2008-12-17 SWAB MeetingNEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
DECEMBER 17, 2008 MEETING PAGE 1
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Solid Waste Advisory Board met on Wednesday, December 17, 2008, at 4:25
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; Deputy County Attorney Kemp Burpeau and Deputy Clerk to the Board of
Commissioners Kymberleigh G. Crowell.
David Sims was absent.
Others present were: David F. Weaver, Assistant County Manager, Environmental Management Director
John Hubbard, 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 December 10, 2008 for any
needed corrections and/or changes. Hearing no comments, Chairman O'Shields called for a motion to approve the
meeting minutes of December 10, 2008.
Motion: Mr. Michaelson MOVED, SECONDED by Mr. Newton, to approve the meeting minutes as presented.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0.
DECEMBER 15, 2008 STARS-NEWS EDITORIAL
Mr. Mitchell responded to the Star-News December 15, 2008 Letter to the Editor from Jim Perry, Chief
Executive of Waste Industries. He stated that in regards to Mr. Perry's comment about leaders seeking expert
advice from the private sector, this has been addressed by the Commissioners requesting proposals from the private
sector, appointing this Advisory Board and this Board reviewing and assessing three proposals. In regards to
comment about WASTEC polluting the air, specifically about pollution of air with heavy metals, this is not correct.
In regards to burning only 60% - 65% percent of the waste accepted, this is accurate but reflects the fact that past
tipping fees have not been adequate to maintain the plant at peak operating efficiently. Finally, the editorial
continues by stating that if these type plants are such a good investment they would be opening across the country.
This Advisory Board has learned that the current value of WASTEC is $55 million and to replicate it could cost
between $120 and $125 million. New Hanover County has a very valuable asset that simply needs to get up to
operating efficiency.
A brief discussion followed with members commenting that they are in agreement with Mr. Mitchell's
comments and that the December 6, 2008 Wall Street Journal article indicates that cities across the nation are re-
evaluating the construction of similar facilities. Chairman O'Shields reiterated his prior experience with solid waste
advisory boards and stated that to date, this current board has done the most in depth study he has seen yet, which
included input from the three proposals received October 29, 2008 and in advisory meetings prior to and after that
date. He further expressed his appreciation for the Board's hard work during this time and in situations like with
Mr. Perry's letter, if exception is not taken to them, it becomes the truth.
DISCUSSION/REVIEW OF UPDATED SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD SCENARIO ANALYSIS
In connection with the December 10, 2008 meeting, Beth Schrader, Senior Budget Analyst, presented the
human resources information as it relates to scenarios 2 and 3. In looking at only the 13 positions that would be
eliminated, the cost would be in the range of $350,000 - $450,000 depending on the individuals ultimately
terminated. In looking at all 50 WASTEC positions, the cost range would be $1.1 - $1.3 million in total. She
clarified that this cost is just for the 50 positions and scenario 3 would be the combination of the $350,000 -
$450,000 plus the $1.1 - $1.3 million; essentially $1.45 - $1.75 million for scenario 3 in total. In regard to prior
discussion about tip fees and assumption related to 280,000 tons of waste per year on average, the degree of
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
DECEMBER 17, 2008 MEETING PAGE 2
sensitivity (5% higher or 5% lower) and the impact to the tip fee, this information has been added to the draft
memorandum for each one of the scenarios. In response to questions, Ms. Schrader confirmed that bottom line,
severance is roughly $350,000 - $450,000 for scenario 2 while scenario 3 is $1.45 - 1.7 million cumulative.
In response to questions concerning the scenario 1 net adjusted tip fee, Ms. Schrader explained that from a
budgetary standpoint if a tip fee was set at $60, rather than what is referenced, revenues would not cover all the
proposed capital projects on a cash basis. Staff did not look at the scenario as to what would happen as there are
large sections are and are not able to be bonded. The base tipping fee should be thought of as the balancing number,
for expenditures and estimated revenues, that's what the tipping fee has to be in order to cover, on a cash basis, all of
the expenditures over the course of the 5 years. The base tipping fee is the hard dollar number; the adjusted is the
economic opportunity cost once credit is given for the landfill. When adding an item to scenario 1, it has to be
added to the $62.71 base tip fee instead of the $55.21 adjusted tip fee. The assumption is correct that if there was
an opportunity to finance a portion of the capital expenditures the required tipping fee to balance would be lower
since the payment is being extended over a period of time. She responded to questions on bonding as opposed to
paying via a cash basis. The financial information previously provided was an estimate based on discussions with
the Finance Director and bank representatives and there were no fn~m commitments as it was more of an exploratory
discussion in terms of what might be financed, which might not necessarily be able to be bonded. Information can
be retrieved and was covered in the scenario analysis being reviewed; thought was that the group wanted to take the
worst case approach when comparing these on an apple to apple basis when using a cash basis and have
opportunities to make adjustments on a cash basis from there.
In response to questions, Ms. Schrader will notify the Board if it's not a reasonable assumption that the
County could borrow money at 3 ''/z% - 4% rates based on the current economic conditions. A brief discussion was
held about current Federal funds rates. Ms. Schrader stated that the debt capacity for the County will need to be
checked and bonded debt may not be an option for a large portion because the useful life of an asset may not be long
enough on the whole. She reminded the Board that during initial fmancing discussions, it was explained that entire
units would have to be financed and would essentially have to be prefunded and the County would pay itself back
with the debt proceeds. There are challenges associated with using muni bonds, a review will be needed on what
can and cannot be done and discussions will have to be held with bank representatives in regard to their concerns
about project financing as opposed to actual bond issuance. Based on the size of the projects being discussed, the
methane project and C&D facility, are not sizes normally seen in a muni bond issue and would not meet a minimum
muni bond issue. It has to be more than $5 million and discussion ensued about what could be combined, such as
adding in the transfer station. The Local Government Commission would also need to provide an opinion about the
assumptions being made, regardless of what the market may ultimately allow.
