2008-11-19 SWAB MeetingNEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING PAGE 1
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Solid Waste Advisory Board met on Wednesday, November 19, 2008, at 4:08
p.m. in the Lucie F. Harrell Conference Room at the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government
Center Drive, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members present were: Chairman Claud "Buck" O'Shields, Jr.; Vice-Chairman Robert W. Mitchell; Martin
J. Michaelson; John Richard Newton; David Sims; Deputy County Attorney Kemp Burpeau and Deputy Clerk to the
Board of Commissioners Kymberleigh G. Crowell.
Others present: Environmental Management Director John Hubbard, Sam Hawes, Landfill Manager and
Beth Schrader, Senior Budget Analyst.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairman O'Shields called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone to the meeting of the New
Hanover County Solid Waste Advisory Board.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman O'Shields asked the members to review the draft meeting minutes of November 12, 2008 for any
needed corrections and/or changes. Hearing no comments, Chairman O'Shields called for a motion to approve the
meeting minutes of November 12, 2008.
Motion: Mr. Sims MOVED, SECONDED by Mr. Michaelson, to approve the meeting minutes as presented. Upon
vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF WASTEC VALUE ADDED STUDY
Mr. Mitchell reported that in an effort to value the benefits that WASTEC had been giving by basically
extending the life of the landfill via such things as use of ash as cover for the landfill, he asked Director Hubbard
and his staff to put together a value added study of WASTEC. He further stated the model being presented is a good
analysis which involves present and future values analysis and will assist the group in looking at the benefits that
WASTEC has been able to give.
Director Hubbard introduced Sam Hawes, Landfill Manager at Environmental Management. He explained
that Mr. Hawes worked extensively to develop the model and was here today to review and present the study
information. Mr. Hawes explained:
• Base costs for WASTEC and landfill calculated from Environmental Management Operations FY07-
Audited spreadsheet (Operating Cost + Depreciation and Debt Service); recycling and administration
services were not included;
• Value of lost landfill capacity, soils use and electrical sales includes FY99/00 through FY07/08;
• All value calculations are based on present values; and
• Electrical sales should increase minimum of 25% when new agreement reached with Progress Energy.
Mr. Hawes explained that once the base costs were established an individual review was able to be done of
the different values of both lost opportunities or intangible values in ways that WASTEC has benefitted the County.
In response to questions, Mr. Hawes confirmed that landfill life expectancy of 24 years is made if WASTEC were
closed today; 36 year expectancy is made if WASTEC continues to operate at its current capacity. Mr. Hawes
explained the land cost if WASTEC were closed today and that it would be an added expense if land had to be
purchased to provide 12 years of life. This purchase equates to 48 acres in order to maintain life expectancy for
years 24 - 36 and land cost is very conservative because if land is unable to be located and purchased it makes what
is currently owned that much more valuable. He also reviewed how the base cost per ton is adjusted when recycling
operations and administration services are added back into the operating costs + depreciation and debt service
calculation. A brief conversation with staff was held that under the lost opportunity section, approximately $1
million a year has been lost due to the maintenance budget not being adequate for operations to be at 90%
efficiency.
In response to questions, Director Hubbard confirmed that the cost to bring the facility up to efficiency is
approximately $8 million and Mr. Hawes stated that this is not amortized in the model. Discussion was held on how
the $8 million would be paid; it is based on the 2007 budget and is spread out over time. Beth Schrader, Senior
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLH) WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING PAGE 2
Budget Analyst, commented that based on her information this matter was paid in cash, not amortized, and does not
assume any associated interest payments or debt fees incurred.
Discussion was held concerning charging potential Landfill Gas to Energy Project RFP bidders $500,000 to
bid, the legalities of this and if allowed under government bidding laws, the possibility of asking the successful
bidder for a signing bonus of $500,000 or $750,000. If allowed, the signing bonus could be used for retubing at
WASTEC. A brief review was given of how this could work with the vendor. Ms. Schrader explained the amount
of work needed for Units 1 - 3 beyond retubing and that if all was paid for upfront, the $750,000 bonus would not
be enough for each entire unit. She described what the total plant efficiency would be, over four fiscal years, at
WASTEC during the repairs. In response to questions, Ms. Schrader explained the cash flow from the methane is
not included in the model and depends on a number of factors. Net reduction to the tipping fee or net monies could
be used to address WASTEC and she confirmed that the revenues received could be used exclusively for this capital
project.
