Presented to County Legislature October 15, 2009

Similar documents
Orange County. Solid Waste Study. Mayors Group Meeting

TABLE OF CONTENTS. TABLE OF CONTENTS.i-v. RESOLUTION NO. (Pending Board of Commissioners Adoption of Plan)...vi

Economic Impact of Recycling in Alabama and Opportunities for Growth. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Land Division Solid Waste Branch

Draft Rate Application. Funding the SF Recycling Program and Pursuing Zero Waste by 2020

Just the Facts and the Data

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

C & D Processing & Shingle Recycling

Utility Fee Information Packet Increased by the CPI of 4.5% Effective October 1, 2013

Local Governments and the Solid Waste Disposal Tax

Title. Green Government Initiative March 20 22, 2013

MEMORANDUM. Introduction. Enabling Legislation

TITLE I SWA CODE DEFINITION OF TERMS

MINNESOTA>ENVIRONMENTAL<INITIATIVE

LUESA Overview. Land Use and Environmental Services Agency (LUESA) FY Strategic Business Plan. Six Divisions

2015 SOLID WASTE ANNUAL REPORT

CT Department of Environmental Protection. Getting SMART Waste Management to Reduce Disposal & Increase Recycling

Solid Waste Management Cost and Operations Review

EPR The Unintended Consequences Conference on Canadian Stewardship RCA Waste Reduction Conference October 2, 2015

Sumter County Recycling Plan

(S.208) It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont: * * * Architectural Waste Recycling * * *

Developing a Zero Waste Implementation Plan, Montgomery County, MD MRN/SWANA-MidAtlantic Annual Conference Maryland Recycling Network

Summary. How the Economy Affects the Amount of Waste Generated

INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLY FOR A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY PERMIT

Waste Statistics 2017

Circular Economy Challenges in MENA.

Quarterly Performance Measurement Report

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS

NATIONAL WASTE STREAM PROFILES

Waste Composition Studies Understanding the Results. Ted Siegler DSM Environmental Services, Inc. Windsor, VT

RECOLOGY 2017 RATE APPLICATION TECHNICAL WORKSHOP. February 2017

Construction and Demolition Material Recovery Facility Feasibility Study

Waste to Energy The Palm Beach County Experience

SOLID WASTE FLOW CONTROL

Quarterly Performance Measurement Report

SOLID WASTE WORKGROUP REPORT. A strategic, long-range plan to reduce the county s municipal waste stream

Economics of Solid Waste Management. Laura J. Weber President The Lydia Company Serving our clients to build a better tomorrow

CASE. Recycling capacity in Chicagoland gets a significant boost from Lakeshore Recycling Systems Heartland material recovery facility

ADDITIONS & DELETIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Request for Proposals for Zero Waste Services Service Groups 1 and 2 FINAL VERSION for Proposal Submittal November 16, 2012

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION PERMIT

Solid Waste Study Update

Common Solid Waste Designation Questions. February 21, 2019

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS K. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3. SOLID WASTE

Ramsey County Master Plan

Recycling and Waste Reduction October 8, 2015

San Carlos Climate Action Plan

City of Yellowknife, NT

Fauquier County Department of Environmental Services

Energy from Construction and Demolition Materials. Tim Mobley Honua Power

On the Road to Zero Waste

Measuring Composition and Contamination at the MRF

TRANSMITTAL THE COUNCIL THE MAYOR. Date: To: From: TRANSMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED. (Ana Guerrero) Mayor

NYSAR 3 Annual NY State Recycling Conference Pay as You Throw in Addison County, Vermont

The Updated Rhode Island Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Michael Oconnell

Request for Qualifications. Purchase, Transport and Management of Recovered Post-Consumer Recyclables

Waste Statistics 2015

Management of Construction and Demolition Debris

ISSUE BRIEF. KENTUCKY SOLID WASTE 2011 Kentucky Grade: B Date: February 1, 2011 CURRENT CONDITIONS. Solid Waste Management

Waste Statistics 2016

Northern Rockies Regional Municipality Solid Waste Management Plan Stage 2 Fort Nelson, British Columbia

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT - RECENT LESSON TITLE FOR COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGERS

FAQs on the State Measurement Program

WLSSD Organic Waste Recovery. Implementing Required Source Separation of Pre-Consumer Organic Waste February 27, 2008

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Waste Statistics in the Emairte of Abu Dhabi 2011

Waste Statistics in the Emairte of Abu Dhabi 2012

Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences Engineering School for Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment. University of Florida 2/10/2017 1

Waste management in the Netherlands. Herman Huisman RWS Environment

MEMORANDUM. To: Cc: From:

Construction & Demolition Recycling Program Building Contractor s Resource Guide & FAQ s (Revised December 2016)

Solid Waste Master Plan County Board Workshop

EPA Region 4. Municipal Government Toolkit for Recycling. Jay Bassett. EPA Region 4. Materials Management Section

Glass Clean-up Systems in MRFs

Comments by Eureka Recycling January 2014

RECYCLING SYSTEM GAP ANALYSIS MEMPHIS REGION PREPARED BY RRS FOR THE COALITION TO ADVANCE RECOVERY IN TENNESSEE (CART)

1. Executive Summary. CRRA Transition Plan

Construction & Demolition Waste Management Best Practices. Webinar November 26, 2013

SAN FRANCISCO QUARTERLY RATE REPORT. Quarter Ended September 30, Recology Sunset Scavenger Recology Golden Gate Recology San Francisco

Request for Proposal (RFP) Update Future Solid Waste Management Operations. ENR Committee March 2, 2015

Organics Recovery grows Green Energy, Jobs and Agriculture

Glass Clean-up Systems in MRFs

Waste Management in Bermuda

Recycling Policy and Activities. Ministry of Environment Republic of Korea

Introduction and Objective. Step 1. Step 2 Process material collected in Step 1.

LEE COUNTY RESOLUTION NO

CHAPTER 4. Solid Waste Management

Pollution Prevention Appendix W: Solid and Hazardous Waste

SOUTHERN ALBERTA ENERGY FROM WASTE ASSOCIATION

2000 PLAN Continue to implement the solid waste education program with the assistance form the Natural Resource Education Consortium.

"COMPATIBILITY OF: WTE AND RECYCLING SURVEY RESULTS"

RECYCLING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Project #562 FINAL REPORT

Resource Management Plan. Peoria County, Illinois February 23, 2015

ROCKLAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY PROPOSED BUDGET 2018

6.20 UTILITIES SOLID WASTE

Tax Increment Financing Basics

North Carolina Disposal Tax: Opportunities to Grow Recycling

Delaware Solid Waste Authority Statewide Waste Characterization Study, FY 2016

TIF Project Examples. WGFOA Winter Conference November 30, 2017

WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

2005 PLAN Continue to implement the solid waste education program with the assistance form the Natural Resource Education Consortium.

Transcription:

Sullivan County Solid Waste Fee Analysis Presented to County Legislature October 15, 2009

2 About MSW Consultants Non-engineering consulting firm specializing in municipal waste and recycling industry National experience optimizing integrated t waste management systems Solid waste financial analysis and ratesetting User fees Non-ad valorem assessments Tip fees Processing fees Cost-of-service analysis

3 Sullivan County Integrated Waste Management System Overview Facilities managed Landfill Five local transfer stations (and related transportation) Material Recovery Facility (MRF) County does not provide collection Sources of funding $75/ton tip fee for MSW $125/ton tip fee for C&D and bulky waste Recycled material revenues Supplemented by general fund transfers

4 County Managed Wastes 80,000 70,000 60,000 74,189 total tons 64,490490 total tons nnual Tons A 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 Recovered Recyclables Sludge/Soils Disposed C&D Disposed MSW Disposed 10,000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 (est)

5 Financial Overview 2009 Estimated Million $ Tip Fee Revenues $5.15 Material Revenues $0.21 Total Revenues $5.36 Over 20% of waste generating parcels Operating Costs $4.58 are tax-exempt and do not pay ad Post-Closure $0.14 valorem taxes Debt Service $4.57 Total Cost $9.29 Shortfall: Ad Valorem Taxes $3.97

6 2010 System Infrastructure Construction of Commercial Transfer Station for Waste Export Closure of Active Landfill MRF Upgrade

7 Study Objective Implement integrated waste management system revenue mechanisms that: Charge all users equitably for the cost of the system Ahi Achieve revenue-sufficiency i for Sullivan County waste management infrastructure Provide financial flexibility to optimally manage County s system in the future Have rational underpinnings that are proven in other municipal ii systems and can be df defensibly documentedd

8 Solid Waste Fee Background Thousands of municipalities nationally charge some form of fee directly to waste generators to fund solid waste collection, disposal and processing Billing options: utility bill; tax bill Multiple terms in use by other municipalities: System Benefit Charge; Solid Waste Assessment; Environmental Management Fee; Infrastructure Charge Basis of Solid Waste Fee: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generation by residential dwellings and improved nonresidential establishments

9 Sullivan County Generator Classes Improved Parcels 1) Residential Dwellings Single Family 3) Bungalows and Apartments Camps Mobile Homes Seasonal = ½ Year Construction and 2) Non-Residential Demolitions Debris Commercial lbusinesses Institutions Manufacturing/Industrial Agricultural l