Mr. Mitchell commented that as most of the group previously agreed to keep WASTEC operating, the
discussion now needs to focus on basically scenario 1 versus scenario 2. In prior discussions, the Board concluded
the methane gas project a good opportunity to pursue and that a C&D facility of some size would add to landfill
preservation. Both are potential revenue streams, if not to offset their own costs but perhaps to provide a little extra
revenue. Chairman O'Shields commented that during the December 10, 2008 meeting the Board agreed on the
recommendation that the County pursue purchasing INVISTA's 12 acres of land and further stated that the key issue
is still landfill preservation. He stated that for scenario 2, with regard to having a contractual waste tonnage amount
being sent to the Waste Industries landfill and Mr. Perry's Letter to the Editor, that a contractual ageement for
hauling waste tonnage should now be pursued through an RFP. He understands this may be a harder route to take
but otherwise he would be unable to support the current verbiage in the scenario. Other members commented that
New Hanover County citizens are entitled to very neutral RFPs with regard to separate transportation of waste as
well as to the hauling location. The suggestion was made to let the opportunities be made available and allow the
purchasing department to make the ultimate decision on where the waste will go based on value and service.
Based on the discussion, general consensus of the Board is to have language be included as part of the
proposal that some type of contractual agreement be entered into to transfer a portion of waste from here to another
landfill. It was further suggested that the RFP or bid spec have verbiage stating that the tonnage range would be a
minimum of 100,000 tons and maximum of 250,000 tons per year as well as a separate bid for the transportation of
the waste. This type of verbiage may allow the best possible value to be gained for the taxpayers. Another
suggestion was for the tonnage to be set at increments of 25,000 which would allow Director Hubbard to optimize
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
DECEMBER 17, 2008 MEETING PAGE 3
the step function and select the tonnage that seems most economical. In response to questions, Deputy County
Attorney Burpeau stated that as it's considered a service there is no requirement to use the standard formal bid
process unless it was chosen to be handled in that manner and if the thought was that there are soma other viable
landfills to dispose at along with the logistics of transporting to them. He further clarified that the lowest responsible
bidder is the typical route taken for awarding contract purchases but is not normally required for the process of
services. Essentially, service contracts are required to be bid, you can send out a formal request for services and
although it is not unusual it is not required.
Mr. Mitchell stated his continued support of scenario 2 and that one primary reason is the allowance of
roughly 350,000 tons less waste going to the landfill which results in more landfill preservation. Another reason is
the difference in the tipping fee for roughly a 50% reduction in landfill trash is approximately $3.50 between
scenario 1 and 2. Although it is a relatively small amount, there is a reduction in what is going to the landfill
between the two options by 45%, so for a slight increase the object of saving space is achieved. Scenario 2 also
allows the opportunity to partner with a private sector company for a period of time and see how that partnership
evolves, which gives the Commissioners and Director Hubbard as the operator, one more option in the mix to keep
costs low for the citizens.
In response to questions, Mr. Mitchell stated that under scenario 2 the capital avoidedJreduced section
would be the County's responsibility and the only item that is private-partnership is hauling a certain amount of
waste tonnage elsewhere. The County would continue to control the methane project and the C&D facility; the flow
going to the other landfill may allow options to increase as circumstances dictate. Ms. Schrader stated that if viewed
this way, the $720,000 is cost that is permanently avoided in regard to landfill equipment. The assumption of
essentially downsizing operations, so with fewer employees and with less trash going to the landfill, there is less
heavy equipment required. However, both the $1.3 million for development of the southern property and $1.8
million to move the administration building would be required. The difference is both fall beyond the 5 year time
horizon and could be considered as delayed or deferred costs but should be expected to occur; it will take longer
with a reduction in trash volume.
Ms. Schrader confirmed that the Board is looking at a base tipping fee that might be closer to $62.71 rather
than $66.18 due to avoided costs. It is part of the adjusted tipping fee that adds back in what the fee would be for
those avoided costs - to correct for those costs that are deferred, but not permanently avoided. In response to
comments that the tipping fee has to be $66.18 in order to recover the hard costs, she further clarified that this is
assuming that everything is paid on a 100% cash basis. A reduction of the required tipping fee could occur with any
amount able to use installment debt financing or meeting underwriter criteria in order to use bonded debt. A brief
discussion continued about an appropriate tipping fee to recommend, noting that the bottom line is the tipping fee
needs to be sufficient to operate the program with the key to that being WASTEC and well as consideration of the
entire environmental program.
Assistant County Manager Weaver suggested that the Board may want to consider which option to support
rather than considering what to recommend as a tipping fee as the fee set is dependent to a point on the amount of
incoming trash. Discussion was held that the tipping fee recommendation is needed as the Commissioners need to
understand that the fee decided on is what is needed when discussing maintaining a manufacturing facility that
requires maintenance as it can not be postponed as it will result in the low efficiencies. Further discussion was held
on when a tipping fee change can be enacted and its effect on haulers.
Discussion continued that one point to recognize is the draft document's numbers are based on estimates of
equipment costs and various other items. The tipping fee needs to be a realistic one based on circumstances at that
point and time and the important message is that the fee is calculated in order to operate efficiently. In response to
questions, Director Hubbard confirmed that the current tip fee is $51; increased this year by $2 based on the State
tax surcharge. Assistant County Manager Weaver explained that if the tipping fee is set excessively high in order to
accomplish things to be done in terms of repair and such, the excess can always go into a fund balance that was
recommended several years ago by the last WASTEC committee. Ms. Schrader commented that the only items in
the draft model are items that were modeled. If an item was not part of an assumption or if there's knowledge that
was unknown when included, there is no reserve for it; there is not a holding spot in there for items like the rainy
day fund.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
DECEMBER 17, 2008 MEETING PAGE 4
The Board discussed taking a vote for either scenario 1 or 2. Chairman O'Shields felt the only difference
between the two is the trash movement and as such, scenario 2 was acceptable to him. Mr. Michaelson stated that
he would support scenario 2 so long as there was an additional recommendation included that a solid waste advisory
board be established in perpetuity. This way, the responsibility of reviewing the tipping fee is not exclusively on the
Commissioners.
Motion: Mr. Michaelson MOVED, SECONDED Mr. Newton to approve the inclusion of the recommendation that
a solid waste advisory board be established in perpetuity. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0.
Motion: Mr. Mitchell MOVED, SECONDED by Mr. Michaelson that the New Hanover County Solid Waste
Advisory Board recommend the option of scenario 2: Cascade (PUBLIC/PRIVATE) to the New Hanover County
Board of Commissioners. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0.
