HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-30-2003-7bA 06'cr i�A t4`* lb
Memorandum
To: John Link, County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director
Subject: Solid Waste Management Update — Assembly of Governments
Date: September 24, 2003
Orange County is well known throughout the state for its high level of environmental
ethic, its commitment to the protection of public health and the environment, and its
interest in preserving natural resources. Financial resources invested by the County
citizens and landfill customers has allowed unparalleled waste reduction success, waste
management facilities that have sound environmental protection credentials, and the
availability of an array of recycling and waste reduction programs and services that are
the envy of many other regions. Participation in local recycling and waste reduction
programs is substantial and demands for additional services are continuous.
Even though our programs and services are efficient and effective, the current financial
structure has overreached its capability of continuing to provide sufficient funding to
maintain our high level of performance. Our overwhelming reliance on diminishing
tipping fees has created a situation of financial uncertainty and instability. The Board of
Commissioners (BOCC) will be examining alternative funding options over the next
several months and will very likely implement some type of supplemental financial
mechanism for FY 2004 -05.
This memorandum provides a brief update regarding accomplishments and planning
issues associated with solid waste management in Orange County. Various attachments
are provided that contain relevant information.
Recent Solid Waste Successes
Attachment A provides an overview of recent accomplishments and achievements in
solid waste management.
Eubanks Road Facilities Master Plan
Attachment B provides an overview of the current approved facilities master plan as
adopted by the BOCC. Absent from the approved plan is a final decision regarding the
location of a transfer station. Additionally, a tentative location has been determined for a
construction & demolition material resale store, pending the completion of a staff
feasibility study.
Overview of Current Financial Situation
It has been commonly understood by staff since about 1996 -1997 that limitations inherent
in our existing tipping fee based system of revenue generation would require the
implementation of new sources of supplemental revenue for the fund. The organizational
restructuring of the solid waste department interrupted an earlier serious attempt to
resolve this issue. The consideration of supplemental revenue sources is now at a critical
juncture given the anticipated lack of financial resources necessary to continue programs
at existing levels into the next fiscal year. Key indicators of current financial status are:
Current (FY 2003/04) Budget - $5,553,291
Fund Balance used FY 2003/04 = $1,222,073 (22 %)
Equipment Replacement/Landfill Closure Reserves = zero
Outstanding Debt Balance = Approx. 1.95 million
Current Estimated Fund Balance = $865,098 (15.6 %)
Elements /Assumptions in Existing Solid Waste Management Plan
The existing solid waste reduction portion of the overall departmental long -term plan was
originally developed and endorsed in 1997, with the involvement/participation by a
highly qualified waste management consulting firm (Weston), a Citizens Advisory
Committee, landfill staff, Landfill Owners Group, individual elected boards, and County
citizens through public hearings, etc. While the plan has been endorsed by the three
towns and County (and submitted to the State) on two different occasions (including the
original endorsement in 1997), and also endorsed by the SWAB, the current 3 -year
update has been delayed due to the need to revisit certain elements within the plan. Staff
are working with the Board to schedule an opportunity to discuss the plan with and
receive guidance from the Board so that necessary modifications can be made, the plan
resubmitted to the Towns for their endorsement, and then the approved revised plan
resubmitted to the State.
Attachment C is an overview, originally prepared for the SWAB, of the current waste
reduction plan that has been developed to achieve the 61% waste reduction goal.
Review of SWAB Alternative Financing Recommendations
The SWAB was requested by the BOCC to examine supplemental financing options and
report their findings, possibly including recommendations. As the SWAB began its
evaluation of alternative financing options, a set of guiding principals were developed to
aid them in their work. These principals were:
• Endorsement of the Solid Waste Management Plan and Goal
• Need for non - profits to pay their fair share
• Create dedicated (restricted) reserves for closure and capital equipment purchase
• Maintain a healthy fund balance (12 -16 %)
• The solid waste system should be viewed as an integrated system
2
• Fees should be averaged annually to avoid year -to -year spikes
• Owners, not occupants, of rental property should be responsible for fees
The long -term (permanent) funding recommendation by the SWAB was to establish a
Comprehensive Prepaid Solid Waste Services Fee (CompFee). The SWAB
recommendation (See Attachment D) recognized that implementation of such a
fundamental change of solid waste financing (although some change is inevitable) would
likely take 2 -3 years to fully implement. They therefore further recommended that an
interim funding mechanism be implemented the first year of a minimum $30 per
residential unit availability fee. It is important to note that the BOCC has not made any
decisions yet regarding the implementation of either short or long -term financing
mechanisms.
