The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01252011 WASTE MANAGEMENTI II I I fi 1/25/2011 WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATING REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCES . : -~~ - ,~ . ~ : ~a" ~; yo - ~. ~+~ ~,_«~ ~i ~y ~~.. ; ~~"~ ,~ ~• '~. 9~.s ~~S ~ °~' ~~~~F DUR NA'(\~ ~+,iF Information Briefing to City Council for FY12 thru FY18 Service Delivery and Fiscal Planning January 25, 2011 TWO PRESENTATIONS • 25 January 2011 - City Operations Service delivery FY12 thru FY18 ~ 21 June 2011 - Post SPSA Operations/Disposal Alternatives following end of current contract period (17 Jan 2018) z 1 1/25/2011 ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~`~~~,.~~~,~ ~~~~~~ ~. ~ . ~~". - ~±~. ~~ ~~,~~ ~ y~~ a~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ . CITY OPERATIONS • Collections • Recycling • Disposal ~ Program Support 3 COLLECTIONS • Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) • Yard Debris • Yard Debris Containers • Bulk Items/Special Collections - 8 Route Coordinators - 4 Supervisors 4 2 1/25/2011 MSW COLLECTION COLLECTlON5 _ ..i~~~~~~,~,=~i s;,i~a n ~~< <.~.;~ ~ - ~-ura nGf„~~ = v,~dtn~~<cw~~»~~Kr~ ~. EAdk I~anK~pwal l'.~Jl~i~m. ~ %R.ru~ _.~.KJi~~l~.n -1.`:u~ni+.vs $ _ i~w z yk-~t~'',~~ki~~9'~t a~a--F"-t ~ ~~'~~1de 5i~ '~~~~~ '~ sv ~'4-~,n~.~... _ , .. ~ x e. ~s, , -~ , '~~; "~ . MUNICIPALSOLIDWASTE(MSW) • Black Containers • Residential Only/Once Weekly Collection • 123,660 Customers/6.4M Collections ~40,000 Multi-family not serviced by City ~ 27,525 Businesses in VB must acquire Private Service • Four Collection Days: Tuesday - Friday • 152,000 Tons/Year • 38 Routes/Day • 42 FTE's 6 3 1/25/2011 4 1/25/2011 ^.~ .~~`~:~ ~,~~.~.a~~~k~,~.:~k~'~~~~,",.~~ ~. .. ~...~~.hn~;~.,_ ~ '~' ~ COILECT10~15 CO LLECTI O N ~~~~~~~-.~.~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ 9 yYa',~''~~~~ ~`~~ .., ~~~~~~'~'~.~~A~s~+.'.,.~.\,.~.,'~..':,.~~"~~' 4";>:i.~,~`'"~\\'~,;, ,~ YARD DEBRIS COLLECTION • Once/Weekly Service, Same as MSW • Bagged Grass/Leaves and Brush • Avoids MSW Contamination • Keeps Material Out of Storm Drains/Ditches • Emergency Response ~ 37,000 Tons Yearly • 18-24 Rear Loader Vehicles • 36 FTE's ~a 5 1/25/2011 ga"~~ ~ y~~~i ~ 5~a~~ ~; a.„„`~`y.~,y ""».`~,a.~r~ a~ak't~ ~ 9s ~~°F~ iu ~ ~~.~5°n .~.v ~ ~:-~ YARD DEBRIS COSTS • $3.6 Million/Year • $97.30/Ton Cost Collection and Disposal • Cost $2.44/Month/Residence ~~ \~~. ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ k ~?~x cc ^vu ~ A e~ ,°, t~v.h, .~ k:~. x.:~ . S YARD DEBRIS I N ITIATIVES • FY10 Disposal to SPSA at $56.01/T Tip Fee • FY11 Contract DisposaUCompost at $36.99/T • Cost Saving FYll = $SOOK • Cost Saving FY12 = $800K • Increase Recycling Rate From 17% to 35% ~_ 6 1/25/2011 ~~x a '~. ~~~''`~ ' ~:~' ~: g,s~ ~.w~'~; 3 ~ r.d,-`` s ;~ . _~ ~"~ -` ~ -" ~. - ~ra r~ti~ _ r . a,~a~. fi..& R4 ~ 1.~. . ,.~..