#4 Sanitation Fund - Memo1
Sanitation Fund Study Session
May 25, 2010
1. Introduction
The purpose of this study session is to review the finances of the Sanitation Fund
(SF) and to determine a course of action to address current and anticipated gaps
between projected expenditures and revenues within the SF in the timeframe of
2010 through 2013. Specifically, the study session should result in direction from
the City Council on the following: 1) what alternative(s) will be utilized to eliminate
the projected gaps; 2) if multiple alternatives are selected, the extent each will
contribute toward eliminating the projected gaps; and 3) an annual tonnage target for
disposal at the City’s landfill. Staff will need this information to develop the 2011 SF
budget.
2. Sanitation Fund Components
The Sanitation Fund is comprised of the following programs: Solid Waste Collection,
Solid Waste Disposal, and Recycling. The Solid Waste Collection program provides
weekly curbside trash collection for each residential property up to four units in size
and also provided limited commercial waste collection at the curb (up to 90 gallons
each week). The Solid Waste Disposal program comprises the operation of the
City’s sanitary landfill. The landfill provides disposal service to both private and
municipal waste haulers, as well as individuals hauling their own wastes. All users
of the facility are charged fees, with the exception that Janesville residents may
dispose of up to 60 gallons of waste at no charge. Also provided adjacent to the
sanitary landfill is a clean-fill site for brush, brick, block, clean soils and
unpainted/untreated wood. All users of the clean-fill site are charged fees, with the
exception Janesville residents can dispose of brush waste at no charge. Finally, the
Recycling program includes curbside collection, yard waste collection and
composting, and provisions at the sanitary landfill for the recycling of tires,
appliances, metals and waste oil.
3. Current Sanitation Fund Business Model and Financial Projections
The current SF business model relies on a certain amount of waste being disposed
of at the landfill. Revenue from the disposal of this waste covers not only the cost of
owning, operating and post-closure care of the landfill, but also to wholly subsidize
non-landfill activities within the SF. These other activities either do not have their
2
own revenue sources (solid waste collection) or do not generate sufficient revenue
to offset expenditures (recycling and clean-fill site operations). Beginning in 2007,
the model was adjusted to utilize additional landfill revenue to provide a transfer of
funds from the SF to the General Fund (GF) ($450,000 in the 2010 budget). This
was accomplished by again increasing the tons of waste disposed. Landfill revenue
is almost entirely a function of the amount of waste accepted for disposal and the
rates charged for disposal.
In 2008, the SF realized a net income of approximately $930,000. At the end of
2008, the unreserved balance in the SF totaled approximately $2.7 million. There is
a reserved balance within the SF which is utilized for long term care of the
Superfund site. At the end of 2009, that reserved balance was approximately $1
million.
From 2008 to 2009, landfill tonnage decreased 24%, resulting in a significant
decrease in landfill revenue. The decrease in tonnage was related to both the local
and national economic downturn. SF net income in 2009 was negative, and the
unreserved balance within the SF was drawn down by approximately $737,000.
Further drawdown of reserves is anticipated in 2010 ($985,559).
It should be noted that the reduction in landfill tonnage and associated revenue does
not mean the landfill operation is not self-supporting. The current landfill fees,
tonnage and associated revenue are sufficient to offset the costs of owning,
operating and post-closure long-term care of the facility.
Table 1, Page 3, shows SF balance beginning 2008 with projections through 2013.
In developing projections, many assumptions were made. Among the most critical
assumptions are:
?
Current landfill disposal contracts and associated waste flows are extended
through 2013; note all current landfill contracts expire December 31, 2010;
?
Contract and gate rates increase 3% in 2011 with no increases thereafter;
?
The transfer from the SF to the GF is reduced over time and the projections
assume the final transfer will be made in 2013;
?
Revenue from solid waste collection fees is not included in 2010 estimated
revenue and beyond; $150,000 was included in the 2010 adopted budget;
?
Revenue from additional waste hauler contracts is not included in 2010
estimated revenue and beyond; $874,500 was included in the 2010 adopted
budget.
3
Table 1
Sanitation Fund Balance 2010 – 2013 Projected
2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual Actual Budget Estimated Projected Projected Projected
Operating Revenues:
Landfill Fees/Gas Revenue $5,794,979 $5,278,788 $7,110,500 $6,794,400 $6,907,986 $6,977,277 $7,047,739
Recyclable Material/Tire Fees 283,096 107,509 148,000 117,000 143,000 148,000 148,000
Recycling Grant 342,702 308,478 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000
Trash Collection Fee 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $6,420,777 $5,694,775 $7,729,500 $7,232,400 $7,371,986 $7,446,277 $7,516,739
Operating Expenditures:
Sanitary and Demolition Landfills 3,319,794 3,669,723 5,119,769 5,247,216 5,384,909 5,468,382 5,553,731
Solid Waste Collection 1,023,194 1,171,642 1,088,591 1,088,591 1,116,177 1,144,494 1,173,562
Recycling 664,627 797,214 831,699 804,729 836,256 853,783 871,794
Capital Outlay 595 41,420 14,550 44,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Subtotal 5,008,210 5,679,999 7,054,609 7,184,536 7,357,342 7,486,658 7,619,087
Gross Income (Loss) $1,412,567 $14,776 $674,891 $47,864 $14,644 ($40,381) ($102,348)
Transfers
DNR Escrow LTC Site 3039 (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000)
Transfer (To) or From General Fund (200,000) (400,000) (450,000) (450,000) (450,000) (300,000) (150,000)
Transfer for Debt Service 0 (64,268) (271,750) (266,894) (310,270) (486,943) (661,950)
Transfer to Superfund (from reserve) (55,757) (61,362) (90,529) (90,529) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000)
Total Transfers (481,757) (751,630) (1,038,279) (1,033,423) (1,066,270) (1,092,943) (1,117,950)
Net Income (Loss) $930,810 ($736,854) ($363,388) ($985,559) ($1,051,626) ($1,133,324) ($1,220,298)
Fund Balance Beg. Yr. $2,791,979 $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,985,935 $2,000,376 $948,750 ($184,574)
Fund Balance End Yr. $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,622,547 $2,000,376 $948,750 ($184,574) ($1,404,872)
Fund Balance December 31
Reserved for Superfund $1,015,095 $953,733 $863,204 $863,204 $783,204 $703,204 $623,204
Unreserved 2,707,695 2,032,202 1,759,343 1,137,172 165,546 (887,778) (2,028,076)
Landfill Tons 274,213 220,849 223,000 242,000 243,820 246,201 248,604
4
Some observations from Table 1:
?