Staff is available to provide additional information on any of the above subject or other
solid waste related topic. Staff will be prepared to discuss these and other issues at the
upcoming Assembly of Governments meeting.
Attachment A
Recent Accomplishments /Achievements
• Arguably the leading recycling and waste reduction program in the state
qualitatively /quantitatively
• Innovative Mandatory Recycling Ordinance is successful
• Incoming C &D waste reduced by about 30%
• Recycling facilities operating and providing local outlets
• Broad compliance in building community; now focusing on commercial community
• Established marketing and delivery system for all earth products resulting from mulching
and composting
• Commercial food waste programs effective and expanding
• Successful acquisition of property for C &D landfill /state permit pending
• Assumption of multi - family recycling program replacing private contractor has resulted in
qualitatively better service and fewer complaints
• First multi - family complex in Hillsborough now on -line
• New drop -off sites at Meadowmont and Carrboro Plaza; sites planned for Southern Village
and Hampton Pointe
• Expanded rural curbside program to accommodate in -fill growth on existing routes
• Active and involved Solid Waste Advisory Board
• Several illegal tire dumps in county cleaned up (estimated 3,100 tires in FY 02/03)
• Toxic Reduction Improvement Program (TRIP) Improved/Expanded
• Improved HHW collection program/permanent schedule. Tonnage up 40% from prior
year
• Electronics program very successful. Received six tons in first month of operation. Now
includes televisions.
• Dry cell battery recycling implemented at all six solid waste convenience centers.
• Major community event recycling now standard practice
• Expanding recycling services at county convenience centers
• Improved bi- lingual education and outreach
• Publishing solid waste articles monthly in four local papers
• Have an existing comprehensive, effective, and coherent long -term waste management plan
• Effective government building recycling program
• Effectively managed storm debris /overcoming considerable space limitations to manage over
5 times the annual average volume of brush and limbs.
• Landfill neighborhood community relations constructive /improved
• Good working relationships with Towns and University
• Involved regionally
• regional landfill possibilities under examination
• active involvement in TJCOG solid waste planning
Attachment A -1
Memorandum
To: John Link, County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
Subject: Multi- Family Recycling Program Update
Date: September 2, 2003
Solid Waste Management took over the multi - family recycling program from a contractor on Jan.
1, 2003 in an effort to provide more cost effective and reliable service. Eight Tonths into
providing the services ourselves we are happy to report that we appear to be on track for both
savings and service quality improvements.
While under previous contract, the servicing of the apartment complexes was not up to the
standards that Orange County residents have come to expect from our Department. The
contractor was unable or unwilling to reliably provide the resources to guarantee weekly
collection from all sites. This led to an unacceptable level of complaints from the complexes.
SWM undertook an analysis of existing service and projected the costs and effects of providing
the service with Orange County personnel. To our surprise, the projected savings, roughly $1
million over nine years was enough to convince the Department to further explore the possibility
of taking over the program. With the Commissioners consent, the program officially became a
County provided service on Jan. 1, 2003.
From the eight months data we have, we can say without question that the takeover has been a
success. We are able to offer the services even at slightly less cost than we had anticipated, as we
were able to incorporate some of the stops into our commercial glass program that was already
servicing facilities in the area, gaining additional efficiencies. We have been able to expand
service to Hillsborough complexes, something we had tried to do for numerous years without
success. The level of complaints has fallen dramatically, to under one valid complaint per month.
We found that the previous contractor had many extra carts in the field so as to avoid, where
possible, servicing certain locations each week. We have now eliminated surplus carts and
provide the service weekly, as scheduled. This allows for more efficient service and more
attractive sites.
