Loading...
Sanitation Fund Study Document - August 20101 Sanitation Fund Study Session – Follow-Up Report August 9, 2010 1. Introduction On May 25, 2010, the City Council held a study session examining Sanitation Fund finances and activity levels. The study session was conducted to determine a course of action to address current and anticipated gaps between projected expenditures and revenues within the SF from 2010 through 2013. Projections contained in the document prepared for that study session project annual net income losses between approximately $1 million and $1.2 million annually during this timeframe. From the previous study session, several items were identified by the Council for further review. Those items were: ? Implementation of a trash collection user fee; ? Evaluation of single-stream collection of recyclables; ? Evaluation of a more formal residency verification system for customers of the City’s waste disposal facilities; ? A more thorough review of every-other-week trash collection; ? Evaluation of strategies to decrease the amount of waste accepted for disposal at the City’s sanitary landfill. These will be discussed, in order, in the remainder of this report. Materials developed for the May 25, 2010 Sanitation Fund study session will be referenced. 2. Trash Collection User Fee At the previous study session, some Councilmembers expressed a desire to establish a trash collection user fee to address the projected gap between expenditures and revenues. Materials prepared for that study session reviewed various user fee alternatives, and also examined the concepts of fixed versus variable costs of collection/disposal and how those concepts relate to each of the user fee alternatives. Approximately 84% of annual expenditures related to the City’s trash collection and disposal service reflect the costs for collection (2011 projected costs of $1,116,177). As noted in the prior study session materials, these costs are essentially fixed and are not influenced by small changes in the amount of waste placed for collection. 2 Staff Recommendation: If Council supports implementation of a trash collection user fee, staff recommends a flat user fee be established to recover these costs. The fee required to generate sufficient revenue to recover the entire cost of collection is estimated at $1,116,177 in 2011. The one major benefit of a volume or user based fee per bag would be that it could be utilized in a way to encourage recycling. However, a flat fee is currently recommended. Approximately 16% of annual expenditures related to the City’s trash collection and disposal program reflect actual expenditures for disposal (approximately $208,000). Recovering only disposal costs through a per-bag payment system was reviewed for illustrative purposes. Even assuming a low average of two bags placed for collection per household per week, the variable cost per bag of trash is approximately $.088 (this drops to $.056 per bag using an average of three bags per household per week). Requiring residents to purchase special bags/tags/stickers at this low cost is unlikely to influence the amount of trash placed for collection. Staff Recommendation: include disposal expenditures in the calculation of the flat user fee. This will generate approximately $208,000 of revenue in 2011. Combined, the user fee for trash collection and disposal will generate revenue estimated at $1,324,177 in 2011. Based on this cost, the estimated monthly fee per household is $4.65 ($13.95/quarter; $55.80 per year). This is based on an estimated 23,700 households receiving service. The number of households was last field verified in 1993. Current estimates are based upon the 1993 field verification plus annual residential building permits issued by the City. The City Manager recommends that the implementation of a fee begin with initiating a $10 fee per quarter per household. Implementation of a user fee will require subsequent Council action for incorporation into City Ordinance. The City also currently allows business to place up to 90 gallons of waste at the curb each week for collection by City crews. Staff does not have a record of how many businesses take advantage of this service, but it is relatively low. Staff Recommendation: continue to offer businesses waste collection service for up to 90-gallons per week and require they subscribe to this service and pay the established residential per-parcel unit cost. This will generate a currently unknown amount of additional revenue which is not expected to be significant. 