The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWAG agenda 091616I Agenda Solid Waste Advisory Group September 16, 2016 - 6:00 p.m. Solid Waste Oaerations Center 1. Call to Order —Chair 2. Approve Meeting Summary May 25, 2016 — Chair, Attachment 3. Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Financial Planning Final Report — Bob Dick, Project Manager and Ryan Duckett, Staff Engineer - SCS Engineers, PC, Attachment a. Next Steps 4. County Mattress Disposal Program — Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director, Attachment 5. Pending Matters a. SWAG Priorities Update — Gayle Wilson, County Solid Waste Director, Attachment b. County Waste Reduction Goal Setting — Blair Pollock, County Solid Waste Planner 6. Updates /Status Reports a. Fourth Quarter /Annual FY 2015/16 Solid Waste Program Data Report — Cheryl Young, County Research & Data Manager, Attachment b. Status of Rural Curbside Expansion —Allison Lohrenz, Recycling Programs Manager c. Status of Eubanks Road Waste & Recycling Facilities Improvements — Gayle Wilson, County Solid Waste Director d. Update on Carrboro Farmers Market Food Waste Collection — Blair Pollock, Solid Waste Planner e. UNC /County Solid Waste Collaboration Report, BJ Tipton, UNC Solid Waste Program Manager and Gayle Wilson, County Solid Waste Director f. Update on Storm Debris Management Site Search — Gayle Wilson, County Solid Waste Director g. Waste Composition Study Update — Blair Pollock, County Solid Waste Planner 7. Public Comment— Chair 8. Next Meeting —There are no additional meetings scheduled. Please bring your calendars. 9. Adjourn—Chair Dinner will be provided DRAFT Solid Waste Advisory Group Meeting Summary DATE: May 25, 2016 LOCATION: Solid Waste Administration Training Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Hillsborough Commissioner Mark Bell, UNC- Chapel Hill Representative Matt Fajack, Carrboro Alderman Randee Haven - O'Donnell, Chapel Hill Mayor Pam Hemminger, UNC - Healthcare Representative Mel Hurston, Orange County Commissioner Barry Jacobs, Carrboro Mayor Lydia Lavelle, Hillsborough Commissioner Brian Lowen, Chapel Hill Councilmember Michael Parker, Orange County Commissioner Penny Rich 2 STAFF PRESENT: OC Chief Financial Officer Gary Donaldson, Carrboro Public Works Director JD Freeman, County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Hillsborough Public Works Director Ken Hines, OC Solid Waste Jennie Knowlton, Chapel Hill Public Works Director Lance Norris, OC Solid Waste Blair Pollock, Chapel Hill Solid Waste Services Manager Wendy Simmons, OC Solid Waste Paul Spire, UNC -CH Solid Waste Program Manager BJ Tipton, OC Solid Waste Management Director Gayle Wilson, OC Solid Waste Kristina Witosky, OC Solid Waste Cheryl Young Call to Order Meeting Summary approval • March 30, 2016 Meeting Summary approved Fiscal 2016/17 Solid Waste Management Budget /Solid Waste Programs Fee Recommendation • Hammersley recommends maintaining current $107 Solid Waste Fee for FY16/17 • SCS Engineers have been hired to assist with long range financial plans, update planned for August • Jacobs asks if next meeting should be scheduled for when report is complete, Hammersley agrees Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Financial Planning Interim Report -SCS Engineers • Hurston askes what items stand out for Orange County? High level of service examples include: food waste collection, weekly (urban) curbside collection (rather than biweekly), rural (biweekly) curbside expansion • The absence of a revenue generator (landfill /transfer station) is a handicap. Will be included in considerations for end report • Jacobs suggests including the costs associated with the SWAG priorities list in final report Habitat for Humanity Restore (presentation by Alex Nickodem) • The Restore kept 875 tons of waste out of landfills from Durham and Orange Counties last year • Since January, 216 mattresses have been sanitized • Three homes were funded in Orange County last year (and three in Durham) from store sales • Please contact Alex Nickodem about any upcoming business closings or renovations so he can investigate harvesting materials • Wilson suggests contacting Jeff Scouten, OC Solid Waste, about deconstruction opportunities Pending Matters Third Quarter FY 2015/16 Solid Waste Program Data Report o Rural cart (not bin) participation and set -out data will begin to be captured in July DRAFT Other • Status of Rural Curbside Expansion 3 0 4,000 carts ordered 0 90% of homes on current rural curbside service area will be re- routed • Status of Eubanks Road Waste & Recycling Facilities Improvements • Interim site will be on Millhouse Rd, CH, with limited services • Lavelle suggests contacting public buses and schools about lane closures • Jacobs requests site plan shared with BOCC and SWAG • Shred -a -thon Results o Jointly sponsored /staffed by Orange County, Town of Chapel Hill, UNC -CH sorority, and Planet Fitness. Largest turn out ever recorded. Over 27 tons paper recovered • Mattress Disposal o Mattress management report to be brought to BOCC in June, after Manager approval • Neville Tract • 14 -acre property purchased in 1994/95 to provide cover soil for landfill operation • Has been used during Hurricane Fran for storm debris management Public Comment -None Next Meeting- Next meeting date to be surveyed in August Meeting adjourned at: 7:50pm Name of Minute Taker: Jennie Knowlton 4 V - � w. Final Report Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Prepared for: GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Solid Waste Management Department 200 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 (91 9) 732-8181 Prepared by: SCS ENGINEERS, PC 15521 Midlothian Turnpike, Suite 305 Midlothian, Virginia 23113 (804) 378 -7440 September 12, 2016 File No. 02216202.00 Offices Nationwide www.scsengineers.com 5 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Table of Contents Section Page ExecutiveSummary ........................................................................................................... ...........................ES -1 ProjectScope of Work ......................................................................................... ...........................ES -1 Data Collection and Review ..................................................................... ...........................ES -1 StaffCommunications ................................................................................. ...........................ES -1 RateModel Scenarios ........................................................................................... ...........................ES -2 ModelResults ............................................................................................... ...........................ES -3 Findings and Recommendations .......................................................................... ...........................ES -5 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... ............................... 1 1.1 Project Scope of Work ................................................................................. ..............................1 1.1.1 Data Collection and Review ............................................................ ..............................1 1.1.2 Staff Communications ........................................................................ ..............................2 1.2 Solid Waste Ordinances .............................................................................. ..............................2 1.2.1 Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance ................................ ..............................2 1.3 Collection of Solid Waste and Recyclable Material .............................. ..............................2 1.3.1 County Solid Waste Collection Program ...................................... ..............................3 1.3.1.1 Residential ................................................................... ..............................3 1.3.1.2 Commercial .................................................................. ..............................5 1.3.1.3 Institutional .................................................................. ............................... 5 1.3.2 County Recyclable Material Collection Program ........................ ..............................5 1.3.2.1 Residential ................................................................... ..............................5 1.3.2.2 Commercial .................................................................. ..............................7 1.3.2.3 Institutional .................................................................. ............................... 7 1.3.3 OCR Recyclable Material Processing and Marketing ................ ..............................8 1.4 Solid Waste Programs Fee .......................................................................... ..............................8 1.5 Collected Recyclable Material Tonnage and Revenue .......................... ..............................8 1.6 Solid Waste Disposal ................................................................................... ..............................9 1.7 Household Hazardous Waste and Electronics Recycling .................... ............................... 10 1.8 Food Waste Collection ............................................................................. ............................... 10 1.9 County Solid Waste Management Department Staffing ................... ............................... 11 1.10 Vehicles .......................................................................................................... .............................11 1.11 Public Education and Outreach ............................................................... ............................... 12 2.0 Cost of Service Analysis ........................................................................................ .............................14 2.1 Budget and Management Practices Overview ...................................... .............................14 2.1.1 Enterprise Fund ............................................................................... ............................... 14 2.1.2 Billing ................................................................................................. .............................15 2.1.3 Budget Overview ........................................................................... ............................... 16 2.1.4 Reserves ............................................................................................. .............................18 2.1.5 Rate Model ..................................................................................... ............................... 18 2.1.6 Methodology Overview ............................................................... ............................... 18 2.1.7 Model Scenarios ............................................................................ ............................... 19 2.1.8 Model Results .................................................................................... .............................20 6 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 2.1.9 Division Budgetary Leveling .......................................................... .............................22 3.0 Potential Solid Waste Operational Changes .................................................... .............................23 3.1 Minor /Miscellaneous cost savings items ................................................ ............................... 23 3.1.1 Optimize Collection Center Hours /Days of Operations ........ ............................... 23 3.1.1.1 Collection Center Use by Month ............................. .............................23 3.1.1.2 Collection Center Use by Day of Week ............... .............................23 3.1.1.3 Collection Center Use by Time of Day .................. .............................24 3.1.2 Consider a Reduction in Urban Curbside Recyclables Collection Frequency.... 25 3.1.3 Sell the Greene Tract Property .................................................. ............................... 25 3.1.4 Other Considerations ...................................................................... .............................25 3.2 Construct /Operate a Transfer Station .................................................. ............................... 27 3.2.1 Transfer Station Considerations .................................................... .............................27 3.2.2 Transfer Station Implementation Quantitative Analysis ......... ............................... 28 4.0 Potential Solid Waste Program Financing Alternatives ................................... .............................30 4.1 Renewal and Extension Funds ................................................................. ............................... 30 4.2 Collections of Assessed Fee ....................................................................... .............................31 4.3 Modification of Organics Collection Program Funding Structure ....... .............................31 4.4 Major Weather Event /Storm Debris Handling ...................................... .............................31 4.5 Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance .......................................... .............................32 5.0 Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................... .............................33 5.1 Revenue Increase Strategies ................................................................... ............................... 34 5.2 Expense Reduction Strategies ................................................................... .............................35 5.3 Rate Benchmarking ...................................................................................... .............................35 6.0 References ................................................................................................................ .............................37 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund List of Exhibits No. Page Exhibit I. Solid Waste and Recycling Centers by Location and Customer Counts by Fiscal Year 3 Exhibit 2. Solid Waste and Recycling Center Locations .......................................... ..............................4 Exhibit 3. Solid Waste and Recycling Center Customer Counts by Fiscal Year . ............................... 5 Exhibit 4. 24 -Hour Recycling Drop -off Sites by Location ....................................... ............................... 6 Exhibit 5. 24 -Hour Recycling Drop -off Site Locations ............................................. ............................... 7 Exhibit 6. Recyclable Material Tonnages and Revenue ......................................... ............................... 9 Exhibit 7. Orange County Solid Waste Management Department Website .... ..............................1 2 Exhibit 8. Orange County Solid Waste Management on Social Media ............. .............................13 throughFY 2025- 26 .................................................................... .............................22 Exhibit 9. Revenue Tier Streams and Associated Accounts .................................... .............................15 Recycling Center Customers by Day of Week in FY 2015- 16 ........................24 Exhibit 10. Commissioner Approved Fee Schedule — FY 2015- 16 ......... .............................16 Recycling Center Customers per Hour by Day of Week FY 2015 - 16 ........... Exhibit 11. Distribution of Department's Operating Revenues and Expenses by Fiscal Recycling Center Customers by Hour of Day in FY 2015-16 ...........................25 Year................................................................................................ .............................17 Average Personnel Direct -Cost per Person ............................. .............................26 Exhibit 12. Scenario 7 Phase -Out of General Fund Contribution and Increase of Solid Estimated Cost Savings to Towns from Implementation of Orange County Appendices A Department Organizational Chart B Department Fleet Asset List C List of Model Assumptions D Estimated Department Revenue Projections E Estimated Department Expense Projections F Financial Model Output G Hypothetical Transfer Station Net Revenue Estimate Waste Programs Fee .................................................................. .............................20 Exhibit 13. Scenario Modeling Results — Projected Fund Budgetary Gap .........................21 Exhibit 14. Scenario 4 and 6 Modeling Results — Projected Annual Program Fee Required........................................................................................ .............................22 Exhibit 15. Transfer Station Net Revenue /Expense Effect on Program Fee, FY 2021 -22 throughFY 2025- 26 .................................................................... .............................22 Exhibit 16. Recycling Center Customers by Day of Week in FY 2015- 16 ........................24 Exhibit 17. Recycling Center Customers per Hour by Day of Week FY 2015 - 16 ........... 24 Exhibit 18. Recycling Center Customers by Hour of Day in FY 2015-16 ...........................25 Exhibit 19. Average Personnel Direct -Cost per Person ............................. .............................26 Exhibit 20. Estimated Cost Savings to Towns from Implementation of Orange County Transfer Station (Current Year) ................................................. .............................29 Exhibit 21. Budgeted Solid Waste Management Department Revenue Components as Portions of Total Revenue (FY 2016- 17) ................................. .............................30 Exhibit 22. Tons Disposed at Orange County C &D Landfill by Year ..... .............................32 Exhibit 23. Comparison of Annual Fees ........................................................ .............................36 Appendices A Department Organizational Chart B Department Fleet Asset List C List of Model Assumptions D Estimated Department Revenue Projections E Estimated Department Expense Projections F Financial Model Output G Hypothetical Transfer Station Net Revenue Estimate Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In March 2016, Orange County, North Carolina (County) retained SCS Engineers (SCS) to conduct a solid waste cost of services and rate study (Study) and to develop a Financial Plan for the County's Solid Waste System (System). Based on data and information provided by County staff, a Pro Forma rate model (Rate Model) was developed, which enabled SCS to prepare projections of financial performance of solid waste and recyclable material collection and disposal for the selected planning period (FY 2016 -17 through FY 2020 -21) and model different possible rate structures. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The overall objective of a cost of service and rate study is to calculate the solid waste fees and assessments required to adequately recover the costs of providing solid waste and recycling services to the County's residents, businesses, and other institutions. Based on its solid waste industry experience, SCS developed a series of critical tasks that provided a foundation for the conduct of the Study and development of the Financial Plan. This methodology is discussed in Section 2 of this report. Enterprise Fund The County has established the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund (Fund) to account for all Solid Waste Management Department (Department) solid waste and recycling program operations, which are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises. The Fund includes potential revenue from approximately 33 distinct sources (line items under the Budget Accounts), which can be associated with one or more of the four cost centers (Divisions) within the Department. The Fund includes potential expenses from approximately 47 distinct general sources (line items under the Budget Accounts) and five capital sources from five accounts, which can be associated with one or more of the Divisions within the Department. The Solid Waste Program Fee is a single, county -wide fee assessed on each improved property within the County, including the municipalities and the portion of the Town of Chapel Hill located within Durham County. The current fee is $107.00 per parcel annually, but is adjusted annually as part of the Department's budgeting process based on estimated system expenditures, minus all revenue, and divided by the number of taxable parcels. The table below (and also in Section 2.1.3, Exhibit 11) below shows the distribution of the Department's revenues and expenses for the past four fiscal years and the budget for current FY 2016 -17 by division. As shown, annual expenses have increased from the previous to the current fiscal year with the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund running a net deficit in The table also shows the amount and percentage of the revenues over the past 4 years that were made up of transfers from the General Fund and Appropriated Fund Balance. The final row of the exhibit shows the additional net revenues and deficits added to the amount transferred from the General Fund. ES -1 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Distribution of Department's Operating Revenues and Expenses by Fiscal Year Notes: 1. Projected past budgetary figures provided by County staff to SCS. 2. Unaudited, preliminary actuals (subject to change). 3. Approved budgetary figures. 4. The Solid Waste Programs Fee was reallocated for distribution through from the Recycling Services Division to the Environmental Support Division in FY 2016-17. 5. County staff indicated that the unaudited, preliminary numbers for FY 2015 -16 Actuals omitted $997,475 of Equipment Reserve Contribution as an expense. 6. Based on our discussions with the County, SCS expects this surplus is overstated pending the audit. 7. This table reflects the resulting restructuring of expense and revenue allocations between the Divisions which occurred as a result of the closure of the Orange County Landfill in FY 2012-13. ES -2 FY 2012 -13 FY 2013 -14 FY 2014 -15 FY 2015 -161 Projected Budget FY 2015 -162 Preliminary Actuals FY 2016 -173 Revenues by Division ($) Environmental Support 106,047 104,188 770,848 150,000 170,677 6,607,163 Landfill Services 3,716,514 1,187,249 1,086,812 1,167,217 1,221,787 500,290 Recycling Services 4,732,514 3,512,839 3,803,287 5,531,343 7,511,5874 997,743 Sanitation Services 2,262,285 3,217,411 4,297,213 4,602,133 1,810,963 2,104,719 Other (Appropriated Fund Bal.) NA NA NA 630,503 NA 1,780,040 Total Department Revenues 10,816,933 8,021,688 9,958,160 12,081,196 10,715,014 11,989,955 Amount that is Transfer from General Fund (Included) 1,594,226 1,869,496 1,856,543 1,718,018 1,718,018 2,004,719 Amount that is from Appropriated Fund Balance (Included) NA NA NA 630,503 NA 1,780,040 Total Revenue Not Generated by Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 1,594,226 1,869,496 1,856,543 2,348,521 1,718,018 3,784,759 Portion of Revenue Not Generated by Solid Waste Enterprise Fund ( %) 14.7 23.3 18.6 19.4 16.0 31.6 Environmental Support 2,098,096 2,268,392 2,487,479 2,169,700 1,656,598 2,237,464 Landfill Services 2,218,634 3,032,197 2,347,938 1,410,322 926,386 1,117,414 Recycling Services 2,752,628 4,875,031 4,291,804 5,594,727 4,082,220 5,450,893 Sanitation Services 3,289,081 2,302,832 2,570,585 2,906,448 2,253,632 3,184,184 FY 2015 -16 Equipment Reserves NA NA NA NA 997,4755 NA Total Department Expenses 10,358,439 12,478,452 11,697,806 12,081,196 9,916,311 11,989,955 Net Revenues ( +) / Deficits ( -) +458,494 - 4,456,764 - 1,739,646 0 +798,7036 0 Notes: 1. Projected past budgetary figures provided by County staff to SCS. 2. Unaudited, preliminary actuals (subject to change). 3. Approved budgetary figures. 4. The Solid Waste Programs Fee was reallocated for distribution through from the Recycling Services Division to the Environmental Support Division in FY 2016-17. 5. County staff indicated that the unaudited, preliminary numbers for FY 2015 -16 Actuals omitted $997,475 of Equipment Reserve Contribution as an expense. 6. Based on our discussions with the County, SCS expects this surplus is overstated pending the audit. 7. This table reflects the resulting restructuring of expense and revenue allocations between the Divisions which occurred as a result of the closure of the Orange County Landfill in FY 2012-13. ES -2 10 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund RATE MODEL SCENARIOS SCS developed seven Rate Model scenarios to evaluate impacts to the Enterprise Fund financial situation over the 5 -year planning period. Depending on the individual scenario, the Model assesses net revenue needs if the Program Fee, other revenues, and operating costs equal those in the Budget for FY 2016 -17 with inflation factors applied, known capital items accounted for, and other adjustments made to specific line items as detailed in Appendix C: • Scenarios 1 through 3 — Scenario 1 assumes status quo for the Department Solid Waste Program Fee ($107 per year). Scenarios 2 and 3 increase the Program Fee effective in FY 2016 -17 by $23 and $43, respectively, resulting in an assumed Program Fee of $130 for Scenario 2 and $150 for Scenario 3. Scenario 1 is intended to be used as a baseline or "Status Quo" scenario to enable comparisons of Scenarios 2 through 7. • Scenario 4 — This scenario serves as an assessment of the required increase in the Program Fee to balance projected operating expenses and revenues for solid waste and recycling services. Scenario 4 assumes the Program Fee balances the Fund's annual budget if other revenues and operating costs equal those projected in the Budget for FY 2016 -17, dependent on the sub - scenario. This iteration serves as a "break- even" analysis. Scenario 5 — This scenario serves as an assessment of the required increase in the contribution from the General Fund to balance projected operating expenses and revenues for solid waste and recycling services if the Program Fee was permanently eliminated effective in FY 2016 -17. It is assumed that the revenue to enable this contribution would be generated by a Property Tax Rate increase. • Scenario 6 — This scenario incorporates the revenues and expenses associated with a hypothetical transfer station constructed and operated by Orange County and centrally located (Eubanks Road area) to current County solid waste operations and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough. For purposes of the Model, revenues and expense assumptions remain the same as in Scenario 1, and the approximated annual net revenue from the transfer station is calculated and added to current revenues as shown in Hypothetical Transfer Station Net Revenue Estimate (Appendix G). This scenario then assesses the required Program Fee to balance the Fund's annual budget and thus serves a break -even analysis. • Scenario 7 — This scenario mimics Scenario 1 ( "Status Quo ") but assumes a "phasing -out" of the annual General Fund Contribution and a gradual increase of the Program Fee over the next 5 years. The respective Program Fee and General Fund Contribution figures used for FY 2016 -17 through FY 2020 -21 are shown in the table below (and also in Section 2.1.7, Exhibit 12). ES -3 11 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Scenario 7 Phase -Out of General Fund Contribution and Increase of Solid Waste Programs Fee Revenue Source FY 2016 -17 FY 2017 -18 FY 2018 -19 FY 2019 -20 FY 2020 -21 Solid Waste Programs Fee $107 $148.42 $158.63 $157.79 $186.14 General Fund Contribution $2,004,719 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 With the exception of Scenario 7, the six Model scenarios each have two iterations (sub - scenarios), as described below: • Sub - Scenarios A, modeled without General Fund Contribution; and, • Sub - Scenarios B, modeled with General Fund contribution. Note that Scenario 6, the transfer station scenario, includes additional sub - scenarios A.1, A.2, B.1, and B.2. The sub - scenarios 1 and 2 correspond to hypothetical transfer station operations in which waste is accepted from 1) only Orange County and the three Towns and 2) Orange County, the three Towns, and other waste disposers, respectively. Model Results The table below (and also in Section 2.1.8, Exhibit 13) shows the Modeled Budgetary Gap for the initial iteration for each of these seven scenarios, which reflects sub - scenario "A" (without General Fund contribution). Scenario Modeling Results — Projected Fund Budgetary Deficit Scenario FY 2016 -17 FY 2017 -18 FY 2018 -19 FY 2019 -20 FY 2020 -21 1 A — Status Quo: $107 ($3,784,759) ($4,020,216) ($4,069,322) ($4,350,009) ($4,597,730) 2A — $130 ($2,400,665) ($2,620,897) ($2,654,610) ($2,015,480) ($3,151,723) 3A — $150 ($1,197,105) ($1,404,097) ($1,424,426) ($1,676,019) ($1,894,327) 4A — Break Even $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5A — All Funding through ($10,223,805) ($10,530,091 ) ($10,650,806) ($10,099,634) ($11,324,803) General Fund 6A.1 —Construct TS Scenario: OC & Town $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Waste Only 6A.2 — Construct TS Scenario: OC, Town, & $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Disposers 7A — Phase -Out General Fund Contribution ($1,780,040) $0 $0 $0 $0 Approach ES -4 12 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund The table below (and also in Section 2.1.9, Exhibit 14) shows the break -even Program Fees for each of the sub - scenarios under Scenarios 4 and 6 for FY 2016 -17 through FY 2020 -21. Note that in Scenarios 4 and 6, the Program Fee was back - calculated using an optimization algorithm. Complete financial model results highlighting the Fund's projected annual net revenue /deficits are presented in Appendix F and the Model input parameters and