closed containers, Cars isolated from 18.7°/a 5.00
b1 trucks at SWCCs carts Instead of bins etc,
Provide more effldent cost effective operations -lower operating costs '
with irnestment of ca ftal where re ufred 18.6% 3.09
Provide sustainable, predictable sources of funding -retain and expand
program seMces to reach goals and avoid cutting services during 15.2% 3.25
bud et crisis
Reduce environmental impacts of waste and recycling -air paftuilon,
noise traffic carbon foo rln road wear and tear eic. 12.6% 5.00
Create Cost Equity -Those who use it more would pay morel 5.9a/o 3.00
100.0°/a 4.26
~J
10j27/10 ORANGE COUNTY SOLlD WASTE Page 3 of 8
Table 1: Rating the Final Recommelydatfon agaiirst Tf~e9g7ited Plm: Goals
14
SOLlD WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECOMMEIUDATIONS
•
BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION - FlNANClAt PERFORMANCE
The Work Group evaluated the projected capital and expected costs and operational
efficiencies for the final recommendation. The capita! 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 mites 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 wilt be avoided with implementation of the final recommendation.
Table 2: Final Recommendation Operating Cost Savings
(f3'lrenFullylnrplemented) .
Direct Costs ! i
:Reduced M_ SW and Bulky Trips
.. ~ $ 58,419 ;Reduced Fuel/Maint from from 74 213 fewer truck miles
Labor Costs
-.- i• _
i ._....- --. -. .
:Reduced MSW/Bulky Collection Labor ; $ 74,679 ;1.3 less driver FTE needed, Including benefits
Reduced OCC Collection
Labor ; $ 15
,
5
89 0.3 less driver FTE needed, including benefits
_
_
EqufpmentSavings ~ ~ ~ j _
_
.
~~
_..... _ ._... _... -
'Eliminate 2 Front Load Trucks __.._.._
~ $ _ ,.... ._ ....i .... y~... ....
91,826 'Eliminates 2 @ $270,550 each $45,913
annual)
Add 1 Hook Lift Roil-off
' $ .
__
(29,707t'•Adds i Hook Lift Roll-off @ 167,275 ($29,707 annually)
NETANiVUALSAVINGS ~ $ 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 fn separate upgrade cost projections and
differs for equipment and site improvements at each site.
Table 3: Final Recommendatforr Capital Cost Projectfor:
.,~; ._..
. . __,.
_Geh {~-.:'=~~~ `,~s math>.~P:~<w _r:A. brtizattnn~".~
Eubanks (dis#rict $1,084,949 $79,798
Walnut (district $852,570 $62,581
Fe uson nei hborhood 194,124 $12,914
Hi h Rock nei hborhood $216,112 13,924
Bradshaw nei hborhood $152,414 12,964
Total costs $2,500,168 $182.180
•
10/27/10 ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page 4 of 8
15
•
SOLlD WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECONIlVIENDATJONS
MOVING FORWARD--THE ENTERPRISE FUND AND A HOUSEHOLD FEE
!n 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
(G F) -either immediately (as shown in Table 4 below) or over amulti-year transition period
(shown in Table 6 below). Notes on each of the sine 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 Enter prise Fund Forecast for Final Recommendation
zt~itlt No General Fund Support - GF Elirniuated in Year I
•
_-- _.-;, =-a- _ - -
-
~:.
..<~ :=~'
- Y1k~i Z:` - - -__
.;~•_ "~<?~,:.;_ - ==;:«~~
.._-.~..__~:<... .;.... ..Saiii_ta_tlo =
_
_
~1~'2~ it
.~-.•<~91:~:j~; ~.Sarti#~tidn=
-
~?! 3`
Y~Of. ~Santta 4~
:
0 317
.:~ 4' ~~aailaitoti::
-
_20t :1
~I ~ _r,Sa tatibri=
-
F'Y•L0~ 16
.1'51,^, <.Sa hation~~
x:20 B[17'-_
.Y i =:Sanitatia`
~., U1fJ18 . ote'
-
~-§ <%
Targeted Expenses ~ '
-Operating $2,iS0,312 $2,323,518 $2,427,569 $2,514,388 $2,578,063 $2,658,405 $2,735,067 #1
- New Gapltal 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 $2.791,928 $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 $281,000 $261,000 $261,000 #3
- Pixed 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-Peas (Commercial) $0 $22,500 $33,750 $59,063 $103,359 $118,863 $13fi,S93 #&
RavenueTotal $2,661,000 $2,683,500 $2,894,750 $2,920,063 $2,964,359 $3,129,863 $3,147,683
NET SURPLUS/(DEFtCITj • $136,327 {$4,378) $102,821 $41,314 $21,936 $110,098 $48,265 #7.