Chairman O'Shields stated that Mr. Sims was unable to attend the meeting but had sent an e-mail to the
members concerning today's meeting. He understands that the reading of this a-mail was hearsay but wanted to
share Mr. Sims' comments and requested that it be included as part of the minutes. Chairman O'Shields read Mr.
Sims' a-mail which stated:
Sorry that I will be missing tonight's meeting. Following are some comments that
I would be making if I were present:
If we go with Scenario # 2 or # 3 we will take the pressure off an immediate
expenditure of $4,500,000 to build the C&D recycling plant. Since the purpose of
the recycling facility is to reduce flow to the landfill we can accomplish this by
shipping more trash to Sampson County. If a census is taken tonight I am leaning
toward Scenario # 3 at this time.
David Sims
Chairman O'Shields explained that scenario 3 is the cessation of WASTEC and the County basically getting out of
the business.
Members clarified for Assistant County Manager Weaver that instead of keeping the verbiage that the first
71,750 tons goes to Sampson Co., the Board is recommending that the bid process, an RFP be entered and the
purchasing department make the ultimate decision as to how the County receives the best value; this results in
scenario 2 being modified to reflect this change. The first important piece is that the scenario remain a cascade
scenario where the base level is hauled out under contract, the second is that WASTEC is optimized and the third is
whatever is left over goes to the County landfill. Mr. Michaelson commented that that Board may want to state that
the Environmental Department bares the responsibility to try to work with the haulers in order for the landfill to
receive the best possible mix to produce methane for the future. This may be accomplished through operational
optimization whereby known commercial food product waste is sent to the landfill while residential waste is
transported to a secondary landfill. Another issue that should be addressed concerns the community and the need for
the County to show that it will be moving into mandatory trash pickup, curbside recycling and C&D items. Mr.
Mitchell stated that he views this as having two main components; one is the landfill which has been primarily dealt
with, what is done with what comes through, while the second component is how to get it there which is mandatory
countywide recycling. These are issues to be addressed by the permanent advisory board but the County has to
handle the current stream in the most efficient manner and move forward to the Advisory Board's suggestions.
In an additional clarification request, Assistant County Manager Weaver stated that his understanding of
the Board's verbiage preference is to say the maximized tonnage should go to WASTEC, then allocate the
remaining trash to either the County landfill or some other landfill based on whatever RFP is received, as well as the
proviso that a minimum amount of trash continues going to the County landfill in order to keep the permit valid and
technically, keep the landfill open. Deputy County Attorney Burpeau confirmed that the Board wants verbiage
stating that trash will be going to a private landfill based on competitive bid rather than stating Sampson County.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD
DECEMBER 17, 2008 MEETING
PAGE 5
After a brief discussion about staff preparing and providing a draft presentation document for the Advisory
Board to present to the County Commissioners, general consensus was to add one more meeting on January 7, 2009
at 4:00 p.m.in order to review the final documents. Deputy Clerk Crowell stated that the agenda review has been
changed to January 14, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. in the Lucie F. Harrell Conference Room. Chairman O'Shields thanked
everyone and stated that he has enjoyed working with everyone and coming too a successful conclusion and
promotion of the presentation and hopes it will be approved by the County so that the facility can start working more
successfully. He appreciates staff s hard work and going above and beyond to work with this board.
A copy of the updated December 10, 2008 Draft Solid Waste Advisory Board Scenario Analysis is
included herein as Attachment 1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman O'Shields adjourned the meeting at 5:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~rcx.-e,(~-
Kym erleigh G. Crowell
Deputy Clerk to the Board
~ ~
N
R
C
a
C
m
u
O
m
O
Q
d
11
~~
3
AT1Yl~(S~NP ~
m
N
7
O
t
!O
O~0
N
0
0
(yl
N
O
.a
Y
0
m
LL
m
a
L
L
0
c~
O
C7
O
E `
Y
N ~
d p
O W
w 3
'- C
ro y
d ~
T
W ~
c
°
n
E
N
m
~@
C
0
b
V
e~ N
Z
Ci
7
`m a
a, -a
T o
C d
Y n
r c
,,, o
m +~
m ai
,~, o
y.. n
O w
O
~° ~
~, O
~ i
c 3
l6 ~
w
L 0
? ~ o
Q ? LL
N ~
M n ~
R ~ ~
C ~ U
10
0 m M
°D 3 L
o aR
g ~ ~o
° of °;
LL Q ~
c c
Y LL ~
~ ~ a
3 H _
o °7
10
~ ~ ~
~ n o
~ ~
V N Q
o ~ a
o ~
o g =
3
C~1
N N
°1 oc
M
3 y
~q a ~
of y W
m .o ti
'O
C
J
V
s
Z
m Y
`y ~ N
aR ~ o
~3
a
o u H h
a
of
~ 10 ~ CJ
t7.
X
W
M
m
v
C
LL
d
O
W ~
.~ o
Y
d p
J
N y
t L
~+ ~+
•~ M
~ N
d u
d =
z
H N
N
3
v ~
'o a
n ~
~, '~
d N
t
a ~
~ d
w 0
c
~ T
V
V
N `1 ~
u ~ m
l0 ° i
~ c o
-o c
~ N v
c ~ c
,~ ~ ~~..
~ = a
U d y'C,, lO
` v
O m N f0
Q C N
~. n ~ L
z
f '~ ~°
~, ~ ~ o
~° ~ 'o =
f6 > >.
a
C a' N O
N ~ Vr ~
N ~'
d °D ~
p ~ h
3
~' J h
o.
a ~ t u
V > ~' d
~ ~ ~ N
'° ~ ra o
~ oo ~ ~
0 5 - N
v
+~+ m ~ Q
u > ~ O
Q W W O
t r ~ ~
O Y m
Y7 {~
~ W +L~+ Vf
} LL N Vf
a ° 3 ~
N fl' X X
d ~- W W
~ ~!t tt1 1~
~ '^
W O
~ ~ G
C O
~
~ C .a ~ ~ 'O O ~ ~
°
c ~'
m
w m
~~
~
~ ~ .a
E c
r
M
;° c
~° v
d c c
c co •.-
c v ~
o d
~~
Y1
r 0 ~
0
H~
O N T N
O
L a
_
V
~ Y C
° V ~ d a~+
n ~ N d j. O ~ ~~ t O
V
m + O
a ~ C v m c ~ 0
~ n1 ~~
3 a
i ~~ u~
~ ~ i, ~ ~ ~
w ~ ~ a ~
~- ~
~ `~ a~ w
~, a-+
c n C
,.°
o -o
? N ~
ai a ~ C
m
~ ~ 4 ~ ~ p~j ~ W 1~j ~ j. ~ ~" U ~ ~'
Y Q
~ $ C U _O '> C ~ ~ ~ C ~ OJ Gi
~ t ~ C L~'
~ d m c E ai ~ c - o E o ° ~ ~
~ ? n y _ ~
IM1 00 U a+ ~
D jF Q ~
O` ~
O
~ ~ f~ C Q.