~,~X _ YARD DEBRIS I N ITIATIVES • Current Study With DOE Grant Funding ^Indoor Composting/Transfer Station/Storm Debris/Mulching ^Study Complete in May 2011 ^To provide initial site planning for the ITA Waste Management Area • Potential Public-Private Partnership ^ Contract for DisposaUCompost/BiofueUMulching ^ Coordinate With ODU Algae Farm i3 YARD DEBRIS CONTAINERS COLLECT10N5 --- , ~,~, , .;~.«, JI.\M \ ~ .~sl:, .- . =14u11 l~nn. Spe.ml+~..ii.c~~~ra. .k..,,~~.~,.~.,,.,~~~~ ,~~,...~.~. ~4 ~ 1/25/2011 YARD DEBRIS CONTAINERS • Service by Request/4,000 Per Year • 24 - 17CY Containers, 4 Trucks, 4 FTE's • Woody Debris/Re-Use as Mulch • 3,500 Tons Annually ~5 ~~ .-~~D DEBRIS CON~ '~~~ COSTS AND REVENUES • User Fee - $40/Weekday, $75/Weekend • $200K/I'ear Revenue • $SSOK/Year Cost • $350KIYear Net Cost • $100/Ton • Cost $0.23/Month/Residence ~6 8 1/25/2011 ~_ ~ ~~ BULK ITEMS/ ~ SPECIAL COLLECTIONS COI~ECTiONS ~.~., ~ ,,,,u. s~ ~~~ , ,~ ,,.~,r ~ ~ ~, , ~~ %F.,in.~~'„ i~~wm - ~ ~k4.v.w+.. 1] 9 1/25/2011 ~ ~. _ ;~,._..~ BULK ITEMS/SPECIAL COLLECTIONS • $2.3 Million/Year • $287.50/Ton • Most Expensive Program Per Ton • Cost $1.56/Month/Residence iq ~ RECYCLING PROGRAMS • Residential • Drop-Off Containers • Municipal CITY C}PEftATiONS , ..~~«r.~~ ~„• ~,~,,:..:~ . ~~t,.1o~„~.,,~,,, ~o 10 1/25/2011 ~ "'~' ~ ~ ~ ~~S~r ~ ~~ "" ~sti "~L'~~ ~~'~' ~~ SrSF w - . .. . ta~ia ~,- . ; ns* ~ . ,~ . ~~~ RECYCLING PNOGRAf~15 - na~,.-orc,.~a.,~~a,.. ,: klui~i-'iput RESI DENTIAL ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ti r ~e~~~ ~~~ ~:~~_ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d~ 'a -~ <s I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~t~ ~;~„~+a. ' . °i~ ~ ~ ~ '~~- > k ~ ~fy. x ~~~ e ~gx°' ~ 21 a ~ , ' ' ~a ~'kr,'Y.~` ~Sr'..' ... , ~ "~`rV~',' ,- `3` y 'e,Y'i .,.~'.r~ 'szs . '' ~ ' ' ' ".`x .. ~ -_ . .. RESI DENTIAL • Blue Containers • Bi-Weekly Collection via Contract • 35,000 Tons Annually • 67% Participation, 17% Diversion • Clean Community Commission • 2FTE's/Collateral Duties ZZ 11 1/25/2011 c~ ., ~a:.,~~``~~~"~e~'~~,~,.~~~~~~'~`s~'~3- '~* ~.. '~~~ .<.... ~ „ ....~ ~ o.a . :. R RESI DENTIAL COSTS • $5.8 Million/Year • Cost $46.30/Year/Residence ($3.86/Month) • Costs Saved $2.3M SPSA, $2.SM Collections ($4.8M) z3 ¢ ' b P q- 4 y ~ LH'i i P ~~.. P ~ rk~ `~ ti~H2t16~= ~ d~"Sr' ~~i a h~"~ t n ~ _ ~ ~x., _ ~ ~. v,Tr. ~? ~-: . e RECYCLI NG I N ITIATIVES • Every Ton in the Blue Container Saves One Ton of SPSA Tipping Fees ($65.35/Ton) • Clean Community Commission - 5,000 New Advocates • Emphasis on Marketing • Increase to 20% in FY12 Saves $325K • Increase to 25% in FY13 Saves $900K • Same 25% Rate in FY17 Saves $1.SM z4 12 1/25/2011 DROP-OFF CONTAI N ERS z5 DROP-OFF CONTAI N ERS • Four Locations ^Municipal Center ^ First Landing State Park ^ VB Landfill ^Princess Anne High School • Recycling Opportunity for Multi-family Residential • Large Boxes • Peak Volumes • Z,000 T/year z6 13 1/25/2011 N ~~ ~~c~" ~~rv" ~ i ~~a ~y ~,~~P ,n~`~~.~"?~ ~~~a ~u~.~i~r ~" _,d,'~ ` ~ ~ ~ - --- ftFCYCLlNG PRC)GRAMS _ ' ~ Rexid~~i~ial e ~~W,a~n c.~~,,,~~„«, MUNICIPAL '~~~`~~ ~, k >~ \~`~,`~,~",~..`h*~,~~~~.:~'~~,,~~'~ `~5,~. m~,yrc';~~"n `a,~~~ ~'^,~ ~~~~~ ~ ~,..~ -. .: ss- . . ~ . ~ -.