CUMULATIVE FUND BALANCE $136,327 $131,349 $234,770 $276,084 $298,020 $408,117 $456,362 #8
POTENT#AL GF TAX DROP 52,168,000 $2,160,000 $2,16D,000 $2.160,000 $2,160,080 52,160,000 52,160,D00 #9
CUMULATIVE GF TAX DROP $2,16D,000 $4,320,OD0 $6,480,000 $8,64D,000 $10,800,000 512,960,080 $15,12D,DOD #10
Table 5 shows the 7-Year Enterprise Fund household fee required for the SWCC system when
there is no Genera! 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 fiat fee shows the Household SWCC revenue
requirement from Table 4 allocated equally to all 54,].50 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.
it)j27/10 ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page S of 8
16
S+OL1D ~lASTF UItORK GRQUP SWCC RECC)MMENDATfONS •
Table S: 7-Year Enterprise Fund Household Fee Required for Firart Recommendation
with No GPateral Fund Suppo~ t - GFEliminated in Year 1
-
., -
~: _ ..._
~~.
-~-~~_~.~' y=~=~~ ~~-.~.-•
=~---~=~_. ~-z-~~.~..a-x,,. -~~ . -mss.:
_ _
- 4 Zt 2',i .~Y~84?1,3,3' fY~d 3l`?~~~
-
_
:2'~ 4L75
- - .F~T'2Ei1~71:~
-
s ~F-Y:-:20i.6/t7-:
-- r20{: %-8
Fiat Fee
Flat Fee -alt Households $44 $44 $48 $48 $48 $51 $51
Tiered Fee
Tiered Fee -Rural $79 $79 $86 $86 $86 $9i $91
Tiered Fee -Urban $35 $35 $38 $38 $38 $40 $40
Tiered Fee - Multl 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 $1,240,000 in GF support,
declining to $800,000 in years 3 and 4, $400,000 in years 5 and 6 and zero GF support in Year 7
and after. Again, the bottom line shows the potential drop in General Fund support each year.
and cumulatively over the 7-year period.
Table 6: 7-Year Enterprise Firnd Forecast far Final Recommendation
x>irh General Fund Support Phased Out over 6-I'earPeriod
-~z ~..*-~---•.~:_-_.:z:,T;
..._.~
~.-,- _-:z?Y-- - ~ ~<: -~,4_-:z-;, -- ..
.: ~ .. • r
'- atl11811013=
:'2011Ji
`S9nltaflOri
_
- ' ~Jt ~
°S3nit$titiT1=;
~
_-Y~26'1~1i~~
,
~S3iti ,
.<
1=X~2Q~
: oti
_ _
!~= ~ X20 51 S:
: nn3
FY:20i61 -~:,
4!i ~
D $
)',_~~_
o
s= .