~ Q a.... ~ ~ ~
o ~ ~ u
i ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ a
i o c c a c
C 3
n y ~ - N~ w G y ~,
C O ~ o
~ N
. O - N . _
' ,
O O v + ~
•
~'
3 Q y
3 '8 d M N O
~ N X. Gi y N p t t
cc
3 O
C
v a
Q oc .-, c .n a, a .. v
..
y, N
om d N
'~ ~ _
O
~
d
c m
~ /
Q
~
` ~. C
}
~ m ~
p ~
~., w
,n y
a-.
` C
m ~ j1 m
C
V .A ,
= C C R~ d 3 c r y ~
° c ~ a
+ c' : c E pcn a o~
c
a ~
c
~ w`
•°• c~
~ a0i
~
N
~ ` r c
u c
~ W ~~
~ .O Q~ N m
O n ~'
O
m T T
d0 ` m J
«`.
~ ~ O U U V f6 ~' U u C ~ ~' .~~ fl' ~' ° d
N m W r '6 c C •7 i 7 0~ ~ d C f+ 0 0 d ~-
o ~ \ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ = c ~ c o w ~
~ ~ M
u p C N Q
~ "
O C t
n C i
~ a ~ ~
°' ~ O~ p t`a t`D
V! o o d
tlI ''' O °
W ~p ~~
J - ~ v
N ~ .o ~
y ,O ~
L
~ o c c a
C ~ - r. ~ L
H m
.j C1
O1 u
t/? Y
.O ~'
d "O
N y
y
N
v
C 4J
ro
~+
(p
O (~ 3~
~;,~ ~ d _
~ L
.
r
~ E"
•• °L'
u c _
E
~ c
c
c
•
~o ~ L> p
w t'i
N X t0
~~ GJ C
C Z ~ J
N M ~ ~
t
O ~ Ll ~
W ~
` ° C Y ~
d
tt Y N
~ '
~
c m
LL G~ ++ K e~ ~
Q C N X
/n d d y
r O
~ U 3 i+ .
J d
c ~
. ~
m
c
m c ~
m
Y ai
vi oo t c .c R
d u p
> ~ p C C \
Y
7 y 'n
N V d
u G W
O p w„
O
..~
ar p~
~ W
~ ~ -
~
~ a .~3 ~o
~
r m ~ a 3 c rn o
N U
J vi
C m o
O
~ c m
V~ C
a c ~ O = ~
C M
O n
m m~ _
s~~
C ~ C c
u`i E m a m w y
m w m 'M O ~ E p 3 +~ -
y ~
~ C
~
~ ~ ~ l L
G -t
a
N O
7
~ ~ ° ~ v v~- > ° a
O ~
a c
~ ~
Q
V
Q A
~ t
3
m ~ ~ d C `^ ip ~ O 'D Z d
s $ N =" c ~ ~
c c c ~ ~ aci a ~ a
~° +~ +~ 3 c m c a~ a ~- .
c ~ Y "a O E .o v c ~ o -O
'p O Q Q O a:r O 3 C m d >~ t/f W V Y O N Rf G J tYO 7
O U m ~ m ~ > ~ ~ ~ N ~ f6 ~ ~ 0 fn >• N ~ A ~ N O
V ~~
~ L >
~ IJ ~ C ~p
y
C L
~~ Y Y C
y~
c o
u
a m d~
o ... N
c m v °' O y C
w u m° ~ -_ y
~
~. E- o. c g~ C
c .
a°1i
ro
u
.~
>
~ c
C
p u u
~n ~^ *' O Tr O ,O C - O ~ a0+ y N !o ~ ++ N +-~ f,r 16 p
o
c O
y
= p
~
~ u ~~ o „
m~ DL ~~ Y~ ~ Q C d r ~ 3~ y~~ c
a
i
o~°'3atN or ~p `° ~:. oOdc 3~Ea~ ~oo cc°p
V- p N +~' NO C vai W .:. C O ` c J~
O ~ d~-
• ~~"' fY0 V p t N
N
N t~fl `
++
~ Y h
p~ C j V~ N m l6 u; + p
~' Y a X~~
~ td0 N N> N N L 2} O ~ N V V1
>~ -- ~ O `6 v' c y- +° ai a °: n °7 3 3 .a u u~ c~ +~ '.' .., N Y 3 c ~
C
~ O~ A y j Q a~ a0+ N C y C M O h ~_ = C A N}~ ~~ L d C O
~
~
.r
L Y V N p C~ ~"~
C w t
Y~ Qj ~~
f0 IQ ~
Z O C C 10 ~
V~ V L
1
G O f0 1
ano ° ano ~ :°. u E d >~ i ~ ~ m 3 c~ c~ a, ~ 0 3 c v a c '= c o
~ tFv/"~~ ~+ ~ E a'
N n
~
; L~ .n a aJi cm ~ +d,,
m
vz m CQ C C ~'
N ~ O E
~' > E c t, 7
m fO ~ o 3 t0 'O r u
O
> o~ a -o o c Q +, c
N o Q N .. .-i
v a v v}
~. _
~
=
OC '!- 3
3 N
= uc o
LL~
T ,..,
w uYi ~ J 0 ~n E C0 U Q N Q Q O. O ~i N U ~ O t- 2
O~ ~ d H
u n
y
`
te N ~
. +'
a
O
a ~ N
W O "O 3 'D
r O V C
O
Y N
Y 3 O/ Y
d o d ~ ab .
~ W ~ 1Oa Ev ~ ~~ o
.
~
c N y I
o a o"
~ ~~ o > o
T
> -Q1 i v -a
~°
w ' ~ ~ ~' ai a °-' u c~ E~° Y a o
U y E 7" ar N~ p[ ai a-~ ~ u ~~ v a L
'' N
.a
O LLe ._~ a+
t
u v~ O
'O
Z R _
m O~ - N ~> 0 0 0 of C O C
L
T p," ~~ a vYi ~ N C( 'd
~ N C u H Q O y u O
Q
C
N ~ W C Yf L~ ~ O
O C
_ .