10 Waste Generation Research Methodology Compile prior non- residential waste generation studies Normalize reported generation rates Overlay generator r classes with Sullivan County tax rolls Surveys and local research Municipalities Haulers Hospital School districts

11 Waste Generation by Generator Class Generator Classes Annual Generation Rate Subclass (Class Code) Billing Basis Predicted Waste Generation (tons) Single Family (200s) Dwelling 1) Year-Round Residential 1.22 tons Apartments (417) 900 sq ft 48,974 Mobile Home Park (416) Pad 2) Seasonal Residential 0.61 tons (260) Dwelling 1,804 3) Bungalow/ Camp 0.92 tons (417; 581) 900 sq ft 11,788 4) Non-residential Low 0.93 tons Various (Various) 2,000 sq ft 5,961 5) Non-residential Medium 1.09 tons Various (Various) 2,000 sq ft 2,732 6) Non-residential High 4.50 tons Various (Various) 2,000 sq ft 3,624 7) Non-residential Very High 11.30 tons Various (Various) 2,000 sq ft 5,317 Total 80,200

12 Predicted Sullivan County Municipal Solid Waste Generation Current Tons Managed Predicted County Generation (2010) Annual Tons MSW Disposed C&D Disposed Sludge/Soils MSW Recycled

13 Solid Waste Fee Revenue Options Option 1 Maintain i $75/ton tip fee for MSW Maintain $125/ton tip fee for C&D MSW and C&D waste disposal to remain near 60,000000 tons Risk of future waste loss due to changes in local market Option 2 Allow County-generated MSW to tip for free Maintain $125/ton tip fee for C&D MSW and C&D waste disposal approaches 88,000 tons Strong economic incentive for all MSW to be delivered to County

14 Tip Fee and System Cost Comparison Tip Fees Option 1: $75 Tip Fees Option 2: $0 Tip Fees for In- County Waste In-County MSW Tip Fees $75/ton $0/ton C&D Tip Fees $125/ton $125/ton Out-of-System Tip Fees $75/ton Not accepted System Fixed Costs $7.7 million $7.7 million System Costs Total System Costs $12.0 million $13.8 million Revenue Mix Cost per Disposed Ton $205/ton $158/ton Tip Fee Revenue $5.1 million $2.0 million Solid Waste Fee Revenue $6.5 million 11.9 million

15 Solid Waste Fee Schedule Maintain $75 MSW Tip Fees Customer Class Subclass Solid Waste Fee Revenue Requirements Billing Units Solid Waste Fee per Billing Unit Year-round Residential Single Family $3,498,755 35,165 $99.50 Apartment $360,419 3,623 $99.48 Mobile Home $134,744 1,354 $99.52 Seasonal Residential $147,149 2,958 $49.75 Cottages/Bungalows $961,340 12,813 $75.03 Non Residential Low $486,124 6,410 $75.84 Medium $222,815 1,416 $157.35 High $295,548 805 $367.14 Very High $433,619 471 $920.63 Total $6,540,513

16 Solid Waste Fee Schedule $0 MSW Tip Fee for County Waste Customer Class Subclass Solid Waste Fee Revenue Requirements Billing Units Solid Waste Fee per Billing Unit Year-round Residential Single Family $6,349,919 35,165 $180.57 Apartment $654,127 3,623 $180.55 Mobile Home $244,549, 1,354 $180.61 Seasonal Residential $267,061 2,958 $90.28 Cottages/Bungalows $1,744,744 12,813 $136.17 Non Residential Low $882,270 6,410 $137.64 Medium $404,388 1,416 $285.58 High $536,393 805 $666.33 Very High $786,978 471 $1,670.87 Total $11,870,429

17 Conclusions Waste generation-based Solid Waste Fee is supported by documented waste generation rates overlayed on County real property data Predicted dwaste generation rates are reasonable and defensible (but not precise) Implementing m Solid Waste Fees with $0 tip fee on MSW Is the most equitable funding mechanism Provides best value for all county waste generators by increasing economy of scale

18 Implementation Considerations Enabling legislation and regulations Process for appeal/grievance Expectation for improvement to real property data prior to and after implementation of Solid Waste Fee Prevention of waste imports Outreach/education will be needed Customers Haulers Possible refinement of waste generation rates and Solid Possible refinement of waste generation rates and Solid Waste Fee after 2 or 3 years

19 Questions John Culbertson, Principal MidAtlantic Solid Waste Consultants 407/380-8951 jculbertson@mswconsultants.us