3. Single-Stream Collection of Recyclables 3 Currently, the City collects recyclables in a dual-stream fashion, requiring customers to separate paper items from glass, plastic, aluminum and steel containers. Moving to a single-stream collection system would allow customers to place all recyclables for collection mixed together – that is, paper items would no longer need to be separated from containers. Such systems generally have greater participation and recovery rates because they are more convenient to the customer. It is likely Janesville residents would consider single-stream collection a service level improvement. Converting to single stream collection will also increase the cost of processing recyclables. Currently, the City pays processing costs of $30/ton for paper items and $70/ton for containers. Over the past several years, revenue from the sale of materials has been greater than the cost to process, resulting in net positive revenue to the City. The amount of revenue varies and depends upon global market conditions. The City has, in the past, realized net negative revenue as a result of depressed markets for recyclable materials. Under its current contract with the vendor who processes and markets the City’s recyclables (Waste Management), the City has the option of converting to single stream collection. This would result in processing costs of $70/ton for all materials. Given that paper materials represent about 55% of total materials, by weight, this has a significant impact on total processing costs. Staff looked at net revenue from the sale of recyclables from January through June 2010, and retroactively calculated single-stream processing costs for all materials collected in that same period. This resulted in net revenue to the City being reduced from approximately $54,000 (actual net revenue) to approximately $14,000, a decrease of $40,000 (approximately $80,000 annualized). The analysis showed that even significant increases in the amount of material collected have a very small impact on this difference. For example, an increase of 20% in the amount of material collected resulted in calculated net revenue of approximately $16,000 from January through June 2010 (as compared to the $14,000 when actual tonnage is used). A 20% increase in recyclables being collected would have also reduced landfill disposal costs by approximately $10,000. It should be noted that market conditions for the period January through June 2010 could be described as modest. Should the Council opt to convert to single-stream collection, a conversion to automated cart collection should be reviewed. Review now is timely because all of the City’s vehicles for the collection of recyclables are scheduled for replacement in 2011. Such programs generally see improvements in participation and materials recovery, although these vary and are not predictable. As described in the previous study session materials, conversion to automated, single-stream collection of recyclables would require approximately $400,000 in additional capital due to higher equipment costs, and an approximate $1.5 million in capital for the purchase and distribution of wheeled carts. The issue of decreased net revenue under single- 4 stream collection is not dependent upon the method of collection (automated or manual). Staff Recommendation: It is the goal of staff and the City Manager to eventually convert to a single-stream recycling program due to the environmental benefits of increasing the recycling quantity. However, given the current overall financial performance of the Sanitation Fund, the current dual-stream recycling program should be maintained to maximize net revenue from the sale of recyclables in the upcoming year. Conversion to single- stream should be periodically re-evaluated. While automated cart collection of recyclables would likely be seen by residents as a significant service level improvement, the capital costs to convert to this system of collection appear prohibitive. 4. Residency Verification System Some Councilmembers expressed concern at the initial study session about the process of verifying the residency of customers using the City’s disposal facilities. The concern specifically relates to non-City residents potentially taking advantage of three “no charge” services available only to City residents: disposal of up to 60 gallons of waste at the sanitary landfill; use of the composting facility to drop off materials and remove finished compost; and, disposal of brush waste. The Councilmembers asked staff to look at a system utilizing vehicle stickers when a customer has once verified residency. Prior to about 1992, residents were required to obtain a free sticker to place on the windshield of their vehicle to expedite verification of residency at the sanitary landfill. Residents verified their residency one time, and completed a form to record name, address and vehicle(s) license number(s). The form was cross-referenced with a number on the sticker(s) issued the resident. Unfortunately, this system became administratively burdensome and did not prevent abuse of privileges extended only to residents. The program was eliminated sometime prior to 1992 and verification since then has been accomplished by viewing a customer’s driver’s license or other document such as a tax bill. Staff Recommendation: Maintain the current residency verification system. This should not be construed to mean each customer will have residency checked each time they enter the landfill. Attendants will maintain discretion in this regard for customers they have themselves prior verified as being a resident. However, even these customers will be required to periodically confirm residency. 