-. .. . . ~. ~~~~~ ~ MUNICIPAL RECYCLING • City Facilities • Until Summer 2010 Office Paper • Expanded to Same Service as Residential • Battery Recycling • Oceanfront Recycling • Schools • 70% Switch from MSW to Recyclables • Bldgs #1 &#2: 17 black 95ga1 carts down to 5 per day ~8 14 1/25/2011 ~ „~, ~ ~ ; ~ _ ~ ,_ _. ~ '~~~~`"~"'~"~' ,~~`~`~ ,~~~ ,~ `~ ~ ~ ~~~ , , . . r ~, n. _-- ---~ C(TYOPEF.s'1T1QN5 . ~.,ia.-: ,..r ~ n,.,.w~ = rr„~..uE.. D i S P O SA L O P E RAT I O N S ~~'~~~~~~~~~"~~~, • Landfill Operations • SPSA zq I-Z64 Qe Virgin a Beach ~re~`tfle ?~~A Landfill ~• ~ ~ ~. °., ~ G o :+ oQ. ~ ~. 4a ~ ~ ~ w ~ n ~`ti ~ ~ ah ~ ~~~ 3~ 15 i/25/zo11 Ce111 Cell 4 Cells 1,ZA, $ 4 Capacity = 3.7 M CY ~2.2 M TONS Cell 2A Lifespan ^ 17 YEARS Cell 2B Cell 3 Cells 26 8 3 Capacity = 8.0 M CY ^4.8 M TONS Lifespan = 24 YEARS 3i CC3MPARISaI~ QF SITE DEVELOPIVfENT SCENARiC35 11~SW ANa MWC ASH' [~ISPC)SAL disposal Capacity Sc~nari~a & ~~scr9pti~n Airspac~ ~Millican Cubic Yards} ~~p~~i~1! (I~7i11icrn5 Tans} ~~fespan {Years} MS+AJ pis posal Existing permit (Cells 1, 2A, and 4) ~ ~~~ ~~ Pha5e5 28 $c3 $ 4.8 24 Total 12.Q~ 7.C~ 41 M+J~1C ~,sh Dispasa9 Ex~s#ing perni9t (Cells 1, 2A, and 4) ~ II '~ ~.~ ~~ - -__ _ Phases 26 &3 3 8.0 75 T~ia9 1.2.0 I2.0 ~D3 3~ 16 1/25/2011 -~~~~~~~~ ~~~~,~~~~~~~~, ~~,~, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , ~, ._ LANDFILL OPERATION • Opened 1976 for all City Waste • Use and Support Agreement Expires Jan 2018 • Ash and Residue Agreement Expires Dec 2015 • SPSA Pays for Landfill Operating Costs -$2M • 200K Tons Ash Annually • 5% City MSW Saving $525K/Year • 15 FTE's • Costs $1.35/Month/Residence 34 17 1/25/2011 ~ ~ ' ~~ ' ~ ~ .~ va,~~Y~i~,~~?~k~~~xaw~4:~~,~r ~~~'~ ~'~`- n . LAN DFI LL I N ITIATIVES • Convenience Center • Tarps as Alternative Daily Cover ^ Saves Air Space ^ Reduce Material Costs • Mulch Recovery in Ce112A 35 CONVEN I ENCE CENTER • Free Drop-Off for VB Residents • Keeps Private Vehicles Off Hi1UFaster/Safer • Increases Capture of Recyclables and HHW • Allows Smaller Work Face on Hill ^ Less Cover Material ^ Less Operating Costs ^ Gains Air Space ^Saves $660,000 of airspace per year (26,439cy) 36 18 1/25/2011 _~ HHW/WHITE GOODS/MULCH • Previous SPSA Operation • City Operation September 2010 • Increased City Revenue/Lowered Costs • Mulch 4,000 Tons Woody Debris for P&R • Cost $SOOK/i'ear • Cost Savings $350K Annually 19 1/25/2011 for Currently Permitted Phases • Phase 1 Closure to begin in 2013 ^ $16M Total Cost ^ $ 9M+/- SPSA Cost Share ^ $6M local funds in CIP • Phase 2A Closure 2015 -2016 ^ $7.6M Total Cost ^ $6.8M+/- SPSA Cost Share ~ Phase 4 Development 2014 ^$23.6M (needed to open in Jan 2016) ^ Full City Cost Total $47.2M $15.8M SPSA 39 ..... ...... ...... .. ....... ..... . ._.... ...... SPSA MSW TI PPI NG FEES • FYlI - $56.01 $ 8.9M • FY12 - $65.35 $10.5M • FY13 - $65.35 $10.5M • FY14 - $65.35 $10.5M • FY15 - $65.35 $10.5M • FY16 - $87.67 $14.OM • FY17 - $110.00 $17.6M • FY18 - $97.50 $15.6M Tota17 Year Increa~se $26.9M Average Yearly Increase $ 3.8M FY12 First Year Increase $ 1.6M 4~ 2~ 1/25/2011 ~~~~~~~'~~~'~ ~;`~`:"~~~~ v ~'" r ~,~ ` rw~~ _ -._ CITY aPERATIC?hJS ~ ,,,~,...