The quantity of materials was a little higher than we were led to believe by the contractor, and as
a result, we have generated marginally better revenues than anticipated. Additionally, as we are
servicing the sites ourselves, we have been able to identify contaminated or problem sites in a
more timely manner, lessening the delays and costs of addressing the problems. Outreach has
been made at many of these sites to better inform the residents of our program, its purpose, and
benefits to society. The collectors are empowered to solve problems as they arise. This has
resulted in fewer lingering problems and a higher quality material being delivered to the
processing facility.
Staff believes the assumption of multi- family collections to be a complete success
Attachment A -2
Memorandum
To: John Link, County Manager
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
Subject: HHW Program Update
Date: September 12, 2003
The Household Hazardous Waste (MM program began operating "full time" in April
2003. Prior to this schedule change the program was open on the first Saturday of the
month, 9 months of the year. The program now operates four days per week, Wednesday
through Friday 10 AM to 6 PM and Saturday 7:30 Am until 12 noon. Orange County is
the first in the Triangle area to make this change, and other local governments are now
studying our results in order to consider following our lead.
The expansion to full time has been a great success. The facility, previously open only
nine days per year is now open over 200 days per year. Citizens have reacted very
positively to the expanded hours, and are pleased with the convenience that the new
program set -up provides. In the past, on the first Saturday events, citizens often needed
to wait in long lines to dispose of their hazardous materials. Rarely are citizens now
required to wait at the HHW facility.
The HHW facility is operated under a permit by the state. In order to make the various
changes to the HHW program, the permit was revised, and the facility has undergone
improvements such as the installation of an employee building and the expansion of the
concrete unloading area.
In August 2003, the HHW program serviced an average of 22 households per day. Full -
time HHW Program participation is up at least 25% over the corresponding time period
last year, and program costs per pound and cost per participant are both down. Program
diversion tonnage is markedly increased (58% more hazardous waste was diverted in
August 2003 than in August 2002, or 22,500 lbs in Aug 2003 vs. 142501bs "in Aug 2002).
The HHW is successfully fulfilling its mission of diverting residentially generated
hazardous waste from the Orange County Landfill. The program is now more effective
and efficient than ever. It is important to note that while cost per household and cost per
pound of waste managed are both down, the overall program costs are increasing because
the program is handling more hazardous waste (FY 0304 budgeted expense = $150,000
versus actual expense of $119,885 in FY 0203).
F
Z
W W
2
W m qZa W �QQ
J j ° m J pp W
m ul x
o °
0 o N awi a a a
w
J
< L
F
U
�F
oZ
�w
IL w
=w
hQ
�Q
O
o LL
o w
0 O
w d
~ o
S
o
w
Q �
w
2_
/ / I
U Z w
0 0 w
o O
Q m Y
U p
� a U
W w
U �
a z
z
Z
}
W
ry
}
0
a
w
H
0
0
a
W
a �
U �
Q
W
I J
\\0 Z I
I I
I
•O9 I
I
� I
o y ter I
i I
00 W
S p y
Lu In
'o��
S Z Q U Z
J 5 I I
} O 1
J u- w P}
O F. U U &
D
O f
_ 1
(7 W
Q
� N } I
U Q I
I
I
O
U Z Z
g o I
F I
- -L
�0
Z
� leap - - -Q ,
N w
wI
Y
a
I
J
Q W I
LL J
w a
4
U
w
Bill V,
w �
� Z
F �■�w
� Z
tl "U
�w
w
U
Z
I
I o
W
Z
wx
w Q
LL
aZ H
}U
-
o co
}� z
F-
0
0a
U
❑
aD
Ww
II
MILL HOUSE ROAD ~
_I
RAILROAD
< L
F
U
�F
oZ
�w
IL w
=w
hQ
�Q
O
o LL
o w
0 O
w d
~ o
S
o
w
Q �
w
2_
/ / I
U Z w
0 0 w
o O
Q m Y
U p
� a U
W w
U �
a z
z
Z
}
W
ry
}
0
a
w
H
0
0
a
W
a �
U �
Q
W
I J
\\0 Z I
I I
I
•O9 I
I
� I
o y ter I
i I
00 W
S p y
Lu In
'o��
S Z Q U Z
J 5 I I
} O 1
J u- w P}
O F. U U &
D
O f
_ 1
(7 W
Q
� N } I
U Q I
I
I
O
U Z Z
g o I
F I
- -L
�0
Z
� leap - - -Q ,
N w
wI
Y
a
I
J
Q W I
LL J
w a
4
U
w
Bill V,
w �
� Z
F �■�w
� Z
tl "U
�w
r
-
IfII1
j)
II I17•��
■
T`f`SS%...