results for Hypothetical Transfer Station Net Revenue Estimate are presented in Appendix G. Scenario 4 and 6 Modeling Results — Projected Annual Program Fee Required Scenario FY 2016 -17 FY 2017 -18 FY 2018 -19 FY 2019 -20 FY 2020 -21 4 — Break Even 4A — w/o General Fund Contribution $170 $173 $173 $177 $180 4B — w/ General Fund Contribution $137 $140 $141 $145 $148 6 — Construct a TS Scenario 6A — w/o General Fund, w/o Appropriated Fund Balance Contribution 6A.1 — OC & Town Waste Only $172 $175 $175 $178 $181 6A.2 — OC, Town, & Other Waste $171 $173 $173 $177 $180 6B — w/ General Fund, w/o Appropriated Fund Balance Contribution 6B.1 — OC & Town Waste Only $139 $142 $142 $146 $149 6B.2 — OC, Town, & Other Waste $137 $141 $141 $145 $148 Program Fee reduction by implementing TS w /OC, Town, & Other Waste (for first 5 years): <$2 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Our findings and recommendations, including revenue increase strategies, expense reduction strategies, and rate benchmarking from the Study are presented in Section 5 and summarized below. SCS offers the following findings and recommendations for the County's consideration: • As outlined in Scenario 1, the Fund's current financial structure is unsustainable and maintaining the current Program Fee amount ($107) along with the Status Quo program services will yield significant annual deficits over the next 5 -year period, both with the current practice of General Fund contributions (Scenario B) and without (Scenario A). • The exercise of allocating monies from the Fund's balance ( "Reserves ") to cover the annual budget deficit each year will deplete the entire Fund balance in approximately 5 years. Furthermore, this jeopardizes Fund liabilities such as landfill post- closure care. ES -5 13 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund • As outlined in Scenario 2, increasing the current amount of the Program Fee to $130 per year, which represents a 23 percent escalation, is anticipated to be insufficient to eliminate significant annual deficits, both with the current practice of General Fund contributions (Scenario B) and without (Scenario A). • As outlined in Scenario 3A, even increasing the current amount of the Program Fee to $150 per year (43 percent increase) is projected to be insufficient to eliminate significant annual deficits unless the General Fund continues to contribute nearly $2 million per year. • In the spirit of a true enterprise fund, the County would need to implement a Solid Waste Program Fee between $170 and $180 to fully fund all anticipated program expenses over the next 5 years. This is reflected in Scenario 4A and anticipates no General Fund contribution and no Appropriated Fund Balance revenues other than the identified loan proceeds for Waste and Recycling Center construction. • As an alternative to solely increasing the Program Fee, the County could take a "dual approach" by increasing the General Fund as well as increasing the Program Fee. The increase of the General Fund contribution should occur within the Sanitation Services Division to raise the Division's revenue from approximately $2 million to approximately $3 million to cover the annual deficit incurred in that Division. • A Revenue and Extension (R &E) Fund should be established to enable the Department to fund a reserve of 25% of its annual operating costs. This Fund would be designed to provide potential funding for unforeseen operational costs and declines in generated revenue. This would provide a buffer against financial obstacles such as declining recyclable material sale revenue and reduced C &D Landfill tipping fee revenues. Note that the R &E fund would require an increase in the Program Fee above and beyond the break -even fees identified in Scenarios 4A and 4B and could not be funded at the current rate of $107.00, nor the increased Fee amount under Scenarios 2A, 213, or 3A. • In the event that the Program Fee was eliminated in its entirety, in the spirit of a true enterprise fund, with no General Fund Contribution or Appropriated Fund Balance, based on Scenario 7, the impact on the tax rate would be a required increase of up to $0.07 per $100 of assessed value per year. • The Pro Forma Rate Model developed as part of this cost of service study should be updated annually and used for long -term financial forecasting of the Fund and to evaluate the likely impact of proposed Department operational changes. • Based on a cursory review of the program, SCS did not identify any notable inefficiencies within the Department operations. SCS recommends the County conduct a more in -depth review of its program on a routine basis to identify opportunities for revenue increase and expense reduction. ES - b 14 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 1.0 INTRODUCTION In March 2016, Orange County, North Carolina (County) retained SCS Engineers (SCS) to conduct a solid waste cost of services and rate study (Study) and to develop a Financial Plan for the County's Solid Waste System. Based on data and information provided by County staff, a Pro Forma rate model (Rate Model) was developed, which enabled SCS to prepare projections of financial performance of solid waste and recyclable material collection and disposal for the selected planning period (FY 2016 -17 through FY 2020 -21) and model different possible rate structures. Orange County Solid Waste Management Department (Department) solid waste and recycling program operations are organized under the following cost centers, or Divisions: • Environmental Support Services • Landfill Services • Recycling Services • Sanitation Services The Environmental Support Services Division consists of various Department support elements including planning and administrative functions, utilities, maintenance, education and outreach, and enforcement. The Landfill Services Division is responsible for the operation of the construction and demolition (C &D) landfill, scales and weighing, incoming waste materials inspections, maintenance and monitoring of the three closed landfills, oversight of temporary storm debris management sites, and general Eubanks Road site grounds maintenance and security. The Recycling Services Division manages a variety of recycling programs, services, and facilities. Finally, the Sanitation Services Division is responsible for Waste and Recycling Center operations, collection of waste from County buildings and schools, and the collection of bulky waste items. 1.1 PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK The overall objective of a cost of service and rate study is to calculate the solid waste fees and assessments required to adequately recover the costs of providing solid waste and recycling services to the County's residents, businesses, and other institutions. Based on its solid waste industry experience, SCS developed a series of critical tasks that provided a foundation for the conduct of the Study and development of the Financial Plan. This methodology is discussed in Section 2 of this report. 1.1 .1 Data Collection and Review The County provided historical and background information on operations and practices. This included: • Detailed financial reports and budgets • Solid waste and financial policies • Historical waste and recyclable material flow 15 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund • Personnel rosters and organizational charts • Vehicle improvement plans • Vehicle maintenance plans and anticipated costs • Solid waste agreements • Planned and potential capital improvement projects • Program fee drivers, memorandums, and other narratives 1.1.2 Staff Communications SCS held a project kickoff teleconference to initiate the Study, which provided a forum to confirm the scope of services, discuss data needs, and identify key issues for County staff. During the course of the Study, SCS conducted a series of additional conference calls with County staff managing different facets of the overall System. These conference calls, along with routine email communications, gave SCS an opportunity to review Study progress, verify overall assumptions, and receive useful input from County staff. In addition, SCS representatives gave a presentation of initial Study findings at a County Manager's Meeting on 5/10/16 as well as a meeting of the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG), a group of public and private solid waste stakeholders from various County and Town organizations on 5/25/16. SCS met with the County Manager and other County leaders again on 8/3/16 to review the financial analysis and conclusions and recommendations from the study. 1.2 SOLID WASTE ORDINANCES Chapter 34 of the County Code contains the County's solid waste ordinances. Ordinances fall under three articles related to general solid waste topics, collection and disposal, and regulated recyclable material. 1.2.1 Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance Of particular note is the Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance (RRMO), which went into effect on October 1, 2002. The RRMO requires that C &D projects have a waste management plan in place. It also mandates that certain bulky materials such as scrap metals, clean wood, pallets, and corrugated cardboard from commercial waste streams be recycled and not disposed of in a landfill. Applications for self -haul of recyclable material are available through the Department for a fee. There is also a charge of $25 per vehicle for a Collector's License which is applied to a vehicle used to haul C &D waste within the County with a Gross Vehicle Weight of greater than 9,000 pounds. Open burning of solid waste and C &D is prohibited within the County. 1.3 COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIAL Collection of solid waste and traditional recyclable material (bottles /cans, mixed paper, OCC, etc.) occurs through a variety of facets (curbside collection, staffed drop -off centers, 24 -hour drop -off centers, etc.) within Orange County. Orange County is somewhat unique in the municipal world in that it operates municipal curbside recyclable material collection programs 16 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund but not curbside solid waste collection. Communities in the United States tend to rely on private, solid waste haulers to provide both of these collection services for their citizens. Many urban, metropolitan municipal solid waste departments continue to provide collection services using municipal employees. Nationally, a large majority of the remaining solid waste programs have transitioned to contracted private haulers, primarily as a cost and risk reduction opportunity. 1.3.1 County Solid Waste Collection Program The County provides solid waste collection services to its residents through drop -off collection facilities and governmental institutions via direct collection. Commercial solid waste collection is provided through private enterprise within Orange County. 1.3.1.1 Residential The Department does not provide curbside solid waste collection. Solid waste collection services are provided to County residents at the five drop -off Solid Waste and Recycling Centers located throughout Orange County (refer to Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2). Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), scrap tires, white goods, scrap metal, clean wood waste, yard waste, and bulky waste is handled by the Sanitation Services Division at these sites. Exhibit 1. Solid Waste and Recycling Centers by Location and Customer Counts by Fiscal Year Center Letter Address FY 2011 -12 FY 2012 -13 FY 2013 -14 FY 2014 -15 FY 2015 -16 1514 Eubanks Rd, Eubanks A Chapel Hill, NC 154,760 158,637 161,128 126,405 121,467 27516 1616 Ferguson Rd, Ferguson B Chapel Hill, NC 94,535 88,535 89,867 71,200 72,151 27516 6705 Bradshaw Quarry Rd, Bradshaw C Mebane, NC 35,376 38,265 40,825 37,888 39,113 27302 7001 High Rock High Rock D Rd, Efland, NC 68,582 79,289 70,992 68,102 66,747 27243 3605 Walnut Walnut Grove Church Rd, Grove E Hillsborough, NC 154,238 117,743 133,054 142,485 134,829 27278 17 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Exhibit 2. Solid Waste and Recycling Center Locations Note that the Walnut Grove Church Road Center was modernized into a "District Center" in 2013 via paving as well as the installation of compactors, dual loading heights, household hazardous waste (HHW) collection, clothing drop off, plastic bag recycling, and food waste collection containers. Additional Solid Waste and Recycling Centers are being considered for future modernization, including the Eubanks Road Center which is slated for reconstruction into a District Center. The Department collects data on Solid Waste and Recycling Center customer attendance through continuous customer counts. The customer counts are shown in tabular format in Exhibit 1 and in graphical format in Exhibit 3. 4 18 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Exhibit 3. Solid Waste and Recycling Center Customer Counts by Fiscal Year 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 0 L 100,000 E 80,000 V, 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1.3.1.2 Commercial FY 11 -12 FT 12 -13 FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 520,000 500,000 c 480,000 m 460,000 0 c 440,000 0 420,000 O 0 400,000 < 380,000 -4—Bradshaw 11—Eubanks Ferguson --X—High Rock —I--Walnut Grove —*--Total The County does not provide solid waste collection services for its commercial establishments. Commercial waste from businesses and multi - family residences (e.g., apartments and condominiums) is collected by a combination of national and regional private companies and billed directly to customers by these companies. 1.3.1.3 Institutional Solid waste collection services are provided to County buildings by the County's Sanitation Services Division. The Division also collects waste from the Orange County schools and bulky waste from both the Orange County schools and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City schools for a fee. These contracts with the school systems account for a portion of the revenue into the Solid Waste System. 1.3.2 County Recyclable Material Collection Program Recycling services are currently administered within the County by Orange County Recycling (OCR), a division of the Department. In 1997, Orange County and the incorporated municipalities of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough each adopted a solid waste reduction goal of 61 % per capita. The efforts of OCR have resulted in one of the top solid waste reduction rates in the state of North Carolina. 1.3.2.1 Residential Orange County's first recycling program commenced in 1987 with the construction of five unstaffed drop -off sites which accepted glass bottles, aluminum cans, and newspapers. Since that time, recycling has expanded in the County to include additional recyclable material collection at the Solid Waste and Recycling Centers and curbside collection in both urban and rural areas. R 19 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Urban curbside collection began within the County in the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough by a private contractor in 1988. Weekly urban curbside recyclables collection is now provided by OCR via a contracted private hauler in the three towns and the portion of Chapel Hill located in Durham County. Residential curbside service began in select rural areas of Orange County in 1993, and in 2015 the Department commissioned a collection route optimization study which also assessed the feasibility of implementing curbside recyclables collection in rural households which were not previously offered the service. The study concluded that the new households could be incorporated in a single phase and in 2016 the remaining 6,800 rural households which previously did not receive curbside recyclables collection service were added to the rural curbside program. All County residents may drop off recyclable materials at the five Solid Waste and Recycling Centers located throughout the County or the five 24 -Hour Recycling Drop -off Sites as shown in Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5. Exhibit 4. 24 -Hour Recycling Drop -off Sites by Location Center No. Address Cedar Falls Park 1 401 Weaver Dairy Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 University Mall 2 201 Estes Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Meadowmont 3 Hwy 54 East (behind Harris Teeter), Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Carrboro Plaza 4 104 NC 54, Carrboro, NC 27510 Hampton Pointe 5 625 Hampton Point Blvd, Hillsborough, NC 27278 M 20 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Exhibit 5. 24 -Hour Recycling Drop -off Site Locations 1.3.2.2 Commercial Orange County took over commercial recyclables collection from a private contractor in 2000. County commercial recycling services are provided at no direct cost to participating businesses at select commercial recycling locations. The County provides carts and collection services to the participating businesses. Commercial establishments may also drop off old corrugated cardboard (OCC) for no charge at the five 24 -Hour Recycling Drop -off Sites if they produce fewer than 50 boxes per week or at the Landfill where there is no limit. County commercial establishments may also contract with private contractors for recyclable material collection. Orange County provides technical assistance to local businesses and other non - residential entities on request at no charge. 1.3.2.3 Institutional Recyclable material collection services are provided by OCR to local, state, and government buildings; pedestrian containers located in area parks and downtown Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and 21 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Hillsborough; convenience stores; and gas stations. OCR also collects recyclable material twice weekly from the Orange County schools (a service started in 2010) and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City schools (2011) for a fee. Contracts with the school systems and other municipal sources account for a portion of the revenue into the Solid Waste System. 1.3.3 OCR Recyclable Material Processing and Marketing All collected recyclable material is consolidated at the recycling area of the Orange County Landfill. The recycling area consists of a large concrete pad (about 15,000 square feet) that is partially covered upon which collected recyclables are dumped from the collection vehicles. Waste Industries, the private hauler contracted to collect recyclable material curbside from urban residences, delivers the recyclables to the recycling area at the Landfill. Prior to June 2012 a two - stream program strategy was employed in which fiber was transferred and sold to Sonoco in Durham, whereas commingled cans and bottles were transferred and sold to FCR/ReCommunity in Greensboro. Beginning in July 2012, the material has been delivered to the recycling area as a single - stream, inspected by County staff for contaminants, and loaded into walking floor trailers and transported to the Sonoco MRF in Raleigh where it is processed and sold. Electronics are transported to GEEP in Durham, NC, and rigid plastics are transported to Blueridge Plastics in Eden, NC; Sonoco in Raleigh, NC; or other plastics recyclers in the region depending on market value at the time of discard. There is one (1) County employee that manages the quality control and loading of single stream material. Two (2) County employees transport single stream and rigid plastic to their respective destinations. The electronics recycling vendor currently collects the County - prepared electronic recycling material at the landfill property and transports the material to their property for further processing and sale to end users. 1.4 SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS FEE The County charges all eligible properties an annual fee of $107.00 for the solid waste and recycling program services provided by the Department. This Solid Waste Program Fee is charged to cover the costs of collecting, handling, and disposing and/or recycling of the County's solid waste and recyclable material. The fee, which was implemented in 2015, is included with the annual tax bill levied on approximately 61,000 improved properties within the County. As noted in Section 1.1, one of the purposes of this Study is to estimate the appropriate Fee amount over the 5 -year planning period to cover the costs of the County's solid waste and recycling programs. A 3 -R fee and Waste and Recycling Center fee were implemented in order to reduce reliance on General Fund revenue, both of which have since been replaced by the Solid Waste Programs Fee. 1.5 COLLECTED RECYCLABLE MATERIAL TONNAGE AND REVENUE Exhibit 6 shows the last five fiscal years of recyclable material weight data and revenue. The data shows that recycling revenues in the County have been decreasing despite increased 10% Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund collection of recyclable material. This is primarily due to a decrease in the strength of the commodities market. Exhibit 6. Recyclable Material Tonnages and Revenue 16,000 15,500 15,000 M Qj U 14,500 U d = 14,000 0 13,500 13,000 12,500 1.6 FY 2010 -11 FY 2011 -12 FY 2012 -13 FY 2013 -14 FY 2014 -15 Fiscal Year Tons $ Revenue Source: Orange County, 2015 -16 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL $900,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 e, $500,000 Co $400,000 CD 0 $300,000 2- $200,000 $100,000 $0 Municipal solid waste collected from the Solid Waste and Recycling Centers and County institutions is delivered to the City of Durham Transfer Station where the Department is currently charged $42.50 per ton. The Department expects that at some point this tipping fee at the City of Durham Transfer Station will be increased; however, the timing and amount of an increase is uncertain. Yard waste is delivered by residents and the area Towns to the Landfill where it is mulched and sold to the community. The County owns and operates a Construction and Demolition (C &D) Landfill at 1514 Eubanks Road. It is located at the site of the old Orange County MSW Landfill (Landfill) which closed on July 1, 2013, and two other co- located landfills (one C &D unit and one MSW unit). C &D debris, stumps, land clearing waste, mobile homes, mattresses/box springs (currently transported to Purpose Recycling), yard waste, clean wood waste, and stockpiled tires are accepted at the landfill and on -site collection center for various fees. Old corrugated cardboard (OCC), oyster shells, electronics, residential /commercial tires, large appliances, and scrap metal are accepted from residents for free. Department staff strictly enforces the Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance at the C &D Landfill. Contaminated loads (loads containing both recyclable and non - recyclable C &D waste) 0 23 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund brought to the C &D Landfill will be charged double the tipping fee of uncontaminated loads. Alternatively, the Department staff requires sorting of recyclable materials from contaminated loads upon arrival at the C &D landfill. 1.7 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELECTRONICS RECYCLING The Recycling Services Division operates Toxicity Reduction Improvement Programs (TRIP) to collect County residents' household hazardous waste (HHW) and electronics for disposal and/or recycling. Materials accepted at the five Solid Waste and Recycling Centers include: • Electronics • Automotive and Boat Batteries • Household Batteries • Oil Filters • Motor Oil • Kerosene, transmission fluid, gear oil, heating oil, Coleman fuel, and diesel fuel • Antifreeze The Walnut Grove Church Road Solid Waste and Recycling Center accepts HHW items not accepted at other Solid Waste and Recycling Centers. In addition to the Walnut Grove Center, Orange County operates a HHW collection center on the Eubanks Road Landfill, soon to be incorporated into the Eubanks Road Waste and Recycling Center to allow for extended hours of operation. Materials accepted only at the HHW Collection Center and Walnut Grove Church Center include the following: cooking oil; lawn, garden, and pool chemicals; household cleaners and chemicals; paint, sealant, and solvents; partially - filled aerosol cans; automotive chemicals; automotive fluids such as gasoline, mixed gas, and brake fluid; fluorescent light bulbs, including tubes and compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs); thermostats and thermometers containing mercury; helium tanks (up to 3- gallons); and propane tanks (1 gallon). Commercial entities may also drop off their HHW if they produce less than 220 pounds per month at the Eubanks Road HHW Collection Center. Many painting contractors use this facility. Businesses with more than 75 pounds of HHW must set up an appointment prior to arriving at the collection center. 1.8 FOOD WASTE COLLECTION According to a 2013 survey in the United States, there are more than 214 source - separated organics collection programs in operation and the effort to separately manage waste organics is gaining traction in recent years. That number is up from only 20 programs in 2005. Consequently, Orange County can be considered as an "early adopter." The County contracts with a private hauler (currently Brooks Contracting of Gladstone, NC) to collect and compost food waste and other compostable organic material from select local 24 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund businesses at no charge. This program accepts source- separated organic materials such as kitchen and produce department prep waste, post- consumer plate waste, and other compostable organic materials from local restaurants, grocery stores, and food service establishments for composting. Residents may also drop -off their source - separated food waste into separate containers designated for composting at the Walnut Grove Church Road Solid Waste and Recycling Center. This is currently the only waste and recycling center that accepts residential food waste for composting, although wood waste composting will be incorporated into the Eubanks Road Waste and Recycling Center upon its completion. Orange County Solid Waste also sells compost bins for $50.00 apiece at the administration building on Eubanks road. The compost produced by Brooks meets the Class "A" rating by the State of North Carolina, the highest regulatory ranking available for compost. The product is suitable for unrestricted use on agricultural crops, landscaping plants, turf, or ornamentals. It is sold at a cost of $30.00 per yard to residents. The County also maintains two outdoor composting demonstration sites for educational purposes, and instructional classes are held at the sites at least four times per year. Orange County Solid Waste can also help set up or teach composting programs for interested organizations. These programs are free to Orange County residents and businesses. 1.9 COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STAFFING The Department is responsible for the overall management of the County's solid waste program. It is currently staffed with approximately 64 total positions. As shown in Appendix A, from a personnel standpoint, the Department is subdivided into three sections (note this breakdown differs from the breakdown of administrative Divisions within the department): • Environmental Support • Solid Waste Operations • Recycling Operations Mr. Gayle Wilson serves as the Solid Waste Management Director. Additional managerial positions within the Department include Solid Waste Planner, Administrative Officer, Management and Program Specialist, Solid Waste Operations Manager, Solid Waste Engineer, Heavy Equipment Mechanic Supervisor, Solid Waste Collection Services Manager, Environmental Enforcement Supervisor, Recycling Programs Manager, Recycling Programs Supervisor, and Solid Waste Field Services Supervisor. 1.10 VEHICLES The Department and its contractors provide collection services to residences and businesses within the County using a combination of trucks for recyclables, residential solid waste (from collection centers), institutional solid waste, yard waste, food waste, and bulky waste. The Department has a long -term fleet replacement plan. Appendix B lists the current Department fleet inventory by division. %�7 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund The Department maintains a vehicle fleet separate from the main County fleet in regards to acquisition, maintenance, and utilization, the only department within the County government infrastructure to do so. A Fleet Management Review was conducted by Chatham Consulting, Inc., in 2012 which offered observations and recommendations to increase the efficiency of the operations of the Department fleet. Chatham observed that fleet operations are "Safe & Economic" and that fleet vehicles are well maintained. The Department is preparing to commence an additional fleet study with CST Fleet Services to benchmark repair efforts and maintenance scheduling. 1.11 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH The Department deploys a comprehensive environmental education and outreach services program, which provides information to the public on the range of services the Department provides, associated costs, and efficiency measures implemented. The Department's efforts includes providing classes, community talks, brochures, a Department web site (Exhibit 7), social media (Exhibit 8), and support of volunteer cleanup efforts. Exhibit 7. Orange County Solid Waste Management Department Website ORANGE COUNTY Searrh. CL NORTH CAROLINA !lone • @everinen[r • g�ld'.Y.a Man., :• I Solid Waste Management Department Thi Orunye G,—!y Surnl '.:'.— Mennyenien; ❑e•.pnrinient ix. =pnn Ae. Im aper.t hq the 8r.nge C-.ty l,andfia, prang, C—ty Solid Wrate Crp.ven4nre [ nt— .nd 0 -Hoye Commnnity Reryrang Rrogi. , i; for fhn 701a deparl —A INOK V uh.dule. ... Inr. Wnd- M Orange Caunty'n R.:y hny O .q—n rnr r for Infonnanon regarding the Soad Was[, Ad—ry Gmup J.yIR Si'JC.!R7RVIIY!5.