In response to questions, Mr. Hawes stated that the value of electrical sales lost operating at less than 90%
was valued at the old electrical rate of $40.70, there are additional revenue streams coming into play from the
estimated 20% or 25% rate increase and there is an unknown extra if it is deemed green energy. Discussion was
held on the calculation of future tipping fees and the importance to add these incremental values per ton calculated
to that tipping fee as that now allows a recapture of the lost opportunity cost. The tipping fee is calculated at
approximately $62 or $63 with valuing the extension of the landfill and the realistic pricing for the tipping fee is
then a combination of the hard dollar budget numbers and the value of extending the landfill. Through this there is a
recapture of some of the opportunity costs.
Ms. Schrader explained that, based on conversations with Mr. Sims, part of the analysis ran was to create a
scenario that was all inclusive which resulted in a tipping fee of $65.50. A stripped down scenario taking into
consideration having only skeleton crews, only putting 25,000 tons in landfill and shipping everything to Sampson
County, and entering into the Waste Industries contract resulted in a tipping fee of $60.25. The stripped down
scenario does not take into account the severance pay (for potentially a year) for 65 employees, costs to mothball,
lost opportunity costs for the landfill and the cost of the land, and any potential liability associated with any
environmental issues resulting from the facility. Essentially, there is little difference between the two choices and
all the other scenarios ran with slightly different assumptions, and have reflected in tipping fees in the $63 - $65.50
range. Further discussion was held about the need for the County Commissioners to understand that the tipping fee
should be considered a fee for disposal of waste (user fee) and not a tax.
DAVID SIMS' THIRD REVIEW OF WASTE INDUSTRIES' PROPOSAL
The discussion continued with Mr. Sims presenting his revised draft document which was based on
discussions with Ms. Schrader. He added to Ms. Schrader's explanation of what is and is not included in the
numbers, stating that $53/ton scenario does not include credit for extending landfill life. However, if the
calculations discussed were included, this price per ton would drop further if there is an allowance to use credits for
landfill. A review was done to see if there was an area of optimization where maintaining a portion of the landfill or
a certain amount of the trash to the landfill and utilizing a certain portion going to Sampson County would actually
result in a savings. The result: there would be a lot of assumptions to be made in the $53/ton quote in an effort to
optimize. In response to questions about the $53/ton scenario, Mr. Sims confirmed that the volume is 280,000 tons
per year with only 75,000 tons per year going to the landfill and WASTEC is closed.
In response to questions about the Waste Industries proposal, Director Hubbard clarified that the
approximate 700 tons per day going to the landfill doesn't include what is going to WASTEC. If assumption of
volume is 280,000 tons per year, as presented in Mr. Sims' documents, then the tons per day is approximately 930
tons. Discussion was held about a third scenario being added based on the idea of the need for prioritization so that
a base waste level is always going to Sampson County, then maximizing the capacity of WASTEC, converting it to
ash and the balance goes to the landfill. It would be considered a cascade scenario; the tipping fee for it could be
calculated based on Mr. Mitchell's descriptions. The addition of the value added study also could be added in order
to review in terms of lost opportunity costs with each different scenario so that there is an equal comparison across
the whole realized and unrealized cost basis. General consensus was to include this third scenario as it would allow
all the areas to be examined. It was noted that the scenarios calculations are educated estimates and are consistent
because the same numbers are being used for all the calculations.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING PAGE 3
The preservation of the landfill is a high priority and there is a concern of where land could be bought and
it is hard to price buying land without knowing if it is even available. It was suggested that a recommendation the
group may want to include is for trash to continue going to the landfill but proceed with buying more property.
Discussion was held regarding that the important point of Mr. Sims' second scenario is with WASTEC operating at
90% or above, the department is handling roughly 50% of the trash that comes in. Staff commented that the
numbers do not take into account the advance C&D facility that is desired, which could handle at least another
50,000 tons of construction type material that will not pack well in the landfill (i.e.: wood waste, shingles, vinyl
siding). In response to questions, Mr. Hawes stated that the capital expense of an advance C&D facility would be
approximately $4.5 million.
In response to questions, Deputy Attorney Burpeau commented on constraints to site new landfills and that
there is a general statute that limits the rights of a county to acquire a site outside its municipal jurisdiction. An
acquisition is not allowed unless consent is given by the Commissioners of the other county. There are legal
constraints in either trying to do a condemnation or a voluntary acquisition outside one's own county and both are
very lengthy procedures. Discussion was held that a county may face having to do an acquisition of property within
its own county and New Hanover County is smallest county in the state with many constraints, including
environmental concerns. Mr. Hawes added that even if adjacent property is able to be acquired, the State may not
permit the newly acquired acquisition. In response to additional questions, Deputy Attorney Burpeau will research
the legalities of a local government being able to buy an existing landfill from another county.