Targeted Expenses ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
-Operating $2,160,312 $2,323,518 $2,427.569 $2,514,388 $2,578,D63 $2,855,405 $2,735,067 #1
- blew Capital Debt Retirement $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 $364,360 #2
F_xpenses Tote1 $2,524,673 $2,687,878 $2,791,929 $2,878,748 $2,942,424 $3,D19,786 $3,099,428
Targeted Revenues
- Curtent 3-R Fee $261,000 $281,D00 $261,OD0 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 #3
-Fixed Genera! Fund Obligation $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $800,000 $800,000 $400,000 $400,000 $0 #4
-Household SV~tCC Fee $1,200,000 $1,200.,000 $1,800,DD0 $1,800,OOD $2,2pD,DDO $2,200,000 $2,760,OD0 #5
-Account-Fees (Commercial) $D $22,500 $33,750 $59,063 $103,359 $118,863 $136,693 #6
Revenue Total $2,fi61,00D $2,663,500 $2,894,750 $2,920,063 $2.964,359 $2,979,863 $3,t47,693
NET SURPLUS/(DF~iCrr) $136,327 {$4,378) • $102,821 $41,314 $21,936 {$39,902) $48,265 #7
CUMULATtVE FUND BALANCE $136,327 $131,949 $234,770 ~ $276,084, $298,02D $258,117 $306,362 #8
i'OTEN7IAL GF TAX DROP $96D,ODD $960,OD0 $t,36D,000 $t,36D,D00 $1,760,000 $i,7so,000 $2,1fi0,000 #g
CUMUlATIVB GF TAX DROP 5960,000 $1,920,OD0 $3,280,OD0 $4.84D,000 $8,400,DOD $8,t60,ODD $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 ail 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
17
SOLID WASTF WORK GROUP SWCC RECOlVIMFNDATIONS
• Table 7: 7-Year Enter rise Furrd Household Fee Re uired or Fir
P g f ral Reco»n~se~ulatloe
M~ith General Fund Support Phased Dut oti~er ~YearPeriod
%~_~> ~^_: r:_-_-.~ ._:.r=_ a " 'r t..-.~.s...
.~''3Ui1ft~?
:F~°20:4?133~
`FY20~31:1~:= _
~1~•2t1:1~~1a
FY2015tt6.
..
: t:~:~,
..
Ffaf Fee
Flat Fee -all Households $22 $22 $33 $33 $41 $41 $51
Flaf Fee
Tiered Fee -Rural $38 $38 $59 $59 $72 $72 $91
Tiered Fee -Urban $i7 $17 $2fi~ $28 $32 $32 $40
Tiered Fee - Mu[4 Famlly $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 casts 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
C~ S% ($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 recyciables.
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 fiat fees across all parcels orpro-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 {aver costs) for each use of the service,
Use is projected to escalate 20% per year as these small haulers (earn 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 casts for that year- indicating whether the
Enterprise Fund has covered its obligations for that year or v~iould 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.
•
lo/27J10 ORANGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE Page 7 of 8
18
SOLD WASTE WORK GROUP SWCC RECOMMENDATIONS
•
9. The Potential General Fund Tax Drop shows the amaunt 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 awned and operated centers primarily for residential waste,
predominantly from unincorporated Orange County with some small commercial user waste.
IO/Z7/10 ORANGE CbUNTY SOLID WASTE Page 8 of 8
Attachment 2 .
Revised Financial ~ 19
Analysis Report including
Financial Forecast
• Memorandum
To: Frank Clifton, County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
Subject: Follow-up to November Solid Waste Work Session
Date: February 14, 2011
This report is a follow-up to the discussion and feedback received by the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) at the November 18, 2010 Work Session at which Staff
presented the Solid Waste Planning Work Group Recommendations for Orange County
Solid Waste Convenience Centers (SWCCs). The attached financial plan/analysis
reflects and incorporates the input received at that Work Session.
The basis for the Work Group's recommendations are outlined in the attached agenda
item from the November meeting, and includes discussion of center locations and design,
operations, funding, phasing and timeline, Work Group decision-making criteria,
business case, and implementation. Adjustments have been made in the current revised
analysis based on comments received from the BOCC and further staff work on plan
details.
• BOCC guidance received at the November Work Session included:
• If this recommendation is to go forward an education plan would need to be
developed for the public, especially with regard to the annual household fee
• Prefer a tiered approach whereby the rural, urban and multi-family sectors are
assessed different amounts based roughly on anticipated sector usage
• Prefer a phased implementation approach for the annual household fee (potential
"4-R Fee") that began at a lower amount and escalated over time, but not with the
objective of totally replacing general fund fmancing of the SWCCs in the
foreseeable future
• Interest in expanding proposed hours of operation
The attached revised fmancial analysis has incorporated the tiered approach and the
phased implementation approach, reflective of the guidance noted above. The tiered
structure builds on the guiding principles for the 3-R Fee (Rural, Urban and Multi-
Family), based on intensity of use and goals for developing funding sources that are
predictable, equitable and sustainable. Data from SWCC user studies indicate that rural
users are more frequent than urban single family and urban users more frequent than
multifamily. The proposed tiered fee structure mirrors this variation in actual and
projected usage intensity.