The annual net loss in the SF is projected to be approximately $1.05 million in
2010, increasing to approximately $1.22 million by 2013;
?
By the end of 2012, the SF balance, as a whole, becomes negative and by the
end of 2013 is negative by approximately $1.4 million;
?
By the end of 2012, the SF unreserved balance becomes negative and by the
end of 2013 is negative by approximately $2 million.
4. Alternatives
The alternatives developed for inclusion in this report will be compared against the
projections and related assumptions used to develop Table 1, Page 3. In addition,
some alternatives will have significant impacts upon landfill tipping fees and landfill
site life projections (current landfill site only; excludes potential expansion areas),
which will be noted.
Alternatives developed for review can be placed into two categories: those which
enhance revenue and those which reduce expenditures. Income statements for
each alternative can be found in Appendices 1 and 2. Highlighted areas on these
income statements are intended to identify the primary areas influenced by each
alternative. Figures developed for these alternatives should be considered broad
estimates.
Alternatives Utilizing Expenditure Reductions
For purposes of illustration, these alternatives are assumed to be the sole
strategy to address the projected losses in the SF. That is, no other alternatives
would be implemented along with these alternatives.
Alternative 1: Close the Landfill Eliminating landfill operations by closing the
landfill dramatically increases the annual net loss within the SF during the
timeframe being reviewed. This occurs even without including cost increases
which would be realized in the solid waste collection program to haul and dispose
of waste at a different landfill. It is speculated tipping fees at private landfills
within the region would increase, perhaps significantly, if the City eliminates its
landfill operations. A balance sheet for this alternative is included in Appendix 1.
Alternative 2: Reduce Residential Trash Collection Service At the request
of some Councilmembers, two alternative collection strategies for trash and
recyclables, aimed at reducing collection costs, were examined: every-other-
week trash collection (EOW); and, one-side-of-street collection of both trash and
recyclables (OSOS). In 2009, a consultant was hired to examine these, and
other, collection strategies. The consultant determined annual cost savings of
5
approximately $305,000 for EOW collection of trash and approximately $239,000
for OSOS collection of trash and recyclables. Neither option completely
addresses the projected losses in the SF. Neither option affects landfill tipping
fees or site life. Both options would be seen by most residents as significant
service level reductions. Income statements for these alternatives are included
in Appendix 1.
Alternative 3: Eliminate Residential Trash Collection Service Eliminating
the City’s residential trash collection service would reduce annual expenditures
within the SF by over $1 million annually. This alternative would require each
resident to contract independently with a private waste hauler or haul material to
the landfill themselves. The City of Eau Claire has this form of trash collection
program. This type of system is less efficient than the current method of
collection since multiple waste haulers would likely be providing the service. For
example, each waste hauler providing service could travel down a particular
street in a given week if each had customers on that street.
Eliminating the City’s residential trash collection service balances the SF from
2011 through 2013. This assumes the current flow of landfill tonnage is
maintained through 2013, but does not consider any additional revenue the City
might realize if private waste haulers delivered waste, formerly collected by City
crews, to the City’s landfill. This alternative would require the City eliminate
approximately nine bargaining unit positions. Eliminating these positions quickly
through attrition would be very difficult. Under this option, the net cost of the
City’s recycling program continues to be subsidized by landfill revenues. This
option does not impact landfill tipping fees or site life. A balance sheet for this
alternative is included in Appendix 1.
Alternatives Enhancing Revenue
Alternative 4: Continue the Current Business Model This alternative would
continue to utilize landfill revenue to subsidize non-landfill activities within the SF.
To accomplish this, landfill tons would need to increase from the 2010 projected
tonnage of 242,000 tons to a minimum of 317,000 tons in 2011, and increasing
approximately 3% annually thereafter. This would need to be accomplished
through additional waste disposal contracts with private haulers. The major
assumption here is that landfill pricing increases 3% in 2011 and remains steady
thereafter. Staff believes additional waste contracts could be secured, but this is
not a given. This alternative decreases landfill life by approximately one to three
years from current projections, reaching capacity around 2016 or 2017. A
balance sheet for this alternative is included in Appendix 2.
Alternative 5: Increase Landfill Fees to Balance Fund Under this
alternative, landfill fees, rather than tons, would be increased in order to generate
sufficient revenue to subsidize non-landfill activities within the SF. For this
analysis, it is assumed all landfill users are charged the same rates. Three
separate scenarios were examined, relative to landfill waste flows: current waste
6
flows as used in Table 1 projections; a mid-range of 185,000 tons annually; and a
return to historical (pre-2007) waste flows of approximately 130,000 tons
annually.
The important aspect of these options is the impact of varying waste flows on
both the landfill fees and on landfill site life. Table 2, below, illustrates. A
balance sheet for each tonnage scenario is included in Appendix 2.