~. ~t.:t~~~_. ~ n~.~.aa' P ROG RA M S U P PO RT '~~~T"~~~E~~~ • Program Management • Customer Service -155,000 Calls, 25,000 E-mails • Contract Administration • AccountingBudgeting • Payroll • Safety/Equipment Coordination 41 21 1/25/2011 P ~ ~ 4 ~g~ ~ ~~~~~ °y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~w ~ ~ Y12 WASTE ~~-- ~~~~~ NT~ OPERATING BUDGET • Collection $21.2M 145.5 FTE • Recycling $5.8M 2 FTE • Disposal $4.2M 15 FTE • Program Support $1.OM 15 FTE • Operating BUDGET $32.2M 178.5 FTE 43 AL EQU I _ T • Current Average Life exceeds 10 Years • Industry Standard is 7 Years • Impacts of Current Replacement Schedule: • Increased Maintenance Costs • Increased Breakdowns • Requires More Spare Vehicles • More travel time for single a~e vehicles • 29 rear loader yard debris trucks • 13 grapple bulk item trucks • 7 hook lift yard debris/convenience center trucks • 41 single rear axle MSW trucks • 18 tandem axle MSW trucks • Goal: replace 41 single axle with 30 tandems (7 per year) • Cost per tandem vehicle: $228,660 in FY12 22 1/25/2011 s~,~ ~m PP"~ra~ra'~a ~ G ~gi i-' ,: ~e~ y,q ~`~q ~a«, u;Sa~ k = ~, x~ ~s~ ~w ~ ~a~?~ ,~~°rp~. CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT • FUNDING REQUIRED FOR SEVEN YEAR REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE (MINIMAL INDUSTRY STANDARD): FY09 $1.1M FY10 $0.9M FYll $0.9M FY12 $3.1M FY13 $3.21v~ FY12 thru FY18 FY14 $3.01v~ Tota17 Year Increase $15.7M FY15 $2.7M FY16 $2.7M Average Yearly Increase $ 2.2M FY17 $3.6M FY12 First Year Increase $ 2.2M FY18 $3.7M ~~~ ~~~`~,~~~~~~~\~.~~;~~~:~ ~,a~,~ ~,~~~ ~ . Landfill Maintenance & Regulatory Compliance Landfill Regulatory Permits • Landfill Permit - DEQ - Establishes: • Design and operating standards • Groundwater and gas monitoring requirements • Closure and post closure care requirements • Financial Assurance • VPDES Permit - DEQ • Title V Air Permit - DEQ • Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit - HRSD ~ $SOOK annually 23 1/25/2011 ~ FY12 BU DG ET oPS sPSa caplTaL $21.7 M ~. $10.5 M ...~ EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $3.1 M $32.2 M Operating Costs LMRC + $0.5 M TOTAL FY 12 REQUIREMENTS $35.8 M Current FY12 Budget Target $28.5M This reflects a 6.6% reduction of $3.7M 47 _~ Wazfe Nlanagement Prajected Costs FY 2d1Y thraugh FY 2018 tMillionsl Ops SPSA Disposal Equipment LMRC 1 Total FY 2011 21.6 8.9 Q.9 a.5 31.9 FY 2412 21.7 1Q.5 3.1 fJ.5 35.8 FY 2(}13 22.4 14.5 3.2 4.5 36.6 FY 2414 23.0 10.5 3.Q OS 37.Q FY 2D15 23.7 10.5 2.7 0.6 37.5 FY 2015 24.~1 14.0 2.7 Q.6 41.7 FY 2017 25.2 17.fi 3.6 ~.6 ~7.4 FY 201$ 25.9 15.6 3.7 Q.7 45.9 TOTAL 7 YEAR INCREASE $58.2M Average Annual Increase $8.3M FY12 Waste Management Target $28.SM FY12 Requirements above Target $7.3M 4$ 24 1/25/2011 ,~ '~"='ar~,~•`~~' ~'~~,-~ t i ~~"~~~~ ~-~"~~`aehp€~~` ~~ w~;e ~.~ ~,.,~.~:.8~„„~ . . ~ ~ . a „ ' ~.~ , , ~* ~'~ _ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- • •'. .