r
i7
< L
F
U
�F
oZ
�w
IL w
=w
hQ
�Q
O
o LL
o w
0 O
w d
~ o
S
o
w
Q �
w
2_
/ / I
U Z w
0 0 w
o O
Q m Y
U p
� a U
W w
U �
a z
z
Z
}
W
ry
}
0
a
w
H
0
0
a
W
a �
U �
Q
W
I J
\\0 Z I
I I
I
•O9 I
I
� I
o y ter I
i I
00 W
S p y
Lu In
'o��
S Z Q U Z
J 5 I I
} O 1
J u- w P}
O F. U U &
D
O f
_ 1
(7 W
Q
� N } I
U Q I
I
I
O
U Z Z
g o I
F I
- -L
�0
Z
� leap - - -Q ,
N w
wI
Y
a
I
J
Q W I
LL J
w a
4
U
w
Bill V,
w �
� Z
F �■�w
� Z
tl "U
�w
Review of Solid Waste
Management Plan
Waste Reduction Element of Plan
June 12, 2003
Orange County
Solid Waste Advisory Board
Elements of Orange County's
Solid Waste Management Plan
• Recycling and Waste Reduction element
of the overall plan - reducing disposal needs
and reaching the County's adopted goal of
61% per capita waste reduction. SWAB has
endorsed the goal, a reduction plan
framework and timeline.
— Both MSW and C &D, disposed inside and
outside the County, are included in calculations
z
Other Elements of Plan
• Tonight we will place minimal emphasis on the
disposal element of the plan. Closing the MSW
lined landfill and building a transfer station to
move MSW out of county will not be a focus;
these must be done; no debate is necessary.
• Orange County has prepared other solid waste
plans including the required plan for submittal to
the State, a County master plan for landfill
property development and a financial plan.
Plan History 1993 -96
• 1993 - Landfill Owners Group (LOG)
determined a need to develop a solid waste
reduction plan.
• 1994 - LOG selected a consultant and
appointed a Citizens' Committee to assist in
plan development.
• 1996 - Options for waste reduction were
developed by the consultant and presented.
4
Plan History 1997
• 1997 - Waste reduction goals of 45% per
capita by 2001 and 61 % by 2006 and plan
framework were adopted County -wide. No
C &D reduction in initial plan.
— Goals based on the characteristics of both the
MSW and C &D waste streams and what was
deemed practically achievable but aggressive.
Plan History 2000
• 2000 - Goals reaffirmed by all local
governments in the County.
— Percentage goals may remain the same, but
timeline may need revision.
— BOCC has stated reservations about plan and
wants to revisit it.
6
Plan History 2002 - Present
• 2002 - County achieved the State Goal of
40% per capita waste reduction.
• County recycling policies and programs
now encompass both MSW and C &D,
which is relatively unusual for a local
government in North Carolina.
Plan Options Evaluated
• Consultant developed three scenarios and
target ranges for waste reduction/recycling:
1. Status quo: continuing source - separated
type collections and processing; achievable
diversion potential of 30 % -49 %.
8
Plan Options Evaluated
2. Commingled recycling system: universal .
collections to all sectors; includes a materials
recovery facility; achievable recycling goal of
35 % -60 %.
3. Wet /dry system: separate compostables and
recyclables for collection in each sector. Includes
materials recovery facility and composting plant:
achievable recycling goal of 42 % -71 %.