Table 2
Utilization of Landfill Fees to Balance Sanitation Fund
Landfill Fee Needed to Balance Fund and Impact on Landfill Site Life
(Current Landfill Tipping Fee is $28.90/Ton)
Fee Needed Estimated Landfill
To Balance* Closure Date**
Current Waste Flows (242,000 Tons) $ 33.00 2018/2019
Mid-Range Waste Flows (185,000 Tons) $ 40.00 2020/2021
Historical (pre-2005) Waste Flows (130,000 Tons) $ 53.55 2025/2026
*2011
**Current landfill only; does not include potential expansion areas
It should be noted that increasing fees can result in further decreases in landfill
tonnage. At some point (and this varies by market), fees can become high
enough to make it more economical for some waste haulers to transport waste to
a different landfill. Janesville has experienced this problem, first when the City of
Beloit chose to bring waste to a different landfill (which they continue to do) and
more recently (2009) when a moderately-sized local waste hauler opted to do the
same. This could indicate current contract and gate rates may be at or near
contract rates offered by other landfills in the area. It is important to distinguish
between contract rates and the public “gate rates” since there can be a
significant gap between the two, more so at private landfills.
Alternative 6: Increase Property Taxes to Balance Fund Under this
alternative, property taxes would be levied to essentially balance the SF. This
was the historical business model of the SF (prior to 2005) when the SF received
a subsidy from the GF. The amount levied under this alternative would equal the
projected annual net loss shown in Table 1. This totals approximately $1.05
million in 2011 increasing to approximately $1.2 million in 2013. For this
analysis, $1.1 million will be used to figure various impacts. This amount is
nearly equivalent to the annual cost of the solid waste collection program. So,
under this alternative, it could be said an equivalent to the net cost of the
7
recycling program remains subsidized by landfill revenue. A balance sheet for
this alternative is included in Appendix 2.
The impact of increasing the tax levy by $1.1 million would mean the owner of a
home with an average assessed value would see a tax increase of approximately
$35.75/year, a 4.4% increase.
There is approximately $640,000 of tax levy available from 2010 to carry over to
2011 under the state’s current levy limit regulations. If we assume a 3% levy limit
for 2011, the combined available tax levy increase available in 2011 is
approximately $1.5 million. The $1.1 million levy increase associated with
Alternative 3 consumes approximately 73% of the estimated available levy limit in
2011.
Under the state’s Expenditure Restraint Program (ERP), the City receives
additional state financial aid if annual tax levy increases are limited to certain
amounts. It is estimated the City may have an expenditure limit of approximately
$1,154,000 in 2011 to qualify for additional aid of $742,500 under the ERP. Any
expenditure increases over the limit disqualifies the City for this aid. A $1.1
million expenditure increase to balance the SF consumes nearly all available
expenditure increase allowed under ERP.
Alternative 7: Establish a User Fee for Trash Collection Charging residents a
separate fee to cover the City’s cost of residential trash collection and disposal is
another alternative. Section 5 of this report will outline various methods of
implementing fees. Charging fees sufficient to cover the cost of collection only
will result in a balanced SF. This assumes current waste flows are maintained
through 2013. Under this option, the net cost of the City’s recycling program
continues to be subsidized by landfill revenues. A balance sheet for this
alternative is included in Appendix 2.
Using 2011 projected collection costs and number of households serviced, the
monthly cost to each customer under this alternative would be approximately
$3.92, with annual costs totaling approximately $47.00. Again, these fees cover
only the cost of collection, not waste disposal.
A general note here for informational purposes. Because Janesville owns and
operates its own landfill, it does not charge “itself” a fee for disposal. The City
does, however, pay state fees, taxes and surcharges on the waste it collects and
disposes, currently totaling approximately $208,000 (approx. 16,000 tons of
waste @ $13.00/ton). This expenditure is included in the solid waste disposal
budget and there is no associated revenue source.
The Council could also consider a combination of alternatives.
8
5. Solid Waste Collection User Fee Options
There are two fee-based alternatives generally used by municipalities to pay for their
solid was collection costs: flat fee systems; and volume-based systems. Each of these
is discussed below. Weight-based systems are utilized in some communities but the
cost of these programs is, at this time, considerably higher than volume-based fee
systems. This is due primarily to the technology required to weigh each container being
collected and because a separate billing system is required since the amount billed
each period will vary with the weight collected. A weight-based system will not be
reviewed in this report.
First, some points about the cost of trash collection versus the cost of disposal and how
each could be viewed when establishing user fees.
The cost associated with the act of trash collection is comprised primarily of labor,
equipment (including wheeled carts for automated collection) and fuel costs. These
costs are not significantly influenced by small changes in the amount of waste each
customer generates but are reflective of the number of set-outs (the average number of
residents per route placing waste for collection each week) and route miles. Set-out
rates are generally consistent over time, and route miles change incrementally along
with City growth. Therefore, costs associated with the act of collection could be
considered primarily fixed. Collection costs comprise approximately 84% of the total
costs associated with collecting and disposing of the City’s residential waste.
To the customer, the variable cost of a collection and disposal operation is the cost of
disposal. The significance of this cost to the individual customer is determined by the
disposal rates at the landfill where the customer’s waste is disposed and the amount of
waste the customer generates. Currently for Janesville residents, by virtue of the City’s
landfill operations, disposal costs are very low ($208,000 as noted in Alternative 7).
Disposal costs comprise approximately 16% of the total costs associated with collecting
and disposing of the City’s residential waste.
The above figures change to 70% fixed costs and 30% variable costs if the City’s
residential waste is assessed the full landfill fee of $28.90/ton.
Should the Council choose to implement user fees, these two concepts (fixed cost of
collection; low variable cost of disposal) become important in determining what type of
fee to establish.
Flat Fee Systems Flat fee systems charge all residents the same, regardless
of the quantity of waste placed for collection or whether or not a resident uses the
program or to what extent. Flat fee systems are very equitable in capturing the
fixed costs of collection, but less equitable in capturing the variable costs of
disposal. Given the low cost of disposal in Janesville, this latter point may not be
of concern. Residents who may not use the collection service might view a flat
fee as inequitable. Revenue from this type of fee system is highly predictable
9
since all eligible users are charged the same. Most communities that implement
this type of system do so through the utility bill.