+ N N
a
.. ~ o ~ o O o Ys u L~
W
~ 7 C a~ ~~~ E
~ jp f0 O.
r C > 10 V m C
~O ~ ~n C Vf Ia ~ > a.+ ~ T v OJ O
N .
n C a+ ~ m {0,7 a+ ~~ C E Y >. N Y E w ~ 'O u C~~ C C O VY
ll1 01 ~
n ao °n° _
`4 w d= m :: ~n N OD
E
:°. d «! a`i
eXa m
~
" v
c
E~
E o
`iN .
°x'a°~ °u
o°ic oOZ E
a°7c v~id0 aci~ o ~: a
i
o
c
oC °_'Stu °uQ a0 W m
m~
st . +n
U N c
~N v
,n
w
~
a n.~ ~o ° 03 °
°~'~ ~ m c ~~ c~
W u
u
C
a
Y eo
^=t
~
' "
-'
n
o
c
O
0 l
w
a+
O u E °~
nc
~ p C a
.. C
C
~ ~ .t j v 0 ti.
~ t
m `1
d .~ ~
C C N ~ ~+ N U_
W
N
y m
ro o c °~ c Q
l
o> c N _o ~ f0 C i'
•a ._ c V c0 C I
„
•~ a o v~ E
~
~
~ '" ~° ~- c Z
~~~ Y L
y ,Q c m m u ~.
O c ,~ " = E 'O o +n
~' u
i+ W
'
°
v
-
c 3
c N ~ 'O ~ y
~' d
m J Q y
3 E~ y N a
o
°
i
L
v
i
a
a
~ > =
.D
ai 0
.. ~n o ~
~
O ~ fl. >
C t 10 N N u vl ~ z ,~ 10 N +/f C aN+ +'' > ++
r- y O
is _
~ ~ N a~ qi L o _ ~. ~ ,,, ai c ~ ~ N
O T Ono
d O w C c~ ~
E ~ yy...
C C C OO E~ y
c N 0
~~ ++ h tC0 ~ T
n
N v L Y
m O X d d d ~ r.
M
O C~ 0~
X~ Vf ro
d
t C
~
~
N =
2 i 3 ai o oc ~ y
m~ a m~ E a ~
w of 0 0
C O
~. v +. W u ~.
n
.-i • ~ • • • • • • •
c
N O
N
~
~ L
O O
M i
J ~
H C
M ~ N
C QJ
3~ U 0
O w W r
3- C
V ~
O `~
:_ N W
\
_
~ C /~ ~ eo p x ~ ~ ` N
r W ~ Q to w vY
i
:+ O io m u
~ ~ o m c c ~ ° a`i
41 !0 ~ N ~ > C
J d L
O
1f1 CJ U Il a oc U
i0 .~+ n ul 0 00 o
arnNOO~no Rf
~
fV O N fri O .~ O ~
N
N~vlofvav-,of
ao.~+nornaov
rl O~ N O 01 t0 t0 u+
O
iD O ti O t+1 r+ fV ~
H ~/1 to VF V v N 4F
~ O O O 0~1 On0 ~ N
N O O O Hff O N M
~'!J~ ~~ vv~ ~
o, f'i
~
M W 'O R
~ L
~
~ ~
w O
W
~
y a ~ o c~ oc
~ o ~
~ c ~
~
~
00
Q "O 'O ~ O W
4i
G~ j N N- y
a
f Eve rn
~., o
d
F~~3~aa 3
a
mddds~~ Z
v
W
/y0
m
i+ Q!
`~- O
d "'
M
~.
O v
d
W U
L
0
of
O
c
E
N
C
O.
co
v
V
~3
z° .=,
vi
W
a ai
N w
V OD
N ['
N ~-
E "
N O
f0 C
p, O
`/ j
R ~
n
41
ayi ~
~ N
"~ f0
°' c
j
N ~
u O0
C ~
d ~
~ u
v ~
.~
0 0
s
u
3
to 1A
N H
Y Z OD
(p O h
u 3 ~
pp O O
C ~ .C
C
3 Y d
N ~ dD
~ E o
Qi N ~
~ ~ ~
> !n O
~ 3 O
~v ~+
CO t rat
4+
R
~ ~ 0
V~
~ d ~
~ ~ ~
o ~ ~
N U ~
a oWC ~
oa .-+
~ c
.G
~ O C
~° =° a
O u ~
g ~ a
c ~ m
U
41. a+
~ ~
O ~- ?
C y N
~ C
C t d
E +o ~
L ~ 'C
O
~ ai ~
in ~ e»
Q O ~,
d p eo ~'
ai ~ E ~
t V X =
~ ~ O ~
` O IIa. O
O p. ~
L d
~ ~ w r
.~ o ~' E
m 3 ~ o
C ~ ~ w
~ v ~
N
N
7, ~ Q} U
~ W t N
~ °3° o
~ O pj
`0 Y y >"
~ ~ M V
c p. iy io
C ~ y E
y D. d O
.. 3 m
m w $ n.
~o
N ~ A m
~ i+ C
~ °7 0
t1D
a~ ~ ~. a
v ~ v `,
N ~ ~ O
O ~... r
V +r ~n +-'
H ~ L N
U ~
3 £ ~ 3
= > Q W
N ~ 3
N
fp
~I
m
C
O
.O
R
d
Y
N
C
Oi
N
Q
N
N
t
Y
M
v
c
m
N
O
e`a
N
o`
LL
~i
d
d
E
W
H
y~
C
01
N
lC
d
t
Y
O
_3
~6
O
m
OQ
c
eo
c
ai
L
..._
ar
10
Y
0
"~6
C
a
U
H
3
O
a
y~
_N
O
m
C
0
a
O
m
O
O!
tG
1
~~
d
s
.~
7
O
tJ ~
OY7 ~
w
O C
t0
~ ,~
~ a
C
N ~ M
d
C ~ u
w ~ -c
L ~ C
.+
c ~ v
.` n ~
3 x ro
~ am+ C
C 16
~? ? 3
O O O
~ V ~
c
''' a
Q j L
~ C ~ W
Y
M ~
U ~ jV Y
N
f0 O. E
O .`
V Q. ~ O.