Plan Option Selected
• Commingled recycling system 42 with universal
collection was selected and modified to retain all
current dropoff and convenience sites.
Composting limited, at this time, to only
yardwaste and C &D wood. Continued separate
collection of commercial food & glass.
• System further refined by staff and presented to
Landfill Owners Group for adoption in 1997 as
the County -wide plan.
10
Outline of the Reduction Plan
• Calls for recyclable materials to be collected
commingled (mixed together) from every
accessible location in Orange County then sorted
at a materials recovery facility.
— Currently all recycling is collected source - separated by
type of material and shipped directly to intermediate
markets to be prepared for final use.
— Currently not every address in Orange County receives
recycling service.
• Collections are conducted by public agencies,
private contractors working for both the County
and other entities such as UNC.
Getting There from Here
• Plan scheduled to be phased in over a five year
period from FY 2004 -05 to FY 2009 -10. May be
delayed.
• Projected results bring the County close to the 61%
goal without much additional C &D recycling.
• Including more C &D recycling may achieve goal.
C &D diversion rates now higher than projected.
• No financing mechanism yet chosen to implement
the plan. County Board has not endorsed schedule
or specific plan elements.
12
Elements of Plan and Schedule
• NOTE: numbers in bold below represent recycling tons diverted over
the base case amount projected without program expansions, not total
tons recycled.
2003 -04
• Ban unpainted drywall from landfill disposal and
establish recycling market. (additional C &D tons
recycled: 700)
2004 -05
Site and design Materials Recovery facility;
minimum five acres are needed, Land cost est.
$200,000. (additional MSW tons recycled: 987)
2005 -06
Construct Materials Recovery Facility. Under
model currently analyzed, County would own
building shell and operator would own equipment.
Other arrangements are possible. More merchant
capacity could be included to attract outside
tonnage. More tonnage means lower processing
cost per ton.
• Expand commercial food waste collections 8%
annually (goal of 1,600 tons by 2009 -10). Expand
commercial glass program 5% per year.
14
2005 -06 (cont.)
• Plan universal curbside recycling routes, purchase
and distribute urban curbside containers, contract
for curbside services beginning July 1, 2006.
• Reconsider target year of 2006 for reaching goal.
• (additional tons recycled: 1,314)
Is
2006 -07
• Distribute rural curbside bins and additional
multifamily carts. Conduct education.
• Implement universal residential curbside and
multifamily recycling. Two -bin system (one for all
paper and one for all types of cans and bottles).
Service all accessible addresses. About 10% of
rural homes projected to be inaccessible.
• Multifamily complexes use one or more groups of
roll carts at each complex.
16
2006 -07 (cont'd)
• All materials taken to NU F for processing.
• UNC recyclables delivered to MRF beginning this
year (2,237 tons up to 2,354 tons projected
through 2010 -11).
• Hire commercial recycling route supervisor and
plan routes, purchase carts and trucks
• (additional tons recycled 6,320 due to adding
mixed paper and all containers to curbside
recycling. Includes some decrease at dropoff sites.
17
• Distribute commercial recycling containers
and conduct education.
• Institute first half of commercial recycling
routes including any business or other non-
residential entity in Orange County.
• Two trucks would be purchased and drivers
hired.
• (additional tons recycled 9,540).
18
2008 -09
• Add 25% more commercial recycling
routes. Purchase additional truck and hire
driver.
• Work with Towns and County to implement
pay -as- you -throw or mandatory recycling
county -wide (through each jurisdiction).
• (additional tons recycled 13,893)
2009 -10
• Complete implementation of commercial
recycling routes. Add fourth truck and
driver.
• Continue to fine -tune system and look for
additional recycling opportunities.
• (additional tons recycled 15,813).
19
20
2010 -11
• Additional recycling tonnage diversion
from MSW 16,417.
2,
Projected Waste Reduction Rates
Year
2002 -03
2003 -04
2004 -05
2005 -06
2006 -07
2007 -08
2008 -09
2009 -2010
2010 -2011
Reduction Rate
46.7%
49.1%
49.6% (no additional C &D)
49.8% "
52.5% "
54.1% "
56.2% "
56.7% "
56.9% "
22
Financing the System
• Proposed system or any system will require
additional funding.