- . ,.. FY12 Bu ge ~~ - • $21M City revenue shortfall • Targets to Departments: ^ 6.6% Reduction in non-public safety ^ 2.5°/a Reduction to public safety • 3rd year reductions creating severe negative impacts to City service delivery and all department mission execution • Waste Management Program review identifies several issues ^ Essential service for maintaining our Quality of Life ^ Requires `Must Fund' appropriation at expense of other missions ^ Inequity that this service is covered in Real Estate tax ^ MSW lends itself for consideration of several funding options ^ Adopting a change in program funding could assist in developing the City's long term financial strategy ^ Decline in RE taxes places importance on review of fees for services ~~~~~~~~`~~'~~~~~~\~~~~~~~~~~~`~~~,~~~~~~~~~T ~~~v_ Waste Management Projected Cas#s FY 2a11 through FY 20S& (Milliansj TOTAL 7 YEAR INCREASE $58.2M Average Annual Increase $83M FY12 Waste Management Target $28.SM FY12 Requirements above Target $7.3M 50 Qp~ SPSA Disposal Equipment OMR Total FY 2411 21.6 8.9 4.9 Q.5 31.9 FY 2052 21.7 1Q.5 3.1 0.5 35.8 FY 2fl13 22.4 16.5 3.2 4.5 36.6 ~Y 2D14 23.0 1a.5 3.0 0.5 37.4 ~5' 2Q15 23.7 i~.5 2.7 6.6 37.5 ~Y" 2016 24.4 14.Q 2J 0.6 4L7 FY` 2017 25.2 17.6 3.6 0.5 47.4 ~Y 2fl18 25.9 i5.6 3.7 0.7 45.9 25 1/25/2011 _ Waste Management-Program Evaluation for FY12 Budget Decision • Yard Debris Operational Costs = $3.6M • MSW Operational Costs = $14.8M _ -n.~ ~.~ . . ~ ~ ~ :._.~ . ~ Yard Debris Collection • Seasonal Variations • Neighborhood Variations • Individual User Variations • Labor intensive • Very costly to outsource/privatize • Provides storm clean up • Key contributor to our clean City - quality of life • Lesser capital equipment replacement costs • Lower cost per pickup ($1.87) • Elimination of service: illegal dumping, back yard composting, storm water impacts Staff recommendation to CM: Retain as a City delivered service 26 1/25/2011 -~- MSW CITY COLLECTION • Predictable flow • Established routes with consistent service delivery • Lowest Labor costs thru highest mechanization • Easiest to outsource/privatize • 90.4% Citizen Satisfaction Rating • Higher cost per pick up ($2.30) • Must fund when a City provided service • Funding alternatives could a significant impact on the General Fund deficit Staff recommendation to CM: Consider alternatives for funding 53 27 1/25/2011 ~ ~ ~,~r~,~~~'~,,' ~~ ~k n G~a~~ ~k ~ ~ ~~ ,a,~~ r~e:~ ~. ~ay, ~,~a.x~ ~~~~~~ MSW CONTRACT COLL~ECTION • Definite private sector interest • Disposal still required to go to SPSA • City retains responsibility to customers • Less control over work & responsiveness • Increased contract management costs • Risk of lowball contract/increased claims • Risk of poor contract performance • Magnitude of savings to GF - minimal at best • High likelihood of increased program cost • Disposal of City equipment • Reduces size of government but more likely not the cost 55 Open Market Alternative • Customers Contract With Private Haulers • Disposal still required to go to SPSA • Least Amount of City Control • Multiple Haulers in Neighborhoods • Every Day is