In response to questions, Director Hubbard stated that the County has invested into WASTEC a total capital
investment of approximately $56 million; book value is now in the mid-SOs and he further confirmed that based on
the Board's earlier discussions with Lee Bazzle, Montenay Charleston, replacement value today is approximately
$120 million - $125 million.
Discussion was held on the need for a position to be taken on the C&D facility and the consumer recycling
facility as both will have a dramatic effect on the value of the landfill and its preservation. Phil Carter, Waste
Industries Landfill Development, confirmed Waste Industries would provide up to $300,000 to the County for the
construction of a C&D facility. He stated that a large concrete pad for use of separating the C&D recyclables is an
example of what this amount could allow to be built. Waste Industries would take everything else and the company
would also take the C&D if the County did not want to recycle it. In response to questions, Staff stated if the $4.5
million was spent to construct the C&D facility, there would be a net positive cash flow but is dependent on market
fluctuations. Revenue from selling the C&D material was not included in the value added model and value was
placed at zero as a worst case scenario but cost for the C&D is included. The only credit would be life of the
landfill.
A conversation was held about including a suggestion that the tipping fee be set in the $60 range as Ms.
Schrader's models consistently reflect a fee in this range as well as including the three scenarios. An explanation of
how a particular scenario positively or negatively impacts the volume of the landfill would need to be included.
Further discussion was held about the tasks as laid out in August 4, 2008 resolution adopted by the Board of
Commissioners and that one key decision to make, as it will have a major impact on all other aspects, is whether or
not to recommend that WASTEC remain open under any conditions.
Mr. Michaelson discussed one potential recommendation being the County Commissioners do everything
possible to get WASTEC to capacity knowing:
• The potential revenue stream from methane and the landfill;
• That there are other potential revenue streams; and
• Implementation of bringing WASTEC to 90% efficiency is not going to cost New Hanover
County taxpayers.
Additional discussion was held about the three scenarios, two being to keep WASTEC and bring it up to
capacity and one being to shut it down, also being included in the recommendations. Mr. Mitchell stated that
although WASTEC value and the economics for WASTEC and with the opportunity costs it is important to continue
the operation, the common assumptions on the three scenarios need to be stated, what is and is not considered.
There is also a need to look at the qualitative pros and cons associated with these decisions. It was noted that
projects such as the C&D recycling facility and methane gas sales are stand alone projects. Chairman O'Shields
called for a formal motion that the Solid Waste Advisory Board include in its final document a recommendation to
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WA5TE ADVISORY BOARD
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING PAGE 4
the Commissioners that WASTEC be kept and remain a viable part of the New Hanover County Environmental
Management program and be allowed to operate based on a tipping fee that allows it to reach its maximum potential,
of 90% efficiency or as close as possible, and review the balance of the various areas to see what can be added to the
total Environmental Management program.
Motion: Mr Michaelson MOVED, SECONDED by Mr. Newton, that the Solid Waste Advisory Board include in
its final document a recommendation to the Commissioners that WASTEC be kept and remain a viable part of the
New Hanover County Environmental Management program and be allowed to operate based on a tipping fee that
allows it to reach its maximum potential, of 90% efficiency or as close as possible, and review the balance of the
various areas to see what can be added to the total Environmental Management program. Upon vote, the MOTION
PASSED 3 TO 2, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Sims voted in opposition.
Mr. Mitchell stated that he was only opposed to voting at this time and Chairman O' Shields stated that he
understood Mr. Mitchell's general position.
A brief review was held on the information included in the three scenarios and Staff was requested to
include the life landfill expectancy in each scenario. Ms. Schrader asked for clarification on the three scenarios she
plans to provide the Board. The three types she is to provide are:
Scenario #1: Continue operations as they are currently but start to provide WASTEC the level of
maintenance and repair that's required to operate at optimum efficiency;
Scenario #2: The scenario of 75,000 tons per year going to the landfill with the assumption that
WASTEC is no longer operating. She will work with Director Hubbard and Mr. Hawes
to make sure the items discussed today are included on this scenario; and
Scenario #3: Cascade scenario: A joint combination of public/private partnership where waste is
prioritize with a base level of waste always going to Sampson County, then maximizing
WASTEC capacity, converting waste to ash, and the balance goes to the landfill.