The revised fmancial analysis has also incorporated a phased approach to the household
fee implementation. The fee is proposed to begin in FY 2011/12 and fund 25% of
• Sanitation Division revenue requirements (that would include years land 2 of SWCC
20
modernization/improvements) for a period of two yeazs. In the third yeaz the annual •
household fee funding obligation would increase to 50% of Sanitation Division revenue
requirements and remain at that 50% of total Sanitation Division revenue requirements
indefmitely. This approach could reduce the general fund funding of the enterprise
fund's Sanitation Division by about a million dollars annually beginning in FY 2013/14.
The hours of operation of the SWCCs are proposed to be expanded as a part of this
recommendation. The two District Centers aze assumed to be expanding from their
current 4/day/week schedule to 5.5 days/week upon completion of their respective
improvements. The District Center schedule is suggested at being open on Monday,
Tuesday, Thursday lam to 6pm, Saturday lam to Spm, and Sunday lpm to Spm. It
would be possible to modify this schedule to include being open one hour later each day
or other schedules as the BOCC desires and funding is available.
All Neighborhood Centers are proposed to have operating hours Monday, Tuesday, and
Friday lam to 6pm and Saturday lam to Spm. This includes restoring Bradshaw-Quarry
Road site hours to four days per week from the current two days per week operation.
Again, it would be possible to modify this schedule to include being open one hour later
each day or other schedules as the BOCC desires and funding is available. With the
exception of Wednesday, a SWCC would be predictably open for use each day of the
week. It is Staff s recommendation that all centers remain closed one day per week to
allow center operators one regular day off per week and allow for periodic training,
routine site maintenance and other activities where the site is cleaz and all operators are •
available together.
Finally, should the BOCC wish to proceed with further consideration of the center
improvements and upgrades, and contemplate implementation of the center
improvements, extended hours of operation and efficiency gains and initiation of a
modest annual tiered household fee, a public education and outreach plan would be
developed and implemented. This plan could have a dual purpose. The first purpose
would be to advertise the SWCC proposal so that the public may have an opportunity to
become awaze of it and to provide input. Staff could establish mechanisms by which to
solicit comments and suggestions from county residents over the next two-three months.
These mechanisms could include:
• SWAB sponsored public input meetings that aze well advertised
• Articles in the Chapel Hill Newspaper, New of Orange and the Durham Herald
• Flyers at a115 SWCCs
• Presentations (as requested) to Town Governing Boards
• Forum for local newspaper editors and other media outlets
• Notice prominently displayed on the County web site
• Information provided to our a-mail group
• Other per BOCC direction
Secondarily, if the BOCC decides to implement the SWCC improvement plan, a public
information process would be established to make current and prospective SWCC users •
aware of what site improvements are coming and how they might benefit from the facility
21
and operational changes, advertise the new hours, announce how services could be
alternatively provided while sites are under construction and to allow residents to become
informed on the annual household fee. This outreach would take place during the fall
through the summer opening of the first modernized center.
Staff is available to answer questions or provide additional information or analysis as the
BOCC may require.
C7
•
•
•
•
• •
•
~'~.~ ~~'~ R~saurce R~Cycling 5ysfiems
Sustnrnabit^ Systerrrs for c :'r"crs*e i~rcc F:~.if:.rre
SWCC ~ YEAR BUDGET FORECAST BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION - FEaRUaRVii, iosi
TARGETED EXPENSES -INCLUDING PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
• ~>~ ° ~ z •. ~ -
~t. ': Sanitation ',
', FY 2011/12 ~ ~ Sanitation .