[-5€ Y I The a4miyt5tRtlye gVISe [WWn and epntaet Information) serves the FM—g funatens- + IsndN aeMnm suhd wait �aurama fee odiniraytrahun uldc9n �s fur R.'f and k • vclin � l[ev • eoVCa4!:n and o'u[fCaSh a fina and budrf• . tra,W g program perfwm— (StslJS1-05) 12 26 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Exhibit 8. Orange County Solid Waste Management on Social Media SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COUNTY - • - -'�I Timeline About Photos Reviews More - ��{ ® Orange County NC Solid Waste Management <.pnl i- _ - - - 103 people likethis Everwondered whattodo with your plastic bags? Find out here! #recycle #reuse #plasticbags a p..Ple have been here ht[psllorange OUntyncsol[dwaSte_tUmb[LCOmf_ Ar- you - read -o... Open S:DOAM -5 0OPM - What to d0 W1th those pesky plastic Get additional info lags r0i �i/'dC It ... ....lox most recent post you know tnstwe Invite trends to like this Page b.,: 9'oe touched on the importance of NOTputtingplestic #!� bags in your recycling bin.l knowyou must be... ® 5.0 o1`5 stars - 1 review 0P,.r,GEC0Jr T. NLSOL0W'HSTE.TUMBLROON New Reviews�,�_: AMU } i+ Like ■ Comment A Share 03 9 Write a comment.. ® Orange County NC Solid Waste Management 1207 Eubanks Rd 9 save April r . al I1:!.9am M Chapel Hill, NC Ever wonderetl how your recyclabfes get recycletl7 Here's a first peek into _ (979t 966 -2786 mo.�,.�in�,.r,.ra��Nr�..�m 13 27 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 2.0 COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Since the cessation of waste acceptance at the County's sanitary landfill in June 2013, the expenses associated with the County's existing solid waste management and recycling programs and facilities have exceeded the revenues generated by these programs and facilities. SCS reviewed historical program and facilities expenses (both operating and capital) as well as the historical revenues from various sources that have served to cover these expenses for the past several years. SCS projected the costs necessary to continue implementing these programs and operate existing facilities over the next 5 years (through FY 2020 -21). SCS also projected the revenues likely to be realized during this timeframe in order to develop a "cost -of- service" analysis to identify potential funding deficits or surpluses. A brief overview of the Department's current budget and management practices, along with a description of SCS' assumptions and findings related to this cost -of- service analysis are discussed below. 2.1 BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OVERVIEW 2.1.1 Enterprise Fund The County has established the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund (Fund) to account for all Department solid waste and recycling program operations, which are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises. In other words, the County's intent is that the Fund be managed such that the costs of implementing these programs and facilities (operating and capital expenses, including depreciation) are covered by the monies in this Fund. Money is allocated to this Fund through user charges and revenues generated by the solid waste and recycling programs and facilities supported by the Fund, with limited revenue allocated from the General Fund. The Fund includes potential revenue from approximately 33 distinct sources (line items under the Budget Accounts), which can be associated with one or more of the four cost centers (Divisions) within the Department. Most of these sources contribute revenue into only one of the Divisions. However, line items for some sources contribute revenue into multiple Divisions. For general reference purposes, SCS divided revenue sources into three categories or tiers of sources; primary, secondary, and ancillary. Exhibit 9 displays the three tiers and core revenue streams associated with each. 14 28 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Exhibit 9. Revenue Tier Streams and Associated Accounts Tier Definition Example Revenue Accounts Primary' Greater than $1 Million per County Solid Waste Program Fee, County General year Fund Contribution, Appropriated Fund Balance Secondary Greater than $100K per Contribution from Equipment Reserves, Landfill year but less than $1 Fees, Recycling Tip Fees, Sanitation Waste Million Collections, Tire Tax Reimbursement, Sale of Recyclable Material, C &D License /Permit Ancillary Less than $100K per year Sale of Fixed Assets, White Goods Reimbursement, Clean Metal and White Goods Recycling, Mulch Sales, Grants, LFG Recovery, Disposal Tax Reimbursement, Compost Sales, Mattress Disposal Fees, etc. Note: 1 . The Appropriated Fund Balance has historically been an Ancillary or Secondary Tier line item account; however, the FY 2016 -17 Preliminary Budget relies on this line item account as a Primary Tier. The Fund includes potential expenses from approximately 47 distinct general sources (line items under the Budget Accounts) and five capital sources from five accounts, which can be associated with one or more of the Divisions within the Department. The four largest contributors to expenses are Permanent Salaries (22 %), Miscellaneous Contract Services (13.8 %), Contribution to Equipment Reserves (11.1 %), and Vehicles (6.6 %). Historically, the County General Fund has contributed to the Enterprise Fund budget, accounting for roughly 65 percent of the Sanitation Division budget following its transfer from the Public Works Department to the Solid Waste Management Department in FY 2007 -08. The reduction of Enterprise Fund revenue over the past three years or so is attributed to the closure of the MSW Landfill and the decline of recyclable material prices in the commodities market. 2.1.2 Billing The Solid Waste Program Fee is a single, county -wide fee assessed on each improved property within the County, including the municipalities and the portion of the Town of Chapel Hill located within Durham County. The current fee is $107.00 per parcel annually, but is adjusted annually as part of the Department's budgeting process based on estimated system expenditures, minus all revenue, and divided by the number of taxable parcels. A collaborative discussion by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) follows this exercise, at which time budgets are finalized. The Tax Administration Department manages billing and collection of tax payments for the County, including billing and collection of the Programs Fee. This service incurs charges by the General Fund to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. The C &D Landfill accepts certain types of waste from commercial and residential customers for various fees depending on the material. A schedule of fees for various materials as well as other Program fees can be found in Exhibit 10. These charges are incurred by the customer upon disposal. 15 29 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Exhibit 10. Commissioner Approved Fee Schedule — FY 201 5 -1 6 Department/ Pro ram Destination Current Fee Approved Fee Change* Last Revision Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Solid Waste Programs Fee (30) NA $107.00 New Landfill 2013 Construction & Demo $40.00 /ton 2012 Clean Wood /Vegetative Waste $1 8.00 /ton 2009 Stumps & Land Clearing Waste $40.00 /ton 2012 Disposal of Mobile Homes $200.00 /unit 2010 Conventional Yard Waste Mulch $25.00/3 cubic yard 2012 Decorative Red Mulch & $28 /one cubic yard scoop 2009 Tires (stockpiled tires /no state $1 00.00 /ton 1997 Appliances (White Goods) No charge Scrap Metal No charge Cardboard No charge IMattress Recycling Fee $10 per piece 2013 Environmental Support Regulated Recyclable Materials $25.00 /vehicle 2002 Regulated Recyclable Materials $250.00 /application 2002 Regulated Recyclable Materials 10% of assessed building 2002 Regulated Material Permit - 8% of Applicable Building 2008 Regulated Material Permit - 5% of Applicable Building 2008 Sanitation - School Refuse Collection 6 cubic yard $31.00 2010 8 cubic yard $33.00 2010 Non - scheduled pick -up $40.00 2010 Community Relations /Visitors Bureau Occupancy Tax Rate 3% of gross receipts 2008 Note: *Any fee changes will be included in this column; a blank beside each fee means there is no fee change in FY 2015 -16. 2.1 .3 Budget Overview Exhibit 11 shows the distribution of the Department's revenues and expenses for the past four fiscal years and the budget for current FY 2016 -17 by division. As shown, annual expenses have increased from the previous to the current fiscal year with the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund running a net deficit in The exhibit also shows the amount and percentage of the revenues over the past 4 years that were made up of transfers from the General Fund and Appropriated Fund Balance. The final row of the exhibit shows the additional net revenues and deficits added to the amount transferred from the General Fund. 30 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Exhibit 1 1 . Distribution of Department's Operating Revenues and Expenses by Fiscal Year Notes: 1. Projected past budgetary figures provided by County staff to SCS. 2. Unaudited, preliminary actuals (subject to change). 3. Approved budgetary figures. 4. The Solid Waste Programs Fee was reallocated for distribution through from the Recycling Services Division to the Environmental Support Division in FY 2016 -17. 5. County staff indicated that the unaudited, preliminary numbers for FY 2015 -16 Actuals omitted $997,475 of Equipment Reserve Contribution as an expense. 6. Based on our discussions with the County, SCS expects this surplus is overstated pending the audit. 7. This table reflects the resulting restructuring of expense and revenue allocations between the Divisions which occurred as a result of the closure of the Orange County Landfill in FY 2012-13. 17 FY 2012 -13 FY 2013 -14 FY 2014 -15 FY 2015 -161 Projected Budget FY 2015 -162 Preliminary Actuals FY 2016 -173 Revenues by Division ($) Environmental Support 106,047 104,188 770,848 150,000 170,677 6,607,163 Landfill Services 3,716,514 1,187,249 1,086,812 1,167,217 1,221,787 500,290 Recycling Services 4,732,514 3,512,839 3,803,287 5,531,343 7,511,5874 997,743 Sanitation Services 2,262,285 3,217,411 4,297,213 4,602,133 1,810,963 2,104,719 Other (Appropriated Fund Bal.) NA NA NA 630,503 NA 1,780,040 Total Department Revenues 10,816,933 8,021,688 9,958,160 12,081,196 10,715,014 11,989,955 Amount that is Transfer from General Fund (Included) 1,594,226 1,869,496 1,856,543 1,718,018 1,718,018 2,004,719 Amount that is from Appropriated Fund Balance (Included) NA NA NA 630,503 NA 1,780,040 Total Revenue Not Generated by Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 1,594,226 1,869,496 1,856,543 2,348,521 1,718,018 3,784,759 Portion of Revenue Not Generated by Solid Waste Enterprise Fund ( %) 14.7 23.3 18.6 19.4 16.0 31.6 Environmental Support 2,098,096 2,268,392 2,487,479 2,169,700 1,656,598 2,237,464 Landfill Services 2,218,634 3,032,197 2,347,938 1,410,322 926,386 1,117,414 Recycling Services 2,752,628 4,875,031 4,291,804 5,594,727 4,082,220 5,450,893 Sanitation Services 3,289,081 2,302,832 2,570,585 2,906,448 2,253,632 3,184,184 FY 2015 -16 Equipment Reserves NA NA NA NA 997,4755 NA Total Department Expenses 10,358,439 12,478,452 11,697,806 12,081,196 9,916,311 11,989,955 Net Revenues ( +) / Deficits ( -) +458,494 - 4,456,764 - 1,739,646 0 +798,7036 0 Notes: 1. Projected past budgetary figures provided by County staff to SCS. 2. Unaudited, preliminary actuals (subject to change). 3. Approved budgetary figures. 4. The Solid Waste Programs Fee was reallocated for distribution through from the Recycling Services Division to the Environmental Support Division in FY 2016 -17. 5. County staff indicated that the unaudited, preliminary numbers for FY 2015 -16 Actuals omitted $997,475 of Equipment Reserve Contribution as an expense. 6. Based on our discussions with the County, SCS expects this surplus is overstated pending the audit. 7. This table reflects the resulting restructuring of expense and revenue allocations between the Divisions which occurred as a result of the closure of the Orange County Landfill in FY 2012-13. 17 31 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 2.1.4 Reserves According to the County's Solid Waste Fund Revenues /Reserves sheet, March 15, 2016, the total estimated ending balance for the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund was $8,867,042 ($3,492,631 of which is the Equipment Reserve balance) on June 30, 2016. This amount represents the ending Fund balance without loan proceeds including those from building construction, rural expansion cart procurement, a rural truck purchase, Eubanks Road W &R Center loan, balance from closure of the Orange County Landfill, and another prior loan. The total estimated Fund balance is $12,751,990 when these additional loan proceeds are accounted for. Use of Fund balance has been required in order to balance the Department budget over the past several fiscal years including the current FY 2016 -17. The goal of the Department is to enable the Fund to be structurally viable and sustainable without contributions from the General Fund or allocations from the Fund balance. 2.1.5 Rate Model At the outset of the work effort, SCS developed a Microsoft Exce1TM spreadsheet- based, pro - forma model (Rate Model) to assist in the completion of the financial analysis. This model includes the following facets: • An analysis of operational expenditures (facility operation, staffing, recycling tonnages, tipping fees, etc.); refer to Appendix E for 5 -year estimated Department expense projections. • Analysis of capital outlays (equipment replacement and capital projects) • Revenue analysis (annual revenue projections, net expenditures, and rate plan to provide sufficient revenues); refer to Appendix D for 5 -year estimated Department revenue projections. • Rate Benchmarking Analysis • Transfer Station Implementation Analysis 2.1.6 Methodology Overview The following methods were utilized by SCS to conduct the cost of service analysis: • Collect Historical Actual Expenses and Revenues for the County System — This task involved gathering available historical actual revenue and expense data for the Fund, compiling these into a financial database, and incorporating the data into the Rate Model. • Develop the "Test Year" — The second task was the development of an annual revenue requirement for a "Test Year ". The revenue requirement represents the total revenue for the System needed to recover all System costs. SCS worked with County staff to select a period that reflected a typical year for the System. Budgetary expenses for FY 2016 -17 were used as the basis of the Test Year for the Study. SCS then worked with County staff to make these costs more representative of anticipated conditions during the upcoming 5 -year financial planning horizon. The resulting Test 18 32 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Year was used as the basis for forecasting expenses for the 5 -year forecast (FY 2016- 17 to FY 2020 -21). • Develop Revenue Requirement Projection — After developing the revenue requirement for the Test Year, SCS worked with County staff to project changes in anticipated costs due to inflation, labor increases, facility and vehicle maintenance, planning costs, etc. This resulted in a 5 -year revenue requirement forecast for the entire sanitation program including collection, recycling, disposal of solid waste, public education, etc. • Revenue Offsets — SCS worked with County staff to identify revenue sources and develop estimates for the sale of recyclables, C &D permit revenues, C &D tipping fees, mulch and compost sales, LFG recovery, etc. • Determination of the Number of Customer Units — SCS worked with County staff to develop reasonable estimates of future number of customers over the next 5 -year period. • Calculation of the Annual County Solid Waste Programs Assessed Fee — SCS distributed the revenue needs across the four Divisions to estimate the cost of service and calculate the annual Program Fee needed to balance the budget. Appendices D and E identify projected revenues and expenses, respectively, by service area used in the Model for the Department for FY 2016 -17 through FY 2020 -21. 2.1.7 Model Scenarios SCS developed seven Rate Model scenarios to evaluate impacts to the Enterprise Fund financial situation over the 5 -year planning period. Depending on the individual scenario, the Model assesses net revenue needs if the Program Fee, other revenues, and operating costs equal those in the Budget for FY 2016 -17 with inflation factors applied, known capital items accounted for, and other adjustments made to specific line items as detailed in Appendix C: • Scenarios 1 through 3 — Scenario 1 assumes status quo for the Department Solid Waste Program Fee ($107 per year). Scenarios 2 and 3 increase the Program Fee effective in FY 2016 -17 by $23 and $43, respectively, resulting in an assumed Program Fee of $130 for Scenario 2 and $150 for Scenario 3. Scenario 1 is intended to be used as a baseline or "Status Quo" scenario to enable comparisons of Scenarios 2 through 7. • Scenario 4 — This scenario serves as an assessment of the required increase in the Program Fee to balance projected operating expenses and revenues for solid waste and recycling services. Scenario 4 assumes the Program Fee balances the Fund's annual budget if other revenues and operating costs equal those projected in the Budget for FY 2016 -17, dependent on the sub - scenario. This iteration serves as a "break- even" analysis. EM 33 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund • Scenario 5 — This scenario serves as an assessment of the required increase in the contribution from the General Fund to balance projected operating expenses and revenues for solid waste and recycling services if the Program Fee was permanently eliminated effective in FY 2016 -17. It is assumed that the revenue to enable this contribution would be generated by a Property Tax Rate increase. • Scenario 6 — This scenario incorporates the revenues and expenses associated with a hypothetical transfer station constructed and operated by Orange County and centrally located (Eubanks Road area) to current County solid waste operations and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough. For purposes of the Model, revenues and expense assumptions remain the same as in Scenario 1, and the approximated annual net revenue from the transfer station is calculated and added to current revenues as shown in Hypothetical Transfer Station Net Revenue Estimate (Appendix G). This scenario then assesses the required Program Fee to balance the Fund's annual budget and thus serves a break -even analysis. • Scenario 7 — This scenario mimics Scenario 1 ( "Status Quo ") but assumes a "phasing -out" of the annual General Fund Contribution and a gradual increase of the Program Fee over the next 5 years. The respective Program Fee and General Fund Contribution figures used for FY 2016 -17 through FY 2020 -21 are shown in Exhibit 12. Exhibit 12. Scenario 7 Phase -Out of General Fund Contribution and Increase of Solid Waste Programs Fee Revenue Source FY 2016 -17 FY 2017 -18 FY 2018 -19 FY 2019 -20 FY 2020 -21 Solid Waste Programs Fee $107 $148.42 $158.63 $157.79 $186.14 General Fund Contribution $2,004,719 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 With the exception of Scenario 7, the six Model scenarios each have two iterations (sub - scenarios) as described below: • Sub - Scenarios A, modeled without General Fund Contribution; and, • Sub - Scenarios B, modeled with General Fund contribution. Note that Scenario 6, the transfer station scenario, includes additional sub - scenarios A.1, A.2, B.1, and B.2. The sub - scenarios 1 and 2 correspond to hypothetical transfer station operations in which waste is accepted from 1) only Orange County and the three Towns and 2) Orange County, the three Towns, and other waste disposers, respectively. 2.1.8 Model Results Exhibit 13 shows the Modeled Budgetary Gap for the initial iteration for each of these seven scenarios, which reflects sub - scenario "A" (without General Fund contribution). In addition to developing the Test Year revenue requirements, SCS forecasted the annual revenue requirement 20 34 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund for FY 2016 -17 through FY 2020 -21 based on the projected annual expenses. The assumptions used to develop the forecast for Fund reserves and expenses are presented in Appendix C. These forecasted revenues and expenses were utilized to develop each scenario (and sub - scenario) iteration of the Rate Model to calculate the Fund's potential annual net revenue /deficit based on the various input parameters associated with each scenario. Exhibit 13. Scenario Modeling Results — Projected Fund Budgetary Gap Scenario FY 2016 -17 FY 2017 -18 FY 2018 -19 FY 2019 -20 FY 2020 -21 1 A — Status Quo: $107 ($3,784,759) ($4,020,216) ($4,069,322) ($4,350,009) ($4,597,730) 2A — $130 ($2,400,665) ($2,620,897) ($2,654,610) ($2,015,480) ($3,151,723) 3A — $150 ($1,197,105) ($1,404,097) ($1,424,426) ($1,676,019) ($1,894,327) 4A — Break Even $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5A —All Funding through ($10,223,805) ($10,530,091) ($10,650,806) ($10,099,634) ($11,324,803) General Fund 6A.1 — Construct TS Scenario: OC & Town $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Waste Only 6A.2 — Construct TS Scenario: OC, Town, & $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Waste 7A — Phase -Out General Fund Contribution ($1,780,040) $0 $0 $0 $0 Approach Exhibit 14 shows the break -even Program Fees for each of the sub - scenarios under Scenarios 4 and 6 for FY 2016 -17 through FY 2020 -21. Note that in Scenarios 4 and 6, the Program Fee was back - calculated using an optimization algorithm. Exhibit 15 extends this analysis for FY 2021- 22 through FY 2025 -26 but only shows the net revenue /expense effect the transfer station has on the Program Fee (note that positive values indicate the necessary increase in the Program Fee brought by net transfer station expense and negative values indicate the potential decrease in the Program fee brought by net transfer station revenue). Complete financial model results highlighting the Fund's projected annual net revenue /deficits are presented in Appendix F and the Model input parameters and results for Hypothetical Transfer Station Net Revenue Estimate are presented in Appendix G. 21 35 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Exhibit 14. Scenario 4 and 6 Modeling Results — Projected Annual Program Fee Required Scenario FY 2016 -17 FY 2017 -18 FY 2018 -19 FY 2019 -20 FY 2020 -21 4 — Break Even 4A — w/o General Fund Contribution $170 $173 $173 $177 $180 4B — w/ General Fund Contribution $137 $140 $141 $145 $148 6 — Construct a TS Scenario 6A — w/o General Fund, w/o Appropriated Fund Balance Contribution 6A.1 — OC & Town Waste Only $172 $175 $175 $178 $181 6A.2 — OC, Town, & Other Waste $171 $173 $173 $177 $180 6B — w/ General Fund, w/o Appropriated Fund Balance Contribution 6B.1 — OC & Town Waste Only $139 $142 $142 $146 $149 6B.2 — OC, Town, & Other Waste $137 $141 $141 $145 $148 Program Fee reduction by implementing TS w /OC, Town, & Other Waste (for first 5 years): <$2 Exhibit 15. Transfer Station Net Revenue /Expense Effect on Program Fee, FY 2021 -22 through FY 2025 -26 Accepted Waste FY 2021 -22 FY 2022 -23 FY 2023 -24 FY 2024 -25 FY 2025 -26 OC & Town Waste Only +$1.30 +$1.01 +$0.72 +$0.41 +$0.08 OC, Town, & Other Waste -$0.62 -$0.98 -$1.37 -$1.77 -$2.19 Program Fee reduction by implementing TS w /OC, Town, & Other Waste (years 6 -10): <$3 2.1.9 Division Budgetary Leveling SCS developed a methodology to present the net revenue and expense output by the Model as if the Program Fee contribution in the various Scenarios were disbursed evenly across all four Department Divisions, rather than solely through the Environmental Services Division. Allocations to the respective Department Divisions were made proportionally based on the expenses of those divisions and were calculated with the net output of the Model. This "Division Budgetary Leveling" should be considered for clarity and reference purposes only and is not a financial recommendation. 22 36 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 3.0 POTENTIAL SOLID WASTE OPERATIONAL CHANGES At the outset of the Study, the County expressed an interest in a brief review of the feasibility of future solid waste operations and financing options. The following discussion is intended to provide a description of the potential options to implement System operational changes intended to achieve the goals of revenue increase and expense reduction, in terms of potential advantages and disadvantages to the County. 3.1 MINOR /MISCELLANEOUS COST SAVINGS ITEMS As County staff have noted, multiple small operations changes can aggregate into large impacts on Department effectiveness and efficiencies which could translate into reduced expenses. In this section SCS enumerates minor and miscellaneous cost saving and revenue generating items. 3.1 .1 Optimize Collection Center Hours /Days of Operations One of the duties of collection center attendants is to record customer attendance on an hourly basis. The Eubanks and Walnut Grove waste and recycling centers received the most customers in FY 2015 -16, with yearly customer counts of approximately 145,000 and 136,000, respectively. Note that these centers are open for a total of 59 hours per week, while the remaining three centers are only open for 27 hours per week. The Bradshaw center is the least used with approximately 38,000 customer visits in FY 2015 -16. 3.1.1.1 Collection Center Use by Month Consider making monthly or seasonal adjustment to waste and recycling center times of operations based on customer participation. In general, time of year does affect collection center use, with more customer participation apparent in the summer and less in the winter. 3.1.1.2 Collection Center Use by Day of Week Peak customer attendance occurs on Saturdays, although there is also high attendance on Tuesdays. Peak customer "density" occurs on Sundays by far. The order of most customer visits by day of week to least visits by day of the week is as follows: Saturday, Tuesday, Friday, Sunday, Thursday, and Monday (there are no collection centers open on Wednesdays). The order of busiest or most customer -dense (as determined by most customer visits on a per open hour basis) day of week to least busy day of the week is as follows: Sunday, Saturday, Tuesday, Friday, Thursday, and Monday. If the County were to conduct collection center operations in order to minimize the ratio of operating cost to number of customers served, it should be done with consideration for the busy and less busy days. Customer visits by day of week is displayed in Exhibit 16 and peak customer density is summarized in Exhibit 17. 23 37 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Exhibit 16. Recycling Center Customers by Day of Week in FY 2015- 16 700 600 `m 500 E 0 400 V m 300 E 200 Z 100 0 Source: Orange County, 2015 -16 — Bradshaw — Eubanks — Ferguson —high Rock — Walnut Grove* Exhibit 17. Recycling Center Customers per Hour by Day of Week FY 201 5 -1 6 90 p 80 x d 70 n m 60 E 50 0 40 v 30' E 20 Z a 10 4 0 S�c,�A ad aai cep _ J4�baA a �aa le" lea ` jai —Bradshaw —Eubanks — Ferguson —High Rock — Walnut Grove Source: Orange County, 2015 -16 3.1.1.3 Collection Center Use by Time of Day Current waste and recycling centers are free for use by the public during various periods between the hours of 0700 and 1800. The collection centers require an attendant to open and close the center at the beginning and end of every day. Exhibit 18 shows that for each site, on average customer attendance steadily increases each hour in the morning until 1100 and then jumps up around lunch time. Counts steadily fall for the rest of the day starting around 1300 for Eubanks and Ferguson, 1400 for Bradshaw, and 1500 for High Rock. Note that hourly customer count data was unavailable for the Walnut Grove site. If the County were to alter the hours of operations of the collection centers, it would be best to open later in the morning (rather than close earlier in the afternoon) in order to maximize the number of customers served while minimizing costs. 24 38 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Exhibit 18. Recycling Center Customers by Hour of Day in FY 2015- 16 70 = 60 W °' 50 a 0 40 N 7 U 30 a 20 0 Z m 10 4 0 boo o°o goo goo °o �o boo 0°0 1 °0o 0 0 ti ti ti ti ti o Source: Orange County, 2015 -16 — Bradshaw — Eubanks — Ferguson —High Rock 3.1 .2 Consider a Reduction in Urban Curbside Recyclables Collection Frequency Orange County provides a high level of service in its collection of recycling. Currently it provides weekly collection service. Many communities across the nation have piloted less frequent collection service (e.g. every other week or monthly) as a means of reducing overall collection costs, while at the same time continuing a form of scheduled curbside collection service. These cost savings have to be balanced against lower recycling rates by customers. In areas where curbside service has been reduced, many communities continue to operate recycling collection centers. Many citizens would likely travel to the collection centers on at least a weekly basis to dispose of their solid waste and could recycle on the same trip. 3.1.3 Sell the Greene Tract Property SCS recommends the County decide whether the Greene Tract property currently serves a purpose for the Department and if not, the County should consider selling this property. This will generate significant revenue for the Department which can be used to pay down loans and other debts to assist in the development of a Renewal and Extension Fund (refer to Section 4.1 for additional discussion on R &E funding). The County should assess the market value of the property prior to any ownership transfer in part or in full. 3.1.4 Other Considerations Orange County should consider evaluating its solid waste program on an ongoing basis internally and/or using third party entities. Examples of considerations could include: 25 39 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 1. Analyze and update collection fees for institutions. 