• No method for providing this funding has been
selected.
• The Board of Orange County Commissioners
could change the goals and /or timeline and
implementation schedule, reduce funding or
provide sufficient funding to maintain the status
quo in solid waste management in Orange County.
zs
Next Steps
• The Board of Orange County Commissioners is
scheduled to make solid waste financing decisions
later this calendar year.
• A fall work session is to be devoted to solid waste.
• Those decisions will be intermeshed with their
decisions on the County's long term solid waste
goals and plan.
• The current plan and goals may change.
• Those decisions will affect the solid waste plan
update due to the State later this year.
24
Attachment D
Memorandum
To: Board of Orange County Commissioners
From: Jan Sassaman, Chair
Solid Waste Advisory Board
Subject: Financing Recommendation for Solid Waste Management
Date: March 26, 2003
At its March 13 meeting, the Solid Waste Advisory Board addressed the request of the
County Manager to make a recommendation on interim financing necessary to support
the Solid Waste enterprise fund during development of the administrative programs
necessary prior to full implementation of the comprehensive prepaid solid waste services
fee recommended by the SWAB February 24. The interim financing mechanisms
recommended herein are fee -based and are consistent with the nature and intent of the
long -term comprehensive prepaid waste services fee. We recommend they be
implemented over the next three years beginning in 2003 -04 with a residential services
fee and culminating in adoption of the recommended comprehensive prepaid solid waste
services fee beginning in 2005 -06. The SWAB feels strongly that sufficient financial
support for future waste reduction efforts is necessary to meet the County's 61 percent
per capita waste reduction goal and the high level of service Orange County residents
presently enjoy. The recommended mechanism would provide that support in a creative,
flexible, workable, and equitable manner.
The SWAB reached the following conclusions in making its recommendations on
financing as well as this interim financing:
1. The Solid Waste Management Department enterprise fund has reached the point
where it will operate at a deficit beginning in FY 2003 -04 without additional sources
of funds.
2. The alternative of eliminating or reducing the scope of existing recycling programs to
make up the deficit is not recommended, as this would not help the County in meeting
its waste reduction goals.
3. The Solid Waste Advisory Board has been working on the issue of alternative
financing for more than a year, and in its February 24 report, made a recommendation
to the BOCC on long -term financing based on a comprehensive prepaid solid waste
services fee. That proposed fee encompasses not only recycling costs but also a
prepaid disposal fee that would supplant the present tipping fee and the anticipated
future waste transfer fees once the present landfill Eubanks Road is closed.
4. The long -term recommendation cannot be fully implemented in time to cover the
projected deficit over the next two years and a bridge financing mechanism is needed.
5. The recommended long -term financing mechanism is a services -based fee and the
SWAB believes that the transitional bridge financing should also be fee - based. Use of
a fee instead of a tax would create consistency with future proposed fees and
establish and maintain as soon as possible equity among classes of users for whom
the services are available.
6. The system should begin to use, as soon as possible, the existing billing system used
to collect taxes in order to minimize administrative costs and maximize collection
rates.
Considering all of the foregoing, the SWAB recommends that the BOCC adopt the
following series of fees over the next three years. This series of fees would incrementally
add elements of the comprehensive prepaid solid waste services fee to make the transition
from the current system, based ninety percent on landfill tipping fees, to a system based
on a prepaid comprehensive solid waste services fee in as smooth and equitable a fashion
as practical.
FY 2003 -04
Institution of a universal residential solid waste services availability fee of $30 per
residential dwelling unit throughout Orange County, including those in the Towns
of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough, to cover the costs of general
recycling services, hazardous waste collections, education and other universal
solid waste services provided in Orange County. Such a fee would be levied on
the property tax bill and would be applied to each dwelling unit, such that:
• a single family dwelling unit would be liable for a $30 fee,
• a duplex for $60, and
• a multifamily dwelling for $30 for each dwelling unit.
• mobile homes in mobile homes parks would be billed at $30 per mobile
home.