5. Every-Other-Week Trash Collection At the prior study session, all but one Councilmember expressed interest in further examining every-other-week (EOW) trash collection service. Materials prepared for that study session stated the estimated cost savings to move to such a system 5 would be approximately $305,000. This figure was based on a consultant study completed in 2009. Upon a more detailed analysis, staff has verified this level of savings may be attained. This would be accomplished by scheduling trash collection to coincide with the collection of recyclables – which is currently EOW. The estimated savings of $305,000 is a cost reduction of about 22% compared to weekly service (2009 actual costs). Based upon the per-household costs for weekly trash collection developed in Section 2 of this report ($4.65 per household per month), EOW trash collection results in a cost savings of $1.02per household per month. Staff believes most customers will perceive a change to EOW trash collection as a major decrease in service level which is not commensurate with the expected savings. That is, while the service is being reduced by 50%, the estimated savings is 22%. In addition: ? Most communities that have EOW trash collection have separate, weekly collection of organics (food; yard waste) which greatly reduces the potential for odors to develop in the trash; ? Storing larger amounts of waste for a longer period of time could present health and sanitation issues for customers generating larger amounts of waste; ? For customers who miss a collection event (for whatever reason), they must wait another two weeks for the next collection event; ? Flint, MI attempted EOW trash collection and, within a few months after implementation, reverted back to weekly collection due to significant customer dissatisfaction. Staff Recommendation: Maintain the current, weekly collection schedule for trash collection. 5. Decrease Amount of Waste Accepted For Disposal At the previous study session, most Councilmembers expressed a desire to reduce the amount of waste accepted for disposal at the City’s sanitary landfill. This was to extend the life of the operating facility and any future expansion areas. Staff supported this concept because maintaining current waste flow results in landfill expansion issues related to Janesville Sand & Gravel’s (JS & G) mining operations. Specifically, the second of two areas planned for future landfill expansion cannot be accessed by the City until 2045 under the current agreement with JS & G. Therefore, the City should ensure the current operating landfill combined with the first planned expansion area do not reach capacity prior to this date. At current waste flows, these areas would be expected to reach capacity in about 2035. Much of the waste delivered to the landfill is hauled by relatively few waste haulers. The table below illustrates: 6 2009 Sanitary Landfill Tonnage By Source Town & Country Sanitation 65,156 Waste Management 31,561 Veolia Environmental Services 20,876 Sherman Sanitation 18,884 Green County Landfill 16,855 City of Janesville 15,221 Cash Customer 8,727 John's Disposal 5,152 Horizon Waste 5,533 Janesville Water/Wastewater 4,324 All Other Accounts 28,562 Total Tons 220,850 Of the haulers listed, Town & Country Sanitation, Waste Management, Sherman Sanitation and Green County currently have waste disposal contracts with the City and all expire December 31, 2010. Town & Country Sanitation is the only waste hauler listed who does not provide service in Janesville or Rock County (Green County serves Avon Township in Rock County). Both Waste Management and Veolia ES have their own landfills in other areas of the state. The landfill near Delavan, WI is owned by Republic Industries. Staff has two recommendations relative to landfill tonnage: A. Extend current landfill disposal contracts through 2011. The landfill odor issues experienced in fall 2009 and into early 2010 were primarily being generated from the first of the three cells that have been constructed (a total of five cells are to be constructed in the current, permitted air space). This is a significantly larger cell than the others that are or will be built. The entire first cell will likely not reach final capacity and be permanently capped until 2012. However, extending the current disposal contracts through 2011 should provide enough waste through the first half of 2011 to allow permanent capping of the perimeter of this cell and perhaps other portions of the cell. This will greatly aid in controlling landfill odor migration. Contract extensions must be authorized by the City Council. 