= FY=2012/13: , `Sanitation
;-FY 2013N4 ~ Sanitation
' FY 2014/15 'Sanitation
FY 2015!16 ~ Sanitation
FY 2016/17 Sanitation
FY 2017/18
Notes
SWCC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Walnut Grove
Upgrade Walnut Grove
Opens, High
Rock Upgrade High Rock
Opens, Eubanks
Upgrade Eubanks Opens,
Ferguson
Upgrade Ferguson
Opens,
gradshaw Quarry
Upgrade
Bradshaw
Quarry Opens
All SWCCs
now Upgraded
#1
Capital Improvements Cost ~LF_CLO5E5.2016+'~
-SWCC Compactors and Equipment $ 385,440 $ 93,936 $ 363,082 $ 100,968 $ 104,367 $ - $ - #2
-SWCC Construction Costs $ 467,130 $ 114,670 $ 813,647 $ 179,146 $ 101,485 $ - $ - #3
Total Capital Improvements Loan Amount $ 852,570 $ 208,606 $ 1,176,729 $ 280,114 $ 205,852 $ - $ -
TARGETED EXPENSES
Operating - Business as usual
- Personnel (not escalated) $ 779,311 $ 779,311 $ 779,311 $ 779,311 $ 779,311 $ 779,311 $ 779,311 #4
-Other Operating {esc. @ 3%) $ 1,112,488 $ 1,145,863 $ 1,180,239 $ 1,215,646 $ 1,252,115 $ 1,289,678 $ 1,328,369 #r,5
- Environmental Support (not escalated) $ 417,394 $ 417,394 $ 417,394 $ 417,394 $ 417,394 $ 417,394 $ 417,394 ~
- Cost Increase -Tonnage Growth $ - $ 24,727 $ 51,469 $ 80,391 $ 111,670 $ 145,498 $ 182,084 #7
-Cost Increase - Transport to Durham TS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 167,167 $ 172,182 #8
-Old Rolling Stock Replacement $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ~
Total Operating -Business as Usual $ 2,309,193 $ 2,367,295 $ 2,428,413 $ 2,492,742 $ 2,560,490 $ 2,799,049 $ 2,879,340 #10
Adjustments to Operating Costs
-Costs for Adding Hours (not escalated) $ - $ 55,738 $ 62,323 $ 142,059 $ 180,462 $ 180,462 $ 180,462 #11
-Cost Reduction from Hauling Efficiency $ - $ (70,088) $ (97,217) $ (105,140) $ (241,276} $ (508,500) $ (549,942) #12
Total Adjustments $ - $ (14,350) $ (34,894) $ 36,919 $ (60,814) $ (328,038) $ (369,480) #13
Debt for Capital Improvements
Debt for Capital Improvements 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
-SWCC Compactors @ 4% over 8 Years $ 57,249 $ 71,201 $ 125,129 $ 140,125 $ 155,626 $ 155,626 $ 155,626 #14
-SWCC Construction @ 4% over 15 Years $ 42,014 $ 52,328 $ 125,508 $ 141,621 $ 150,748 $ 150,748 $ 150,748 #15
Total Payments on Debt $ 99,263 $ 123,528 $ 250,637 $ 281,746 $ 306,375 $ 306,375 $ 306,375
TARGETED EXPENSES TOTAL $ 2,408,456 $ 2,476,474 $ 2,644,155 $ 2,811,406 $ 2,806,051 $ 2,777,386 $ 2,816,234 #16
SEE LINE ITEM NOTES ON PAGES 3 AND 4
N
N
SWCC 7 YEAR BUDGET PROJECTION -BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY COMM/SSIONERS WORK SESSION PAGE 2
TARGETED REVENUES
TARGETED REVENUES
Revenues from 3-Rand Operations
-Current 3-R Fee -recycling operations $ 261,000 $ 261,000 $ 261,000 $ 261,000 $ 261,000 $ 261,000 $ 261,000 #17
-Current 3-R Fee -recycling hardware $ 28,072 $ 32,585 $ 51,021 $ 55,809 $ 60,740 $ 60,740 $ 60,740 #18
-School MSW Collection Revenues (@ 1%) $ 63,943 $ 64,582 $ 65,228 $ 65,881 $ 66,539 $ 67,205 $ 67,877 #19
-Account-Fees (Commercial) $ - $ - $ 22,500 $ 33,750 $ 33,750 $ 59,063 $ 103,359 #20
Total 3-Rand Operations Revenue $ 353,015 $ 358,167 $ 399,749 $ 416,439 $ 422,030 $ 448,007 $ 492,976 #21
Net Required from Other Sources $ 2,055,441 $ 2,118,306 $ 2,244,406 $ 2,394,967 $ 2,384,022 $ 2,329,379 $ 2,323,258 #22
Revenue from GF and SWCC Fee
- General Fund Obligation $ 1,541,581 $ 1,588,730 $ 1,122,203 $ 1,197,484 $ 1,192,011 $ 1,164,689 $ 1,161,629 #23
- Household SWCC Fee $ 633,000 $ 636,040 $ 1,278,160 $ 1,284,240 $ 1,280,320 $ 1,296,400 $ 1,302,480 #24