Ms. Schrader will list the common assumptions, what is not being considered in each, will include some of
the qualitative issues, and prepare the document to be used as a working document to allow members to add
comments based on their review. She commented that her model was an average and representative of the entire
time frame. Additional discussion was held concerning what will be included in the updated scenarios, such as
quantifiable risks and intangible risks, costs associated with a complete shutdown of WASTEC, costs of
mothballing, employees' dismissal and severance, and payout of personal balance.
Copies of the WASTEC Value Added Study and Mr. Sims' draft document are included herein as
Attachments 1 and 2, respectively.
After a brief discussion regarding the balance of the meetings and scheduling of the Board's presentation of
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners during the December 15, 2008 meeting, the Board concluded that it
would be prudent to ask for an extension until January 5, 2009 in order to fully complete its recommendation to the
Board of Commissioners. Chairman O'Shields called for a motion that a formal request for extension until January
5, 2009 be submitted to the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners for consideration.
Motion: Mr. Newton MOVED, SECONDED by Mr. Sims, that a formal request for extension until January 5, 2009
be submitted to the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners for consideration. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman O'Shields adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ .
Kymberleigh G. C~fwell
Deputy Clerk to the Board
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING
^c~ ~ M
M
~ t ~ ,~
~ r- $ E ~
;~
E
c~po ~cp~
p N N
ao m
~ n
H (y ry
~
m
$
N
c~
c~
vi
~ ~
H
O
U
H
O
a
_~
3
~_
~O
N
C
0
v
O
C
t0
3
Z
N
Z
O
a
W
Q
00
C
E
_ i
~ ~
qC ~
J ;
U i
W.
1
? I
T ~
V N
io g 01
~ O
So
n ~
m
pj GD
m
H
g H
I T
e
c
i
I ~
4
~ ~
~~ 3
o
~z ~
z
F
O
a
a
O
F
N
O
J
~ io ~
~ ~
m ~ °r~'
~
~ .
~
W
~ ~ a
amo vii in
o, ~i
~ ~ N
N W f
A
O ~ O
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~
u~im ao
m rn~
W ~ N ~ O
O ~ O
~ ~ N
U U V
a r° to
~
>
` N
>
~~ o B
a m m m
~, a
>
;._ ~._ ~
> _
$
>
~ _
o
W
~ ~ $
~
~ a8 S~
a~
7
7 ~
f ~
° •
g ° ~ = Q
a ¢ g
e Q
C
~
O O
f.1 W
a ~
~
~
i
i
'
z w ~
'6 $
~ ~
0
>" >° ,
A1TAQi~NP I~1
~ ~
~ ~
w
`~ rn
~ w
0
0
tai
O °o rn ~ ~
ppp M ~
~ ~ h N K
N
h
O) O)
O O
~ ~ ~ ~
S
m N Oi
N ~ ~
' O On ~
W ~
H N
M
1+ ~
C N ~ C
O U ~ O
.~ N 9Y4 N m
~ » 0 - ~
o ~ u o ~
~ ~ v C
$~ ~o~
~. _ ~.
r.~Q oNa
~rrz ~ Mz W
C ~ ~O C
p J ~ ~ ~ m
LL' N m ~
O ~ ~ ~
0
.g °r ~~r
C~,,3 ~Q~
Q N C
yV
Q ~ K ~
3 Q ~ Q
J
c
z g
J
$ 'S
> >
> >
PAGE 5
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING
'
~ M ~ O
~ E
~ N v rNi cgi
_ ui ~, vi
c
p c
CO p
oo
N
N
R
~ ~
E
M IN N ~ M
yy O ~
V ~ ~ O N
e
H ~ nj N Vi
V! N
N
O
U
0
a
0
2H
N
C
3
O
U
~`
O
C
3
Z
Z
0
a
a
W
a
m_
C
E
a
c v
N N
~~~ g ~,
0
C ~ ~ r N
g ° ° ~ ~
~~
~~
W r n p^j fD
~ ~ ~O ti
y ~ N
> Ml 19
C
Y~_
C
8
~~ 3
~ o
a
C
n0 ~
a
w ~
a o
F=- ~
0_ ~
COD O ~ CD
~ lD 1~
oir anti
O
O
W
o~
m m
M
t~0
,~
M
N
~ O
d V
~, a
m
o ;,
as ~
~~
0
~o
a~
N
} 7
r Q
a
U
°>
s
~,
0
M
N
O
U
d ~
~, a
v 2
~~
~m
o,
.~ .~
~U ~
d jp
m .G
0 ~
+ Q
N
N C
0
U ~
rn
m ~
N
Qt ~
0 Q
g~~
a+ ~ .~
? ~CC
O
Y yM S
_ ~ g7
~~~
0
`o !t
~a•
PAGE 6
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING
Cost to Landfill
:~D111~1Ni.... :i .. ': /i;tlll~:CgslgM:~i#0 ~IfA~'I~~C .~1-qi1~:t"r#l~:'iN~t~1E'.W1~`~'C,.`;
Cell Construction $2,500,000.00 $1,250,000.00
Cell Closure $1,000,000.00 $500,000.00
Wages 8 Benefits $975,000.00 $775,000.00