Trash Day • More Wear and Tear on Neighborhood Streets • Savings to General Fund $14.8M • Cost Range $16-21/Month • Disposal of City Equipment • Reduces size of government • Increased illegal dumping/code enforcement 56 28 1/25/2011 Franchise Alternative • City wide or by quadrant • More Control Than Open Market • Disposal still required to go to SPSA • Customers Contract Directly with Franchisee • Savings to General Fund $14.8M • Cost Range $17-22/Month • City Receives Franchise Fee • Offset Revenue for Additional Inspectors ^ Offset costs to retain Yard Debris service • Disposal of City Equipment • Reduces size of government • Increased illegal dumping/code enforcement 57 , .,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~-~~~~~~~ ~,~ ~ ~,~ , . ~ ~.~~ ~ __~ ~ ~,, ~ ~~ Fee for Servic e ' Waste Co llection Fee o Annual revenue is based on 123,660 customers. o Revenues include a 5% vacancy rate. o The proposed FY12 Budget for MSW (operating, tipping fees) is $14.8M. Full MSW cost recovery (including billing) of this amount wou ld require a monthly fee of $11. o This fee does not include annual capital equipment replacement costs. Mon#hly Fee Annua! Fee Annua) Revenue $6.OD $72.6a $8,~1I3,20Ci.~4 ~7.0~ $E~.aG $9P815,~f~Q.64 ~$.{}4 $9o.~D ~aII,217,64Q.~ $9.0~ ~~G8.Q{1 $I2,G19,SQ4.i~ ~~o.oo ~~zo.ca ~~a,azz,ao~.cr~ Sa~.ao $~~z.~a ~~~„~z:~,zt~o.~~ ~~~:aa ~~.~.aG $~~,sz~,~~o.~c~ $~3.(}0 $Z56.00 $1u,22~,6~G.Q~ ~~~.ca ~i~s.~o S~~~a~ae~oa.~ 29 1/25/2011 MSW CITY COLLECTION Real Estate Tax • 1¢ in Real Estate Tax for FY12 =$4.95M • MSW total cost $14.8M per year (no billing & no capital equipment replacement costs) cents/$100 assessed value Revenue created Fee for Service comparison % of MSW cost covered 1 $4.95M $334 33.4% 2 $9.9M $6.67 66.9% 3 $14.85M $10.01 100% ~,n? ~ ~~. r ;ti'r ~a~,~ ,~-k,~ n,. `~ .. ~~,"'~ ea.~°arx. . Collection Fun ing-Choices • No changes to funding: distribute budget cuts to other Departments, services, programs, and/or dedications • Contract service delivery: minimal initial savings transitioning to a good chance of increased costs • Privatize service delivery: maximize savings to General Fund by conveying costs to service recipients • City Collection: RE Tax vs. Fee for Service ^ Requires a fee structure to account for: • MSW annual operating costs (baseline $14.8M) • Additional $58.2M thru end of SPSA contract ^Equity discussion for residents and businesses ^5 month billing preparation period requires $200K 30 1/25/2011 ~~ ~ ; ~ , t~~~ r . ~ pi,~ w : x = ~ ,~JU~t~ , x,, General Fund Impact of MSW Funding ~~~~ • FY12 WM Target $28.SM , • FY12 WM Requirements $35.8M ~' • FY12 WM Program Deficit $ 7.3M !, • MSW Funding Option $14.8M • General Fund Deficit Offset $ 7.SM* * Based on fully funding capital equipment replacement on a 7 year cycle 6i , \\\~ \~~\:;~* ~ ."~'+` *~"~...~.`~ '~\~'"'+-,n- '~ `~~``~~ne c~~ t . NEXT STEPS • Support further Council discussion • Receive Manager's FY12 Budget Recommendation • City Council approval of FY12 budget • Expect ZS June presentation: Post 2018 Alternatives 6z 31