Funds from the fee would be combined with other funds generated by the Solid
Waste Management Department, such as the present tipping fees, to fund all the
Solid Waste Management operations. Based on an estimated 51,000 residential
units in Orange County in 2003 -04, this fee will raise approximately $1,530,000
in 2003 -04, if funds were collected from 100 percent of residential units.
FY 2004 -05
Combination of the universal services fee with appropriate levels of recycling
availability fees to provide necessary funding in the solid waste fund. These
combined availability fees would be applied to pay for the same universal services
covered with the 2003 -04 fee and would additionally cover the cost of the various
recycling and waste reduction programs provided in each residential sector
including urban curbside recycling, multifamily recycling and rural curbside
recycling. These funding needs assume the continued use of the MSW tipping
fees to provide necessary revenues through the end of 2004 -05 and, as in FY2003-
2004, would apply only to the residential sector. Households that do not have
curbside or multifamily type recycling services available (about 50% of
unincorporated Orange County) would be billed for only the universal service fee
as in FY2003 -04.
More precise calculations of the 2004 -05 funding needs will be possible next
year, but the figures listed in the table below provide reasonable estimates to
within 10% of the actual anticipated fee (barring some major policy shift or
unforeseeable incident).
Table 1: Estimated solid waste services fees beginning in 2004 -05 (based
on financial planning model prepared by Environmental Finance Center at
UNC)
Year
2004 -05
Single Family Urban Curbside
$105
Single Family Rural Curbside
$75
Multi - family (per unit)
$64
General services, no curbside recycling (10%
of rural households beginning2006 -07)
$45
(90% of rural households
would get curbside by 2006 -07)
These fees are anticipated to generate approximately $4,000,000 in 2004 -05.
FY 2005 -06
Adopt the comprehensive, prepaid, solid waste services fee and eliminate tipping
fees for disposal of Mixed Solid Waste in the lined landfill. Tipping fees for
MSW, presently charged to the municipalities and county, would be discontinued.
Tipping fees would continue to be levied on construction and demolition waste
and on vegetative waste because volumes of these types of materials are not very
predictable and the services and revenues needed to manage such materials are
tied directly to the amount of materials delivered to the landfill. The
comprehensive prepaid fees would therefore cover all universal services, all
recycling programs, and all disposal costs not covered by the remaining tipping
fee. In 2005 -06, non - residential customers (commercial and tax- exempt) would
also begin paying fees to cover the costs of their services.
As this financing plan is currently conceived, UNC Chapel Hill would pay a
negotiated tipping fee for only disposal of its solid waste. It is not expected to
receive any recycling services and would therefore not prepay any other fees for
solid waste management.
The projected levels for comprehensive prepaid fees for each sector are currently
estimated in the table below. Again, more accurate estimates will be possible as
staff continues to refine estimates of expenditures and revenues and the details of
the solid waste management plan are clarified.
Table 2: Estimated range of pre -paid comprehensive solid waste services
fee beginning in 2005 -06 (fee could be leveled to be the same each year).
Sector
Estimated Fee Range
Single Family Urban Curbside
$120 -$145
Single Family Rural Curbside
$1054120
Multi - family (per unit)
$80 -$90
General services only, no curbside
recycling (10% of rural households
beginnin 2006 -07)
$65 -$75
(90% of rural households would get
curbside by 2006 -07)
Non - Residential Fee* (average)
$190 -$220
*This fee will vary greatly among the various types of businesses and institutions
depending on their size and type of operation. Thus, a large, , full- service restaurant
would pay more than a one -chair barbershop. The fee for a multi- tenant shopping center
or office building would be divided among the tenants by the property owner. There will
be a large increase in the commercial fee beginning in 2007 -08 as that is the year when
universal commercial recycling services begin. New trucks and recycling containers
would be purchased and additional staff would be hired.
These fees are estimated to generate approximately $6,000,000 dollars in
2005 -06.
cc: Mayor Kevin Foy
Mayor Mike Nelson
Mayor Joe Phelps
John Link
Mike Brough
Eric Peterson
Cal Horton
Solid Waste Advisory Board