Volume-Based Systems These types of systems require users to pay for
collection and disposal services based upon the volume of waste they generate.
This is generally accomplished two ways: through pre-paid bags/tags/stickers
(hereinafter referred to only as “tags”) in a manual collection program; or through
a variable-rate subscription service generally utilizing wheeled carts and
automated or semi-automated collection equipment. Tag systems are easily
administered and require no additional capital investment, although there is an
additional cost for the tags. Automated, wheeled cart systems are generally
considered more customer-friendly than tag systems, but require significant
capital investments in specialized collection equipment and carts.
Both systems are seen by many as more equitable than flat-fee systems, but this
depends upon how the fixed costs of collection are recovered. If the combined
costs of collection and disposal are tied to the volume of waste a customer
generates, those having higher volume are then subsidizing the fixed cost of
collection for those having less volume. And, if all residents receive a number of
free tags every year (as proposed in the 2010 budget), there may be some
customers who do not pay for any of the fixed cost of collection. Some programs
address this by adopting a hybrid system where all customers are charged a flat
fee to cover the fixed cost of collection (generally through the utility bill) and the
cost of disposal is captured through the use of tags or, with automated collection,
through variable rates based on the volume of the cart the customer selects.
Revenue from tag systems can be unpredictable, and this could be particularly
so in Janesville due to the presence of the landfill. Currently, Janesville residents
are allowed to dispose of 60-gallons of waste at the landfill at no charge (per
visit). It is likely many residents will take advantage of this should a tag system
be implemented. And the higher the fee associated with the tag, the more likely
residents are to take waste to the landfill themselves. Revenue from automated
collection systems would be fairly predictable since the number and size of
wheeled carts each customer has would be known.
Often times, volume-based fee systems are implemented to also provide
incentive to customers to reduce waste generation and recycle more materials.
Another option to provide greater incentive to recycle is to implement a single-
stream collection program (single stream meaning all recyclables can be mixed
together, separate from trash). Such programs are generally associated with
automated collection of wheeled carts. Communities moving from dual-stream
collection (like Janesville’s) to single-stream generally experience increases in
the materials collected, due to the convenience of not having to separate
materials and having a single cart to wheel to the curb. However, this type of
program requires significant capital investment for wheeled carts and automated
collection equipment.
10
For informational purposes, all of the City’s collection vehicles for recyclables are
scheduled for replacement in 2011. Replacing these vehicles with automated
collection equipment would require approximately $400,000 additional capital –
above current vehicle costs. Costs for the purchase and distribution of wheeled
carts would be approximately $1.5 million.
City Manager Recommendation:
Staff is seeking direction on a way to resolve the financial gap occurring in the
Sanitation Fund while balancing it with environmental aspects. I believe when
you evaluate the options there are three basic options I see with variances to
each option.
1. The Council could look to increase revenues through a combination of
increased fees and additional marketing for waste.
Positives of this approach would be to maintain limited financial impact on
residents. However, the negative of this approach would be either
continuing short-falls if an increase in fees resulted in a reduction in waste
and/or an increase in waste would have a net effective of reducing the life
span of the landfill.
2. The Council could look to initiate a charge for residential solid waste
collection.
Positives of this approach would be that this approach would limit the
need for future (although not eliminate) outside waste coming into the
landfill. However, the negative of this approach is that in whatever form it
takes, it would initiate a user charge that residents have not previously
been required to pay.
3. The Council could look at an alternative of looking at long term approach
of getting out of the landfill business.
Positives of this approach is that it would limit future environmental
impacts. However, the negatives are that the costs to residents is
currently unknown and the operational costs would increase.
11
Appendix 1
Alternatives Utilizing Expenditure Reductions
12
Alternative 1: Close the Landfill
2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual Actual Budget Estimated Projected Projected Projected
Operating Revenues:
Landfill Fees/Gas Revenue $5,794,979 $5,278,788 $7,110,500 $6,794,400 $110,000 $116,000 $122,600
Recyclable Material/Tire Fees 283,096 107,509 148,000 117,000 143,000 148,000 148,000
Recycling Grant 342,702 308,478 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000
Trash Collection Fee 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $6,420,777 $5,694,775 $7,729,500 $7,232,400 $574,000 $585,000 $591,600
Operating Expenditures:
Sanitary and Demolition Landfills 3,319,794 3,669,723 5,119,769 5,247,216 142,404 145,547 148,771
Solid Waste Collection 1,023,194 1,171,642 1,088,591 1,088,591 1,116,177 1,144,494 1,173,562
Recycling 664,627 797,214 831,699 804,729 836,256 853,783 871,794
Capital Outlay 595 41,420 14,550 44,000 0 0 0
Subtotal 5,008,210 5,679,999 7,054,609 7,184,536 2,094,837 2,143,824 2,194,127
Gross Income (Loss) $1,412,567 $14,776 $674,891 $47,864 ($1,520,837) ($1,558,824) ($1,602,527)
Transfers
DNR Escrow LTC Site 3039 (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) 0 0
Transfer (To) or From General Fund (200,000) (400,000) (450,000) (450,000) (450,000) (300,000) (150,000)
Transfer for Debt Service 0 (64,268) (271,750) (266,894) (310,270) (486,943) (486,943)
Transfer to Superfund (from reserve) (55,757) (61,362) (90,529) (90,529) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000)
Total Transfers (481,757) (751,630) (1,038,279) (1,033,423) (1,066,270) (866,943) (716,943)
Net Income (Loss) $930,810 ($736,854) ($363,388) ($985,559) ($2,587,107) ($2,425,767) ($2,319,470)
Fund Balance Beg. Yr. $2,791,979 $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,985,935 $2,000,376 ($586,731) ($3,012,499)
Fund Balance End Yr. $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,622,547 $2,000,376 ($586,731) ($3,012,499) ($5,331,968)
Fund Balance December 31
Reserved for Superfund $1,015,095 $953,733 $863,204 $863,204 $783,204 $703,204 $623,204
Unreserved 2,707,695 2,032,202 1,759,343 1,137,172 (1,369,935) (3,715,703) (5,955,172)
Landfill Tons 274,213 220,849 223,000 242,000 - - -
13
Alternative 2-A: Every-Other-Week Trash Collection
2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual Actual Budget Estimated Projected Projected Projected
Operating Revenues:
Landfill Fees/Gas Revenue $5,794,979 $5,278,788 $7,110,500 $6,794,400 $6,907,986 $6,977,277 $7,047,739
Recyclable Material/Tire Fees 283,096 107,509 148,000 117,000 143,000 148,000 148,000
Recycling Grant 342,702 308,478 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000
Trash Collection Fee 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $6,420,777 $5,694,775 $7,729,500 $7,232,400 $7,371,986 $7,446,277 $7,516,739
Operating Expenditures:
Sanitary and Demolition Landfills 3,319,794 3,669,723 5,119,769 5,247,216 5,384,909 5,468,382 5,553,731
Solid Waste Collection 1,023,194 1,171,642 1,088,591 1,088,591 811,177 830,344 849,987
Recycling 664,627 797,214 831,699 804,729 836,256 853,783 871,794
Capital Outlay 595 41,420 14,550 44,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Subtotal 5,008,210 5,679,999 7,054,609 7,184,536 7,052,342 7,172,508 7,295,512
Gross Income (Loss) $1,412,567 $14,776 $674,891 $47,864 $319,644 $273,769 $221,227
Transfers
DNR Escrow LTC Site 3039 (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000)
Transfer (To) or From General Fund (200,000) (400,000) (450,000) (450,000) (450,000) (300,000) (150,000)
Transfer for Debt Service 0 (64,268) (271,750) (266,894) (310,270) (486,943) (661,950)
Transfer to Superfund (from reserve) (55,757) (61,362) (90,529) (90,529) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000)
Total Transfers (481,757) (751,630) (1,038,279) (1,033,423) (1,066,270) (1,092,943) (1,117,950)
Net Income (Loss) $930,810 ($736,854) ($363,388) ($985,559) ($746,626) ($819,174) ($896,723)
Fund Balance Beg. Yr. $2,791,979 $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,985,935 $2,000,376 $1,253,750 $434,576
Fund Balance End Yr. $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,622,547 $2,000,376 $1,253,750 $434,576 ($462,147)
Fund Balance December 31
Reserved for Superfund $1,015,095 $953,733 $863,204 $863,204 $783,204 $703,204 $623,204
Unreserved 2,707,695 2,032,202 1,759,343 1,137,172 470,546 (268,628) (1,085,351)
Landfill Tons 274,213 220,849 223,000 242,000 243,820 246,201 248,604
14
Alternative 2 - B: One-Side-of-Street Collection
2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual Actual Budget Estimated Projected Projected Projected
Operating Revenues:
Landfill Fees/Gas Revenue $5,794,979 $5,278,788 $7,110,500 $6,794,400 $6,907,986 $6,977,277 $7,047,739
Recyclable Material/Tire Fees 283,096 107,509 148,000 117,000 143,000 148,000 148,000
Recycling Grant 342,702 308,478 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000
Trash Collection Fee 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $6,420,777 $5,694,775 $7,729,500 $7,232,400 $7,371,986 $7,446,277 $7,516,739
Operating Expenditures:
Sanitary and Demolition Landfills 3,319,794 3,669,723 5,119,769 5,247,216 5,384,909 5,468,382 5,553,731
Solid Waste Collection 1,023,194 1,171,642 1,088,591 1,088,591 877,177 898,324 920,007
Recycling 664,627 797,214 831,699 804,729 836,256 853,783 871,794
Capital Outlay 595 41,420 14,550 44,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Subtotal 5,008,210 5,679,999 7,054,609 7,184,536 7,118,342 7,240,488 7,365,531
Gross Income (Loss) $1,412,567 $14,776 $674,891 $47,864 $253,644 $205,789 $151,208
Transfers
DNR Escrow LTC Site 3039 (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000)
Transfer (To) or From General Fund (200,000) (400,000) (450,000) (450,000) (450,000) (300,000) (150,000)
Transfer for Debt Service 0 (64,268) (271,750) (266,894) (310,270) (486,943) (661,950)
Transfer to Superfund (from reserve) (55,757) (61,362) (90,529) (90,529) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000)
Total Transfers (481,757) (751,630) (1,038,279) (1,033,423) (1,066,270) (1,092,943) (1,117,950)