2. Continually audit department staff job responsibilities. 3. Consider additional user charges for HHW /special material management /processing. 4. Evaluate /update fees and policies at the C &D landfill. 5. Reduce or eliminate collection of recyclables in rural areas. 6. Based on fleet audit, assess the need for underutilized equipment and continue to encourage the sharing of equipment among different Divisions within the Department. 7. Continue to consider consolidation of additional resources between two or more Divisions within the Department. 8. Consider the additional sharing of resources of other municipalities and other public and private entities. For example, salaries and other personnel benefits make up one of the largest source of expense throughout all four Divisions within the Department. Reducing the personnel force can have a large effect on Department expenses. The below chart calculates the per person costs for the 64 employees funded by the Department. SCS calculated that an average employee's total expenses within the Department equates to approximately $1 of the Program Fee (or approximately $61,000), as demonstrated in Exhibit 19. Exhibit 19. Average Personnel Direct -Cost per Person Account Description FY 2016 -17 Expense ($) Permanent Salaries 2,602,977 Overtime 42,277 Holiday Pay 37,006 Longevity 30,015 Temporary Personnel 129,694 Social Security 176,202 Medicare 41,209 Medical Insurance 571,099 Med Insurance Payment In Lieu 3,600 HSA Contribution 16,992 Dental Insurance 21,228 Life Insurance 6,571 Retirement 196,641 Non -Sworn 401(K) 45,046 Total Personnel Direct Costs 3,920,557 Total Personnel Direct Cost /Person 61,259 26 40 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 3.2 CONSTRUCT /OPERATE A TRANSFER STATION The Department currently delivers approximately 50 tons per day (TPD) of solid waste to the City of Durham Transfer Station (five days per week). In 2007 a search for a suitable location for a new Orange County transfer station was initiated; this search was terminated in 2009. The County could resume its investigation into the viability of constructing a transfer station utilizing some of the qualitative and quantitative aspects explored in this section. 3.2.1 Transfer Station Considerations A decision by the County to develop a transfer station versus direct haul by solid waste collection vehicles to a transfer station or a disposal site (landfill) typically involves examination of the following major variables: • MSW Disposal Site Locations • Average Payloads of Collection Vehicles and Transfer Vehicles • Travel Speed and Distance for Haul Vehicles • Transfer Facility Size, Technology and Operating Practices • Collection and Transfer Vehicle Operating Costs This option assumes the use of a simply - designed, transfer station that utilizes an "open -top" loading system such as the lift and load method. Typically, for smaller -sized stations, the lift and load method, using a front -end loader for compaction, is the most cost effective. With consideration given to the specific needs of the County, the principal features of a potential open - top system could include the following basic features: • Concrete tipping floor on an elevated earth embankment • Temporary floor storage of waste • A metal building and interior concrete containment walls • Trailer drive through for loading • Front -end loader • Additional bay for acceptance and transfer of recyclable material Based on SCS' design experience on transfer stations, we have found that the most cost - effective designs provide appropriate floor storage at the station. In this case, floor storage means simply allowing collection vehicles to dump the waste onto the station's tipping floor where it can be later moved to the transfer trailer by a front -end loader or similar equipment. This process enables reduction in queuing time since the solid waste collection vehicles can enter the facility and unload quickly without being affected by compactor operations. For example, the trucks can continue to unload when bridging occurs or when transfer trailers are unavailable. Several additional considerations are as follows: • In addition, proper floor storage allows the front -end loader to maximize throughput by sorting, mixing, or compacting waste prior to directing it to the pushwalls of the station or into a surge pit. This allows for continual operations when unloading, and transferring becomes essentially two independent operations. Consequently, the design options developed should utilize floor storage as a method to reduce queuing 27 41 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund times and increase operational efficiency. In addition, efficiencies can be gained on the back end of the process as increased waste storage capacity is gained temporarily in the pushwalls or surge pit during times of peak waste acceptance. This increases the waste density (and therefore payloads) of material hauled by the trailers and reduces the number of transfer trailers needed to be purchased during the capital phase of transfer station construction. • As outlined in the Scenario 6 input parameters, the proposed transfer station should be sized to handle 250 tons per day to allow both seasonal peaks and long -term increases in waste quantities. SCS believes that typical costs for this size of station should range from 4 to $7 million, including site acquisition, design, permitting, and construction oversight. • The proposed transfer station would include a recyclable material receiving bay to serve as the receiving, handling, and transfer point for collected recyclable material delivered by Orange County and its contractors. This function is currently served at the Orange County Landfill at 1514 Eubanks Road. Additional design considerations would be needed to be made in order to accommodate the separate collection bay and additional traffic entailed by a dual - purpose facility. Typical annual operating costs of the proposed transfer station (ranging from 5 to $10 per ton) would include labor, building and site maintenance, utilities, rolling stock fuel, equipment O &M replacement, supplies, and other similar costs, which are required to manage the received waste at the station and transport it using transfer trailers to the ultimate disposal location. These costs are limited to the actual on -site operations and do not include the hauling operation costs, which typically range $10 to $20 per ton depending on haul distance. The County could consider other potential revenue options from ownership of its own transfer station. Revenue from a surcharge on the transfer station tipping fee and /or a flat host fee surcharge could supplement the Fund's revenue or be diverted into the R &E fund in order to help offset construction/maintenance costs, operations costs, etc. A transfer station feasibility study should be conducted in order to assess the costs and benefits of implementing another revenue - producing disposal point within the County to replace the closed Orange County Landfill. 3.2.2 Transfer Station Implementation Quantitative Analysis SCS performed a basic financial analysis of the cost - benefit considerations of implementing a revenue - generating transfer station within Orange County. Capital costs of a newly - constructed co- located or combined transfer station and materials recovery facility (MRF) are estimated and presented in Hypothetical Transfer Station Net Revenue Estimate in Appendix G. Results of this analysis seem to indicate that key variables will affect the financial feasibility of implementing a transfer station with participation by Orange County, the Towns, and private collectors. Modeled cash flows from the hypothetical operation of a County -owned transfer station are shown in the context of the County budget in Scenario 6. The results of this analysis indicate the annual average expenses of the transfer station (including capital costs, operating costs, hauling costs, and disposal tipping fees over a 20 -year reference period is $3.6 Million per year. Annual average revenues over the same period are $3.8 Million per year. Note that the analysis 28 42 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund treats cost savings of eliminated expenses under the current direct haul scenario as revenue. The yearly average cash flow for the 20 -year period was approximately $200K/year. In addition to the net revenue opportunities associated with the hypothetical transfer station, there may be benefits such as reduced negative externalities from the current collection system. The transfer station would reduce collection vehicle traffic, resulting in fewer inefficient collection trucks on the road and less vehicle emissions. Note also that the Model does not capture changes made to the Solid Waste Program due to any future revisions to the County's waste reduction and recycling goals. The Model assumes current recycling rates and only increases Orange County collected waste amounts by the rate of population growth. In addition, the Model does not consider potential savings in collection vehicle operation costs for the Towns or private enterprise resulting from the hypothetical disposal point on Eubanks Road. SCS estimated the cumulative savings to the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough in Exhibit 20 below. Exhibit 20. Estimated Cost Savings to Towns from Implementation of Orange County Transfer Station (Current Year) Towns Only Current Costs Durham TS Tip Fees Paid by Towns $ 1,083,750 ear Town Round-trip Haul Costs to Durham TS Relative to Haul Cost to OC TS $ 380,306 ear Total Current Costs $ 1,464,056 ear Total Current Costs $ 57.41 ton Towns Only TS Scenario Costs Orange County TS Tip Fees Paid by Towns $ 1,275,000 /year Town Round -trip Haul Costs to OC TS (Relative to Haul Cost to Durham TS) $ - /year Total TS Scenario Costs $ 1,275,000 /year Total TS Scenario Costs $ 50 /ton TS Scenario Net Benefit Over Current Scenario Net Benefit to Towns 1 $ 189,056 /year Net Benefit to Towns 1 $ 7 /ton Notes: 1. TS tipping fees paid by Towns assumed $42.50 per ton. 2. Average Town round -trip haul costs to Durham TS assumed to be same as Orange County's on a per ton basis 29 43 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 4.0 POTENTIAL SOLID WASTE PROGRAM FINANCING ALTERNATIVES 4.1 RENEWAL AND EXTENSION FUNDS Many solid waste enterprise systems utilize the budgetary concept of a Renewal and Extension (R &E) Fund. That is a fund which provides long -term financial backstop for unforeseen events in solid waste operations that are difficult to predict at the current time. Such items could be groundwater and landfill gas remediation at closed landfill sites, issues with landfill caps, decline of recyclable commodity prices, dramatic fuel price escalation, weather events (tornado and hurricane damage), and other Acts of God that cannot be foreseen. Typically, such funds are capped at 25 percent of the annual operating costs of the enterprise system, which can also provide three to four months of operating expenses. While typical of many large County or municipal General Funds, it is less typical of individual enterprise funds in the past. Such R &E Funds are becoming more and more prominent across solid waste departments in the US. Orange County stands to benefit from an R &E fund in several ways. The fund could contribute towards unexpected Post Closure Care (PCC) costs, enhance the current equipment replacement schedules funded by the "Contribution to Equipment Reserves" budgetary line item, provide funding for new C &D landfill cell construction and other future construction costs, enable the County to weather recessed commodities markets for more stable budgeting of recyclable material sales, and serve a rate stabilization function for the Program Fee. Note that the R &E fund would require an increase in the Program Fee, which could not be funded at the current rate of $107.00, nor at the increased rates calculated under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4. The use of the "Appropriated Fund Balance" as a consistent revenue component highlights the need for an R &E fund, as the Appropriated Fund Balance consists primarily of loans and other borrowed monies previously sequestered for other purposes. The Balance as a portion of total revenue budgeted for FY 2016 -17 is shown in red in Exhibit 21 below. Exhibit 21.Budgeted Solid Waste Management Department Revenue Components as Portions of Total Revenue (FY 2016 -17) 30 ■ County SW Programs Fee ■ Appropriated Fund Balance General Fund Contribution ■ Other Funding Sources 44 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 4.2 COLLECTIONS OF ASSESSED FEE Currently, Orange County budgets for the successful collection of the Solid Waste Programs Fee from 97 percent of the 61,000 assessed properties. The losses from the additional 3 percent not collected translates to 1,830 delinquent properties, or $195,810 in lost revenue annually at a Fee rate of $107 per property. The Solid Waste Management Department could share resources with the Tax Administration Department to collect on the additional 3% of properties. Currently there is an Environmental Enforcement Supervisor and Solid Waste Enforcement Officer on the Solid Waste Staff, in addition to number administrative and managerial positions within the personnel hierarchy. These personnel assets could be utilized to collect additional assessed fee from delinquent property owners, potentially through an incentive system. 4.3 MODIFICATION OF ORGANICS COLLECTION PROGRAM FUNDING STRUCTURE Commercial curbside collection and residential drop -off collection of food and other organic wastes currently cost the Department $80 per ton per its contract with Brooks Contracting. The Department could encourage residents to compost at home to reduce expenditure by the Department and keep the waste closer to its point of origin for direct reuse. The Brooks composting facility is located an hour southeast of the Town of Chapel Hill, approximately 36 miles away. Significant cost is incurred by the contractor to haul the material to the windrow composting site from the point of collection, and then back to the Orange County Landfill so the finished compost can be solid to residents. Efficiencies are to be gained by changing the approach to the commercial collection efforts and bolstering the home composting program already in place. Additionally, the program funding structure could be changed to implement cost sharing by the largest utilizers of the commercial organics collections program, which could bear some or all of its costs. This would shift the burden of paying for the program from the Programs Fee or general fund to the entities that benefit most from the program. County businesses utilizing the program could pay a flat monthly fee or, alternatively, pay according to the quantity of organics disposed through the program. 4.4 MAJOR WEATHER EVENT /STORM DEBRIS HANDLING Currently the Department handles staging, clearing, and disposal operations for the cleanup of storm debris from major weather events such as tornados, hurricanes, ice storms, and major thunderstorms. Funding for these efforts is not provided via emergency allocations from the General Fund, and the Department generally absorbs the costs. Financial resources should be allocated for these non - routine events so that the cost burden is not transferred to the Department. Additional monies may be allocated into a hypothetical R &E fund to cover costs associated with unexpected weather or natural disaster events. 31 11.7 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 4.5 REGULATED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS ORDINANCE The institution of the Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance (RRMO) in October 2002 may have had the unintended side effect of reducing the tonnage of material disposed at the C &D Landfill (without directing this material for recycling). It is possible that the sorting and permitting requirements of the RRMO coupled with the timing of the global economic recession may have caused a decrease in tonnages that has not rebounded as of FY 2015 -16 as shown in Exhibit 22. Although the RRMO does produce additional revenue from contractor licensing fees, the tipping fee revenue and economies of scale lost from the decline in the tonnage of C &D waste disposed (from roughly 30,000 TPY to 6,000 TPY, an 80% decline that equals approximately $960K in lost revenue at the current tipping fee of $40 /ton) outweighs the licensing fee revenue of $120K considerably. Exhibit 22. Tons Disposed at Orange County C &D Landfill by Year 30,000 Institution of the 25,000 RRMO Global } Economic a 20,000 Recession Closure O a 0 OC MSW CL 0 15,000 tandfiffim v 10,000 0 v 5,000 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 Fiscal Year 32 46 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 5.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This findings and recommendations, including revenue increase strategies, expense reduction strategies, and rate benchmarking from the Study are presented below. SCS offers the following findings and recommendations for the County's consideration: • As outlined in Scenario 1, the Fund's current financial structure is unsustainable and maintaining the current Program Fee amount ($107) along with the Status Quo program services will yield significant annual deficits over the next 5 -year period, both with the current practice of General Fund contributions (Scenario B) and without (Scenario A). • The exercise of allocating monies from the Fund's balance ( "Reserves ") to cover the annual budget deficit each year will deplete the entire Fund balance in approximately 5 years. Furthermore, this jeopardizes Fund liabilities such as landfill post - closure care. • As outlined in Scenario 2, increasing the current amount of the Program Fee to $130 per year, which represents a 23 percent escalation, is anticipated to be insufficient to eliminate significant annual deficits, both with the current practice of General Fund contributions (Scenario B) and without (Scenario A). • As outlined in Scenario 3A, even increasing the current amount of the Program Fee to $150 per year (43 percent increase) is projected to be insufficient to eliminate significant annual deficits unless the General Fund continues to contribute nearly $2 million per year. • In the spirit of a true enterprise fund, the County would need to implement a Solid Waste Program Fee between $170 and $180 to fully fund all anticipated program expenses over the next 5 years. This is reflected in Scenario 4A and anticipates no General Fund contribution and no Appropriated Fund Balance revenues other than the identified loan proceeds for Waste and Recycling Center construction. • As an alternative to solely increasing the Program Fee, the County could take a "dual approach" by increasing the General Fund as well as increasing the Program Fee. The increase of the General Fund contribution should occur within the Sanitation Services Division to raise the Division's revenue from approximately $2 million to approximately $3 million to cover the annual deficit incurred in that Division. A Revenue and Extension (R &E) Fund should be established to enable the Department to fund a reserve of 25% of its annual operating costs. This Fund would be designed to provide potential funding for unforeseen operational costs and declines in generated revenue. This would provide a buffer against financial obstacles such as declining recyclable material sale revenue and reduced C &D Landfill tipping fee revenues. Note that the R &E fund would require an increase in the Program Fee above and beyond the break -even fees identified in Scenarios 4A and 4B and could 33 47 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund not be funded at the current rate of $107.00, nor the increased Fee amount under Scenarios 2A, 213, or 3A. • In the event that the Program Fee was eliminated in its entirety, in the spirit of a true enterprise fund, with no General Fund Contribution or Appropriated Fund Balance, based on Scenario 7, the impact on the tax rate would be a required increase of up to $0.07 per $100 of assessed value per year. • The Pro Forma Rate Model developed as part of this cost of service study should be updated annually and used for long -term financial forecasting of the Fund and to evaluate the likely impact of proposed Department operational changes. • Based on a cursory review of the program, SCS did not identify any notable inefficiencies within the Department operations. SCS recommends the County conduct a more in -depth review of its program on a routine basis to identify opportunities for revenue increase and expense reduction. 5.1 REVENUE INCREASE STRATEGIES Because such a large component of the County's System is correlated with urban and rural curbside recyclable material collection or drop -off, Orange County has historically relied heavily on receiving substantial revenue from the sale of recyclable material to secondary markets. As explained above, SCS recommends the Department set up an R &E fund to weather the fluctuations in the recyclable commodities market and level any market pricing fluctuations over extended timeframes. Other revenue increase strategies identified include: • Evaluate potential for developing a regional transfer station. A transfer station could provide revenue from outside sources in the form of tipping fees and offset the current expense incurred from tipping County solid waste at the City of Durham Transfer Station. • Selling the Greene Tract of County -owned land, which currently does not increase the quality of the Department Program, will generate significant one -time revenue. The County should assess the market value of the property prior to any ownership transfer in part or in full. • The County currently budgets approximately $15,000 per year in interest revenue from the Enterprise Fund balance. The estimated fund balance as of June 30, 2016 is projected to be approximately $8.9 Million. This translates to an approximate annual interest rate of 0.17 percent. SCS believes the County could benefit in the future from an increase in interest revenue from its current investments. Any accrued interest from unused loan monies could also be allocated to the Department to offset General Fund revenue. • Additional strategies such as increasing the collection of the Program Fee assessment, charging commercial entities for organics collection services, allocating funds from the General Fund to help cover the costs of storm event cleanup, and making efforts 3 4 48 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund to increase waste disposal at the C &D Landfill to capture economies of scale should be considered. 5.2 EXPENSE REDUCTION STRATEGIES SCS performed a cursory overview of Department programs to identify opportunities to reduce expenses in order to reduce the quantity of General Fund monies to Enterprise Fund. Expense reduction strategies identified include: • Commercial curbside collection and residential drop -off collection of food and other organic wastes currently cost the Department $80 per ton under its contract with Brooks Contracting. The Department could encourage residents to compost at home to reduce expenditure by the Department and keep the waste closer to its point of origin for direct reuse. Alternatively, the County could shift the costs of the program to its largest benefiters, business entities. • Reduce debt servicing costs by continuing to contribute to an equipment reserve fund with which replacement equipment is purchased outright. Consider implementation of an R &E fund to pay for unexpected costs outright, rather than relying on debt financing. • Consider altering Waste and Recycling Center hours or days of operations to minimize down -time and reduce staff /maintenance costs per customer served. • Consider potential for developing a regional transfer station to reduce hauling expenses and tipping fees to out -of- county entities. • Establish a long -term financial plan that provides a sustainable financial structure for the Fund. This plan should be formed as a result of a continued evaluation of Department programs to identify issues and inefficiencies (if any exist), optimize the structure of the Department, and find opportunities to further share resources among the four Divisions, in addition to other tasks to increase the effectiveness of the implementation of solid waste and recycling services. 5.3 RATE BENCHMARKING Exhibit 23 graphically illustrates a comparison of the County's FY 2015 -16 Program Fee of $107 with other North Carolina Counties' cumulative Solid Waste Fee rates. As shown, the annual solid waste fees for various municipalities range from a low of $15 to approximately $250. It is unclear what governmental subsidies exist for the communities with the lower fees or what services are provided for the corresponding fees. It is also important to consider the level of service offered by Orange County and the emphasis on environmental justice in regards to waste reduction and recycling, including the achievement of a 64 percent recycling rate. It is not likely to be matched by many, if any, of these jurisdictions. Benchmarking of solid waste agencies is often difficult to accomplish since levels of service and internal charges and subsidies are often difficult to discern from one municipal system to 35 49 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund another. As such, most benchmarking programs often deal with individual facilities (e.g., landfills, transfer stations, etc.). There is currently a lack of benchmarking data available in the solid waste industry. SWANA has conducted the most recent benchmarking studies, but these were focused on landfill operations. Mecklenburg Caldwell Wa ke Surry W Lson Cram Wayne Cumberland Ir&dell Franklin Yadkin AllEghany Burke Cleveland Johnston S,ta my Hamett Pitt M acorn Swain Cherokee Lincoln Grarwille Greene Lenoir Jackson � Caswell e Watauga 0 Robeson Lee Edgecambe Duplin Beaufort H aywvod N ash Vance Grange Pd k Hoke Warren Ruth erFord Chatham Pertryimans H ertfnrd Blad en Ash e Durha m PasWotan k R chmond Chowan M artin Madison G atss Carteret Halifax Tyrrell Northampton Washington Cd um bus Currituck P end er Exhibit 23. Comparison of Annual Fees 50 140 150 200 250 300 Rate [SI Source: NCDEQ Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service, FY 2014 -15 36 50 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund 6.0 REFERENCES Orange County, Approved- Adjusted Budgets, FY 2013 - 2016. 2. Orange County, Chapter 34, Solid Waste Management, Code of Ordinances, 2016. 3. Orange County, Preliminary Solid Waste Program Fee Drivers, February 2016. 4. Orange County, Solid Waste Fund Revenues /Reserves FY 201512016, March 15, 2016. 5. Orange County, Summary of Report on Solid Waste Fees in Select NC Counties, January 29, 2015. 6. Rogoff, Marc J., Solid Waste and Recycling: Planning of Solid Waste Recycling Facilities and Programs, Waltham, MA, William Andrew, 2013. 7. US EPA, Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision - Making, Office of Solid Waste, June 2002. 8. NCDEQ Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service, Solid Waste Fee Use in North Carolina (Draft Report), NC DENR Local Government Recycling Assistance Team, FY 2014 -15. 