Operating Costs $2,800,000.00 $2,250,000.00
Installment Leases For Heavy Equipment $525,000.00 $450,000.00
Use of soils as intermediate cover $865,000.00 $0.00
Total Annual Cost $8,465,000.00 $6,225,000.00
Tip Fss ;30.23 $29.03
• Assume 280,000 tons disposed/yr in landfill w/o WASTEC
` Assume 180,000 tons disposed/yr in landfill w/WASTEC
' Tip fees do not include costs associated with the recycling program or administration (assumed to
be equal with or without WASTEC)
' Tip fees do not include post closure costs (assumed to be equal with or without WASTEC)
` Operating costs w/o WASTEC arc adjusted higher to account for loss of revenue due to $2 surcharge
and increased fuel, equipment maintenance, posi-shell costs
' Wages and benefits w/o WASTEC arc adjusted higher to reflect additional staff requirements
` The cost of the use of soils as intermediate Dover is projected to equal that of daily cover at such time
that the site runs out of on-site soils which, without WASTEC, will happen sooner than later
• Tip fees do not reflect a quantified value of lost life expectancy of 12 years at the landfill faality due
to potential operation w/o WASTEC
VALUE OF LOST LIFE EXPECTANCY IF WASTEC CLOSED TODAY
ASSUMPTIONS:
• 'rf WASTEC continues to operate at iYs current capacity we expect it to extend the life of the landfill by an additional
PAGE 7
12 years over the next 24 years of landfill operation, for a total life expectancy of 36 years from present
life extention added to the end of the 24 year period
future value of current budget of $8,465,000 in 24 years (time landfill will Dose if WASTEC not operating)
equals $8,465,000(PV), 24(N}, 3% CPI(I/lf), (CPT), (FV) $17,207,602.11
future value of tip fee currently at $30.23/ton in 24 years (time landfill will close if WASTEC not operating)
equals $30.23(PV), 24(N), 3% CPI (I/1r7, (CPT), (FV) $61.45
$30.23Iton tip fee is break even point
future tons disposed annually currenty at 280,000 in 24 years (assume WASTEC shut down)
equals 280,000(PV), 24(N), 2% growth (I/1'), (CPT), (FV) 450,362.43
` value of lost life at the end of 24 years after all operational costs = (450,382.43 ton/yr X $61.45/ton) - $17,207,802.11 =
$10,467,189.21/year (FV) or approximately $6,507,864.02/year (PV)
' total lost profit for 12 years = $78,091,968.19 (PV) or $125,808,030.50 (FV) or approximately $3.2 - $5.2 million/year for
the next 24 years, should be used to support continued operation of WASTEC
COST OF LAND IF HAD TO PURCHASE 12 YEARS WORTH TO MAINTAIN LIFE EXPECTANCY FOR YRS 246
(ADDED EXPENSE)
' assume 4 acres will lest for 1 year 24 years from now (extrapolated based on current speed of fill,
cell capacity, adjusted for WASTEC cbsure)
' 4 acres X 12 years of lost life = 48 acres needed
' assume present value of 1 acre of landfillable properly in NHC costs $50,000 (based on price given by Invista
for adjacent properly)
' present cost = $50,000/acre X 48 acres = $2,400,000
` assume property value escalates at 5% every year
' future value/future savings = $2,400,000 (PV), 5% (I/Y), 24(N), (CPT), (FV) _ $7,740,239.87
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING
CELL CONSTRUCTION/CLOSUREC0STS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN CURRENT LIFE EXPECTANCY
IF WASTEC CLOSED TODAY
(coats already Included In value of lost Ilfe expectancy calculation above, isolated here)
` assume 3% annual adjustment for CPI
• `present cost of landfill construction = $310,000/acre
present cost of landfill closure = $180,000/acne
assume from above, 48 acres of landfill needed 24 years from now
• present cost = 48 acres X $490,000 (construction + Gosure costs) _ $23,520,000