d
O Y C Z
E `o °
C ip
~a
w ~'
eo y„
~ ~ C w
p v v
T
V ` C at+ ~
co a a ~ ~
L V N
N ? a
z a ~
d " >~ O
3 w c o a
C O O w 00
m E +'' ~ c
V T ~ C
i~ O. d N
a ~ o ~ E
d ~^ O ~
h ~ Q ~ O
C .~ 3 t6 ~
- w u "
0
3 v v~i ~ ai
H C Q \ Q
p m 3 io u
m m o H
N N
a E ~ :~. ro
3 ~ 'p 4
~ ~ O ~ ~
~ E c c
~ o ~ ~.
m m ~ a
C > ~ ~ V ~
v
o aCi ~ ~ ani e
~ ~ ~ ~ vi cYn Q
~w.~ ~= a;
O O ~ ~,, eo
~C ~[ G fp N
~ ~ a~ n
~- J J W S O
~~ ri N (+1 Q' to
C ~
Q
f0
u ~
O O
~+ a
~ m
o E
u
s a~i
m ~.
E °1
v
v
•. a-~
O p
c
c m
Y N
C
u 'p
~_ ~
t fD
Y V
10 Z
3 a,
u "
O
to '^
~ O
Y ~
. -o
o °'
o E
d V
7 ~
OJ
f~6 A
o ~ E
r
O C =
~ .0 3
~ 3 ~
` u •~
a d f0
~' ~. ~
~ °C o
f'a .O ~
Q
o °1 Y
c ~°-
" ~ E
3 ~
n `o
d ~
O ~
~ ~
A o 3
= E m
~° 3
~ ~ N
Y
'~ r-1 N
a
d
E
f0
00
0
c ~"
00
u
A ~
U
O ~ GJ
O
i.+ pp > ~O
t'i C ~^ d
a ~
E ~ ~ ~
u ~
Vf ~ O C
U U ~ ~
N
d
u
O
O.
c
0
a
3
m
a'r
d
t
m
.j
.O
c0 ~ V ~O
Scenario 1: Status Quo PLUS
Admin ~Q$1Q
5744,538
S767,232 E33:~
$790,719 FYl2.13
5815,029 t73~14
$840,190
landfill 782,566 505,749 829,743 854,577 880,281
Recydkig 506,240 520,874 536A19 551,695 567,919
WASTEC 3,222,096 3,320,847 3,423,054 3,528,838 3,638,324
Satiny & 9enefia $5,255,440 55,414,701 $5,579,535 $5,750,139 55,926,714
Admin 63,762 66,631 69,629 72,763 76,037
landfNl 2,199,437 2,298,411 2,401,840 2,509,923 2,622,869
Recycling 278,963 241,516 304,634 318,343 332,668
WASTEC 4,873~0W 5,187,270 5,431,147 5,675,549 5,0,948
Operating Expenses 7,515,625 7,853,829 8,207,251 5,576577 8,962,523
Debt Servkc 663,893 520,068 294,009 292,156 116,372
Capkal0uUay 51,205 53,509 55,917 58,433 61,063
Transfer toGF 77,244 79,569 82,033 84,645 87,413
Total Base Expendkures S33,563,408 513,921,675 514,218,745 $14,760,950 515,154,085
Offsetting Revenue
Electrkel5ales (1,223,141) (1,322,989) (1,422,837) (1,422,837) (1,223,141)
Scrap Sales (408,500) (439,138) 1472,073} (507,478) (545,539)
Total Offsetting Revenue (1,632,601) (1,762,126) (1,894,910) (1,930,315) (1,768,680)
Estimated Total Tonnage 267,800 275,834 284,109 292,632 301,411
hnpNad Tip Fee Pre CIP/CO/M8R 544.55 544.05 S<3.38
Pro%eted 549.85 644.41
Landfill large Equipment 620A00 800,000 900,00D 880A00 990,000
WASTEC urge Equipment 150,000 150,000 175,000 175,000 80,000
Unk 1 Md~R 960,500 231,000 295,000 244,000 600,000
Unit 2 MBiR O 150,000 150,000 400,500 760,O0D
Unk 3 M&R 665,000 1,654,000 84,000 84,000 84,000
T/G 1- M&R 0 0 0 985,000 0
T/G 2- M&R 0 0 985,000 0 O
Material Building/warehouse 0 0 0 250,000 0
CoolkfgTower8l 0 75,000 0 0 0
CooNng Tower •2 0 0 95,000 0 0
Fire System Upgrade 125,000 0 0 0 0
Roof ventilation fens 20,000 0 20,000 0 20,000
Ash Area 0 200,000 0 0 0
Tip Fbor 190,000 0 0 0 0
Tank and pumps for hydro vvster 0 0 130,000 0 0
Positive Pressure MCC room 0 40,000 0 0 0
Total large Capital Malntenanoe 2,730,500 3,33000D 2,834,000 3,018,500 2,534,000
CIP Projacte
Ce0 Constnmion 6D 2,500,000 0 0 0 0
Cell ConstnKUon 6E 0 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 0
Southern Property Permkting 200,000 200,000 0 0 0
Cell Conat-uetion Sa Property 0 0 0 0 1,300,000
Cell Ck~surc (Partial Ceti 5) 500,000 500,000 0 0 0
ceN dosurc (Partial ceN ~ 0 500,000 500,000 a o
Cell Ck>surc (Partial Cell 6} 0 0 0 800,000 800,000
C& D Processing FaNiky 0 0 0 0 0
LandfNl Gas ProJ~t 0 0 0 0 0
Re-Location of Offices: 0 0 0 0 0
ofRct construdk~n 300.000 600A00 600A00 0 0
convenience sKe modNicatbn 0 75,000 75,000 0 0
snlellouse oor~struction 0 75,000 75,000 0 0
Total CIP 3,500,000 1,850,000 2,500,000 2A50A00 2,x,000
Tippk~g Fee 562.71 562.71 562.71 $62.71 562.71
Scenario 2: Cascade Scenario
fY4~34
tY14:13 a
EY31.33
FY12-13
~'.3~
Admin $312,785 $322,050 $331,639 $341,564 $351,836
landfill 481,489 496 615 511,752 527,420 543,636
Ring 506,240 520,874 536,019 551,695 567,919
W1i5TEC 3,222,096 3,320,847 3,423,054 3,528,838 3,638,324
Salary & 8eneflts $4,523,110 $4,660,385 $4,802,464 $4,949,516 $5,101,715
Admin 49,445 51,670 53,995 56,425 SE,964
IandflO 1,658,578 1,722,793 1,790,543 1,881,691 2,016,105
Reeyding 278,963 291,516 304,634 318,343 332,668
WASiEt 4,9T3,464 5.197,270 3,431,247 5,675,544 5,430,949
Operating Expenses 6,960,451 7,263,250 7,580,320 7,432,008 8,338,fi86
Debt Service 663,8,93 520,068 294,004 291,156 116,372
CaprtalOutlay 51,205 53,509 55,917 58,433 61,063
Transfer to GF 77,244 79,569 82,033 84,645 87A33
Total Base E~enditures $12,275,903 $12,576781 $12,814,744 $13,315,759 $13,705,250