9. Additional internal Orange County data and documents not listed here. 37 61 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Appendix A Department Organizational Chart Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Table 1 . Department Organizational Chart and Staffing Sal id Waste Management Director (1) (3 55) Environmental Suppc t I Solid Waste Planner AdministrativeOffim 19nagementand Progra Specialist (845) (854) I---= MM" ReoydingEdu cation and Ad m i n istrativs, Assists nt I I Office Assists ntII Outrea ch Coordi nator (1) (0.875) 11) Disposal Operations llsm) (832) (853) Solid Waste Engi neer {1) {833) v3' EquipmentOperat Landfill Inspector 1 Weigrh master (2) (840) lC) {'841.844] ;8 . New) A -1 Sol id Waste Operations SDI id Waste Operations Manager i1) 1843) Equipmentl4laintenance I I Sanitation Operations I I Permitting /Enforcement Heavy Equipment Solid Waste Collection Environmental Mecha.ninSuparvisx SaricesNlanagef EnfoccementSupervisor 11) 11) {1) {8t§5j (80�) {8481 Heavy Equipment Solid Waste Field Services Solid Waste Enforcement Meehan is I Su per+isir Offi car f3) (1) i'1) {$38,859,1038) (547) (887) 77287.109B. ce CenterOparator E(542.544. ector Driver (14) 03,704,705,708,707, 5413.550) 7,1124.1123.NEW. NEW) (703; -825 to .75 FTE) {1123; .825 to .75 FTE) 6% Reoyd i ng Operations Recycl ing Programs Managef (1) {8413) RecydingPragrams Solid Waste Field Services Su pervisar Supervisor (1) (1) t847) (980) Sol id Waste Collector Driver Solid Waste Materials (10) Transfer Operator 852,883,898,897,978 977,978, (2) 979. NEW. NEW) (851.891 } Recycl ing 1`0atefi9Is Solid Waste Collector Handler Dwiver (s9eo,s94; (8 50) Recycl ing Materials Handler (1) {8M) envy EquipmentOpeFatca (4) '8';5,839,834,837) 53 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Appendix B Department Fleet Asset List 54 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Table 1. Department Fleet Asset List Division Type ID(s) Vehicle Description Environmental Support - Enforcement Vehicle 566 Dodge Durango SUV Environmental Support - Administration Vehicle 885 Dodge Grand Caravan Van Environmental Support — Administration Vehicle 683 Ford Taurus Sedan Environmental Support - Enforcement Vehicle 684 2006 Dodge Pickup Environmental Support - Administration Vehicle 848 Dodge Durango Environmental Support — Vehicle Support Vehicle 688 2006 Ford F -350 Service Truck Environmental Support — Vehicle Support Vehicle 689 2006 Ford F -350 Service Truck Environmental Support — Vehicle Support Vehicle 586 International 4200 Service Truck Landfill Vehicle 687 2006 Dodge 4X4 Pickup Landfill Vehicle 880 Ford F -250 4X4 Pickup Landfill Vehicle 854 Ford 4X4 Pickup Landfill Vehicle 685 2006 Dodge 4X4 Pickup Landfill Equipment (MSW) 227 New Holland T4030 Tractor Landfill Equipment (C &D) TBD CMI 3 -75 Compactor Landfill Equipment (C &D) TBD CAT Articulating Truck Landfill Equipment (C &D) TBD CAT D6R Dozer Landfill Equipment (C &D) TBD CAT 325D Hydraulic Exvac Recycling — Ordinance Area Equipment 433 CAT 315 Excavator Recycling Equipment 460 CAT 924GZ Wheel Loader Recycling — Ordinance Area Equipment 435 Bobcat Skidsteer Recycling — Ordinance Area Equipment 490 Powerscreen 4026 Conveyor Recycling — Ordinance Area Equipment 452 CAT 963D Track Loader Recycling — Ordinance Area Equipment 463 PP Horizontal Grinder 7400 Recycling — Ordinance Area Equipment 853 Landfill Rec- Pickup Recycling — Ordinance Area Equipment 451 Rosco Sweeper Pro Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 855 Ford F -250 Pickup Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 1779 Freightliner FL -120 Roll -off Truck Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 1781 Peterbuilt/Heil Frontloader Truck Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 1681 2007 Freightliner Roll -off Truck Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 1486 Izsuzu NPR Glass Flatbed Truck Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 851 Labrie Crane Carrier Recycling Truck Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 1639 GWC W4500 Box Recycling Truck Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 872 Peterbuilt/Heil Frontloader Truck Recycling — Universal Services Equipment 1776 Bobcat Skidsteer Recycling — Universal Services Equipment 450 Clark CMP25 REI Plastic Compactor Recycling — Universal Services Equipment 428 Clark CMP25 Off -road Fork Lift Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 432 2006 Dodge 4X3 Pickup Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 1637 Freightliner Multi- family Recycling Truck Recycling — Universal Services Equipment 897 Rudco RP -400 Stationary Compactor Recycling — Universal Services Equipment 581 WG SWCC OCC Compactor Recycling — Universal Services Equipment WG SWCC SS Compactor Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 930 Dodge 2500 Pickup Truck Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 1491 Manac Walking Trailer Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 887 Peterbuilt Road Tractor Recycling — Universal Services Vehicle 846 Freightliner Road Tractor Recycling — Multifamily Equipment 467 Bobcat Model 863 Skidsteer Multifamily Recycling — Multifamily Vehicle 942 Freightliner Commercial Recycling Truck Recycling — Urban Curbside Vehicle 1686 Dodge 1500 Pickup Recycling — Rural Curbside Vehicle 923 Labrie Crane Carrier Top Select 1000 Recycling Truck Recycling — Rural Curbside Vehicle 924 Labrie Crane Carrier Top Select 1000 Recycling Truck Recycling — Rural Curbside Vehicle Recycling Truck (TBD) Recycling — Rural Curbside Vehicle Recycling Truck (TBD) Recycling — Rural Curbside Vehicle 850 Transit Connect Van Recycling — Rural Curbside Equipment 429 CAT 906H Compact Loader Recycling — Rural Curbside Vehicle 431 2009 MAC 48' Walking Floor Trailer Sanitation — Replacement Vehicle 232 International Dump Truck Sanitation — Replacement Vehicle 679 Sterling Dump Truck Sanitation — Replacement Vehicle 919 Chevy Equinox Sanitation — Replacement Vehicle 852 Ford F250 Pickup Sanitation — Replacement Vehicle TBD Peterbuilt Front Loader Sanitation — Replacement Vehicle 881 Peterbuilt Front Loader Sanitation — Change Vehicle 780 Peterbuilt Front Loader to Roll -off Sanitation — Change Vehicle 844 International SwapLoader Roll -off Sanitation — Replacement Vehicle 922 Freightliner Roll -off Sanitation — Replacement Vehicle 927 Freightliner Roll -off Sanitation - Replacement Equipment 7060 Bobcat Skidsteer Sanitation - Replacement Equipment 7061 Case Skidsteer Sanitation - Replacement Equipment 7062 Bobcat Skidsteer Sanitation - Replacement Equipment 7063 Bobcat Skidsteer Sanitation - Add Equipment 7064 Bobcat Skidsteer Sanitation — Replacement as Needed Equipment 00 -01 Hudson Trailer Sanitation — Replacement as Needed Equipment 7065 Contral Trailer Sanitation Equipment C -5 Bakers Compactor Bulky Waste Sanitation Equipment C -1 Bakers Compactor MSW Sanitation Equipment C -2 Bakers Compactor MSW Sanitation — Add Equipment TBD Bakers Compactor Bulky Waste Source: Orange County, 2016 B -1 55 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Appendix C List of Model Assumptions Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund LIST OF MODEL ASSUMPTIONS GENERAL 61.1 • The County provided FY 2016 -17 Budget values for revenues and expenses associated with the Enterprise Fund. SCS compared these values with the previous 3 years of "Past Actual" values for FY 2012 -13, 2013 -14, and 2014 -15, as well as the FY 2015 -16 Original Budget and Revised Budget values, to assess the reasonableness of the Budget. Obviously, certain revenues and expenses have been dramatically changed since the closing of the County's sanitary landfill in June 2013. Generally speaking, SCS concluded that the FY 2016 -17 Budget values for the anticipated revenues and operating expenses that the County provided were appropriate and reasonable based on our understanding of the County's solid waste and recycling programs and facilities operating under each of the four divisions. Furthermore, SCS concluded that the FY 2016 -17 Budget values for approximately 33 revenue line items and 50 operating expense line items were appropriate to serve as the baseline, or'Test Year" for projecting the subsequent four future fiscal year revenues and operating expenses. The exact manner in which these projections were accomplished is described below. • Line item accounts that had a value of zero for the FY 2016 -17 Budget were anticipated to be zero for all future years and, thus, were essentially excluded from the analysis. Only Revenue and Expense account line items with a value greater than zero were included in this analysis. • Future projections for line items are escalated using the annual inflationary factor of 2.1 %, which represents a calculated average of historical CPI. • For purposes of characterizing annual deficits within the Enterprise Fund as being funded by revenue that would originate from potential increases to the County's property tax rate (per $100 of assessed value), SCS assumed that each $0.01 incremental increase to the tax rate yielded $1,655,660 in annual revenue. REVENUES • Future projections for the 33 revenue lime item accounts for the four subsequent fiscal years (FY 2017 -18, FY 2018 -19, FY 2019 -20, and FY 2020 -21) are either maintained constant or escalated using the annual inflationary factor and the Test Year as the baseline, unless noted in the table below as being handled differently. • County Solid Waste Programs Fee: The current fiscal year (FY 2015 -16) is the first year in which this revenue line item account has been in effect and SCS understand it reflects the initial Program Fee of $107 applied to 60,178 parcels. Projections for the four future fiscal years were escalated by 1.1 %, which is the projected annual population growth, to reflect the fee being assessed for additional parcels. C -1 M Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund • General Fund Contribution: SCS understands that the County has established a precedent since FY 2007 -08 of utilizing contributions from the General Fund as revenue into the Sanitation Services Division. SCS' analysis was structured to provide an initial evaluation of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund absent any contributions from the General Fund (scenarios labeled "A'). This was performed to establish the "true gap" within the Enterprise Fund. However, subsequent evaluations (scenarios labeled as `B" and "C') assumed that the contribution from the General Fund for the Test Year and four subsequent fiscal years is maintained at approximately $2 million per year. • Appropriated Balance Fund: SCS understands that the Appropriated Fund Balance line item account is used to balance the budget. It reflects load proceeds, Program Fee rounding, and other general find transfers. While the County provided the value for the FY 2015 -16 Budget as approximately $1.7 million, SCS opted to only account for known debt - financed endeavors in future fiscal years, which includes loans for convenience center construction costs in FY 2018 -19 and FY 2020 -21 ($804,784 and $904,255, respectively). No other loan proceeds or general fund transfers were included beyond the Test Year. Also note that the $345,432 loan portion of the FY 2016 -17 Appropriated Fund Balance line item was included in the Revenues for all Scenarios and Sub - Scenarios for that year. • Contributions from Equipment Reserves: Note that one of the largest revenue line item accounts is the Contributions from Equipment Reserves, which has historically varied significantly from year to year and will likely do so in future years. SCS utilized values that were provided by the County as projected revenues for this line item account for the four subsequent future fiscal years. • Landfill Gas Recovery Revenue: SCS applied a deflationary factor of -3% to projected landfill gas recovery revenues to account for closure of the Orange County Landfill. EXPENSES • Future projections for the 50 operating expense Tine item accounts for the four subsequent fiscal years (FY 2017 -18, FY 2018 -19, FY 2019 -20, and FY 2020 -21) are escalated using the annual inflationary factor and the Test Year as the baseline, unless noted below as being handled differently. • Landfill Fees: The solid waste collected by the County is currently hauled and tipped at the transfer station in Durham. SCS assumed that, in addition to escalating annual costs by an inflationary factor, the Landfill Fees operating expense line item account will be impacted by a $2 /ton tipping fee increase (from $42.50 to $44.50) in FY 2018 -19, which is a 4.7% increase. C -2 58 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund • Debt Service Principal /Debt Service Interest: Debt servicing line items including debt service to principal and debt service to interest were escalated but kept in the same proportion, • Contributions to Equipment Reserves: Note that one of the largest operating expense line item accounts is the Contributions to Equipment Reserves, which has historically varied significantly from year to year and will likely do so in future years. SCS utilized values that were provided by the County as projected costs for this line item account for the four subsequent future fiscal years. SCS assumes the existing equipment reserve fund will be incorporated into any future R &E Fund. • Capital Expenses — IT Equipment and Furnishings: The limited expenses of IT Equipment and Furnishings were assumed to be $5,000 and $1,000 annually in the four years succeeding the Test Year. • Capital Expenses — Equipment and Vehicles: The costs for replacing the County's vehicles operated within the Solid Waste Department is expected to be financed through various mechanisms including the Equipment Reserves Fund and debt - servicing, thus, these line items are handled under separate lime items in capital expenses as lump sum costs provided by the County. • Capital Expenses — Construction: The costs for upgrades to the County's solid waste and recycling convenience centers that are anticipated to occur in FY 2017 -18 and FY 2019 -20 are expected to be debt - financed and, thus, are handled in capital expenses under the Construction line item account as lump sum costs with correlating amounts introduced into the revenues in the Appropriated Fund Balance line item account as loan proceeds. OTHER ASSUMPTIONS • Program Fee kept at $107 /year and appropriated fund balance used to balance budget for status quo Scenario 1 for FY 2016 -17 ONLY. C -3 59 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Table 1 . Budget Revenue Accounts Budget Revenue Accounts Description Projection Assumption 422050 C &D License /Permit Apply Inflation Factor Only 439000 Sanitation Waste Collections Apply Inflation Factor Only 460000 Interest On Investments Apply Inflation Factor Only 470001 Sale Of Fixed Assets Hold Constant Only 479051 Clean Metal And White Goods Hold Constant Only 479052 Clean Wood Out Hold Constant Only 479053 Occ (Municipal) Collections Hold Constant Only 479058 Recycling Tip Fees Hold Constant Only 479061 Tire Tax Reimbursement Hold Constant Only 479062 White Goods Reimbursement Hold Constant Only 479063 Mattress Fee Hold Constant Only 479065 Sales Mulch Hold Constant Only 479066 Sales Compost Hold Constant Only 479068 Sales Of Recycling Material Hold Constant Only 479073 Solid Waste Disposal Fee (NC) Hold Constant Only 479074 Landfill Gas Recovery Apply 3% Decrease Only 479079 State Electronics Mgmt Funds Hold Constant Only 479080 Ncdeao Grant Funds Hold Constant Only 479085 County Sw Programs Fee Apply Population Growth Factor Only 479810 Disposal Tax Reimbursement Hold Constant Only 489996 County Gen Fund Contribution Hold Constant Only 489999 Contribution From Equip Resrvs County Provided 499900 Appropriated Fund Balance County Provided 499999 Miscellaneous Revenue Apply Inflation Factor Only 499999 Landfill Fees Hold Constant Only 682001 Landfill Fines (Penalty Surcharge) Hold Constant Only Table 2. Budget Expense Accounts Budget Expense Accounts Description Projection Assumption Capital Expenses 510000 Permanent Salaries Apply Inflation Factor Only 510100 Overtime Apply Inflation Factor Only 510102 Holiday Pay Apply Inflation Factor Only 510200 Longevity Apply Inflation Factor Only 511000 Temporary Personnel Apply Inflation Factor Only 511003 Student Interns Apply Inflation Factor Only 520000 Social Security Apply Inflation Factor Only 520001 Medicare Apply Inflation Factor Only 520100 Medical Insurance Apply Inflation Factor Only 520101 Medical Insurance Payment In Lieu Apply Inflation Factor Only 520110 HSA Contribution Apply Inflation Factor Only 520150 Dental Insurance Apply Inflation Factor Only 520160 Life Insurance Apply Inflation Factor Only 520200 Retirement Apply Inflation Factor Only C -4 60 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Budget Expense Accounts Description Projection Assumption Capital Expenses 520305 Non -Sworn 401 (K) Apply Inflation Factor Only 530100 Training /Development Apply Inflation Factor Only 530500 Personal Mileage Apply Inflation Factor Only 540000 Telephone Apply Inflation Factor Only 550000 Postage Apply Inflation Factor Only 560000 Vehicle Maintenance Apply Inflation Factor Only 570000 Building Repairs Apply Inflation Factor Only 571 000 Equipment Repairs Apply Inflation Factor Only 581 000 Equipment Rent Apply Inflation Factor Only 590000 Duplicating Apply Inflation Factor Only 591 000 Printing Apply Inflation Factor Only 600000 Advertising Apply Inflation Factor Only 610000 Dues Apply Inflation Factor Only 611000 Subscriptions Apply Inflation Factor Only 620000 Departmental Supplies Apply Inflation Factor Only 621 000 Office Supplies Apply Inflation Factor Only 621 050 Vehicle Supplies Apply Inflation Factor Only 630000 Prof. Contract Services Apply Inflation Factor Only 630003 Misc Contract Services Apply Inflation Factor Only 641 000 Bonds & Insurance Apply Inflation Factor Only 641 005 Workers Compensation Apply Inflation Factor Only 650000 Electricity Apply Inflation Factor Only 651 000 Water and Sewer Apply Inflation Factor Only 652002 Propane Gas Apply Inflation Factor Only 670000 Uniforms Apply Inflation Factor Only 682000 Landfill Fees Apply Inflation Factor and Increase by $2 to $44.50 in FY 2018- 19 682004 NC Solid Waste Disposal Tax Apply Inflation Factor Only 682005 Processing Fee Apply Inflation Factor Only 690000 Charges By General Fund Apply Inflation Factor Only 700100 Debt Service Principal Proportion Based on County Provided (Total Debt Number * 63 %) 700101 Debt Service Interest Proportion Based on County Provided (Total Debt Number * 37 %) 720015 Retiree Health Apply Inflation Factor Only 910050 Contribution To Equip Reserves County Provided 800000 Equipment County Provided 800100 It Equipment $5K in FY 2016-17; Inflation Factor Applied Thereafter 801 000 Furnishings $1 K in FY 2016-17; Inflation Factor Applied Thereafter 802000 Vehicles County Provided 880000 Construction County Provided C -5 61 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Table 3. General Assumptions and Quantities Item Input Desaiption Quantity Units /Description Comments /Source GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS 1 Consumer Price Index 2.1 % Annual CPI - 12 Year Average U.S. Department of Labor SCS Provided 2 Vehicles u mcnt Varies County Provided Replacement Schedu ics County Provided 3 Customer Growth Rate 1.10% Fstunated Growth Rate " 4 Number of Parcels 60,178 Parcels 97% oftotal assumed for budgeting purposes)" 5 Landffi Gas De- escalation Rate -3.0% Assumes decline in LFG sales revenue at closed Landfill SCS As tions 6 Property Tax Revenge Generation Factor $ 1,655,660.00 Property Tax revenue yearly per 1 cent rate increase County Provided REVENUE 7 Recyclable: Varies per ton - $140,000/ ear Co Provided 8 Tipping Fee at O Coup IF: 8.1 C&D $ 40 per ton Coanty Provided 8.2 Ve live Waste /Clean Wood $ 18 et ton($20 ph nadFY201_6_ -17) per ton " 8.3 Tires (stockpiled) $ 100 8.4 Pick-up $ 22 per bad " 8.5 Car $ 10 Per ton " 8.6 Mattress/Box S $ 10 per piece 9 Year Fees for Scenario Mode 9.1 Yearly Fee - Status Quo: Scenario 1 $ 107.00 per parcel - 60,178 parcels in Test Year County Provided 9.2 Yea Fee - Scenario 2 $ 130.00 " 9.3 Year Fee - Scenario 3 Yearly Fee - Scenario 4: Break Even Scenario $ 150.00 " ' SCS Assnnptions 9.4 Calculated 9.4a Yearly Fee - Scenario 4a (FY 16/17 ONLY) $ 169.89 O twtion Calculation w /Solver 9.41, Yearly Fee - Scenario 41, Y 16/17 ONLY) $ 136.58 " 9.5 Year Fee - Scenario 5 Yearly Fee - Scenario 6 $ SCS Assumptions 9.6 Calculated " 9.6A.1 Yearly Fee - Scenario 6A.1 $ 180.88 Optimization Calculation w /Solver 9.6A.2 Yearly Fee - Scenario 6A.2 $ 178.91 " 9.6B.1 9.613.2 Yearly Fee - Scenario 6B.1 Yearly Fee - Scenario 6B.2 $ 148.99 $ 147.02 " 9.7 Yearly Fee - Scenario 7 Y 16/17 Assumed " SCS Assumptions 9.71 Yearly Fee - Scenario 7 - Yr 1 Y 16/17 $107.00 " 9.72 9.73 Yearly Fee - Scenario 7 - Yr 2 FY 17/18 $148.42 $158.63 " Year Fee - Scenario 7 - Yr 3 Y 18/19 9.74 Yearly Fee - Scenario 7 - Yr 4 Y 20/21) $157.79 " 9.75 Yearly Fee - Scenario 7 - Yr 5 (FY 21/22) $186.14 " 10 1 I Transfer from General Fund Default Appropriated Fund Balance Transfer $_ 2, 004,719.00 -$2 Mil ( -35 %Net Expense; 65% of sanitation Division)_ -$1.7 Mil loans, rounder etc.; covers budget shortfall Clan Provided i $ 1,680,040.00 EXPENSES 12 Tippiag Fee : SCS Assumptions 12.1 MSW Current $42.50ICity of Durham TS -$565K FY 15 -16, -42 TPD County Provided 12.2 MSW Anticoated $44.50 Projected City of Durham TS Starting FY 2018 -19 " OTHER 13 For Hypothetical TS, Year l 66,500 Summlndividual Disposal Figures Calculation/Chapel Hill RFP #Q 13 -124 13.1 OrmtF County Tons MSW disposed/year 11,000 Tons/Year Y 2014 -15 figare Rounded County Provided 13.2 Town ofCha el Hill Tons MSW disposed/yew 15,000 Tons/Year Y2014 -15 figure Rounded Cla el Hill Provided 13.3 Carrboro Tons MSW disposed/ year 7000 Tons/Year Y2011 -12 Rounded Calculation/Chapel Hill RFP# 13 -124 13.4 Hillsboro Tons MSW die osed/ ar 3,500 Tons/Year Y2011 -12 figgre Rounded)" 13.5 Other Tom MSW disposed/year I 30 000 Tons/Year I SCS Assumptions C -6 [:PA Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Appendix D Estimated Department Revenue Projections 63 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Table 1. Estimated Department Revenue Projections Budget Accounts Description FY'2016 -17 BUDGET FY2017 -18 PROJECTED FY2018-19 PROJECTED Budget Accounts Description Environment al Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation services (3530) Total Revenues Environment al Support (3590) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Revenues Environment al SLipPtlrt iM000 Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services 13530} Total Revenues 422050 C&DLeema?ermit 124,000 130,445 4390M Sanity on MIA2 Co-llect om 120,000 122.530 104,562 74.522 1'4..54 1'1.2,530 {?5.113 107.073 '6.49: 183,166 12511.3 439,000 5anitattion' la�teColleatms 98,509 74,0404 168,509 1005 -7 71.4'76 172,953 142,697 ?_'.983 17500 464009 11teres -t on In'MrUna3t, 15,000 15,040 15 316 50,044 15,316 15,639 50,044 15,639 470D01 Sale OfFinad 7,944 49,044 34,404 86,940 7,040 49,004) 3014D4 967940 7,949 479053 49,4044 34,0474 86,044 479051 Clean Metal And Wkte Goac1 i -1. X i 507000 12,000 50.000 12,040 479058 50,009 50,000 210,000 50,040 50,040 479052 Clexa ood Chat 210,009 479961 97000 9.11U, 150,4411 9,009 97940 150,4001) 97000 479662 9,000 4'79053 occ ci Collect= 55,009 12,000 12 5r 0 55,ODDI 12.000 479063 12.040 12,000 12.000 479058 F- 1-11n9 Tip Few 20,000 210,000 479065 210.,11, 210,000 210,000 210,440 210,400 479061 Tim Tax RMMn r reMEat 150,0M 150.00 0 150,040 150,0MI 479068 SLes 0fRecychngMatmal 1 50,000 159 000 479062 A` me Cxwd_. Remtsursemlent 55,040 55,949 4794073 Solid Waste Eh:poml Fee (NQ 55,040 --n-2011 55,040 1 55,040 13,474' 557040 479063 Mattress Fee 479,074 Lardfill Gas' -ery 20,000 ?1,497 20,000 PI 31,487 20,000 30,543 20,040 30,543 20,040 State EectromcsMemtFunds 20,000 479065 Salts hfulch 8,000 47,500 47,500 8,040 47,549 bk� Grant F,mds 47,540 35,000 47,540 35.11r(1 47,500 479+0M Sates Co®p 35,000 21,450 County Svc Programs Fee 21,4547 21,450 6,653,333 21,450 21,4540 61727,073 21,450 479068 Sat- .CtfRec5rli Matenal 125,840 1 1_5,849 125,800 125,800 County Gm Fund Co=nbut m 125,840 125,800 479073 Solid Waste Drposal Fee (NQ 12,400 2.004,714 2,044,719 12,404 error an From Eqmp 12 -661 P 1 =-66.1 12.928 . , 12" 479074 Landfill Gas Reem -my lai Apprnated Fund Balance 34,500 NA NA 34.500 4r,4.' . 33.465 NA NA 33.465 0 32.461 MLnellamemtsRmvnue 32,461 479479 State Elecctr=5 ME= fuac s :.Ss= 87000 5:979 3.00 0 5.979 44999{1 5.000 87000 87040 8,000 479080 Ncdeao Caand Fu a -. 235,640 682001 357000 3 5.00 0 3 SA0 0 35 940 35 904 REVEN E SI-Ml 35 440 479085 County SwPmgrams Fee 6,439,046 1'_,2 +1,065 6,880.8'_3 310,222 6.439,046 6,549)876 11,537,036 6,549,876 6.581.434 6,581,484 479814 Disposal Tax Fombmemait 34,000 3,.:1.0091 30,43E 30,000 34.4D4 30,000 489996 County Gen Fund C onrnbut cn 2,OD4,719 47---,, 2.01)4.714 2,004;719 2.444.719 2,004319 489999 Crmtnbutim From EgiupResn -s 26,117 187,190 100.993 47 Ci 176,501 29,366 282?11 486;775 63415 367,329 749,110 280.764 1.460,618 4999M Apprnpaiated Fund Bilance NA NA 'TA NA 1.750.04 '_ETA NA NA NA 844;784 1;A NA ETA NA 0 499999 h4iscellanemz RL-enue 5,504 5,540 5,616 5,616 5734 5,734 499999 LanditllFees 235,600 235604 235,600 235,600 235.600 235640 682001 LmdfillFines(Penallt3 Surdxarp) 600 45H 600 600 �92 600 600 EL ENE SUM 6 G7 163 ++74'_90 997,743 2,104,719 ' 11 89,9)5 6 31'23 341,892 11811 +4 '_ 11) 19+ 11,21 '_48 678,918 IA--4':9: ?9_' '_.,388.466 11,410,X27 Budget Accounts Description FY2010 -20 PROJECTED FY2020 -21 PROJECTED Environment al support (3500) Landfill services (3510) Recycling Services (3520( Sanitation services (3530) Total Revenues Environment al support (3540) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Revenues 422950 C&D heensaPermrt 127,751 1_'7.751 130,445 130,445 4390M Sanity on MIA2 Co-llect om 104,562 74.522 1'4..54 107.073 '6.49: 183,166 460000 BAEML -t On ln.E,-tnaenta 15,969 lv. 6 ' 16,346 16,346 479051 Clean Mer:.And iy. kte Gaxla 50,044 50.:IC0 50,044 50,900 479052 Clean W' 43ut 9,000 9..n,!1 9,000 9,000 479053 Occ (bl micipal} collecaom 12,000 i -1. X i 12,000 12,040 479058 Rec�rling Tip Fees 210,000 '105',0 i_ 210,040 210,009 479961 Tire Tax Reimbui:eenent 150,4411 :).7C: 150,4001) 150,949 479662 Mute Goods Fambumemmt 55,009 55,ODDI 55.040 479063 MattrefsFee 20,000 'O..iC: 20,000 20,000 479065 Saes Mu b-h 47,504 -- .=1;1' 47,509 47,509 e.e aanpo 21,450 21,450 479068 SLes 0fRecychngMatmal 125,800 1_'9.500 125,800 125,800 4794073 Solid Waste Eh:poml Fee (NQ --n-2011 B201 13,474' 13,479 479,074 Lardfill Gas' -ery ?1,497 31,487 30,543 30,543 479,079 State EectromcsMemtFunds 8,004 8,000 8,000 8,040 479080 bk� Grant F,mds 35,000 35.11r(1 35,000 35,000 479085 County Svc Programs Fee 6,653,880 6,653,333 6,727,073 61727,073 lksperal lax Keambursexne= 489996 County Gm Fund Co=nbut m 2,404,719 2,004 ? 719 2.004,714 2,044,719 error an From Eqmp P . , 499900 lai Apprnated Fund Balance INA NA NA NA 4r,4.' . '4A NA NA NA 0 499999 MLnellamemtsRmvnue 5,855 :.Ss= 5:979 5.979 44999{1 Tmdfill Fees 235,600 235.600 235,600 235,640 682001 Landfill Fines (FeuxltySurdmxge) 600 6C0 600 600 REVEN E SI-Ml 6,84#401 310,888 1,762,249 2,4469,473 1'_,2 +1,065 6,880.8'_3 310,222 1,713,_276 2,632,716 11,537,036 row 64 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Appendix E Estimated Department Expense Projections 65 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Table 1. Estimated Department Expense Projections ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 2019-201$) FY 2020 -21 ($) Environment al Support (35001 Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Expense Environment sl Support {3500) Landfill Services (35101 Recycling Services (35201 Sanitation Services (35301 Total Expmse 510DOD Permanent Salaries 825.304 247,186 91 709,828 2,771.111 842,705 252,397 1,009,640 724,793 2,829,535 510100 Overtime 4,629 1,876 18,164 20,339 45,038 4,726 1,915 18,547 20,768 45,957 510402 Holiday Pay 2,036. 2,627 19,929 14.994 39,396 2,078 2;683 20.349 15,116 40,227 510200 Longevity 17,601 1,417 8,955 3.981 31,954 17,972 1447 9,144 4,064 32,627 5110n0 Temporary Personnel 9,563 2 862 48138 77 509 136,071 9,765 2,922 49,153 79,143 140,982 511003 Student lntems 11,711 0 0 D 11711 11,957 0 ❑ 1 D 11,957 5200OD Social Security 53,266 15,870 67,207 51,241 187,583 54,389 16,264 68,624 1 52,321 191,538 520001 Medicare 12,458 3,711 15,718 11,984 43,871 12,721 3,789 16,049 1 12,237 44,796 520100 Medical lraur- 127,58❑ 51,688 228,776 199,944 607,988 13D,270 52,778 233,599 204,161) 620,806 520101 Meal Ins Pmt In Lieu 1,278 0 1,278 1,278 3,833 1,304 D 1,304 1,304 3,913 52011❑ Hsa Contribution 4,522 2,261 6,291 3,015 18,090 4,618 2.,309 8,466 3,078 18,471 52015D Dental Insurance 4,663 1,614 8,648 7,713 22,599 4,761 1,646 8,791 7,876 23,076 520160 Life Insurance 1,789 598 2,763 1,906 1 6,995 1,626 611 21760 1,946 7,143 520280 Retirement 61,594 18,350 75,699 54,30D 209,343 62,893 18,737 76,682 55,444 213,756 520305 NonSwom 401(x) 9,895 3,426 10,268 16.366 47,956 10.104 3,4913 18 654 16,711 4B.967 530100 Tramingl[] + elopment 22 368. 6,643 6'769 4,948 40,728 22,W 6,783 6,911 5,053 41,587 53050D Personal Mleage 0 0 0 211 211 0 D D 215 2.15 540000 Telephone 18,982 0 7,367 16,342 42,690 19,362 0 7,522 16,686 43,590 550DOD Postage 41,743 0 0 0 41,743 42,623 0 0 0 42,623 560000 Vehicle Maintenance 9,581 7,346 251,350 136,949 405,227 9,783 7,501 256,650 139,837 413,771) 570000 Building Repairs 19,498 1 2,560 13,840 37,701 73,600 19,909 2,614 14,131 38,496 75,151 571000 Equipment Repairs 7,346 62,811 122,215 50,967 1 243,339 7,501 64,135 124,792 52,042 1 248,470 581000 Equipment Rent 3,098 363 2,555 3,603 9,639 3,163 391 2,699 3,679 9,842 59000D Duplicating 1,065 0 0 D 1,065 1,087 0 0 D 1,087 591000 Printing 15 916 0 0 8,517 24 432 16 251 0 0 8,696 24,948 60000D Advertieing 64195 0 0 D 64195 65.548 0 D 0 65548 610DOO Dues 4,929 9,094 719 919 15,660 5,633 9,285 734 938 15,990 611000 Subscriptions 176 0 0 D 176 179 D 0 D 179 62OOOD Departmental Supplies 42,88❑ 27,602 135,544 58,376 264,401 1 43,784 28,184 138,402 59,687 269,976 621000 Office Supplies 2,661 0 0 ❑ 2,661 2,718 0 0 0 2,718 621050 Vehicle Supplies 11,657 1 48,637 269,534 134,718 464,546 11,903 49,662 275,216 137,558 474,34D 630QOD Prof. Contract Services 5,509 471,161 63,876 ❑ 540,546 5,625 481,095 65,222 0 551,942 690003 Misc Contract Services 29,496 27,999 1,673,1D6 11,8BT 1,742.483 30,120 28,589 1,708,380 12,131 1;779,220 641000 Bonds 8 Insurance 34,477 0 0 D 34,477 35,204 D 0 0 35,204 641005 Workers Compersatiun 50,326 0 0 D 51)326 51,3813 D 0 ❑ 51,388 650000 Elechicity 39,922 0 0 30,142 71)064 40.764 D 0 30 777 71,541 651000 Water and Sewer Q 0 0 6,388 6,388 0 D 0 6,522 6,522 652002 Propane Gas 6,D68 0 3,194 Q 1 9,262 6,196 0 3,261 a 9,457 67000D Jn1otms 3,168 1,833 9,049 8,358 22,406 3,233 1,872 9,240 6,534 22,879 682000 Landfill Fees 0 0 0 645,124 645,124 0 0 0 658,726 658,726 682004 NC Solid Waste Disposal Tax 0 13,201 0 0 13,201 0 13,479 0 0 13,479 682005 Processing Fee 0 0 149,043 0 0 0 152,185 4 69000D Ctwges By General Fund 551,818 0 Q 0 551,81 D 563,444 D 0 D 563,444 700100 Debt Service Principal 106.461 0 250,253 316,605 673,318 106,461 D 250,253 364,161 720,874 700401 Debt Service Interest 0 146,974 185,942 395,441 62,524 0 146,974 213,872 423.371 720015 Retiree NeaHh 62172 3,249 ST, 129 141,704 19,557 63,463 3,318 58,334 144,691 910051) Contribution To Equip Reserves M2,375,156 458,150 1,019,502 311,906 1,541,817 52,259 158,150 4,442,330 332,832 1,585,574 Operating Expenses Subtotal 1,253 078 5, 064 1 3,200,932 12,318,18a 2,420 568 1. 76 163 S,749,892 3 347,669 12,642,097 80DOOD Equipment' 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 D 0 0 0 6 0 800100 It Equipment` 5,213 1 0 1 0 1 D 5,213 5,323 D 0 C 5,323 80100❑ Fumishings' t,D43 0 Q D 1,043 1,065 D 0 0 1,065 802000 Vehicles' Q 0 858,781 359,832 1,218.613 0 D 867,473 521,904 1,329,377 88000D Construction" Q 1 0 1 0 1 904,255 964,255 0 D D 0 0 Capital Expenses Sulatotall 6,256 1 1 858,784 1 1,264,087 2,129,124 6,388 0 807,473 521.904 1.335,755 SOLD WASTE Total Expenses 1 $2,3131,412 1 $1,253,078 1 $6496,845 1 $4,465.019 1 $14,596,354 $2,426,955 $1,276,163 S6,557,365 $3,869,563 $14,130,047 �e rer�rrg row iu.o 5.o y�.o .ri o it a n.a �v.o cr .r. Varies widely from year l6 Year E -1 66 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Appendix F Model Output Table 1. Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 R7 SCENARIO 1- Status Quo: $107 Fee (Includes General Fund Contribution' $2 r Million) PROJECTED BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED Status Quo: $107 Fee (Includes General Fund Contribution'" $2 Million)' PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 2016 -17 FY 2017 -18 FY 2018 -19 FY 2019 -20 FY 2020 -21 Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Be rvices (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Totals Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Scenario 1A - Status Quo: $107 Fee (No General Fund Contribution) I Scenario 1A- Status Quo: $107 Fee (No General Fund Contribution) Program Fee Revenue Program Fee Revenue 1,201,600 600,092 2,927,330 1,710,024 6,439,046 1,195,659 573,324 2,779,878 1,961,015 6,509,876 1,160,497 742,053 3,022,360 1,656,574 6,581,484 Program Fee Revenue 1,085,588 571,227 2,961,646 2,035,419 6,653,880 1,155,432 607,559 3,121,849 1,842,233 6,727,073 Other Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 100,000 1,766,150 321,347 341,892 1,181,154 101,476 2,750,653 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 383,747 2,924,124 Other Revenues 150,720 310,888 1,762,249 464,354 3,592,465 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 627,997 2,805,244 Total Revenues 1,369,717 1,100,382 3,925,073 1,810,024 8,205,196 1,517,006 915,217 3,961,031 2,062,491 9,260,529 1,371,665 1,420,972 4,672,651 2,040,321 9,505,608 Total Revenues 1,236,308 882,115 4,723,895 2,499,773 10,246,346 1,309,182 917,781 4,835,124 2,470,229 9,532,317 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,184 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,840 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,078 6,496,845 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($867,747) ($17,032) ($1,525,820) ($1,374,160) ($3,784,759) ($922,248) ($254,417) ($1,710,175) ($1,938,160) ($4,020,216) ($1,021,970) ($109,583) ($1,561,250) ($1,376,519) ($4,069,322) Net Revenues (Deficits) ($1,145,104) ($370,963) ($1,772,951) ($1,965,246) ($4,350,009) ($1,117,773) ($358,382) ($1,722,241) ($1,399,334) ($4,597,730) Scenario 2B - $130 Fee (General Fund Contribution ^' $2 Million) Scenario 1B - Status Quo: $107 Fee (General Fund Contribution ^ $2 Million) Scenario 2B - $130 Fee (General Fund Contribution - $2 Million) Program Fee Revenue 1,459,888 729,084 3,556,569 2,077,599 7,823,140 1,452,669 Scenario 1B - Status Quo: $107 Fee (General Fund Contribution ^' $2 Million) 3,377,421 2,382,542 7,909,195 1,409,950 901,560 Program Fee Revenue 1,201,600 600,092 2,927,330 1,710,024 6,439,046 1,195,659 573,324 2,779,878 1,961,015 6,509,876 1,160,497 742,053 3,022,360 1,656,574 6,581,484 Program Fee Revenue 1,085,588 571,227 2,961,646 2,035,419 6,653,880 1,155,432 607,559 3,121,849 1,842,233 6,727,073 Other Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 2,104,719 3,770,869 321,347 341,892 1,181,154 2,106,195 4,755,372 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 2,388,466 4,928,843 Other Revenues 150,720 310,888 1,762,249 2,469,073 5,597,184 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 2,632,716 4,809,963 Total Revenues 1,369,717 1,100,382 3,925,073 3,814,743 10,209,915 1,517,006 915,217 3,961,031 4,067,210 11,265,248 1,371,665 1,420,972 4,672,651 4,045,040 11,510,327 Total Revenues 1,236,308 882,115 4,723,895 4,504,492 12,251,065 1,309,182 917,781 4,835,124 4,474,948 11,537,036 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,184 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,840 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,078 6,496,845 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($867,747) ($17,032) ($1,525,820) $630,559 ($1,780,040) ($922,248) ($254,417) ($1,710,175) $66,559 ($2,015,497) ($1,021,970) ($109,583) ($1,561,250) $628,200 ($2,064,603) Net Revenues (Deficits) ($1,145,104) ($370,963) ($1,772,951) $39,473 ($2,345,290) ($1,117,773) ($358,382) ($1,722,241) $605,385 ($2,593,011) scenario 1A: Budget Gap w/o general Fund (pi, /84, /s9) (�4,ULU,L1b) (�-4,1169,JZZJ scenario IA: Budget bap w/o General Fund (�,4,65U,UU9) (j4,S9 /, /3UJ Scenario 16: Budget Gap ($1,780,040) ($2,015,497) ($2,064,603) Scenario 18: Budget Gap ($2,345,290) ($2,593,011) SCENARIO 2 - $130 Program Fee PROJECTED BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED SCENARIO 2 - $130 Program Fee PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 2016 -17 FY 2017 -18 FY 2018 -19 FY 2019 -20 FY 2020 -21 Environmental Support (3500) Landoll Services (351 0) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total' Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total' Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Scenario 2A - $130 Fee (No General Fund Contribution) I Scenario 2A- $130 Fee (No General Fund Contribution) Program Fee Revenue 1,459,8881 729,0841 3,556,5691 2,077,5991 7,823,140 1,452,669 696,562 3,377,421 2,382,542 7,909,195 1,409,950 901,560 3,672,026 2,012,660 7,996,196 Program Fee Revenue 1,318,939 694,014 3,598,261 2,472,939 8,084,154 1,403,796 738,156 3,792,901 2,238,227 8,173,080 Other Revenues 168,1171 500,2901 997,7431 100,0001 1,766,150 321,347 341,892 1,181,154 101,476 2,750,653 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 383,747 2,924,124 Other Revenues 150,720 310,888 1,762,249 464,354 3,592,465 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 627,997 2,805,244 Total Revenues 1,628,005 1,229,374 4,554,312 2,177,599 9,589,290 1,774,017 1,038,455 4,558,575 2,484,017 10,659,848 1,621,117 1,580,478 5,322,317 2,396,407 10,920,320 Total Revenues 1,469,659 1,004,902 5,360,510 2,937,293 12,580,874 1,557,546 1,048,378 5,506,176 2,866,223 10,978,323 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,154,184 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,6351 1,530,5541 6,233,9011 3,416,8401 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,078 6,496,845 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,1631 6,557,3651 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($609,459)1 $111,960 1 ($896,581) ($1,006,585) ($2,400,665) ($665,237) ($131,180) ($1,112,631) ($1,516,633) ($2,620,897) ($772,517)1 $49,924 1 ($911,584)1 ($1,020,433) ($2,654,610) Net Revenues (Deficits) ($911,753) ($248,176) ($1,136,335) ($1,527,726) ($2,015,480) ($569,409) ($227,785) ($1,051,189) ($1,003,340) ($3,151,723) Scenario 2B - $130 Fee (General Fund Contribution ^' $2 Million) Scenario 2B - $130 Fee (General Fund Contribution - $2 Million) Program Fee Revenue 1,459,888 729,084 3,556,569 2,077,599 7,823,140 1,452,669 696,562 3,377,421 2,382,542 7,909,195 1,409,950 901,560 3,672,026 2,012,660 7,996,196 Program Fee Revenue 1,318,939 694,014 3,598,261 2,472,939 8,084,154 1,403,796 738,156 3,792,901 2,238,227 8,173,080 Other Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 2,104,719 3,770,869 321,347 341,892 1,151,154 2,106,195 4,755,372 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 2,388,466 4,928,843 Other Revenues 150,720 310,888 1,762,249 2,469,073 5,597,184 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 2,632,716 4,809,963 Total Revenues 1,628,005 1,229,374 4,554,312 4,182,318 11,594,009 1,774,017 1,038,455 4,558,575 4,488,736 12,664,567 1,621,117 1,580,478 5,322,317 4,401,126 12,925,039 Total Revenues 1,469,659 1,004,902 5,360,510 4,942,012 13,681,338 1,557,546 1,048,378 5,506,176 4,870,942 12,983,042 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,184 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,840 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,078 6,496,845 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($609,459) $111,960 ($896,581) $998,134 ($395,946) J ($665,237) ($131,180) ($1,112,631) $488,086 ($616,178) ($772,517) $49,924 ($911,584) $984,286 ($649,891) 6J Net Revenues (Deficits) 1 ($911,753) ($248,176) ($1,136,335) $476,993 1 ($915,016) ($869,409) ($227,785) ($1,051,189) $1,001,379 ($1,147,004) Scenario LA: Budget Gap w/o General Fund (jZ,4UU,bb5J (sZ,bLU,89/) (jL,b54,b1U) Scenario ZA: Budget Gap w/o General Fund (jZ,U15,46U) (yi,1S1, /L3J Scenario 2B: Budget Gap ($395,946) ($616,178) ($649,891) Scenario 28: Budget Gap ------- JI ($915,016) ($1,147,004) SCENARIO 3 - $150 Program Fee PROJECTED BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED SCENARIO 3 - $150 Program Fee PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 2016.17 FY 2017.18 FY 2018.19 FY 2019 -20 FY 2020 -21 Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Be rvices (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total' Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Be rvices (3510) Recycling Services (352 0) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Scenario 3A- $150 Fee (No General Fund Contribution) I Scenario 3A- $150 Fee (No General Fund Contribution) Program Fee Revenue 1,684,4861 841,2511 4,103,7331 2,397,2291 9,026,700 1,676,157 803,726 3,897,025 2,749,087 9,125,994 1,626,865 1,040,261 4,236,953 2,322,300 9,226,380 Program Fee Revenue 1,521,8521 800,7861 4,151,8401 2,853,392 9,327,870 1,619,764 851,719 4,376,424 2,582,569 9,430,476 Other Revenues 168,1171 500,2901 997,7431 100,0001 1,766,150 321,347 341,892 1,181,154 101,476 2,750,653 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 383,747 2,924,124 Other Revenues 150,720 310,888 1,762,249 464,354 3,592,465 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 627,997 2,805,244 Total Revenues 1,852,603 1,341,541 5,101,476 2,497,229 10,792,850 1,997,504 1,145,618 5,078,178 2,850,562 11,876,647 1,838,033 1,719,180 5,887,245 2,706,047 12,150,504 Total Revenues 1,672,573 1,111,674 5,914,089 3,317,745 12,920,335 1,773,514 1,161,941 6,089,699 3,210,566 12,235,720 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,184 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,840 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,078 6,496,845 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($384,861) $224,127 ($349,417) ($686,955) ($1,197,105) ($441,749) ($24,016) ($593,027) ($1,150,089) ($1,404,097) ($555,602) $188,625 ($346,657) ($710,793) ($1,424,426) Net Revenues (Deficits) ($708,839) ($141,405) ($582,757) ($1,147,)74) ($1,676,019) ($653,441) ($114,222) ($467,666) ($658,997)1 ($1,594,327) Scenario 36 - $150 Fee (General Fund Contribution "' $2 Million) Scenario 36 - $150 Fee (General Fund Contribution - $2 Million) Program Fee Revenue 1,684,486 841,251 4,103,733 2,397,229 9,026,700 1,676,1571 803,7261 3,897,0251 2,749,0871 9,125,994 1,626,8651 1,040,2611 4,236,9531 2,322,3001 9,226,380 Program Fee Revenue 1,521,8521 800,7861 4,151,8401 2,853,3921 9,327,870 1,619,7641 851,7191 4,376,4241 2,582,5691 9,430,476 Other Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 2,104,719 3,770,869 321,3471 341,8921 1,181,154 2,106,195 4,755,372 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 2,388,466 41928,943 Other Revenues 150,720 310,888 1,762,249 2,469,073 5,597,184 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 2,632,716 4,809,963 Total Revenues 1,852,603 1,341,541 5,101,476 4,501,948 12,797,569 1,997,504 1,145,618 5,078,178 4,855,281 13,881,366 1,838,033 1,719,180 5,887,245 4,710,766 14,155,223 Total Revenues 1,672,573 1,111,674 5,914,OS9 5,322,464 14,925,054 1,773,514 1,161,941 6,089,699 5,215,285 14,240,439 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,184 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,840 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,078 6,496,845 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($384,861) $224,127 ($349,417) $1,317,764 $807,614 ($441,749) ($24,016) ($593,027) $854,630 $600,622 ($555,602) $188,625 ($346,657) $1,293,926 $580,293 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($708,839) ($141,405) ($582,757) $557,445 $328,700 ($653,441) ($114,222) ($467,666) $1,345,722 $110,392 Scenario 3A: Budget Gap w/o General Fund (51,19 /,1Ub) Scenario 3B: Budget Gap 1 $807,614 (y1,4U4,U9 /) (y1,424,42b) Scenario 3A: Budget Gap w/o General Fund (51,b/b,U19) $600,622 $580,293 Scenario 313: Budget Gap _A� $328,700 1. The FY 2016 -17 Other Revenues are presented in a manner to be consistent with the County's preliminary budget. The four Projected Years include loan proceeds associated with two collection center construction projects under the Appropriated Fund Balance line item account. The four Projected Years also include contributions from equipment reserves as a separate line item account. Note that these items (loan proceeds and contributions from equipment reserves) were considered part of the Appropriated Fund Balance for FY 2016 -17, which was set to zero, and therefore are effectively excluded as Other Revenues within the model for that year. 2. FY 2017 -18 and FY 2019 -20 "Other Revenues" and "Total Revenues" "Total" Column cells include loan proceeds for convenience center construction of $804,784 and $904,255, respectively. These figures do not appear in the individual Division columns. F -1 151,694,3L/) $110,392 Table 2. Scenarios 4 and 5 68 I I F1 I I Scenario 413 - Break -Even Analysis:Program Fee Set to Balance Budget Including General Funds PROJECTED BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED SCENARIO 5 - $0 Program Fee (All Make -up Funding through General Fund) PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 2016 -17 FY 2017.18 FY 2018 -19 FY 2019 -20 FY 2020 -21 Environmental Support (3500) Status Quo: $107 Fee Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Program Fee Revenue 1,533,776 765,985 3,736,5741 2,182,751 8,219,086 1,565,842 750,829 3,640,544 2,568,157 8,525,372 1,524,544 974,834 3,970,470 2,176,239 8,646,087 Program Fee Revenue 1,468,2251 772,567 4,005,536 2,752,8431 8,999,170 SCENARIO 4 -Break Even (Includes General Fund Scenario 2,552,338 9,320,084 Other Revenues 168,117 Total 997,743 2,104,719 3,770,869 321,347 Total s 1,181,154 2,106,195 4,755,372 211,168 Total Contribution - ' $2 Million) 2,388,466 4,928,843 Other Revenues Sanitation Total z 1,762,249 2,469,073 5,597,184 Sanitation Total 1,713,275 Environmental Landfill Recycling Sanitation 1,266,275 Environmental Landfill Recycling Sanitation 1,092,721 Environmental Landfill Recycling Sanitation 1,653,753 5,620,762 Environmental Landfill Recycling Services 1,083,456 Environmental Landfill Recycling Services 1,151,971 6,038,469 Support (3500) Services (3510) Services (3520) Services (3530) 1,117,414 Support (3500) Services (3510) Services (3520) Services (3530) 1,169,634 Support (3500) Services (3510) Services (3520) Services (3530) 1,530,554 6,233,901 Support (3500) Services (3510) Services (3520) (3530) 1,253,078 Support (3500) Services (3510) Services (3520) (3530) 1,276,163 Scenario 4A - Break -Even Analysis: Program Fee Set to Balance Budget Excluding General Funds 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($535,571) $148,861 I $1,103,286 $0 ($552,064) ($76,913) Scenario 4A- Break -Even Analysis: Program Fee Set to Balance Budget Excluding General Funds $673,701 $0 ($657,923) $123,198 ($613,140) Program Fee Revenue 1 1,907,8801 952,8161 4,647,9631 2,715,1461 10,223,805 1,934,045 927,384 4,496,609 3,172,053 10,530,0911 1,878,031 1,200,863 4,891,080 2,680,831 10,650,806 Program Fee Revenue 1 1,795,2971 944,6701 4,897,8371 3,366,0851 11,003,8891 1,945,131 1,022,806 5,255,529 3,101,337 11,324,803 Other Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 100,000 1,766,150 321,347 341,8921 1,181,1541 101,4761 2,750,6531 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 383,747 2,924,124 Other Revenues 150,7201 310,8881 1,762,2491 464,3541 3,592,465W 153,7501 310,2221 1,713,2751 627,997 2,805,244 Total Revenues 2,075,997 1,453,106 5,645,706 2,515,146 11,959,955 2,255,392 1,269,2771 5,677,7631 3,273,5281 13,280,744 1 2,089,198 1,879,782 6,541,372 3,064,575 13,574,930 Total Revenues 1,946,017 1,255,558 6,660,086 3,830,439 14,596,354 2,098,581 1,333,025 6,968,804 3,729,334 14,130,047 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,184 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,840 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,075 6,496,845 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($161,467) $335,692 $194,813 ($369,038) $0 ($183,861) $99,643 $6,557 ($727,123) $0 ($304,436) $349,225 $307,470 ($352,262) $0 Net Revenues (Deficits) 1 ($435,395) $2,480 1 $163,240 ($634,580) $0 N ($328,074) $56,865 1 $411,439 1 ($140,229) $0 I I F1 I I Scenario 413 - Break -Even Analysis:Program Fee Set to Balance Budget Including General Funds PROJECTED BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED SCENARIO 5 - $0 Program Fee (All Make -up Funding through General Fund) PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 2016.17 FY 2017.18 FY 2018.19 FY 2019.20 Scenario 4B - Break -Even Analysis:Program Fee Set to Balance Budget Including General Funds Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Program Fee Revenue 1,533,776 765,985 3,736,5741 2,182,751 8,219,086 1,565,842 750,829 3,640,544 2,568,157 8,525,372 1,524,544 974,834 3,970,470 2,176,239 8,646,087 Program Fee Revenue 1,468,2251 772,567 4,005,536 2,752,8431 8,999,170 1,600,803 841,749 4,325,194 2,552,338 9,320,084 Other Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 2,104,719 3,770,869 321,347 341,892 1,181,154 2,106,195 4,755,372 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 2,388,466 4,928,843 Other Revenues 150,720 310,888 1,762,249 2,469,073 5,597,184 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 2,632,716 4,809,963 Total Revenues 1,701,893 1,266,275 4,734,317 4,287,470 11,989,955 1,887,189 1,092,721 4,821,698 4,674,352 13,280,744 1,735,711 1,653,753 5,620,762 4,564,705 13,574,930 Total Revenues 1,618,945 1,083,456 5,767,784 5,221,915 14,596,355 1,754,554 1,151,971 6,038,469 5,185,053 14,130,047 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,154 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,840 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,078 6,496,845 4,465,019 1405960354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($535,571) $148,861 ($716,576) $1,103,286 $0 ($552,064) ($76,913) ($849,508) $673,701 $0 ($657,923) $123,198 ($613,140) $1,147,865 $0 0 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($762,467) ($169,623) ($729,061) $756,896 $0 1 ($672,402) ($124,193) ($518,896) $1,315,491 $0 Scenario 4A: Deficit /Surplus w/o General Fund 50 yU yU Scenario 4A: Deficit /Surplus w/o General Fund yU yU Scenario 4A: Break -Even Program Fee w/o General Fund $169.89 $173.08 $173.16 Scenario 4A: Break -Even Program Fee w/o General Fund $176.95 $180.13 Scenario 4B: Deficit /Surplus w/ General Fund $0 $0 $0 Scenario 413: Deficit /Surplus w/ General Fund $0 $0 Scenario 4B: Break -Even Program Fee w/ General Fund $136.58 $140.13 $140.57 Scenario 46: Break -Even Program Fee w/ General Fund $144.71 $148.24 SCENARIO 5 - $0 Program Fee (All Make -up Funding through General Fund) PROJECTED BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED SCENARIO 5 - $0 Program Fee (All Make -up Funding through General Fund) PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 2016.17 FY 2017.18 FY 2018.19 FY 2019.20 FY 2020 -21 Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total' Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total' Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Scenario SA - $0 Program Fee: (Excludes General Fund Contribution) W Scenario SA- $0 Program Fee: (Excludes General Fund Contribution) Program Fee Revenue 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Program Fee Revenue 0 01 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 100,000 1,766,150 321,3471 341,892 1,181,154 101,476 2,750,653 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 383,747 2,924,124 Other Revenues 150,720 310,8881 1,762,2491 464,3541 3,492,994 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 627,997 2,805,244 Total Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 100,000 1,766,150 321,347 341,892 1,181,154 101,476 2,750,653 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 383,747 2,924,124 Total Revenues 150,720 310,888 1,762,249 464,354 4,297,778 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 627,997 2,805,244 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,154 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,840 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,078 6,496,845 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($2,069,347) ($617,124) ($4,453,150) ($3,054,184) ($10,223,805) ($2,117,906) ($827,742) ($4,490,052) ($3,899,175) ($10,530,091) ($2,182,467) ($851,636) ($4,583,610) ($3,033,093) ($10,650,806) Net Revenues (Deficits) ($2,230,692) ($942,190) ($4,734,597) ($4,000,665) ($10,298,576) ($2,273,205) ($965,941) ($4,844,090) ($3,241,566) ($11,324,803) Scenario 58 - $0 Program Fee: (Includes General Fund Contribution - $2 Million) Iiiiiiii Scenario 5B - $0 Program Fee: (Includes General Fund Contribution - $2 Million) Program Fee Revenue 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 01 01 01 Program Fee Revenue 01 01 01 011 0 01 01 01 01 0 Other Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 2,104,719 3,770,869 321,347 341,892 1,181,1541 2,106,1951 4,755,372 211,168 678,918 1,650,2921 2,388,4661 4,928,8431 Other Revenues 1 150,7201 310,8881 1,762,2491 2,469,0731 5,497,713 153,7501 310,2221 1,713,2751 2,632,7161 4,809,963 Total Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 2,104,719 3,770,869 321,347 341,892 1,181,154 2,106,195 4,755,372 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 2,388,466 4,928,543 Total Revenues 150,720 310,888 1,762,249 2,469,073 5,497,713 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 2,632,716 4,809,963 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,184 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,840 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,075 6,496,845 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($2,069,347) ($617,124) ($4,453,150) ($1,079,465) ($8,219,086) ($2,117,906) ($827,742) ($4,490,052) ($1,894,456) ($8,525,372) ($2,182,467) ($851,636) ($4,583,610) ($1,028,374) (_9 646 OR7)1 J Net Revenues (Deficits) 1 ($2,230,692) ($942,190) ($4,734,597) ($1,995,946) ($9,098,641) ($2,273,205) ($965,941) ($4,844,090) ($1,236,847) ($9,320,084) Scenario 5A: Deficit /Surplus w/o General Fund jyiu,zzs,BU5) Scenario 5A: Cents on Tax Rate: w/o General Fund ($0.06) Scenario 513: Deficit /Surplus w/ General Fund ($8,219,086) Scenario 5B: Cents on Tax Rate: w/ General Fund ($0.05) (S1U,53U,U91) IS1U,b5U,BUb) Scenario 5A: Deficit /Surplus w/o General Fund (S1U,29ts,5 /b) ($0.06) ($0.06) Scenario SA: Cents on Tax Rate: w/o General Fund ($0.06) ($8,525,372) ($8,646,087) Scenario 513: Deficit /Surplus w/ General Fund ($9,098,641) ($0.05) ($0.05) Scenario 513: Cents on Tax Rate: w/ General Fund ($0.05) 1. The FY 2016 -17 Other Revenues are presented in a manner to be consistent with the County's preliminary budget. The four Projected Years include loan proceeds associated with two collection center construction projects under the Appropriated Fund Balance line item account. The four Projected Years also include contributions from equipment reserves as a separate line item account. Note that these items (loan proceeds and contributions from equipment reserves) were considered part of the Appropriated Fund Balance for FY 2016 -17, which was set to zero, and therefore are effectively excluded as Other Revenues within the model for that year. 2. FY 2017 -18 and FY 2019 -20 "Other Revenues" and "Total Revenues" "Total" Column cells include loan proceeds for convenience center construction of $804,784 and $904,255, respectively. These figures do not appear in the individual Division columns. F -2 (y11,324,BU3) ($0.07) ($9,320,084) ($0.06) 69 Table 3. Scenarios 6 and 7 SCENARIO 6 - Construct Transfer Station Scenario PROJECTED BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED SCENARIO 6 - Construct Transfer Station Scenario PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 2018.17 FY 2017 -18 FY 2018 -19 FY 2019.20 FY 2020 -21 Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total' Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Totah Environmental Support (3500) Landfill Services (3510) Recycling Services (3520) Sanitation Services (3530) Total Scenario 6A.1- Construct TS Scenario w/o GF Contribution - OC & Town Waste Only Scenario 6B.1: Break -Even Program Fee w/ General Fund $138.90 $142.19 $142.36 Scenario 6B.1: Break -Even Program Fee w/ General Fund $146.23 $149.49 Scenario 6B.2: Deficit /Surplus w/ General Fund $0 r Scenario 6A.1- Construct TS Scenario w/o GF Contribution - OC & Town Waste Only Scenario 6B.2: Deficit /Surplus w/ General Fund $0 $0 Scenario 6B.2: Break -Even Program Fee w/ General Fund Program Fee Revenue 1,933,934 965,828 4,711,436 2,752,224 10,363,423 1,957,044 938,412 4,550,081 3,209,774 10,655,312 1,897,460 1,213,287 4,941,680 2,708,565 10,760,991 Program Fee Revenue 1,810,7131 952,7821 4,939,8941 3,394,989 11,098,377 1,958,545 1,029,860 5,291,774 3,122,725 11,402,904 Other Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 100,000 1,766,150 321,347 341,892 1,181,154 101,476 2,750,653 211,168 675,918 1,650,292 383,747 2,924,124 Other Revenues 150,720 310,885 1,762,249 464,354 3,592,465 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 627,997 2,805,244 Total Revenues 2,102,051 1,466,118 5,709,179 2,852,224 12,129,573 2,278,392 1,280,305 5,731,235 3,311,2491 13,405,965 2,108,627 1,892,205 6,591,971 3,092,312 13,685,116 Total Revenues 1,961,433 1,263,670 6,702,143 3,859,343 14,690,843 2,112,296 1,340,082 7,005,049 3,750,722 14,208,148 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,184 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,840 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,078 6,496,845 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($135,413) $348,704 $258,286 ($331,960) $139,618 ($160,862) $110,671 $60,029 ($689,401) $125,221 ($285,007) $361,651 $358,070 ($324,528) $110,186 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($419,979) $10,591 $205,297 ($605,676) $94,488 ($314,660) $63,915 $447,683 ($118,841) $78,101 Net Revenues from TS Total Revenues 1,369,717 1,100,382 ($139,619) ($139,619) 10,209,915 1,979,590 1,137,172 ($125,221) ($125,221) 13,250,744 1,912,871 1,767,033 ($110,186) ($110,186) Net Revenues from TS ($94,488) ($94,488) 1,716,911 1,135,005 6,035,051 ($78,101) ($78,101) Total Net Revenues ($135,413) $348,704 $258,286 ($471,578) $0 ($160,862) $110,671 $60,029 ($814,622) $0 ($285,007) $361,651 $358,070 ($434,713) $0 Total Net Revenues ($419,979) $10,591 $205,297 ($700,164) $0 ($314,660) $63,915 1 $447,683 ($196,942) $0 1,253,079 6,496,545 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($867,747) Scenario 6A.2 - Construct TS Scenario w/o GF Contribution - OC, Town, & Other Waste ($1,525,820) $630,559 ($1,780,040) ($459,364) ($32,462) ($633,980) $321,022 $0 ($480,764) $236,479 Scenario 6A.2 - Construct TS Scenario w/o GF Contribution - OC, Town, & Other Waste $396,036 1 1 Net Revenues (Deficits) 1 ($664,500) ($118,074) Program Fee Revenue 1,915,842 956,793 4,667,361 2,726,477 10,266,473 1,938.,455 929,499 4,506,861 3,179,284 10,554,098 1,878,828 1,201,373 4,893,156 2,681,969 10,655,327 Program Fee Revenue 1,792,715 943,312 4,890,794 3,361,245 10,988,066 1,938,765 1,019,459 5,238,330 3,091,188 11,287,743 Other Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 100,000 1,766,150 321,347 341,892 1,181,154 101,476 2,750,653 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 383,747 2,924,124 Other Revenues 150,720 310,888 1,762,249 464,354 3,592,465 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 627,997 2,805,244 Total Revenues 2,083,959 1,457,083 5,665,104 2,826,477 12,032,623 2,259,802 1,271,391 5,688,014 3,280,760 13,304,751 2,089,995 1,880,292 6,543,448 3,065,716 13,579,451 Total Revenues 1,943,435 1,254,200 6,653,043 3,825,598 14,580,532 2,092,516 1,329,681 6,951,605 3,719,185 14,092,987 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,184 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,840 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,079 6,496,545 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($153,505) $339,669 $214,211 ($357,707) $42,668 ($179,452) $101,757 $16,808 ($719,891) $24,007 ($303,639) $349,737 $309,547 ($351,124) $4,521 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($437,976) $1,121 $156,198 ($639,420) ($15,823) ($334,440) $53,518 $394,240 ($150,378) ($37,060) Net Revenues from TS ($42,668) ($42,668) ($24,007) ($24,007) ($4,521) ($4,521)1 Net Revenues from TS $15,823 $15,823 $37,060 $37,060 Total Net Revenues ($153,505) $339,669 $214,211 ($400,375) $0 ($179,452)1 $101,757 1 $16,808 1 ($743,898) $0 ($303,639) $349,737 $309,547 ($355,645) $0 Total Net Revenues ($437,976) $1,121 $156,198 ($623,597) $0 ($334,440) $53,515 $394,240 ($113,318) $0 Scenario 613.1- Construct TS Scenario w/ GF Contribution - OC & Town Waste Onl) Scenario 6B.1 - Construct TS Scenario w/ GF Con ; Ton - OC & Town Waste Onl) Program Fee Revenue 1,559,831 778,997 3,800,048 2,219,829 8,358,704 1,588,841 761,857 3,694,017 2,605,878 8,650,593 1,543,972 987,257 4,021,070 2,203,973 8,756,272 Program Fee Revenue 1,483,641 780,679 4,047,592 2,781,746 9,093,658 1,614,218 848,802 4,361,439 2,573,726 9,398,185 Other Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 2,104,719 3,770,869 321,347 341,892 1,181,154 2,106,195 4,755,372 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 2,388,466 4,928.,543 Other Revenues 150,720 310,885 1,762,249 2,469,073 5,597,184 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 2,632,716 4,809,963 Total Revenues 1,727,948 1,279,287 4,797,791 4,324,548 12,129,573 1,910,188 1,103,749 4,875,170 4,712,073 13,405,965 1,755,140 1,666,176 5,671,361 4,592,439 13,685,116 Total