` future cost = $23,520,000 (PV), 3% (I/Y), 24(N), (CPT), (FV) _ $47,811,317.38
IF WASTEC WERE CLOSED TODAY AN INVESTMENT OF i28 MILLION PV (LAND 8 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION)
WOULD BE NEEDED TO SATISFY DISPOSAL NEEDS FOR YEARS 24-38
Value of Landoll Capacity Lost (WASTEC Operating Lsss Than 90°i6
years compiled are IY 99/00 through FY 07/06
` Difference in actual tons Incinerated vs. What would have been Incinerated at 90% Capacity (35,868 + 2043 +
27249 + 23894 + 79219 + 40654 + 77224 + 39553 + 52858) = 372,562 tons
• assume current cell lasts 2.5 years and is 5.5 acres and has a 450,000 ton capacity
` 372,562/450,000 = .83 or 83% of a landfill cell
` .83 X $490,000 (construction + Closure costs) X 5.5 acres = $2,236,850
$2,236,850 / 9 years = $248,539 annually
PAGE 8
Value of Soils Use Lost (WASTEC Operating Less Than 90°x)
` actual ash delivered to LF (FY 99/00 through FY 07/08) = 358,294 tons
actual MSW incinerated at WASTEC (FY98/00 through FY 07/08) = 959,438 tons
• Ash created/ MSW incinerated = (358,294/959,438) _ .373 tons of ash/ton of MSW incinerated
so
• ' addtional tons that would have been incinerated at 90°~ capacity = 372,562 tons
`multiply tons that would have been incinerated (372,562 X conversion factor of .373 = 139,130 tons of ash lost)
tons of ash lost = 1/2 the tons of native soils actually used (must use 6 fiches of soil vs. 3 Inches of ash for daily cover) _
278,260 tons
` cost to purchase that amount of soils (value of soils, value of ash use lost) = 278,260 tons X $7.50/ton for soils and
hauling = $2,086,952
lost value/ 9 years = $2,086,952 / 9 = $231,684 annually
Value of Electrical Salea Lost (WASTEC Operating Less Than 90%)
` years compiled are FY 99/00 through FY 07!08
` Difference in actual KWH generated vs. What would have been generated at 90% Capacity (13,630 +980 + 7,630 +
7,168 + 21,234 + 11,790 + 22,395 + 11,075 + 15,329) = 111,210
• mulGpy additional I(1NH that would have been generated at 90°k (111,210) X current Mega Watt Value ($40.70)
equals = $4,526,237
bst value of electrical sales annually = $4,526,237 / 9 = $502,915 annually
electrical sales should increase minimum of 25% when new agreement reached with Progress Energy
•
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING
AgBrawiva Growth Scanarb
Evan &Oing Pay-As-You~Go Sunarb
~~
EY
2
Admin f7933Q
$312,785 EY1P31
$322,050 (x1132
$331,639 :13
3
$341,564 fYL~li
$351,836
• landfill 394,950 407,091 419,656 432,661 446,122
Recycling 506,240 520,874 536,019 551,695 567,919
WASTEC 0 0 0 0 0
Salary & Benefits $1,213,976 $1,250,014 $1,287,314 $1,325,920 $1,365,877
Admin 46,582 48,678 50,869 53,158 55,550
landfill 1,422,438 1,486,447 1,553,338 1,623,238 1,6%,283
Recycling 278,963 291,516 301,634 318,343 332,668
WASTEC 0 0 0 0 0
Operating Expenses 1,747,982 1,826,642 1,908,840 1,994,738 2,084,501
Debt Service 663,893 520,068 294,009 291,156 116,372
CapftalOutlay 51,205 53,509 55,917 58,433 61,063
Transfer toGF 77,244 79,569 62,033 &1,645 87,413
Total Base Expendkures $3,754,300 $3,729,802 $3,628,114 $3,754,892 $3,715,227
Contract Transfer Fee ($/ton) $41.49 $42.58 $43.70 $44.85 $46.03
Transfer Fee Expense $10,074,575 $10,661,661 $11,324,245 $12,004,375 $12,724,218
Offsetting Revenue
Electrical Saks 0 0 0 0 0
Scrap Saks (437,000) (502,550) (571,933) (664,622) (764,316)
Total Offsetting Revenue (437,000) (502,550) (577,933) (664,622) (764,316)
Estimated Total Tonnage 267,800 275,834 284,109 292,632 301,411
Impllad Tlp Fee Prc qP/CO/MtR SS0.01 $50.42 550.59
A'ok~ed SS1S8 SS2.01
Landfill large Equlpmem E~1Q