TARGETED REVENUES TOTAL $ 2,527,596 $ 2,582,937 $ 2,800,112 $ 2,898,163 $ 2,904,360 $ 2,909,097 $ 2,957,085
ANNUAL NET SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $ 119,140 $ 106,463 $ 155,957 $ 86,756 $ 98,309 $ 131,711 $ 140,851 #25
ANNUAL POTENTIAL GF TAX DROP $ 618,419 $ 571,270 $ 1,037,797 $ 962,516 $ 967,989 $ 995,311 $ 998,371 #26
SEE LINE ITEM NOTES ON PAGES 3 AND 4
HOUSEHOLD SWCC TIERED FEE CALCULATION
Based on Direction from the Board, staff assumed aphased-in "4th R" fee calculated to fund 25% of the Sanitation Division's operation in the
first two years, rising to 50% funding in the third year and continuing to fund 50% of SWCC system needs for the remainder of the period of
analysis. A small increment of growth in the number of residential units is factored into the fee level calculations.
~~a,`-~'~ ~;'!~,~~ ;~ t =.~ FY 2011/12 '~ ~~FY;2012/13`'~ FY, 2013/14 i ;. FY~2014/15 ,-~ FY 2015116 ' FY~2016/17 ~ FY.2017/18
TIERED FEE
Tiered Fee -Rural $20 $20 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40
Tiered Fee -Urban $10 $10 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20
Tiered Fee -Multi Family $2 $2 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4
February 5, 2011 DRAFT
N
• • W
•
•
• •
SWCC 7 YEAR BUDGET PROJECTION -BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION PAGE 3
LINE ITEM NOTES FOR TARGETED EXPENSES:
#1 SWCC Improvements -As shown, Walnut Grove upgrade is constructed in FY 2011/12 and the upgraded site open in 2012/13, High Rock upgrade constructed in FY
2012/13 and opened in 2013/14, Eubanks upgrade constructed in FY 2013/14 and opened in 2014/15, Ferguson upgrade constructed in 2014/15 and opened in 2015/16 and
Bradshaw Quarry upgrade constructed in FY 2015/16 and opened in FY 2016/17. The landfill is assumed to close in 2016.
#2 SWCC Compactors and Equipment is the capital proposed for all hardware at each site as it is upgraded. These are the currently agreed to budget amounts for each site
with contingency and egineering for the comapctors and related hardware. These capital costs are inflated at three percent per year. Part of these costs will be covered by
the 3-R fee for those compactors associated with recycling operations.
#3 SWCC Construction Costs is all remaining capital expenditures proposed for each site as it it upgraded. These are the currently agreed to budget amounts for each site
(with contingency and engineering) for all remaining improvements at each site. These capital costs are inflated @ 3% to the year of actual construction.
#4 Personnel costs build from baseline direct costs in FY 2011-12 and are not escalated.
#5 Operating costs build from the baseline direct costs in FY 2010 then increased at 3% per year.
#6 Environmental Support costs are prorated among Landfill Division, Recycling Division and Sanitation Division and are not escalated.
#7 Cost Increase due to increased tons -increasing at 5% per year across all sites with costs associated with increased hauling only -see "Updated BP Summary Savings
Worksheet" for details.
f#8 SWCC Business as Usual will experience cost increases when the Durham Transfer Station has to be used beginning in 2016/2017. Staff calculated these costs at
$140,000 in 2010 dollars, escalated to the year 2016/17 and beyond at 3% per year.
#9 Existing rolling stock replacement not currently included in Enterprise fund equipment replacement reserves.
#10 SWCC Business as Usual costs -showing the total annual expenses projected if no efficiency improvements are made to the SWCCs.