Revenues 1,634,361 1,091,567 5,809,841 5,250,819 14,690,843 1,767,968 1,159,024 6,074,714 5,206,442 14,208,148 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,184 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,840 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,078 6,496,845 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($509,516) $161,873 ($653,102) $1,140,364 $139,618 ($529,065) ($65,885) ($796,035) $711,422 $125,221 ($638,495) $135,622 ($562,540) $1,175,599 $110,156 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($747,051) ($161,511) ($687,004) $785,800 $94,488 ($658,987) ($117,139) ($482,651) $1,336,879 $78,102 Net Revenues from TS ($139,619) ($139,619) ($125,221) ($125,221) ($110,186) ($110,186). Net Revenues from TS ($94,488) ($94,488) ($78,101) ($78,101) Total Net Revenues ($509,516) $161,873 ($653,102) $1,000,745 $0 ($529,065) ($65,885) ($796,03S)i $586,201 1 $0 ($638,495)1 $135,622 1 ($562,540) $1,065,413 $0 Total Net Revenues ($747,051) ($161,511) ($687,004) $691,312 $0 ($117,139) ($482,651) $1,258,778 $0 Scenario 68.2 - Construct TS Scenario w/ GF Contribution - OC, Town, & Other Waste Scenario 60.2 - Construct TS Scenario w/ GF Contribution - OC, Town, & Other Waste Program Fee Revenue 1,541,739 769,961 3,755,972 2,194,082 8,261,754 1,570,251 752,943 3,650,796 2,575,389 8,549,379 1,525,341 975,344 3,972,546 2,177,377 8,650,608 Program Fee Revenue 1,465,643 771,209 3,998,493 2,748,002 8,983,347 1,594,438 838,402 4,307,996 2,542,189 9,283,024 Other Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 2,104,719 3,770,869 321,347 341,892 1,181,154 2,106,195 4,755,372 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 2,388,466 4,928,843 Other Revenues 150,720 310,888 1,762,249 2,469,073 5,597,184 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 2,632,716 4,809,963 Total Revenues 1,709,856 1,270,251 4,753,715 4,298,501 12,032,623 1,891,598 1,094,836 4,831,950 4,681,584 13,304,751 1,736,508 1,654,262 5,622,838 4,565,843 13,579,451 1 Total Revenues 1,616,363 1,082,097 5,760,741 5,217,075 14,580,532 1,748,188 1,148,623 6,021,271 5,174,904 14,092,987 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,184 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,206 4,000,651 13,280,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,840 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,079 6,496,845 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($527,608) $152,837 ($697,178) $1,114,617 $42,668 ($547,655) ($74,799) ($839,256) $680,933 $24,007 ($657,126) $123,708 ($611,064) $1,149,003 $4,521 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($765,048) ($170,981) ($736,104) $752,056 ($15,823) ($678,767) ($127,540) ($536,095) $1,305,342 ($37,060) Net Revenues from TS ($42,668) ($42,668) ($24,007) ($24,007) ($4,521) ($4,521) Net Revenues from TS $15,823 $15,823 $37,060 $37,060 Total Net Revenues ($527,608) $152,837 ($697,178) $1,071,949 $0 ($547,655) ($74,799) ($839,256) $6567926 T $0 ($657,126) $123,705 1 ($611,064) $1,144,482 $0 Total Net Revenues ($765,048) ($170,981) ($736,104) $767,879 $0 ($678,767) ($127,540) ($536,095) $1,342,402 $0 Scenario 6A.1: Deficit /Surplus w/o General Fund $0 $0 $0 Scenario 6A.1: Deficit /Surplus w/o General Fund $0 $0 Scenario 6A.1: Break -Even Program Fee w/o General Fund $172.21 $175.14 $174.95 Scenario 6A.1: Break -Even Program Fee w/o General Fund $178.47 $151.37 Scenario 6A.2: Deficit /Surplus w/o General Fund $0 $0 $0 Scenario 6A.2: Deficit /Surplus w/o General Fund $0 $0 Scenario 6A.2: Break -Even Program Fee w/o General Fund $170.60 $173.47 $173.23 Scenario 6A.2: Break -Even Program Fee w/o General Fund $176.70 $179.54 Scenario 6BA: Deficit /Surplus w/ General Fund $0 $0 $0 Scenario 613.1: Deficit /Surplus w/ General Fund $0 $0 Scenario 6B.1: Break -Even Program Fee w/ General Fund $138.90 $142.19 $142.36 Scenario 6B.1: Break -Even Program Fee w/ General Fund $146.23 $149.49 Scenario 6B.2: Deficit /Surplus w/ General Fund $0 $0 $0 Scenario 6B.2: Deficit /Surplus w/ General Fund $0 $0 Scenario 6B.2: Break -Even Program Fee w/ General Fund $137.29 $140.52 $140.64 Scenario 6B.2: Break -Even Program Fee w/ General Fund $144.46 $147.65 Scenario 7: Deficit /Surplus Scenario 7: Program Fee ($1,780,040) $107.00 $0 $148.42 $0 $158.63 1. The FY 2016 -17 Other Revenues are presented in a manner to be consistent with the County's preliminary budget. The four Projected Years include loan proceeds associated with two collection center construction projects under the Appropriated Fund Balance line item account. The four Projected Years also include contributions from equipment reserves as a separate line item account. Note that these items (loan proceeds and contributions from equipment reserves) were considered part of the Appropriated Fund Balance for FY 2016 -17, which was set to zero, and therefore are effectively excluded as Other Revenues within the model for that year. 2. FY 2017 -18 and FY 2019 -20 "Other Revenues" and "Total Revenues" "Total" Column cells include loan proceeds for convenience center construction of $804,784 and $904,255, respectively. These figures do not appear in the individual Division columns. 3. Appropriated Fund Balance excluded in FY 2018 -19 and FY 2020 -21, but not FY 2016 -17 for Scenario 6 F -3 Scenario 7: Deficit /Surplus Scenario 7: Program Fee $0 $157.79 $0 $186.14 PROJECTED BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 2016-17 FY 2017.18 FY 2018 -19 FY 2019.20 FY 2020.21 SCENARIO 7 - Phase -Out SCENARIO 7 -Phase -Out General General Fund Contribution Fund Contribution Approach Environmental Landfill Recycling Sanitation Total Environmental Landfill Recycling Sanitation Total' Environmental Landfill Recycling Sanitation Total Approach Environmental Landfill Recycling Sanitation Total' Environmental Landfill Recycling Sanitation Total Support (3500) Services (3510) Services (3520) Services (3530) Support (3500) Services (3510) Services (3520) Services (3530) Support (3500) Services (3510) Services (3520) Services (3530) Support (3500) Services (3510) Services (3520) Services (3530) Support (3500) Services (3510) Services (3520) Services (3530) Program Fee Revenue 1201600.308 600,092 2,927,330 1,710,024 6,439,046 1,658,543 795,279 3,856,072 2,720,197 9,030,091 F 1,701,703 1,088,115 4,431,859 2,429,129 9,650,806 Program Fee Revenue 1,566,191 824,116 4,272,803 2,936,524 9,599,634 1,945,131 1,022,806 5,255,529 3,101,337 11,324,803 General Fund Revenue 0 0 0 2,004,719 2,004,719 0 0 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 General Fund Revenue 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 Other Revenues 168,117 500,290 997,743 100,000 1,766,1SC1 1 321,347 341,892 1,181,154 101,476 2,750,653 211,168 678,918 1,650,292 383,747 2,924,124 Other Revenues 150,720 310,888 1,762,249 464,354 3,592,465 153,750 310,222 1,713,275 627,997 2,805,244 Total Revenues 1,369,717 1,100,382 3,925,073 3,814,743 10,209,915 1,979,590 1,137,172 5,037,22fi 4,321,673 13,250,744 1,912,871 1,767,033 6,082,150 3;812,S7fi 13,574,930 Total Revenues 1,716,911 1,135,005 6,035,051 3,900,878 14,596,355 2,098,881 1,333,025 6,968,804 3,729,334 14,130,047 Total Expenses 2,237,464 1,117,414 5,450,893 3,184,184 11,989,955 2,439,253 1,169,634 5,671,20fi 4,000,651 13,250,744 2,393,635 1,530,554 6,233,901 3,416,040 13,574,930 Total Expenses 2,381,412 1,253,079 6,496,545 4,465,019 14,596,354 2,426,955 1,276,163 6,557,365 3,869,563 14,130,047 Net Revenues (Deficits) ($867,747) ($17,032) ($1,525,820) $630,559 ($1,780,040) ($459,364) ($32,462) ($633,980) $321,022 $0 ($480,764) $236,479 ($151,751)1 $396,036 1 1 Net Revenues (Deficits) 1 ($664,500) ($118,074) ($461,794) ($564,141) $0 ($328,074)1 $56,865 1 $411,439 1 ($140,229) $0 Scenario 7: Deficit /Surplus Scenario 7: Program Fee ($1,780,040) $107.00 $0 $148.42 $0 $158.63 1. The FY 2016 -17 Other Revenues are presented in a manner to be consistent with the County's preliminary budget. The four Projected Years include loan proceeds associated with two collection center construction projects under the Appropriated Fund Balance line item account. The four Projected Years also include contributions from equipment reserves as a separate line item account. Note that these items (loan proceeds and contributions from equipment reserves) were considered part of the Appropriated Fund Balance for FY 2016 -17, which was set to zero, and therefore are effectively excluded as Other Revenues within the model for that year. 2. FY 2017 -18 and FY 2019 -20 "Other Revenues" and "Total Revenues" "Total" Column cells include loan proceeds for convenience center construction of $804,784 and $904,255, respectively. These figures do not appear in the individual Division columns. 3. Appropriated Fund Balance excluded in FY 2018 -19 and FY 2020 -21, but not FY 2016 -17 for Scenario 6 F -3 Scenario 7: Deficit /Surplus Scenario 7: Program Fee $0 $157.79 $0 $186.14 70 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Appendix G Hypothetical Transfer Station Net Revenue Estimate 71 Table 1. Hypothetical Transfer Station Pro Forma Fiscal Year 2016 -17 2017 -18 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 2024 -25 2025 -26 2026 -27 1 2027 -28 2028 -29 2029 -30 2030 -31 2031 -32 2032 -33 2033 -34 2034 -35 2035 -36 Scenario Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.10% Cost Escalation Factor per Year (CPI Factor) QUANTITIES Waste Produced by OC (tons) 12,000 12,180 12,363 12,548 12,736 12,927 13,121 13,318 13,518 13,721 13,926 14,135 14,347 14,563 14,781 15,003 15,228 15,456 15,688 15,923 Waste Produced by Towns (tons) 25,500 25,883 26,271 26,665 27,065 27,471 27,883 28,301 28,726 29,156 29,594 30,038 30,488 30,946 31,410 31,881 32,359 32,845 33,337 33,837 Waste Produced by Other Disposers (tons) 10,000 10,225 10,455 10,690 10,931 11,177 11,428 11,685 11,948 12,217 12,492 12,773 13,060 13,354 13,655 13,962 14,276 14,597 14,926 15,262 Total Waste Handled (TPY) 47,500 48,288 49,089 49,903 50,732 51,575 52,432 53,305 54,192 55,094 56,012 56,946 57,896 58,863 59,846 60,846 61,863 62,898 63,951 65,022 Total Waste Handled (TPD) 183 186 189 192 196 199 202 206 209 212 216 220 223 227 231 235 238 242 246 251 REVENUES $ 50.00 / ton. Town Waste Tip Fee Revenue from Proposed TS $1,275,000 $1,321,302 $1,369,285 $1,419,010 $1,470,542 $1,523,944 $1,579,286 $1,636,638 $1,696,073 $1,757,666 $1,821,495 $1,887,643 $1,956,193 $2,027,232 $2,100,851 $2,177,143 $2,256,206 $2,338,140 $2,423,050 $2,511,043 $ 50.00 / ton. Other Waste Tip Fee Revenue from Proposed TS ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- $500,000 ----------------- --------- $521,986 ---------------------- $544,939 ----------------------- $568,902 ----------------------- $593,918 ---------------------- $620,034 ------------------------ $647,298 ----------------------- $675,761 ----------------------- $705,476 ----------------------- $736,498 ------------------------ $768,884 $802,693 $837,990 ----------------------- $874,838 ----------------------- $913,307 -------- $953,467 ----------------------- $995,394 --------------- --------- $1,039,164 ---------------------- $1,084,858 ----------------------- $1,132,562 --------------- -------- TotalNon- OC Waste Tip Fee Revenue from Proposed 75 $1,775,000 $7,843,288 $7,974,224 $7,987,912 $2,064,459 $2,143,978 $2,226,585 $2,312,400 $2,407,549 $2,494,163 $2,590,379 $2,690,336 $2,794,182 $2,902,070 1,61-------- $3,014,158 $3,730,610 $3,257,600 $3,377,304 $3,507,908 $3,643,605 $ 42.50 /ton. Durham TS Tip Avoided by Operating TS $510,000 $528,521 $547,714 $567,604 $588,317 $609,578 $631,715 $654,655 $678,429 $703,066 $728,598 $755,057 $782,477 $810,893 $840,340 $870,857 $902,482 $935,256 $969,220 $1,004,417 -Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- $ 130.00 hr. OC Round -trip Haul Costs Saved by Proposed TS ----------------- --------- $328,107 ---------------------- $340,022 ----------------------- $352,370 ----------------------- $365,167 ---------------------- $378,428 - $392,170 $406,412 $421,171 $436,465 $452,316 $468,742 $485,764 $503,404 $521,686 $540,631 - $560,264 $580,610 $601,694 $623,545 $646,189 Total Revenue $2,613,107 $2,711,831 $2,814,308 $2,920,683 $3,031,103 $3,145,726 $3,264,711 $3,388,226 $3,516,444 $3,649,545 $3,787,718 $3,931,157 $4,080,064 $4,234,648 $4,395,128 $4,561,731 $4,734,692 $4,914,254 $5,100,673 $5,294,211 COSTS Payment Towards Construction Capital Cost Principle $176,371 $183,426 $190,763 $198,394 $206,330 $214,583 $223,166 $232,093 $241,376 $251,031 $261,073 $271,516 $282,376 $293,671 $305,418 $317,635 $330,340 $343,554 $357,296 $371,588 Payment Towards Construction Capital Cost Interest $210,080 $203,025 $195,688 $188,058 $180,122 $171,869 $163,285 $154,359 $145,075 $135,420 $125,379 $114,936 $104,075 $92,780 $81,033 $68,817 $56,111 $42,898 $29,155 $14,864 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Total Amortized Capital Costs ------------------- - - - - -- $386,457 �----------------- - - - - -- $386,451 ----------------- - - - - -- $386,451 ----------------- - - - - -- $386,451 ---------------- - - - - -- $386,451 ------------------ - - - - -- $386,457 ----------------- - - - - -- $386,451 �----------------- - - - - -- $386,451 ----------------- - - - - -- $386,451 ----------------- - - - - -- $386,451 ----------------------- $386,457 ------------------ - - - - -- $386,451 ----------------- - - - - -- $386,457 ----------------- - - - - -- $386,451 ----------------- - - - - -- $386,451 ----------------- - - - - -- $386,451 ----------------- - - - - -- $386,457 �----------------- - - - - -- $386,451 ----------------- - - - - -- $386,457 ----------------- - - - - -- $386,451 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- O&M Costs at TS (Does Not Include Disposal or Haul Costs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ------ -- ------- - - - - -- ---------- -------- ----- ----------- $354,840 --------------- ---- - - - --- --------------- $362,292 ------------ -- -- - - - - - -- ----------------------- $369,900 ------ - - - - -- ----------------------- $377,668 -------- - - - - -- - -- ---------------------- $385,599 ----- - - - - -- -105, ------------------------ $393,696 ---- - - - - -- --109, ---------------- -------'----------------------- $401,964 ------- - - ---1 -- $410,405 -------- - - - - -- - -- ------------------------ $419,024 -------- - - - - -- - -- ----------------------- $427,823 ------ - - - - -- ---------------- -------'----------------------- $436,807 ---- - - - - -- --130,----- $445,980 ----- - - - - -- --135,642 ----------------------- $455,346 ---- - - - - -- --140, - - - -- '------------------------ $464,908 -------------- ------ - -- ----------------------- $474,671 ------- - - - - -- -50,96 ----------------------- $484,639 ----- - - - - -- --156, ---------------- ------------------------------- $494,817 ---- - - - - -- --162, --- -- $505,208 ---- - - - - -- --168,014 ----------------------- $515,817 -------- - - - - -- - -- ----------------------- $526,649 --------------80,4 --- $ 130.00 /hr. TS Haul Costs to LF for OC Waste ( <750 miles) $91,619 $94,946 $98,394 $98,394 01,9 $101,967 7 $105,670 $109,508 08 13,--- $113,484 17,6 $117,606 21,8 $121,877 $126,302 126,30 $130,889 $135,642 $140,568 $145,673 $150,963 4 $156,445 $162,127 $168,014 $174,116 74,1 $180,439 $ 130.00 / hr. TS Haul Costs to LF for Town Waste ( <7 50 miles) $194,690 $201,761 $209,088 $216,681 $224,549 $232,704 $241,155 $249,912 $258,988 $268,393 $278,139 $288,240 $298,707 $309,555 $320,797 $332,446 $344,519 $357,030 $369,996 $383,432 $ 130-001 TS Haul Costs to LF for Other Disposers ( <150 miles) ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- $76,349 ------------------ -------'----------------------- $79,706 $83,211 ----------------------- $86,870 ----------------------- $90,690 ---------------------- $94,678 ------------------------ $98,841 ---------------- -------'----------------------- $103,188 $107,725 ----------------------- $112,462 ----------------------- $117,407 ---------------- -------'----------------------- $122,570 $127,960 ---------------- -------'----------------------- $133,586 $139,461 ----------------------- $145,593 ----------------------- $151,995 ---------------- -------'----------------------- $158,679 $165,656 ----------------------- $172,940 ----------------------- $ 2.25 / mile. TS Haul Costs to LF for OC Waste ( >150 miles) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 2.25 / mile. TS Haul Costs to LF for Town Waste ( >150 miles) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 2.25 / mile. TS Haul Costs to LF for Other Disposers ( >150 miles) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- $0 ------------------- - - - - -- $0 �----------------- - - - - -- $0 ----------------- - - - - -- $0 ----------------- - - - - -- $0 ---------------- - - - - -- $0 ------------------ - - - - -- $0 ----------------- - - - - -- $0 �----------------- - - - - -- $0 ----------------- - - - - -- $0 ----------------- - - - - -- $0 ----------------------- $0 ------------------ - - - - -- $0 ----------------- - - - - -- $0 ----------------- - - - - -- $0 ----------------- - - - - -- $0 ----------------- - - - - -- $0 ----------------- - - - - -- $0 �----------------- - - - - -- $0 ----------------- - - - - -- $0 ----------------- - - - - -- Total TS Haul Costs to LF for Non - County Accepted TS Waste $271,040 $2812467 $292,299 $303,551 $315,240 $327,382 $339,996 $353,700 $366,713 $380,855 $395,547 $410,810 $426,667 $443,141 $460,257 $478,039 $496,574 $515,709 $535,652 $556,373 ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- st----------------------- Total TS Haul Costs to LF for OC and Non -OC Accepted TS Waste ------------'-- $362,659 ---------376,413 $376,413 ------...$-90,693 $390,693 ---------------5,518 $405,578 -----------420,910 $420,910 ------------436,890 $436,890 ---------- -453,------'--- $453,480 ----------70,705 $470,705 ---------------8,58 --------------507,757 $488,589 $507,757 --------- --526,------'-- $526,436 ---------546,452 $546,452 ---------- ---67,2----'--- $567,235 ----------88,814 $588,814 ------------671,225 $67 7,220 ------------634,485 $634,485 ---------- -658,641.'----- $658,647 -...$ --------------- $683,723 ---------09,768 $709,768 --------------- -------- $736,821. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- $ 32.67 / ton Tip Fees at Disposal Point for OC Waste ---------------- ----6Z $392,040 ---------- ----- -- - - - - -- $406,277 ------ - - - - -- 421,031 $421,031 ------ - - - - -- 436,321 $436,321 ---- - - - - -- ---52,16 $452,166 ---------- - - - - -- - - - - -- $468,586 ---------- -------- - - - -- $485,603 ------ - - - - -- 503,237 $503,237 ----------- ------ ------ $521,512 ----- - - - - -- ---46,4--- $540,451 ---------------- ------------------------- $560,078 - - - - -- $580,417 ----------------- - - - - -- $601,495 ------------ ----- ------ $623,338 ----- - - - - -- -641,97 $645,974 _ ---------- ------ ------ $669,433 ----------------- - - - - -- $693,744 ----------------- - - - - -- $718,937 ----------------- - - - - -- $745,045 ---------------- $772,101 $ 32.67 / ton Tip Fees at Disposal Point for Town Waste $833,085 $863,338 $894,691 $927,181 $960,852 $995745 $1,031,906 $1,069,379 $1,108,214 $1,148,459 $1,190,165 $1,233,386 $1,278,176 $1,324,593 $1,372,696 $1,422,545 $1,474,205 $1,527,741 $1,583,221 $1,640,715 $ 32.67 / ton Tip Fees at Disposal Point for Other Disposers Waste $326,700 $341,066 $3561063 $3711720 $388,066 $405,130 $422,945 $441,543 $460,958 $4812228 $502,389 $524,480 $547,543 $5711619 $596,755 $622,996 $650,390 $678,990 $7082846 $740,016 Total Tip Fees at Disposal Pointfor Non-OC-Waste' $7,159,785 $1204,404 $1,250,754 $7,298,902 $1,348,918 $1,400,875 $1,454,850 $1,510,922 $7,569,172 $1,629,686 $1,692,553 $1,757,866 $1,825,719 $1,896,272 $1,969,451 $2,045,541 $2,724,595 $2,206,730 $2,292,067 $2,380,732 Total Ti Fees at Disposal Point for OC and Non -OC Waste P P $ 1 551 825 1,670,687 1 671 785 $ $ 7,735,222 1 801 083 $ $ 1,869,467 1 940 453 $ $ 2,074,159 $ 2 090 685 $ $ 2,770,138 2 252 631 $ $ 2 338 282 $ 2,427,213 2 579 550 $ $ 2,615,425 2 714 974 $ $ 2,878,339 2 925 667 $ $ 3,037,772 3,152,833$ $ Total Expenses $2,655,775 $2,735,838 $2,818,829 $2,904,860 $2,994,043 $3,086,499 $3,182,349 $3,281,721 $3,384,749 $3,491,569 $3,602,326 $3,717,167 $3,836,246 $3,959,724 $4,087,768 $4,220,549 $4,358,248 $4,501,050 $4,649,148 $4,802,745 ALL IN ET CASH FLOW ($42,668) ($24,007) ($4,521) $15,823 $37,060 $59,227 $82,362 $106,504 $131,695 $157,976 $185,393 $213,991 $243,818 1 $274,924 $307,361 $341,182 $376,444 $413,205 $451,524 $491,466 WASTE NET CASH FLOW PER TON ($0.90) ($0.50) ($0.09) $0.32 $0.73 $1.15 $1.57 $2.00 $2.43 $2.87 $3.31 $3.76 $4.21 $4.67 $5.14 $5.61 $6.09 $6.57 $7.06 $7.56 4.00% NPV RATE NPV - Net Present Value ( cash flows for 2016 to 2021) ($23,255) NPV - Net Present Value ( cash flows for 2016 to 2026) $363,213 NPV - Net Present Value ( cash flows for 2016 to 2036) $2,111,154 Internal Rate of Return ( cash flows for 2016 to 2021) -9% Internal Rate of Return ( cash flows for 2016 to 2026) 41% Internal Rate of Return ( cash flows for 2016 to 2036) 48% Average Annual Net Cash Flow ( for 2016 through 2021) ($3,663) Average Annual Net Cash Flow ( for 2016 through 2026) $51,945 Average Annual Net Cash Flow ( for 2016 through 2036) $190,938 NOTES: 1. Cost Escalation Factor is applied on TS O &M Costs and all associated Haul costs (both short and long haul). See Model Assumptions page for additional assumptions. 2. All years represent County's Fiscal year. For example, 2016 -17 covers the period of 6/1/16 through 6/1 /17. 3. Waste Escalation rate is set to 1.5% for OC /Town waste and 2.25% for Other waste so that Year 1 corresponds to 180 TPD total and Year 20 corresponds to 250 TPD total. 4. Year 1 assumes current County and Town waste disposal rates with 10,000 TPY (-22 %) Other Disposers waste disposal S. Model conservatively assumes 20 -year lifespan of TS, allowing for an estimated closure year of 2035. 6. Model assumes recycling (other than recycling bay in preliminary capital cost estimate) incurs no additional recurring costs /savings. 7. Cost escalation factor is set to 2.1 % and applied to waste Tip fees on a yearly basis, although it is more likely that Tip fees will increase in multiple -year increments. B. Other Disposers include UNC and UNC - Healthcare, which combined contribute approximately 8,500 TPY of waste. G -1 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Table 2. Assumptions Assumptions iva [' „Trent srwearia VM 1 Durham TS Tip Fee $ 42.50 /ton 2 Average Assumed Haul Cost - Hourly Bos-s When c 15C Miles Round -trip $ 13000 $Ihr-truck 3 Addtl. Collection Vehicle Travel to Durham TS vs- Pro Deed TS Round-trip 36 miles 4 Av. rag a Pa load of ©C Call -tiara Truck fa Durham TS 523 torishruck Te c,v 5 Proposed TS Tip Fee $ 50.00 /ton 6 Landfill Disposal Paint Tip Fee $ 32.67 /ton 7 Average Payload of Transfer Truck to Disposal Point 21 tons(truck 8 Average Assumed Haul Coat - Hourly Bosis When C: 150 Miles Round-trip $ 13000 $1ir4nick 9 Average Assumed Haul Cost - Mileage Basis When 9 150 Miles Round -trip $ 225 Vinile-truck 10 Disposal Point upper Piedmont Environmental Landfill 198,394 11 Didonce Trucked to Disposal Point (round -trip) 74 miles 12 Waste Acceptance Role JYear 1 ) 183 tFxi Waste Tonnages OC,I- Waste A -pfance Inarease Rate: 1.50% Other Waste Accept- In-se Rafe: 2.25% Year 4C TOCH Carrboro Hillsborou h $ 386,451 tal Total DC Total 2 TPY TPY TPY TPY) 3 PY TPD TPD 1 12,000 15,000 7,000 3,500 198,394 ,500 182.69 46.154 2 12,180 15,225 7,105 3,553 $ ,288 t 185.72 46 846 3 12,363 15,453 7,212 3,606 $ 154,359 ,089 188.8 47549 4 12,540 15,685 7,320 3,660 $ 386,451 ,903 191.94 48 -262 5 12,736 15,920 7,430 3,715 12 ,732 195.12 48-986 6 12,927 16,1591 $ 104,075 3,770 11,177 51,575 198.37 49721 7 13,121 16,402 7,654 3,827 11,428 52,432 20166 50.467 8 13,318 16,648 7,769 3,884 11,685 53,305 205.02 511224 9 13,518 16,897 7,8.85 3,943 11,948 54,192 208.43 51 -992 10 13,721 17,151 8,004 4,002 12,217 55,094 211.9 52 -772 11 13,926 17,408 8,124 4,062 TZ492 56,012 215.43 53.563 12 14,135 17,669 8,246 4,123 12,773 56,946 219.02 54 -367 13 14,347 17,934 8,369 4,165 13,060 57,896 222.68 55.182 14 14,563 18,203 8,495 4,247 13,354 58,863 226.39 56.01 15 14,781 18,476 8,622 4,311 13,655 59,846 230.18 56.85 16 15,003 18,753 8,752 4,376 13,962 60,846 234.02 57703 17 15,228 19,035 8,803 4,441 14,276 61,863 237.94 58 -569 18 t 5,456 19,3201 9,0161 4,508 14,597 62,898 241.92 59 -447 19 15,688 19,6101 9,1511 4,576 14,926 63,951 245.97 60.339 20 15,9231 19,904 1 9,2891 4,6441 15,262F65,022 F 250,097 61!244 Deb! Service Interest Rate 4.00% Period 20 Years A maaM Borrowed $5,259,000 Year Payment Inleresf M.1 Prince Ple Paid T $ 386,451 $ 210,080 $ 176,371 2 S 386,451 S 203,025 $ 183,426 3 $ 366,451 $ 195,688 $ 190,763 4 S 366,451 $ 188,058 $ 198,394 5 $ 386,451 $ 1$0,122 $ 206,330 6 $ 386,451 $ 171,869 $ 214,583 7 S 386,451 $ 163,285 $ 223,166 A $ 386,451 $ 154,359 $ 232,093 9 $ 386,451 $ 145,075 $ 241,376 10 $ 386,451 $ 135,420 $ 251,031 11 S 386,451 $ 125,379 $ 261,073 12 S 386,451 $ 114,936 $ 271,516 T 3 $ 386,451 $ 104,075 $ 282,376 14 $ 386,451 $ 92,780 $ 293,671 15 S 386,451 $ 81,033 $ 305,418 16 $ 386,451 $ 68,817 $ 317,635 17 $ 386,451 $ 56,111 $ 330,340 18 $ 386,451 $ 42,898 $ 343,554 19 $ 386,451 $ 29,155 $ 357,296 20 S 386,451 $ 14,864 $ 371,588 Notes- 1 . Analysis does not consider impact of recyclable material collection on operational costs but does incorporate it into capital cosh - 2. Analysis "Net Totals" output is additional c-11 /additional revenue generated as compared to current scenario. 3. Analysis assumes 250 tpd disposal (maximum throughput of Proposed TS)- G -2 73 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Table 3. Engineer's Opinion of Preliminary Capital Cost DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL & EQUIPMENT COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL Mobilization Demobilization Is 1 $120,000 $120,000 Land Acquisition Purchase cc $0 $0 $120,000 EROSION CONTROL Clearing and Grubbing ac 1 b $6,0001 $36,000 Erosion Control Measures Is 1 1 $25,0001 $25,000 Site Restoration (seeding mulching vegetatian) Is 1 1 $20,0001 $20,000 $81,000 BUILDING COSTS Site Work (Excavation, Grading, Paving, and Landscaping) 200,000 $6.50 $1,300,000 Utilities (Electrical, Water, Sewage, Storm water) :f 20,000 $2.00 $40,000 Structures (Concrete, Structural, doors, Fire control, Lighting, Roof) st 30,000 $35.00 $1,050,000 Additional Environmental Industrial Health Consideration G 1 $800,000.00 $800,000 S3. 190, 000 EQUIPMENT COSTS Conveyor & Sorter Is I S125,000 $125,000 Separator Is 1 $40,000 $40,000 Baler 1, 1 $150,000 $150,000 Additional Walking -floor Trail- Is 1 $100000 $100000 $,415,000 OTHER M WORK Maintenance Building h 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 Scalehouse h 1 $150,00000 $150,000 Office Equipment (computer, supplies, telephone, etc) Is 1 $7,500 $7,500 Truck Scales Is 2 $50,000.00 $100,000 Site Lighting sf 1 X0,000 $0.50 $75,000 Signage, Locking gate, 'Fencing Is 1 $35,000 $35,000 Construction Quality Assurance & Certification (third - party) 9s. 1 $182,925 $182,925 $574,425 TOTAL $4,376,425 CONTINGENCY (20%) $875,285 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TOTAL $5,252,000 20 -YEAR AMORTIZED CAPITAL COST PER TON 250 TONS $ 4.04 Notes: 1. Assumes property acquistion costs are zero. 2. Does not include design costs. 3. Assumes site location does not have existing scales. G -3 74 Orange County, NC Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Table 4. Engineer's Opinion of Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Notes: 1. Assumes reallocation of current Department resources to reduce O &M costs 2. ,Material Acceptance Rate assumes 250 TPD disposed by OC and Towns, with balance provided by other haulers 3. Miscellaneous costs include items such as temporary facilities, bonds, permits, taxes, and insurance G -4 Engineer's Unit Price Est. Engineer's Total Estimate No. Item Description Quantity Unit 1 Personnel Salaries 2 L5 $ 40,000 $ 80,000 2 Personnel Benefits 2 LS $ 18,000 $ 36,000 3 Transfer Station Equipment Debt Service 2 LS $ 15,000 $ 30,000 4 Transfer Station Equipment Maintenance 1 Repair 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 5 Equipment - LeaselRental 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 6 Vehicle Fuel 13,000 Gal $ 3.50 $ 45,500 7 Vehicle Supplies 1 LS $ 7,500 $ 7,500 8 Wastewater Treatment 260,000 Gal $ 0.03 $ 7,800 9 Paving / Concrete 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 10 Electricity & Heating 1 LS $ 16,000 $ 16,000 11 Water & Sewer 1 L5 $ 3,400 $ 3,400 12 Telecommunications I Information Technology 1 LS $ 3,000 $ 3,000 13 Vehicle Insurance 1 LS $ 2,500 $ 2,500 14 General/ Environmental Insurance 1 LS $ 1,000 $ 1,000 15 Engineering 1 Consulting Services 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 16 Environmental Monitoring Services 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 17 Legal Services 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 18 Mowing & Other Contracting Services 1 LS $ 3,000 $ 3,000 19 Dues & Association Fees 1 LS $ 1,500 $ 1,500 20 Permit Fees 1 LS $ 2,000 $ 2,000 21 Office Supplies 1 L5 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 22 Janitorial 1 LS $ 1,500 $ 1,500 23 Operations & Maintenance Supplies 1 LS $ 2,000 $ 2,000 24 Uniforms 1 LS $ 1,000 $ 1,000 25 Miscellaneous Maintenance/ Repair 1 LS S 10,000 $ 10,000 S SUBTOTAL 5 295,700 CONTINGENCY (20 %) S 59,140 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COST $ 354,840 ;.,,ATERIAL ACCEPTANCE RATE 183 tixl ANNUAL OPERATING COST PER TON S 7.47 Notes: 1. Assumes reallocation of current Department resources to reduce O &M costs 2. ,Material Acceptance Rate assumes 250 TPD disposed by OC and Towns, with balance provided by other haulers 3. Miscellaneous costs include items such as temporary facilities, bonds, permits, taxes, and insurance G -4 Memorandum To: Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director Subject: Mattress Disposal Date: September 16, 2016 75 At the Board of Commissioners' (BOCC) request a memorandum (attached) was prepared offering options for improving the county's mattress disposal program. It was believed by some commissioners that our program was not providing the level of service necessary for the residents across the county and that this insufficient level of service was resulting in mattresses being illegally dumped. The original memorandum noted that staff was unable to verify that such illegal dumping was taking place in any substantial way, however the BOCC wanted to consider options for improvement anyway. Several options were presented to the BOCC and discussed at their June 9 budget work session. It was noted by one or more commissioners that the options presented to make program improvements were too costly and that there had to be other less costly options. It was suggested that staff could use seasonal labor or interns. It was also suggested that the existing Waste & Recycling Center staff could perform the handling of the mattresses. Further, it was noted that sheds could be constructed in which residents could place their mattresses. These suggestions were previously considered and were somewhat problematic. Staff has however, developed two additional options (one a variation of the original 1a), but they also have costs that may exceed BOCC expectations. Staff wishes to reiterate that mattresses are a special waste material that requires special handling, even more so for recycling them, so it is difficult to avoid increasing labor costs for increasing resident convenience and availability. Handling large and sometimes wet mattresses are also physically demanding. 