620,000 EY3~31
800,000 FYll-12
700,OOD fYli:i3
0 f73~1i
220,000
• Total lar8e Gpltal 88abrtarrance 620,000 800,000 700,000 0 220,OOD
~ Prolacts !•x11434 (x1431 EY.11=12 E732:12 E~3~L4
Cell Construction 60 2,500,000 0 0 0 0
Cell Construction 6E 0 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 0
Southern Property PerrnlNing 200,000 200,000 0 0 0
Cell Constrocton So. Property 0 0 0 0 0
Cell Closure (Partial Ce115) 500,000 500,000 0 0 0
CNI Closure (Partial Ce116) 0 500,000 500,000 0 0
Cell Gosure (Partial Cell 6) 0 0 0 800,000 600,000
Rrlaatbn of Oflioes: 0 0 0 0 0
office construction 300,000 600,000 60D,000 0 0
convenience she modification 0 75,000 75,000 0 0
scakhouse construction 0 75,000 75,000 0 0
Total qP 3,500,000 1,950,000 2,500,000 2.050,000 800.00D
Worldry Gp)tal Naads Dua To Tlmlrig OHfararrce far bnoxdng
loan Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0
loan Related CAPEX/CIP/CO 0 0 0 0 0
Nae we Eaceaa / (Head) 0 0 0 0 0
Tlppln8 Fee (excludlrq Clasun costs) 560.20 560.20 560.20 560.20 560.20
EXPENSES not nllaeted to Ttpplrr8 Fae
Unempbyment Expense for 65 empbyees for up to 1 year (pending legislation)
Personal Balance Payouts (up to 320 hours per employee rt current hourly rate)
Costs to `Mothball" WASTEC Facility
Arty Emlronmental Uabilfty or Sinking fund
• Other777
PAGE 9
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING
•
mss
z~~~
~ o000
~ ~~~~
_ e ~~N~
a
• + G ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ G o ~ G
evo c ~ ~ 00000
~~ ~~ ~~
~~
~ 4 R ~ ,~ ~ ~
~I~ ~~ x ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~
~ o$~ o ~ ~ O ~, ~ Q o 0 0
~~ ~~ ~ E ~~ ~~~~ ~
~~~~ ~ ~ ~~s~ ~ ~° g~~5 000$
~~ ~~3~ ,
~~
~~~~
,g¢ r
~~~ ~~ E
~ ~ 8~ ~~LL~ o~~ ~~~~
E
PAGE 10
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING
Revenue Growth Scenario 3
1=Conservative
• 2=Moderate
3=Aggressive
Project Payment Scenarfos~ 4
1=Pay-As-You-Go
2=Maximize Debt Funding
3=Combination Plan
4="Even Billing" PAYG Plan
Revenue Growth
Total Tonnage (in tons)
Growth in Waste Tonnage
Maximum Tonnage to Landfill
Scrap Sales Growth
Electric Rate Increase in FY08-09
•
Project Payment Scenarios
Compactor 826 G
Compactor g26 H
Bulldozer D7R
Bulldozer DBR
Front End Loader 924-6
Front End Loader IT-18
Scrapper Pan
Truck 1-Ash Hauling
Truck 2-Ash Hauling
Loader-Trash handling
Loader-Ash handling
Forklift
WASTEC UNIT 1
WASTEC UNIT 2
WASTEC UNIT 3
T/G 1
T/G 2
C&D Facility
Relocation of Offices
Active
Scenario Scensrb i Scenarb 2 Scenario 3
260,000 250,000 260,000 260,000
3.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0%
25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
15.0% 5.040 10.0% 15.0`Yo
19.6% 19.69'a 19.6% 19.6%
PAGE 11
Note: based on current contr
Acthre PAYG Max Debt PAYG/Debt Even Bill PAYG
Scenario Scenario 1 Scenarb 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
NA NA Y NA NA
NA NA Y NA NA
NA NA Y NA NA
NA NA Y NA NA
NA NA Y NA NA
NA NA Y NA NA
NA NA Y NA NA
NA NA Y Y NA
NA NA Y Y NA
NA NA Y Y NA
NA NA Y Y NA
NA NA Y Y NA
NA NA Y Y NA
NA NA Y Y NA
NA NA Y Y NA
NA NA Y Y NA
NA NA Y Y NA
NA NA Y NA NA
NA NA Y NA NA
NEVV HANOVER COUNTI' SOLID R'ASTE ADVISORY BOARD
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING PAGE 12
Ad/usted Fv08-09 Bose Budget
Admin landfill Rewclina WASTEC Total
Salaries 5?i~s,^0-' ,2uS,L:[ s:~,=i9.62:' $763,522
Temporary !~ t G 0
On-Call D ~~ n 0
OTP iL,U!`D ~~1,llL, ;;, ic1 118,649 -- Reflects elimination of 65 positions
Social Security 17 _,=iG "_,74' _-, _ , 67,483
RetirementLG 11,DS8 1~;,5_'•~ I~.Sli 43,137
Medical -.',075 .L.D7° :E,ia 184,299
LTD 56 55: 5;~: 2,059 ___.