7 B. Given the limitations which exist in the City’s contract with JS & G relative to sequencing of mining and landfill operations, begin reducing annual tonnage in 2012 to a rate which will extend the life of the operating landfill and first expansion area to 2045. To attain this goal, staff has calculated the annual average waste flow should not exceed approximately 175,000 tons between 2012 and 2045. This is an average based on numerous assumptions, but can serve as an initial benchmark to establish. Since waste flow cannot be managed precisely, the calculated figure of 175,000 tons/year should be viewed as a guide. There should be recognition annual tonnage could vary considerably from year to year and that there are various influences which may result in greater or smaller maximum averages being calculated in the future. For illustration, based on 2012 budget projections, and assuming a decrease in waste flow to approximately 175,000 tons in 2012, the calculated landfill tipping fee is approximately $33.00/ton, as compared to the current rate of $28.90/ton. This is a $4.10/ton (approximately 14%) rate increase. Staff is researching the City’s ability, from a legal perspective, to restrict the flow of waste to the landfill. This might be necessary should the Council choose to reduce annual tonnage for the purpose of extending the life of the operating landfill and first expansion area. Conversely, it is unknown what affect a 14% landfill tipping fee increase might have on the ability of the City to retain some minimum waste flow. Primarily, how such an increase might influence those waste haulers having their own disposal facilities (Waste Management; Veolia ES) and whether they will haul more waste from the Janesville area to their own facilities. A strategy to accomplish significant waste flow reductions, while at the same time ensuring sufficient waste flow to remain market competitive, will need to be developed. 6. Income Statement Based on all the above recommendations, the Sanitation Fund Income Statement through 2013 shows the following (see Page 8): 8 Sanitation Fund Projected Fund Balance 2008-2013 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 Budget Estimated Projected Projected Projected Operating Revenues: Landfill Fees/Gas Revenue $7,110,500 $6,794,400 $6,907,986 $5,608,506 $5,759,652 Recyclable Material/Tire Fees 148,000 117,000 143,000 148,000 148,000 Recycling Grant 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000 321,000 Trash Collection/Disposal Fee 150,000 0 1,324,177 1,352,494 1,381,562 Subtotal $7,729,500 $7,232,400 $8,696,163 $7,430,000 $7,610,214 Operating Expenditures: Sanitary and Demolition Landfills 5,119,769 5,247,216 5,384,909 4,541,170 4,617,250 Solid Waste Collection 1,088,591 1,088,591 1,116,177 1,144,494 1,173,562 Recycling 831,699 804,729 836,256 853,783 871,794 Capital Outlay 14,550 44,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Subtotal 7,054,609 7,184,536 7,357,342 6,559,446 6,682,606 Gross Income (Loss) $674,891 $47,864 $1,338,821 $870,553 $927,608 Transfers DNR Escrow LTC Site 3039 (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) (226,000) Transfer (To) or From General Fund (450,000) (450,000) (450,000) (300,000) (150,000) Transfer for Debt Service (271,750) (266,894) (310,270) (486,943) (661,950) Transfer to Superfund (from reserve) (90,529) (90,529) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000) Total Transfers (1,038,279) (1,033,423) (1,066,270) (1,092,943) (1,117,950) Net Income (Loss) ($363,388) ($985,559) $272,551 ($222,390) ($190,342) Fund Balance Beg. Yr. $2,985,935 $2,985,935 $2,000,376 $2,272,927 $2,050,537 Fund Balance End Yr. $2,622,547 $2,000,376 $2,272,927 $2,050,537 $1,860,195 Fund Balance December 31 Reserved for Superfund $863,204 $863,204 $783,204 $703,204 $623,204 Unreserved 1,759,343 1,137,172 1,489,723 1,347,333 1,236,991 Landfill Tons 223,000 242,000 243,820 174,877 176,567 9 Implementation of the recommendations achieves a balanced Sanitation Fund in 2011 due to the user fee for trash collection and disposal. However, the reduction in landfill tonnage beginning 2012 results in net negative income in 2012 and 2013 of about $222,000 and $190,000, respectively. Discussion of ways to eliminate the net negative income in 2012 can be conducted with Council during budget preparation for that year. Two possible solutions are to utilize property taxes or to increase landfill tipping fees. 7. Other Recommendations During development of materials for both sessions, staff met with Julie Backenkeller, a member of the Sustainable Janesville Committee (SJC). While representing the SJC, Ms. Backenkeller made it clear she could not speak for the whole of the SJC. Some ideas were shared which might lend themselves to further collaboration between staff and the SJC. Specifically: ? During the City’s annual licensing process for commercial waste haulers, requiring each hauler submit what recycling services they offer their customers and possibly establishing criteria commercial haulers must meet in order to attain disposal privileges; this requirement could also include those businesses who wish to continue to utilize the City’s curbside trash collection program; the goal is to maximize recycling efforts at non-residential facilities; ? Examine ways to increase the types of materials accepted in the City’s curbside recycling program; Waste Management is currently looking at ways to market plastics #3 through #7; ? Examine ways to encourage home composting of organics; ? Examine ways to expand community education and awareness in the areas of waste reduction, reuse and recycling.