Net Income (Loss) $930,810 ($736,854) ($363,388) ($985,559) ($812,626) ($887,154) ($966,742)
Fund Balance Beg. Yr. $2,791,979 $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,985,935 $2,000,376 $1,187,750 $300,596
Fund Balance End Yr. $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,622,547 $2,000,376 $1,187,750 $300,596 ($666,147)
Fund Balance December 31
Reserved for Superfund $1,015,095 $953,733 $863,204 $863,204 $783,204 $703,204 $623,204
Unreserved 2,707,695 2,032,202 1,759,343 1,137,172 404,546 (402,608) (1,289,351)
Landfill Tons 274,213 220,849 223,000 242,000 243,820 246,201 248,604
15
Alternative 3: Eliminate Residential Trash Collection
2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual Actual Budget Estimated Projected Projected Projected
Operating Revenues:
Landfill Fees/Gas Revenue $5,794,979 $5,278,788 $7,110,500 $6,794,400 $6,907,986 $6,977,277 $7,047,739
Recyclable Material/Tire Fees 283,096 107,509 148,000 117,000 143,000 148,000 148,000
Recycling Grant 342,702 308,478 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000
Trash Collection Fee 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $6,420,777 $5,694,775 $7,729,500 $7,232,400 $7,371,986 $7,446,277 $7,516,739
Operating Expenditures:
Sanitary and Demolition Landfills 3,319,794 3,669,723 5,119,769 5,247,216 5,384,909 5,468,382 5,553,731
Solid Waste Collection 1,023,194 1,171,642 1,088,591 1,088,591 0 0 0
Recycling 664,627 797,214 831,699 804,729 836,256 853,783 871,794
Capital Outlay 595 41,420 14,550 44,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Subtotal 5,008,210 5,679,999 7,054,609 7,184,536 6,241,165 6,342,165 6,445,525
Gross Income (Loss) $1,412,567 $14,776 $674,891 $47,864 $1,130,821 $1,104,112 $1,071,214
Transfers
DNR Escrow LTC Site 3039 (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000)
Transfer (To) or From General Fund (200,000) (400,000) (450,000) (450,000) (450,000) (300,000) (150,000)
Transfer for Debt Service 0 (64,268) (271,750) (266,894) (310,270) (486,943) (661,950)
Transfer to Superfund (from reserve) (55,757) (61,362) (90,529) (90,529) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000)
Total Transfers (481,757) (751,630) (1,038,279) (1,033,423) (1,066,270) (1,092,943) (1,117,950)
Net Income (Loss) $930,810 ($736,854) ($363,388) ($985,559) $64,551 $11,169 ($46,736)
Fund Balance Beg. Yr. $2,791,979 $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,985,935 $2,000,376 $2,064,927 $2,076,096
Fund Balance End Yr. $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,622,547 $2,000,376 $2,064,927 $2,076,096 $2,029,360
Fund Balance December 31
Reserved for Superfund $1,015,095 $953,733 $863,204 $863,204 $783,204 $703,204 $623,204
Unreserved 2,707,695 2,032,202 1,759,343 1,137,172 1,281,723 1,372,892 1,406,156
Landfill Tons 274,213 220,849 223,000 242,000 243,820 246,201 248,604
16
Appendix 2
Alternatives Utilizing Revenue Enhancements
17
Alternative 4: Continue Current Business Model
2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual Actual Budget Estimated Projected Projected Projected
Operating Revenues:
Landfill Fees/Gas Revenue $5,794,979 $5,278,788 $7,110,500 $6,794,400 $8,848,896 $9,103,665 $9,366,554
Recyclable Material/Tire Fees 283,096 107,509 148,000 117,000 143,000 148,000 148,000
Recycling Grant 342,702 308,478 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000
Trash Collection Fee 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $6,420,777 $5,694,775 $7,729,500 $7,232,400 $9,312,896 $9,572,665 $9,835,554
Operating Expenditures:
Sanitary and Demolition Landfills 3,319,794 3,669,723 5,119,769 5,247,216 6,334,728 6,508,876 6,688,293
Solid Waste Collection 1,023,194 1,171,642 1,088,591 1,088,591 1,116,177 1,144,494 1,173,562
Recycling 664,627 797,214 831,699 804,729 836,256 853,783 871,794
Capital Outlay 595 41,420 14,550 44,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Subtotal 5,008,210 5,679,999 7,054,609 7,184,536 8,307,161 8,527,152 8,753,649
Gross Income (Loss) $1,412,567 $14,776 $674,891 $47,864 $1,005,735 $1,045,513 $1,081,905
Transfers
DNR Escrow LTC Site 3039 (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000)
Transfer (To) or From General Fund (200,000) (400,000) (450,000) (450,000) (450,000) (300,000) (150,000)
Transfer for Debt Service 0 (64,268) (271,750) (266,894) (310,270) (486,943) (661,950)
Transfer to Superfund (from reserve) (55,757) (61,362) (90,529) (90,529) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000)
Total Transfers (481,757) (751,630) (1,038,279) (1,033,423) (1,066,270) (1,092,943) (1,117,950)
Net Income (Loss) $930,810 ($736,854) ($363,388) ($985,559) ($60,535) ($47,430) ($36,045)
Fund Balance Beg. Yr. $2,791,979 $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,985,935 $2,000,376 $1,939,841 $1,892,411
Fund Balance End Yr. $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,622,547 $2,000,376 $1,939,841 $1,892,411 $1,856,366
Fund Balance December 31
Reserved for Superfund $1,015,095 $953,733 $863,204 $863,204 $783,204 $703,204 $623,204
Unreserved 2,707,695 2,032,202 1,759,343 1,137,172 1,156,637 1,189,207 1,233,162
Landfill Tons 274,213 220,849 223,000 242,000 316,883 326,239 335,878
18
Alternative 5 - A: Increase Landfill Fees 14% - Current Landfill Tons
2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual Actual Budget Estimated Projected Projected Projected
Operating Revenues:
Landfill Fees/Gas Revenue $5,794,979 $5,278,788 $7,110,500 $6,794,400 $7,880,589 $8,050,255 $8,223,822