Total Salaries & Benefits $303,832 $383,218 $492,099 $0 $1,179,149
700000 Contract Services $9,000 , ~25~~21 $46,000 $307,521 =40% Reduction
700100 CS-Professional 0 D 0 0 =60% Reduction
700145 CS-Tire Disposal a 290,000 0 290,000
700300 Utilities 5,000 SO,ODO 7,000 62,000
700330 Rent 0 D 6,000 6,000
700335Rent-Equipment D 105w~. 1,800 106,500
700340 Rent - Trailer 0 0 2,500 2,500
700350 Advertising Cost D 1,000 12,000 13,000
700360 Beepers-Pagers 0 D 0 0
700365 Cellular Expense 2,700 5,620
700370 Postage 1,000 750 750 2,500
700375 Operating Permits 0 10,180 0 10,180
700385 Radios 0 1,000 D 1,000
700410 M&R -Auto & Trucks D 1,500 54,000 55,500
700415 M&R -Buildings & Grounds 10,000 98,000 9,500 117,500
700430 M&R -Equipment 2,000 2753, 10,000 288,305
700450 M&R -Landfill C 50,000 C! 50,000
700500 Printing 1,000 500 2,000 3,500
700520 Supplies ~' ' 44,000 74,800
7005255upplies-Auto D u 1,000 1,000
700542 Supplies -Computer 0 D C'~ 0
700560 Supplies -Fuel 1,000 " fOZ;ft~ 46,600 149,686
700590 Supplies -Materials 0 25,000 D 25,000
700630 Prescription Safety Glasses 300 600 100 1,000
700645 Safety Equipment 0 D G 0
700650 Safety Shoes 900 2,280
700665 Uniforms !~ 5,200 10,080
700700 Dues & Subscriptions 710 1,710
700825 Employee Reimbursements 505 3,000 6,105
700905 Travel& Training 'I 3,000 7,000
701050 Insurance & Bonds 4,310 9,618 8,440 22,424
701300 Landfill Surcharge -State 0 SO,uDO 0 50,000 <---Surcharge only paid on 25,000 tons
Total Operating Expenses ~ $44,576 $ 1,361,184 $266,950 $0 $1,672,710
701105 Principal on Bonded Debt 0 D C 5425,000 $0
7011101nterest on Bonded Debt 0 0 D 5',700 52,200
701115 Bond Service Charges 0 0 0 0 0
7011201nstallment Lease Payments 0 x;5,1.02 D 14,271 589,373
Total Debt Service $0 $455,102 $0 $611,471 $641,573
800150 Capital Outlay -Computer $0 $0 $0 $0 $G
800200 Capital Outlay -Equipment 0 19,500 29,500 0 49,000
800400 Capital Outlay -Motor Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0
Total Capital Outlay $0 $19,500 $29,500 $0 $49,000
901600 Transfer to GF S>655i , - ,, UU ;0 50 $75,051
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING
ATTACHMENT #2
NEW HANOVER COUNTY (NHC) -SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE
THIRD REVIEW OF WASTE INDUSTRIES PROPOSAL
November 19, 2008
Basis Year: 2012 / 2013
Volume 280,000 Tons per Year (TPY)
Tipping fees developed by Beth Schrader -Figures are all-inclusive
$65.5 per ton
^ All improvements have been made by WASTEC; the volume and sales cost of
electricity sold to Progress Energy were increased
^ Nothing goes to Sampson County
$53.00 per ton
^ Based on Waste Industries proposal at maximum cost of living increase
^ 75,000 TPY goes to landfill (greater than 50% volume reduction)
Cost @ $65.50 per ton $65.50 x 280,000 = $18,200,000 per year
Cost @ $53.00 per ton $53.00 x 280,000 = $14,840,000 ner veer
Savings to go with Waste Industries $3,360,000 per year
PAGE 13
Does not include expenses associated with termination of WASTEC operations