Contract Transfer fee ($/ton) $41A9 $42.58 S43,70 $44.85 S46.02
TrarKfer Fee Expense $2,977,000 53,055.246 $3,135,344 $3,217,646 $3,302,110
Offsetting Revenue
Ekctrial Sales (1,223,141} (1,322,989) (1,422,837) (1,422,837) (1,223,141)
SuaP Sales (408,500) (439,136) (472,073} (507,478) (545,539)
TotalWfsettMgRevenue (1,631,641) (1,762,126) (1,894,910) (1,930,315) (1,768,680)
Estimated Total Tonne 267,800 275,834 284,109 292,632 301.411
hnp8ed Tip Fee Pre qP/CO/Md~R 550.86 550.28 $49.47 $44.90 $50.56
10 ~ili:31 j~J,l_12 Fy12-13 EY3~4
landfill Large Equipment 620,000 800,000 900,000 880,000 270,000
WASTEC Large Equipment 150,000 150,000 175,000 175,000 80,000
Unit 1 MBcR 960,500 231,000 295,000 244.000 600,000
Unit 2 MB:R 0 160,000 150,000 400,500 760,000
Unit 3 MBAR 665.000 1,654,000 84,000 84,000 84,000
T/G 1- M&R 0 0 0 985,000 0
T/G 2• M&R 0 0 985,000 0 D
Material Building/rvarehouse 0 0 0 250,000 0
Cooling Tower 111 0 75,000 0 0 0
Cooling Tower 112 0 0 95,000 0 0
fire System Upgrade 125,000 0 0 0 0
Raofvemltationfaru 20,000 0 20,000 0 20,000
Ash Area 0 200,000 0 0 0
Tip Boor 190,000 0 0 0 0
Tank and pumps fvr hydro water D 0 130,000 0 0
Positive Pressure MCC rooms 0 40,000 0 0 0
Total Large Capital Maintenance 2,730,500 3,310,000 2,834,000 3A18,500 1,614,000
GP Projects
Cell Construction 60 2,500,000 0 0 0 0
Ceti Construction 6E 0 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 0
Southern Property Permitting 200,000 200,000 0 0 0
Cdi Construction So. Property 0 0 0 0 0
Cell Cbwre (Partial Celt 5) 500,000 500,000 0 0 0
Cefl Clowre (Partial CeN 6) 0 500,000 500~OOD 0 0
Cell Cbsure {Partial Celf 6) 0 0 0 800,000 800,000
Re-Location of Offices: 0 0 0 0 0
o(flce construction 0 0 0 0 0
convenience site modification 0 0 0 0 0
saiefrouze oonstnktion 0 0 0 0 0
Total CIP 9.200,000 1,200,OOD 2,750000 2.050.000 800,000
Tipping Fw 56e.13 566.18 566.13 566.18 56i.if
Scenario 3: 86,100 tons to landRli / Transfer Station Modei
Pral)ectrd
Adman EY~2.3Q
$312,785 ~- .431
$322,050 FY3L-3l
5331„639
5341,564 X34
$351,836
Iandflil 481,989 496,615 511,752 527,420 543,636
Recycling 506,240 520,874 536,019 551,695 567,919
WASTEC 0 0 0 0 0
Saiary & Benefits 53,301,014 $1,339,538 53,379,411 $1,420,679 51,463,391
Adman 49,445 53,670 53,995 56,425 58,964
landfill 1,687,875 1,763,829 1,843,202 1,926,146 2,012,822
Recycling 278,463 291,516 304,634 318,343 332,668
WASTEC 0 0 0 0 0
Operating Expenses 2,016,283 2,107A16 2,201,831 2,300,914 2,404,455
DefrtSeMce 663,843 52D,068 294,004 291,156 116,372
Capital Outlay 51,2D5 53,509 55,917 58,433 61,063
Transfer to Gf 77,244 79,569 82,033 84,645 87,413
Total Base Expenditures $4,109,639 $4,099,700 $4,013,201 $4,155,627 $4,132,694
Corkroct Transfer Fee ($/ton) 541.49 $42.58 543.70 $44.85 $46.02
Transfer fee Expense $7,538,967 $8,078,956 $8,652,632 $9,261,992 59,909,148
Offsetting Revenue
Etectricai Sales 0 0 0 0 0
Soap Sales (408,500) (439,138) (472,073) (507,478) (545,539)
Total Offsetting Revenue (408,500) (439,138) (472,073) (507,478) (545,539)
Estimated Total Tonnage 267,800 275,834 284,109 292,632 301,411
ktyrlied lip Fae Pra pP/tom/MAR 641.97 542.56 $42.92 644.12 544.78
Pyo/aebed
~ Ali FY13~ EY~il~ ~~
Landfill Large Equipment 620,000 800,000 900,000 88D,000 270,000
WASTEC Large Equipment 0 0 0 0 0
Unit i MB:R 0 0 0 0 0
Unit 2 M&R 0 0 0 0 0
Unft 3 M&R 0 0 0 0 0
T/G 1- M&R 0 0 0 0 0
T/G Z- M&R 0 0 0 0 0
Materiai Building/warehouse 0 0 0 0 0
CoolingTOVrerfll 0 0 0 0 0
CooltngTOwer82 0 0 0 0 0
Fre System Upgrade 0 0 0 0 0
Roof ventilation fans 0 0 0 0 0
Ash Area 0 0 0 0 0
Tip Fbor 0 0 0 0 0
Tank and pumps for hydro vvater 0 0 0 0 0
Positive Pressure MCC rooms 0 0 0 0 0
Total large Capital Maintenance 620,000 SOO,OOD 900,000 880,000 270,000
C~ Projects
Ceti Constructbn 6D 2,500,000 0 0 0 0
Ceti Construction 6E 0 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 0
Southern Property Permftting 200,000 200,OOD 0 0 0
Cell Constructon So. Property 0 0 O 0 0
Cell closure (Partial CeB 5) 500,000 500,000 0 0 0
Cell closure (Partal Ce8 6) 0 500,000 SOD,000 0 0
Cell Closure (Partial Ce8 6) 0 O 0 800,000 800,000
ere-LopGon of ONfices: 0 0 0 0 0
offke oonstructbn 0 0 0 0 0
convenience site modification 0 0 0 0 0
scalehouse oonstructia~ 0 0 0 0 D
Total pP 3,200.000 L200,000 1,750.000 2,050,000 800.000
Tipping Fee $52.08 $52.~ S52.~ 552.08 $52.08
r+
~f
O
(.}
(/1
O
~M~
t!