Recyclable Material/Tire Fees 283,096 107,509 148,000 117,000 143,000 148,000 148,000
Recycling Grant 342,702 308,478 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000
Trash Collection Fee 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $6,420,777 $5,694,775 $7,729,500 $7,232,400 $8,344,589 $8,519,255 $8,692,822
Operating Expenditures:
Sanitary and Demolition Landfills 3,319,794 3,669,723 5,119,769 5,247,216 5,384,909 5,468,382 5,553,731
Solid Waste Collection 1,023,194 1,171,642 1,088,591 1,088,591 1,116,177 1,144,494 1,173,562
Recycling 664,627 797,214 831,699 804,729 836,256 853,783 871,794
Capital Outlay 595 41,420 14,550 44,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Subtotal 5,008,210 5,679,999 7,054,609 7,184,536 7,357,342 7,486,658 7,619,087
Gross Income (Loss) $1,412,567 $14,776 $674,891 $47,864 $987,247 $1,032,597 $1,073,735
Transfers
DNR Escrow LTC Site 3039 (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000)
Transfer (To) or From General Fund (200,000) (400,000) (450,000) (450,000) (450,000) (300,000) (150,000)
Transfer for Debt Service 0 (64,268) (271,750) (266,894) (310,270) (486,943) (661,950)
Transfer to Superfund (from reserve) (55,757) (61,362) (90,529) (90,529) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000)
Total Transfers (481,757) (751,630) (1,038,279) (1,033,423) (1,066,270) (1,092,943) (1,117,950)
Net Income (Loss) $930,810 ($736,854) ($363,388) ($985,559) ($79,023) ($60,346) ($44,215)
Fund Balance Beg. Yr. $2,791,979 $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,985,935 $2,000,376 $1,921,353 $1,861,007
Fund Balance End Yr. $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,622,547 $2,000,376 $1,921,353 $1,861,007 $1,816,792
Fund Balance December 31
Reserved for Superfund $1,015,095 $953,733 $863,204 $863,204 $783,204 $703,204 $623,204
Unreserved 2,707,695 2,032,202 1,759,343 1,137,172 1,138,149 1,157,803 1,193,588
Landfill Tons 274,213 220,849 223,000 242,000 243,820 246,201 248,604
19
Alternative 5 - B: Increase Landfill Fees 38% - 185,000 Landfill Tons
2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual Actual Budget Estimated Projected Projected Projected
Operating Revenues:
Landfill Fees/Gas Revenue $5,794,979 $5,278,788 $7,110,500 $6,794,400 $7,104,177 $7,265,519 $7,429,583
Recyclable Material/Tire Fees 283,096 107,509 148,000 117,000 143,000 148,000 148,000
Recycling Grant 342,702 308,478 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000
Trash Collection Fee 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $6,420,777 $5,694,775 $7,729,500 $7,232,400 $7,568,177 $7,734,519 $7,898,583
Operating Expenditures:
Sanitary and Demolition Landfills 3,319,794 3,669,723 5,119,769 5,247,216 4,621,679 4,697,508 4,775,148
Solid Waste Collection 1,023,194 1,171,642 1,088,591 1,088,591 1,116,177 1,144,494 1,173,562
Recycling 664,627 797,214 831,699 804,729 836,256 853,783 871,794
Capital Outlay 595 41,420 14,550 44,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Subtotal 5,008,210 5,679,999 7,054,609 7,184,536 6,594,112 6,715,784 6,840,504
Gross Income (Loss) $1,412,567 $14,776 $674,891 $47,864 $974,065 $1,018,735 $1,058,079
Transfers
DNR Escrow LTC Site 3039 (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000)
Transfer (To) or From General Fund (200,000) (400,000) (450,000) (450,000) (450,000) (300,000) (150,000)
Transfer for Debt Service 0 (64,268) (271,750) (266,894) (310,270) (486,943) (661,950)
Transfer to Superfund (from reserve) (55,757) (61,362) (90,529) (90,529) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000)
Total Transfers (481,757) (751,630) (1,038,279) (1,033,423) (1,066,270) (1,092,943) (1,117,950)
Net Income (Loss) $930,810 ($736,854) ($363,388) ($985,559) ($92,205) ($74,208) ($59,871)
Fund Balance Beg. Yr. $2,791,979 $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,985,935 $2,000,376 $1,908,171 $1,833,963
Fund Balance End Yr. $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,622,547 $2,000,376 $1,908,171 $1,833,963 $1,774,092
Fund Balance December 31
Reserved for Superfund $1,015,095 $953,733 $863,204 $863,204 $783,204 $703,204 $623,204
Unreserved 2,707,695 2,032,202 1,759,343 1,137,172 1,124,967 1,130,759 1,150,888
Landfill Tons 274,213 220,849 223,000 242,000 185,110 186,903 188,713
20
Alternative 5 - C: Increase Landfill Fees 85% - 130,000 Tons
2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual Actual Budget Estimated Projected Projected Projected
Operating Revenues:
Landfill Fees/Gas Revenue $5,794,979 $5,278,788 $7,110,500 $6,794,400 $6,404,745 $6,558,799 $6,715,080
Recyclable Material/Tire Fees 283,096 107,509 148,000 117,000 143,000 148,000 148,000
Recycling Grant 342,702 308,478 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000
Trash Collection Fee 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $6,420,777 $5,694,775 $7,729,500 $7,232,400 $6,868,745 $7,027,799 $7,184,080
Operating Expenditures:
Sanitary and Demolition Landfills 3,319,794 3,669,723 5,119,769 5,247,216 3,906,679 3,975,358 4,045,783
Solid Waste Collection 1,023,194 1,171,642 1,088,591 1,088,591 1,116,177 1,144,494 1,173,562
Recycling 664,627 797,214 831,699 804,729 836,256 853,783 871,794
Capital Outlay 595 41,420 14,550 44,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Subtotal 5,008,210 5,679,999 7,054,609 7,184,536 5,879,112 5,993,634 6,111,139
Gross Income (Loss) $1,412,567 $14,776 $674,891 $47,864 $989,633 $1,034,165 $1,072,941
Transfers
DNR Escrow LTC Site 3039 (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000)