1aa — Permanent mattress disposal at Walnut Grove and Eubanks Waste & Recycling Center This option provides a permanent mattress disposal option at both of the District Waste & Recycling Centers (W &R Center), in addition to the existing landfill location Details: a. During existing landfill facility hours (7 am -3 pm weekdays and 8 am -noon Sat) mattresses /box springs would be received just as we do now (not at the Eubanks W &R Center) except that mattresses coming from residents will not be charged the fee even though they'll have to cross the scales; only non - residential mattresses (UNC or apartment management companies for example) will be charged $10 /unit b. When the landfill facility is closed (after 3 pm weekdays and noon on Saturdays; and Sundays) residents may bring mattresses to the Eubanks Rd. W &R Center 76 L Mattresses delivered to the landfill facility will be recycled as they are now if clean and dry ii. Mattresses delivered to the Eubanks W &R Center will be hauled to the transfer station c. Walnut Grove would receive mattresses during all of its current operational hours and the units will be hauled to the transfer station and not recycled d. Mattresses delivered to the Eubanks W &R Center during landfill facility hours will be redirected to the landfill (no charge) e. Eubanks W &R Center will not accept mattresses until the new center is constructed an open for business f. No fee will be charged to residents at either Eubanks or Walnut Grove W & R Centers or at the landfill location g. Fee will be charged to non - residential customers at landfill location; non - residential customers are not authorized to use W &R Centers Estimated Operating Cost for FY 16/17: $35,566 Includes signage, advertising, additional hauling and tipping fees, increased non - permanent staffing Capital Cost: $9,294 One time purchase of two (2) 30 yard roll -off containers Accept mattresses at Eubanks and Walnut Grove W &R Center only on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays This option provides permanent weekend only mattress disposal service at both of the District W &R Centers. Mattresses delivered to the Eubanks W &R Center during landfill facility hours would be redirected to the landfill (no charge) Eubanks W &R Center would not accept mattresses until the new center is constructed and open for business a. Walnut Grove would receive mattresses Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays b. Mattresses delivered to either of the two (2) W &R Centers would be hauled to the transfer station and not recycled c. During existing landfill facility hours (7 am -3 pm weekdays and 8 am -noon Sat) mattresses /box springs would be received just as we do now (not at the Eubanks W &R Center) except that mattresses coming from residents will not be charged the fee even though they'll have to cross the scales; only non - residential mattresses (UNC or apartment management companies for example) will be charged $10 /unit d. When the landfill facility is closed (after 3 pm on Friday and noon on Sat; and Sunday) residents may bring mattresses to the Eubanks Rd. W &R Center i. Mattresses delivered to the landfill facility will be recycled as they are now if clean and dry 77 ii. Mattresses delivered to the Eubanks W &R Center would be hauled to the transfer station e. Mattresses delivered to the Eubanks W &R Center during landfill facility hours by residents would be redirected to the landfill (no charge) f. Eubanks W &R Center would not accept mattresses until the new center is constructed and open for business g. No fee would be charged to residents at either Eubanks or Walnut Grove W & R Centers or at the landfill location h. Fee would be charged to non - residential customers at landfill location; non - residential customers are not authorized to use W &R Centers Estimated Operating Cost for FY 16/17: $33,955 Includes signs, advertising, increased hauling and tipping fees, increased non - permanent staffing Capital Cost: $9,294 One time purchase of two (2) 30 yard roll -off containers By continuing to use the existing landfill facility mattress disposal /recycling location during landfill hours costs have been reduced for handling mattresses at the centers as per the original memorandum. It is staff's desire to obtain input from the SWAG on this topic. Attachment: Original Memorandum of May 27, 2016 IL Memorandum To Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director Subject: Options for the Disposal /Recycling of Mattresses Date: May 27, 2016 The Solid Waste Management Department has received a request to explore alternative means of mattress and box spring disposal and /or recycling for Orange County residents. There is a perception that disposing of mattresses in inconvenient and that county government should consider other means for handling them. History In 1993, Orange County converted from non - staffed Waste and Recycling Centers (W &R) to staffed Centers. Materials, other than household "trash" were placed on the ground for collection, including mattresses. The materials were then collected either by hand or by use of a skid steer loader and loaded into dump trucks for hauling to the county landfill. This method of collection resulted in both collection and labor inefficiencies as well as high injury risks to employees. During FY 2001 -02, roll -off containers were installed at the High 57 Center for materials other than household "trash" (bulky items) with the installation of containers at the remaining Centers to follow soon thereafter. The roll -off containers where hauled to the county landfill for disposal. Waste and Recycling Centers stopped accepting mattresses and box springs on June 30, 2013 with the closure of the Orange County Landfill. On July 1, 2013, Orange County began a recycling program for such at the Eubanks Road facility location, hauling those mattresses unfit for recycling to the Durham transfer station for disposal. A charge of $10 per mattress /box springs was instituted to help fund the recycling and /or hauling for disposal. The Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough have declined to participate in the county mattress recycling program and haul the mattresses that they collect directly to the waste transfer station. UNC -CH delivers about 60 mattresses to the county program annually, but for mass dorm replacements makes special alternative arrangements. UNC Healthcare indicated that they dispose of mattresses very infrequently and do not recycle them. They will further examine the ultimate disposition of discarded mattresses and advise the SWAG of their conclusions. Recently, the N. C. Department of Transportation — Highway Maintenance Division in Hillsborough was contacted regarding mattresses /box springs illegally dumped along Orange County right -of -ways since July 2013. According to John Howell, Highway Maintenance Engineer, there has been no noticeable increase or decrease in recent years and he estimates that his crews collect about 1 -2 mattresses per month from right -of -ways throughout the county. The Solid Waste Management Department receives 2 -5 calls per week asking how to dispose of mattresses. Current Quantity Managed /Budget 79 From July 2013 to March 2016 the county has received an average of 187 mattresses /box springs per month at the Eubanks Road landfill facility. About 61% are recycled with the remainder hauled for disposal at the waste transfer station. Eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000) are budgeted annually in the Recycling Division to fund mattress recycling. Revenue from the $10 fee is estimated at about $23,000 annually. Disposal costs are incorporated into the Sanitation Division tipping fee account. Estimated Annual Cost of Current Program = $36,000 Estimated Cost Net of Revenue = Loss of $13,000 Special Handling Required Mattresses are universally considered a "special handling" type waste in the solid waste industry. It has long been a solid waste industry best practice to not place mattresses or box springs into compaction equipment; including compacting collection trucks or stationary compactors like those at Walnut Grove Church Road W &R. The wire becomes entangled into the compacting mechanism and requires considerable time and effort to cut the wire and remove it, resulting in avoidable expense and equipment down time. County solid waste staff recently contacted vendors of stationary compactors and compacting collection vehicles to inquire and /or verify their ability to handle mattresses and box springs and both responded that damage could result and that manufacturers as well as equipment service departments strongly recommend against trying to compact mattresses. The stationary compactor vendor stated that shredding was the best option but will cost an additional $80,000+ per compaction unit, plus an undetermined amount of associated maintenance expenses. Mechanical handling equipment such as skid steers, fork lifts, etc. are unable to grab, rotate and /or stack efficiently in a roll off container, box truck or other constructed area. If not methodically stacked /loaded into a truck or roll -off container the mattress and /or box springs create bridges which lead to sizeable air pockets. Thus, hauling efficiency is lost. In order to load mattresses for maximum volume load in a roll -off container or truck bed it is necessary to manually move them. Larger mattresses can be simultaneously heavy and unwieldy. If wet they become quite heavy. One person can handle a twin mattress, but two persons are required to safely handle queen and king size mattresses. Some are badly soiled and close handling is avoided. For Disposal For residents at a W &R, maneuvering a mattress up and over into a bulky material roll -off container at grade or below grade (lifting over the safety railing) can be physically challenging. Once inside the container, the mattress and /or box springs can again create bridges which lead to sizeable air pockets, reducing the quantity hauled and reducing hauling efficiency. It should be noted that in 2009, a Sanitation Collector was injured assisting a resident in lifting a mattress into a roll -off and retired due to his disability. So if mattresses are to be accepted at W &R for disposal, and hauling efficiencies are to be considered, the mattresses and box springs will have to be placed into containers in an organized manner, stacking them manually as they are received. For Recycling nPiNj In order to qualify for recycling, mattresses and box springs cannot be wet, soiled or otherwise contaminated when accepted at a designated collection location. When received, the mattresses /box springs must be stored in a covered area to keep dry, pending loading or collection for recycling. The mattresses /box springs not suitable for recycling must be disposed of, so a mattress recycling operation must also maintain a disposal operation for those unsuitable for recycling, requiring twice the space /containerization. The same handling challenges exist for recycling, requiring manual labor. In addition, mattresses for recycling must also be stacked by size, necessitating additional covered storage space. And someone must be available to inspect each mattress delivered to verify recycling potential. Current Mattress /Box Spring Options for Residents The Orange County Eubanks landfill facility the only county governmental recycling /disposal managed option for mattress /box springs. There is a $10 fee per item. Residents personally unload their mattress /box spring and place them in the recycling shelter. The unsuitable units are hauled loaded into a roll -off container and hauled to the City of Durham Transfer Station for disposal. Recyclable units are collected by a vendor located in Greensboro for $9 per unit, if collected from a single site and are separated by size. The Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Mebane offer a curbside collection (bulky item) program. Carrboro and Chapel Hill have a collection fee for the service. Hillsborough does not charge a fee but collects once a month according to an established schedule. Mebane does not charge a fee and collects on a per request basis. All collected mattresses and box springs are delivered to an out -of- county waste transfer station (Mebane to the Alamance County Landfill). Some stores which sell mattresses /box springs offer removal and disposal of the old when new are purchased and delivered. Of those surveyed, the amount of the fee varies from no charge to a variable charge based on the speed of delivery (same day /next day/ standard delivery) and /or on the total amount of the purchase price. Fees ranged from $45 to $80, which includes the delivery of the new units and the removal of the old units. The county solid waste web site encourages residents to utilize this haul -away service offered by dealers. Potential Alternate Means of Handling Mattresses /Box Springs Acceptance of Mattresses /Box Springs for Disposal at District Waste and Recycling Centers General Assumptions • Neighborhood Centers are to have reduced services and reduced hours as compared to District Centers so the Bradshaw Quarry, High Rock Road and Ferguson Road centers are not being suggested as mattress collection stations. • The Eubanks Road Center should not be considered an option until modernization construction is completed next spring; the temporary site will be unable to host this service. • Increases in transportation costs and tip fee charges are difficult to estimate as to the volume of mattresses /box springs that may be received are unknown and varies from month to month. • None of the Centers accept compensation for any service provided and are not recommended to begin handling money. 0 • Providing mattress recycling will also require a corresponding mattress disposal service for those mattresses not meeting recyclability criteria. • It may not be practical to continue accepting mattresses at the existing Eubanks Road landfill facility for a fee while not charging at W &R's. • Volume increases may result from Town residents if the fee is eliminated. • Projecting quantities to potentially be delivered at a W &R or through a prepaid collection service are difficult since there is no historical data at the centers. 1. Abandon Fee and Eubanks Landfill Mattress Facility Location and Accept at District Waste & Recycling Centers (Walnut Grove Church Road and Eubanks Road) a) Disposal Only Issues: • Loss of revenue for mattresses received and reduction of expenditures for paying vendor • On grade roll -off containers will be required • Will require additional expense for hauling and purchase of containers at two (2) centers • Will require additional staff time to screen, stack and /or pick up off ground • Increase in tipping fees for disposal as more mattresses are estimated to be received • Provides northern portion of county a more proximate opportunity to dispose of mattresses • Mattresses no longer accepted at Eubanks Road landfill facility Estimated Annual Cost: $65,413 Initial Start -up Cost: $13,294 Two (2) new 30 yard roll -off containers, additional hauling costs for disposal; additional staff hours to haul and maintain container oversight and stacking; signage; b) Recycling and Disposal Issues: • Additional space required — containers for both disposal and recycling • More staff time to separate into two categories and stack for transportation • More space for receiving mattresses /box springs, including three (3) new enclosed trailers and two (2) new 30 yard roll -off containers • Increased costs for roll -off containers; cost of trailers; new staff to perform collections /loading /hauling; signage • Additional workload for center operators in directing to correct container — recycling or disposal • Some resident confusion at first as to which are District Centers and which centers do not accept mattresses • Would significantly increase costs to recycling mattresses as they would have to be hauled back to the landfill for sortation and vendor collection • Center Operators would have to closely monitor the placement of mattresses /box springs in the containers M • Somewhat greater risk of injury to a Center Operator assisting with the unloading from a vehicle (if needed) and placement into the container • Mattresses would no longer be accepted at the Eubanks Road landfill facility Estimated Annual Cost: 110,306 Initial Start -up Cost: $142,590 Two (2) new 30 yard roll -off containers ($9,294), three (3) new 7'X14' trailers ($17,250), one (1) additional heavy duty pickup truck ($28,071); additional hauling for disposal; signage; three (3) new staff including one (1) new .50 FTE Center Operator ($26,903), one (1) new Recycling Materials Handler ($45,444) and one (1) temporary Materials Handler employee ($11,628) would be required to provide oversight at the Centers and to collect and haul recyclable mattresses in trailers; supplies, fuel and maintenance, uniforms, insurance, training, contribution to equipment replacement reserves. The Recycling Materials Handler would be assigned other duties when not managing mattresses, i.e. roll -cart delivery and repair. 2. Collect at Waste & Recycling Centers - Rotational Collection on Saturdays (Walnut Grove Church Road, Ferguson Road, High Rock Road and Eubanks Road) — Disposal Only Issues: • May be confusing to residents to recall rotation schedule • Disposal option only; would be operationally challenging to rotate both recycling and disposal options so this option would not include mattress recycling • Would expand mattress disposal service to most areas of county on a limited basis • This option does not, but could continue Eubanks facility (landfill) mattress service for residents who wish to recycle (for a fee or not) for additional expense • Saturday will not be convenient for a portion of residents • Bradshaw Quarry W &R not capable of hosting this service • Loss of fees currently collected at Eubanks facility (landfill) and elimination of recycling expenses Estimated Annual Cost: $21,138 Initial Start -Up Costs: $13,294 Two (2) new 30 yard roll -off containers ($9,294); signage and advertising; additional hauling costs (fuel /maintenance); additional staff hours (possibly overtime) to haul and maintain container oversight and stacking ($ 8,079) 3. Initiate Mattress /Box Spring Collection Service in Unincorporated Area — For a Prepaid Fee Issues: • Collect in unincorporated area for a prepaid fee; if no fee could be problematic to not include Towns, which currently have their own mattress (bulky waste) fee based collection programs • Would collect for recycling and /or disposal; deliver mattresses back to Eubanks landfill facility for sortation into disposal and recyclable categories • Difficult to predict how many mattresses /box springs would be collected in this manner; difficult to estimate revenue as well, but fees unlikely to fully fund service • Could take orders /prepayment and then schedule collection within one week or less of payment • Would have to establish parameters on where mattresses would be placed for collection, i.e. not entering homes or barns to collect, truck must be able to drive to within 50 feet of mattresses, etc. W • Continue to operate landfill mattress recycling service in addition to the collection service, continuing to charge $10 fee per unit Estimated Annual Cost: 94,171 Initial Start -Up Cost: $112,177 Cost Net of Revenue ($20 /unit fee): Loss of $76,171 One box truck with lift gate ($54,000); 1 new Recycling Materials Handler position ($45,444) and one temporary employee ($9,233); supplies (gloves, safety shoes, etc.) uniforms, training and equipment fuel and maintenance, contribution to equipment replacement reserves; insurance. Fee per unit to cover 100% of costs Fee per unit to cover 50% of costs 50 units /month = $157 50 units /month = $ 78 75 units /month = $105 75 units /month = $52 100 units /month = $ 78 100 units /month = $39 Likely reasonable maximum practicable fee (no rural mattress collection benchmark can be identified): $20 /unit (or $40 /set) Sept 2016 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION BY JURISDICTION 90 ' "'. CauMV ..(.Come, Im ul MSW ena talky xssbmllacNOnlmm Wuteand ReAdIne OnbrsonN. MSW (nom mbentlaRln[ludes MM and buIRVwVbrmm OnneefnueWdel and aem. MmLlerobeowmmentbmldaml and bNkywam-lytramsomachapel Xtll i[nom[a. deuruan Castle. "tlbpal Hill and Qnbom MSW IR,,H,mLl)m...a, nhnts..N.- thadV.ba by Nermvn In mllnmamd I. W.mn Thla bwampelmarMM1Omsirylnmmlly M1emu.XwawpMm anwaeba "smallmu MSW IRp,rn,, aOb enhra,,/aod MwatbmM[ Ma byI..inmllwnsanald,daN1 buN Nema,ellahst.. IN ell -I.N 1) a'.mV.Xpthevetd anw.1te Gone small in durnmllypropnniesand rmallbusinessestnamrulaentlel adhoea(and bane m,lb .at[.I lntlardes.<M1YMnnVanpbX. MSWINbnnaHeMhllbnnaeeemrsb <M1ewlld watMmlb[<MW<M1e .m&M In aum aInel ballyeda ebklbmnat xboNeandmIN —tel mill ftm SEI' WVbfiom Qapelem jaWeah,Na ll send l dbtlimm<.[uN, r, sea, eewawhaswi b /vxuummeTlneaaaba 1. H IN NOIG'y.N Wub'ronedded. In.. AndNay Centtem[,ImlualnpbnnVafiemfill b/ mlleNOniixbebwb abwa rryaklNClnpal Xlll wltlwuwl. OnNYaN waetesu[b as Peellmbs,enrs nlppmeaana bNeh,M.[mPaaMm. w.abana Rxwnr$ arum. Nom: rn6a.mbnNM[Idm Mswewl.ma.na aommuea W meaep..mmaludaal[6pna. Tnu emaem nmmmd.wll.LNn amrmmpR,m n..Hn..mbmwmnrnmm. Town MMeb... MU NIUPALSODD.A$YEMA1)' YARDW0.5TE MVNICIPFLSODDWA (NON-MIDENMO CHAPEL HILL TONS TONS TONS %CEMNGE PROM PRENOU'S YEAR TONS TONS TONS TONS TONS NNS %CHANGE FWM PREVOUS YEAR %13 /N FY]B /15 fY15 /16 FY13 /la "I'l E %CHANGE PY 14/15 iY15 /I6 Set Quarter %CHANGE iY13/N IN fY35 /16 %CHANGE SOLIDWASIE ]65 371 FROM 2nd Quarter 1. FMIM 1,652 421 FROM CONVENIENCE 1 1,934 pREW0U5 3N QUaIter 132 PREWOUS 421 PREVIOUS CEMEAS IMTAL) 1 4 363 YEAR 174 YEAR .7 YEAR 4tM1 0uaner FY13 /14 FY 1x/15 FY15 /16 6,715 FY13/1a N14 /15 FY1S /16 Y..S FY 13/13 FYla /]5 e,3N "4. 1A Quarter 3% 1WO 3 61 41 PA4 9x8 217 lx% ],716 1]09 j -1% xna DwMr E3 165 3k uerter x ]9 2O4 aM Coal ] xal An 9819 9 W" 6% 9x6 ]M 92] 11% 693 S33 16% MUNICIPALSOUDWASTE(RESIDENiIll YAND —C MUNICIML SOLD WAS]E INON-RESIDNI IJ TONS TONS TONS TONS TONS TONS %CHMIGE %CHANGE SEEM FRO. fARRBpRO PREWDLS PRY.. 16 YEAR FY 19/IA FY1a /15 PY 15/16 YEAR FY 13 /la %14/]5 EY15/16 tat OUa03 E�111 326 1 3 E74% xna Gue33 ]Dx a 3rtl a `A6 195 ]MS 4th Qua6b x5x 1,156 Ann92 -fi% ]396 1,539 1,a]a d% 3]]5 3x15 3xxx 90 ' "'. CauMV ..(.Come, Im ul MSW ena talky xssbmllacNOnlmm Wuteand ReAdIne OnbrsonN. MSW (nom mbentlaRln[ludes MM and buIRVwVbrmm OnneefnueWdel and aem. MmLlerobeowmmentbmldaml and bNkywam-lytramsomachapel Xtll i[nom[a. deuruan Castle. "tlbpal Hill and Qnbom MSW IR,,H,mLl)m...a, nhnts..N.- thadV.ba by Nermvn In mllnmamd I. W.mn Thla bwampelmarMM1Omsirylnmmlly M1emu.XwawpMm anwaeba "smallmu MSW IRp,rn,, aOb enhra,,/aod MwatbmM[ Ma byI..inmllwnsanald,daN1 buN Nema,ellahst.. IN ell -I.N 1) a'.mV.Xpthevetd anw.1te Gone small in durnmllypropnniesand rmallbusinessestnamrulaentlel adhoea(and bane m,lb .at[.I lntlardes.<M1YMnnVanpbX. MSWINbnnaHeMhllbnnaeeemrsb <M1ewlld watMmlb[<MW<M1e .m&M In aum aInel ballyeda ebklbmnat xboNeandmIN —tel mill ftm SEI' WVbfiom Qapelem jaWeah,Na ll send l dbtlimm<.[uN, r, sea, eewawhaswi b /vxuummeTlneaaaba 1. H IN NOIG'y.N Wub'ronedded. In.. AndNay Centtem[,ImlualnpbnnVafiemfill b/ mlleNOniixbebwb abwa rryaklNClnpal Xlll wltlwuwl. OnNYaN waetesu[b as Peellmbs,enrs nlppmeaana bNeh,M.[mPaaMm. w.abana Rxwnr$ arum. Nom: rn6a.mbnNM[Idm Mswewl.ma.na aommuea W meaep..mmaludaal[6pna. Tnu emaem nmmmd.wll.LNn amrmmpR,m n..Hn..mbmwmnrnmm. Town MMeb... MUNICI PAISOLIO WAflE (RESIDfN9Al)' YARO WASTE MUNICIPALSOLID WASTEINONRFSIDFMIAL CHAPEL HILL TONS TONS TONS %CEMNGE PROM PRENOU'S YEAR TONS TONS TONS %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS iY 15 /16 YEA TONS TONG TON'S %CHANGE FWM PREVOUS YEAR %13 /N FY]B /15 fY15 /16 FY13 /la "I'l E PYLa /14 PY 14/15 iY15 /I6 Set Quarter FROM PREVIOUS YFFR iY13/N IN fY35 /16 FMM PREWR S YFAR 1.0, me ]65 371 1535 2nd Quarter 1. 1,652 421 560 1,934 3N QUaIter 132 1,596 421 31] 3ra QUarmr 1 4 363 4tM1 0uarter 174 .7 4tM1 0uaner 1963 Annul 6,715 G., 6,673 0% Y..S I. i]W b9% e,3N "4. $656 3% 90 ' "'. CauMV ..(.Come, Im ul MSW ena talky xssbmllacNOnlmm Wuteand ReAdIne OnbrsonN. MSW (nom mbentlaRln[ludes MM and buIRVwVbrmm OnneefnueWdel and aem. MmLlerobeowmmentbmldaml and bNkywam-lytramsomachapel Xtll i[nom[a. deuruan Castle. "tlbpal Hill and Qnbom MSW IR,,H,mLl)m...a, nhnts..N.- thadV.ba by Nermvn In mllnmamd I. W.mn Thla bwampelmarMM1Omsirylnmmlly M1emu.XwawpMm anwaeba "smallmu MSW IRp,rn,, aOb enhra,,/aod MwatbmM[ Ma byI..inmllwnsanald,daN1 buN Nema,ellahst.. IN ell -I.N 1) a'.mV.Xpthevetd anw.1te Gone small in durnmllypropnniesand rmallbusinessestnamrulaentlel adhoea(and bane m,lb .at[.I lntlardes.<M1YMnnVanpbX. MSWINbnnaHeMhllbnnaeeemrsb <M1ewlld watMmlb[<MW<M1e .m&M In aum aInel ballyeda ebklbmnat xboNeandmIN —tel mill ftm SEI' WVbfiom Qapelem jaWeah,Na ll send l dbtlimm<.[uN, r, sea, eewawhaswi b /vxuummeTlneaaaba 1. H IN NOIG'y.N Wub'ronedded. In.. AndNay Centtem[,ImlualnpbnnVafiemfill b/ mlleNOniixbebwb abwa rryaklNClnpal Xlll wltlwuwl. OnNYaN waetesu[b as Peellmbs,enrs nlppmeaana bNeh,M.[mPaaMm. w.abana Rxwnr$ arum. Nom: rn6a.mbnNM[Idm Mswewl.ma.na aommuea W meaep..mmaludaal[6pna. Tnu emaem nmmmd.wll.LNn amrmmpR,m n..Hn..mbmwmnrnmm. Town MMeb... MUNI.PAL5OLOW— (RESIDEMML)' YnRO Wn.SIE NILDIMPALSOLID.E(NOWRENDEMIAL) TONS TONS TORS %OMNGE MN3 TONS TONS %CXRXGE TONS TONS TONS %CNµGf NIILSBOMfWX FY13 /14 FYS4/15 FY15 /16 FROM PREN0U5 YEAR FY13 /]6 fYL/13 FY15 /16 FROM PREVIOUS YFFR iY13/N fYU /15 fY35 /16 FMM PREWR S YFAR 1.0, me 371 1. 421 2nd Ouaner 379 132 421 3ra QUarmr 363 ILE 4x1 4tM1 0uaner 3. 655 421 Annual 1,533 1WO 1393 41 PA4 9x8 1,033 lx% ],716 1]09 1,634 -1% 90 ' "'. CauMV ..(.Come, Im ul MSW ena talky xssbmllacNOnlmm Wuteand ReAdIne OnbrsonN. MSW (nom mbentlaRln[ludes MM and buIRVwVbrmm OnneefnueWdel and aem. MmLlerobeowmmentbmldaml and bNkywam-lytramsomachapel Xtll i[nom[a. deuruan Castle. "tlbpal Hill and Qnbom MSW IR,,H,mLl)m...a, nhnts..N.- thadV.ba by Nermvn In mllnmamd I. W.mn Thla bwampelmarMM1Omsirylnmmlly M1emu.XwawpMm anwaeba "smallmu MSW IRp,rn,, aOb enhra,,/aod MwatbmM[ Ma byI..inmllwnsanald,daN1 buN Nema,ellahst.. IN ell -I.N 1) a'.mV.Xpthevetd anw.1te Gone small in durnmllypropnniesand rmallbusinessestnamrulaentlel adhoea(and bane m,lb .at[.I lntlardes.<M1YMnnVanpbX. MSWINbnnaHeMhllbnnaeeemrsb <M1ewlld watMmlb[<MW<M1e .m&M In aum aInel ballyeda ebklbmnat xboNeandmIN —tel mill ftm SEI' WVbfiom Qapelem jaWeah,Na ll send l dbtlimm<.[uN, r, sea, eewawhaswi b /vxuummeTlneaaaba 1. H IN NOIG'y.N Wub'ronedded. In.. AndNay Centtem[,ImlualnpbnnVafiemfill b/ mlleNOniixbebwb abwa rryaklNClnpal Xlll wltlwuwl. OnNYaN waetesu[b as Peellmbs,enrs nlppmeaana bNeh,M.[mPaaMm. w.abana Rxwnr$ arum. Nom: rn6a.mbnNM[Idm Mswewl.ma.na aommuea W meaep..mmaludaal[6pna. Tnu emaem nmmmd.wll.LNn amrmmpR,m n..Hn..mbmwmnrnmm. Town MMeb... M. Solid Waste Priorities I. Funding FY 15/16 4/15 - 5/15 ✓ A. Carrboro Approval B. Chapel Hill Approval C. Hillsborough Approval D. County Approval II. Interlocal Agreement (including funding) 8/14-4/17 A. Manager Recommendation B. Financial Study C. Present Financial Study to SWAG D. Incorporate Method for establishing Waste Goal E. Present Final Financial Study Report to BOCC F. Finalize Financial Component for Agreement G. Boards, UNC and UNC Healthcare Adoption III. Rural Curbside Expansion 4/15 - 7/16✓ IV. Development of Local Waste Disposal Facility 10/16-9/21 A. Needs Assessment B. Prepare Preliminary Concept Plan C. Preliminary Site Assessment of Government Owned Property D. Report to SWAG E. Report to Boards V. Explore /Implement Cooperative Operations with UNC and UNC- Healthcare 1/15 - 5/17 A. Collaboration Report to SWAG VI. Secure Permanent Northern Emergency Storm Debris Management Site 6/15-11/16 A. Evaluate Site Options VII. Develop /Implement Measuring and Tracking Methods (Ongoing) 4/15-6/20 A. Format B. Ongoing Quarterly and Annual Data Reports C. Addition of Cost Data VIII. Residential Organics 7/17-7/18 IX. Evaluate Non - Residential Programs 10/16-1/19 A. Waste Composition Study X. Assess Effectiveness and Compliance with RRMO 1/18 - 1/19 XI. Consider Options for Non - Municipal Operated Waste Collection Services 1/18-1/20 XII. Evaluate Urban Curbside 9/18-9/19 XIII. Evaluate Pay as You Throw 7/19-7/20