#11 Cost forAdded Hours -Cost increase for added hours phased in as Walnut Grove expands hours in 2012/13 (going to 5.5 days incl Sunday 4 hours + Thursday 11 hrs,
High Rock in 2013/14 (open 4 days per week), Eubanks in 2014/15 expanding hours (going to 5.5 days incl Sunday 4 hours + Thursday 11 hrs), and finally adding Ferguson
in 2015/16 (open 4 days per week).
#12 Cost savings due to increased efficiencies from compacting/fewer. hauls, phased in as sites are improved, with savings documented when upgraded site opens -see
"Updated Summary Savings Worksheet' for details. Note that these cost savings include net savings from hauling projected increased tons more efficiently than they are
currently hauled in business as usual
#13 -Total adjustments to operating costs with increased hours adding operating costs and efficiency improvements eliminating operating costs
#14 SWCC Debt for Capital Improvements -Hardware is assumed to be the annualized amortization of capital for the Neighborhood/District SWCC System broken out by the
recycling related improvements hardware -financed over 8 years @ 4% (Calculated based on the capital cost of the hardware for each facility improvement being added to
the debt payment formula at the time that those funds are borrowed)
#15 SWCC Debt for Capital Improvements -Non-Hardware is assumed to be the annualized amortization of capital for the Neighborhood/District SWCC System for the
balance of all remaining improvements -financed over 15 years @ 4% (Calculated based on the capital cost of the remaining upgrades for each facility improvement being
added to the debt payment formula at the time that those funds are borrowed)
#16 Total SWCC Targeted Expenses -this is the total for annual expenses at the SWCCs with all upgrades completed and' financed, added open hours and cost savings from
efficiency improvements.
February 5, 2011 DRAFT
N
~A
SWCC 7 YEAR BUDGET PROJECTION -BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION PAGE 4
LINE ITEM NOTES FOR TARGETED REVENUES
#17 The 3-R Fee Contribution -Recycling Operations is pro-rated based on the portion of each SWCC site is used for recycling. That has been
fixed at $261,000 each year, though it could change 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.
#18 The 3-R fee contribution from recycling for upgrades has been added to cover the cost of financing the recycling-related compactors and other equipment. That amount
of new captial annually is subtracted from the total capital equipment improvements needed to be funded by the general fund and new component of the fee.
#19 School MSW Collection Revenues are based on historical revenue, escalated at 1 % per year as costs increase.
#20 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 -starting
with a modest 2,250 uses and net $10 per use above costs (costs included in increased tonnage calculation) with 50% increase in 2nd year of this activity as these small
haulers learn how to use the site as the landfill nears its closing date, then another increase as Eubanks is improved, the landfill closes and the Durham Transfer Station
becomes the closest site.
#21 Total 3-R and Operations Revenue is the sum of all revenue streams from operations including 3-R contributions.
#22 The Net required from other sources calculation is the sum of all revenues from 3-Rand Oeepations subtracted from all expenses reflecting the additional funding
needed for operating the SWCC system including all the upgrades, adding operating hours and efficiency savings.
#23 The General Fund commitment is assumed to be retained as part of the funding strategy, with the contribution calculated at 75% of the Net Required from other sources
in the first two years, and reduced to 50% of the Net Required from other sources thereafter. These reflect much lower levels of General Fund commitment than current.
#24 The Proposed Household Fee, described as a SWCC Fee and discussed as part of an expanded 3-R Fee, is calculated based on required funds to arrive at the revenue
totals show. Calculations of the fee levels are shown on the next table as a tiered fee for thee rural, urban and multifamily sectors based on expected use intensity.
#25 Annual Net Surplus/(Deficit) shows the SWCC system fund balance at the end of that year, given the flow of expenses and revenues as shown. This net surplus could
be used as a source of funds for replacing rolling stock and adding aroll-off truck in 2012-13 when the upgraded Walnut Grove SWCC is opened
#26 Annual Potential GF Tax Drop -shows the decrease in general fund tax burden for that year assuming that all reductions in general fund savings from the proposed
change in SWCC operations are passed on as tax reductions.
February 5, 2011 DRAFT
N
• • • ~