Transfer (To) or From General Fund (200,000) (400,000) (450,000) (450,000) (450,000) (300,000) (150,000)
Transfer for Debt Service 0 (64,268) (271,750) (266,894) (310,270) (486,943) (661,950)
Transfer to Superfund (from reserve) (55,757) (61,362) (90,529) (90,529) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000)
Total Transfers (481,757) (751,630) (1,038,279) (1,033,423) (1,066,270) (1,092,943) (1,117,950)
Net Income (Loss) $930,810 ($736,854) ($363,388) ($985,559) ($76,637) ($58,778) ($45,009)
Fund Balance Beg. Yr. $2,791,979 $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,985,935 $2,000,376 $1,923,739 $1,864,961
Fund Balance End Yr. $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,622,547 $2,000,376 $1,923,739 $1,864,961 $1,819,952
Fund Balance December 31
Reserved for Superfund $1,015,095 $953,733 $863,204 $863,204 $783,204 $703,204 $623,204
Unreserved 2,707,695 2,032,202 1,759,343 1,137,172 1,140,535 1,161,757 1,196,748
Landfill Tons 274,213 220,849 223,000 242,000 130,110 131,353 132,608
21
Alternative 6: Increase Property Taxes to Balance Fund
2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual Actual Budget Estimated Projected Projected Projected
Operating Revenues:
Landfill Fees/Gas Revenue $5,794,979 $5,278,788 $7,110,500 $6,794,400 $6,907,986 $6,977,277 $7,047,739
Recyclable Material/Tire Fees 283,096 107,509 148,000 117,000 143,000 148,000 148,000
Recycling Grant 342,702 308,478 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000
Trash Collection Fee 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0
Subtotal $6,420,777 $5,694,775 $7,729,500 $7,232,400 $7,371,986 $7,446,277 $7,516,739
Operating Expenditures:
Sanitary and Demolition Landfills 3,319,794 3,669,723 5,119,769 5,247,216 5,384,909 5,468,382 5,553,731
Solid Waste Collection 1,023,194 1,171,642 1,088,591 1,088,591 1,116,177 1,144,494 1,173,562
Recycling 664,627 797,214 831,699 804,729 836,256 853,783 871,794
Capital Outlay 595 41,420 14,550 44,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Subtotal 5,008,210 5,679,999 7,054,609 7,184,536 7,357,342 7,486,658 7,619,087
Gross Income (Loss) $1,412,567 $14,776 $674,891 $47,864 $14,644 ($40,381) ($102,348)
Transfers
DNR Escrow LTC Site 3039 (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000)
Transfer (To) or From General Fund (200,000) (400,000) (450,000) (450,000) 650,000 800,000 950,000
Transfer for Debt Service 0 (64,268) (271,750) (266,894) (310,270) (486,943) (661,950)
Transfer to Superfund (from reserve) (55,757) (61,362) (90,529) (90,529) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000)
Total Transfers (481,757) (751,630) (1,038,279) (1,033,423) 33,730 7,057 (17,950)
Net Income (Loss) $930,810 ($736,854) ($363,388) ($985,559) $48,374 ($33,324) ($120,298)
Fund Balance Beg. Yr. $2,791,979 $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,985,935 $2,000,376 $2,048,750 $2,015,426
Fund Balance End Yr. $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,622,547 $2,000,376 $2,048,750 $2,015,426 $1,895,128
Fund Balance December 31
Reserved for Superfund $1,015,095 $953,733 $863,204 $863,204 $783,204 $703,204 $623,204
Unreserved 2,707,695 2,032,202 1,759,343 1,137,172 1,265,546 1,312,222 1,271,924
Landfill Tons 274,213 220,849 223,000 242,000 243,820 246,201 248,604
22
Alternative 7: Establish User Fee For Trash Collection
2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual Actual Budget Estimated Projected Projected Projected
Operating Revenues:
Landfill Fees/Gas Revenue $5,794,979 $5,278,788 $7,110,500 $6,794,400 $6,907,986 $6,977,277 $7,047,739
Recyclable Material/Tire Fees 283,096 107,509 148,000 117,000 143,000 148,000 148,000
Recycling Grant 342,702 308,478 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000
Trash Collection Fee 0 0 150,000 0 1,116,177 1,144,494 1,173,562
Subtotal $6,420,777 $5,694,775 $7,729,500 $7,232,400 $8,488,163 $8,590,771 $8,690,301
Operating Expenditures:
Sanitary and Demolition Landfills 3,319,794 3,669,723 5,119,769 5,247,216 5,384,909 5,468,382 5,553,731
Solid Waste Collection 1,023,194 1,171,642 1,088,591 1,088,591 1,116,177 1,144,494 1,173,562
Recycling 664,627 797,214 831,699 804,729 836,256 853,783 871,794
Capital Outlay 595 41,420 14,550 44,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Subtotal 5,008,210 5,679,999 7,054,609 7,184,536 7,357,342 7,486,658 7,619,087
Gross Income (Loss) $1,412,567 $14,776 $674,891 $47,864 $1,130,821 $1,104,112 $1,071,214
Transfers
DNR Escrow LTC Site 3039 (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000)
Transfer (To) or From General Fund (200,000) (400,000) (450,000) (450,000) (450,000) (300,000) (150,000)
Transfer for Debt Service 0 (64,268) (271,750) (266,894) (310,270) (486,943) (661,950)
Transfer to Superfund (from reserve) (55,757) (61,362) (90,529) (90,529) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000)
Total Transfers (481,757) (751,630) (1,038,279) (1,033,423) (1,066,270) (1,092,943) (1,117,950)
Net Income (Loss) $930,810 ($736,854) ($363,388) ($985,559) $64,551 $11,169 ($46,736)
Fund Balance Beg. Yr. $2,791,979 $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,985,935 $2,000,376 $2,064,927 $2,076,096
Fund Balance End Yr. $3,722,789 $2,985,935 $2,622,547 $2,000,376 $2,064,927 $2,076,096 $2,029,360
Fund Balance December 31
Reserved for Superfund $1,015,095 $953,733 $863,204 $863,204 $783,204 $703,204 $623,204
Unreserved 2,707,695 2,032,202 1,759,343 1,137,172 1,281,723 1,372,892 1,406,156