2~
O
V
L
m
O
C
tQ
Z
C ~
w
~
°
r
~ E
.
i-v
O O
N , , ,
EL
O
t0 M
N N O
8 N N ~
~ n n o
N N N
W ~
C
E
v
_ ~
v
. --
N N
_
~ _
~
O
O
w O t(
J
~ ~
F' M M m
~ r r ~
m m O
3 ~ ~
N
O
a
N
Q
W
Q
m
~ ~
€ ;
a
~ c
~ ~
v 3
7 O ~
u. w ~
z° f°- i
>: ~
~ ~ j
aC ~
' a
i ~
d
i ~
.~
~ ~ D7
(7 ~ O
N iH ~
fA
N ~
C
C '
V-
~ ~
m
r
i
O
~ O ~
~ ~
r
at
of
N
fA
'~f
r
M
p O O O O
~ N ~ N ~ N ~ ~ N ~ N
~ 69 d9 fA 6~
O
O
tU
CAD ~
~
O
Dl
I
A o
O
N N
~
Off
~ W MM ~ O ~
p
GD ~ S ~ ~ ~
M
v c ~ ~ C a-
8a !~a o d
n.U
NU .
m
isU
0 god
ON a¢
m
NOto
L m
~ ~ ~ o
o > ~_ m
?
g
`
j- i
o ~ ~-- °>_
cr o -
~
.. m
°> m ~a
>>
~ c
a
•o>
~ Q
a7 L" ~
0 ~i C) ~
~u io m
m~
c ~
' c ~
W
~
o
>
~
X
~ o
~ ~ ~ °
~
a
~ N v ~ ~
~ $ _ ~ m m m¢ 3 ~b
_~ a aTd ='~ V °'z~ Ez
Q a E' ~ ~ ' ~ ~
> ~
=o
Q
o o
Q is v
w Q
c ~
Q a oT3
~ ~ ~. '
'
Yo.~
m m
~ '' W ~n'o ~ ~'o
O a ' ~V3 ~f6~
W
V
~
a g o i
.~ c o
~ Q
~
~
3 ~ Q
LL V Q C
~ ~
~ O ~ 7
o
J
p
W a, ~
; Q ~
Q
W
J
o
- ~
J
a m
.. ~' >
o
~, ~
> J
m ~ r
z m
47 C7 J J
0 o Z o a
~ 3 ~ > >
> > Z > >
F J~
U
0
Q.
m
ea
``0A
vJ
C
/3
V
V
0
C
R
m
Z
R o a~i ~ v
o t ~ ° ~.
~- .~' a E
ao o ,
~ o~ i
2
O
a
a
W
a
m
N ~
N O
n o
N N
i9
G
V ~ ~ d'
r ~
a
_ _N N_
~ ~ ~ O
3 °°
~~
~~~
t~ n ~
t ~ m O
2 ~ ~ Q
aM ,~ i
7
~ C
w c ~
~ a
a
t ~ ;
J
O ~ ~ j
_~ ~
~ ~ O i
~'~ w
... ~
oz ~ i
~
~ O d
r~ co ~ r
m ~ a~ ~
a9 alb
O
O
O
~
~ O
~
C7
r
O 4
, ~
N N
~ ~ ~
a
m ~
z~ "z~
~, ¢ ~, ¢
~' ~g
~ ~
~ U J
~
~
C ~
0 C
~
.W c
. ~~ ' e
0
m ~ ~ ~ ~
a-o
o °=
a a_c ~
~ ~ ~
{ ~
w! Q + ¢
.3 c
0
U 0 °
U ~
~
c c 'g i
d 7
d b
O O ¢
a
0
d
C
d
m
v
a
O ~
s ~ ~
R O
r
a a
~-° o i
o i
a ~
~' ~ I
s
~:
w .
-~;
c ~ ~
C ~
~ ~ ~
p al 1
V
o ~ ~
~ >° ~
>a+
i
a
i i
i ~
e
c
f
I ~
,u
~~
~~
i
~,
i
i a
E`
t
' a
~ a
~,
~o
New Hanover County Solid Waste Disposal Costs
Tip Fee Impacts of Scenarios 2 or 3, AcceptancelFailure
Total System Cost
Scenario 2 5103,082,682
Tons of Waste Managed 1,421,787
Base S/Ton Without Consideration of Intangiae Value $66.18
Value of Avoided Tonnage To Landflil, Scet>azio 2 (reduced waste tandfllled in NHCy
Value of airspace saved $2,392,000
IrripaCt txt Total ~'!T`on X1,68._ _
Adjusted $/Ton if Value Captured $64.50
Total System Cost
Scenario 3 576,422,756
Tons of Waste Managed Annually 1,421,787
Base $/Ton Without Consideration of Intangible Value $52.08
Value of Avoided Tonnage To Landfill, Scenario 3 (reduced waste landfilled In NHC)
Annual Value of airspace saved $2,242,500
impat~ttn TSti'on ,',$q58
Adjusted $lTon if Value Captured $50.50
Total System Cost
Scenario 3 176,422.756
Tons of Waste Managed Annually
Base S/TOn Without Consideration Of Intangible Value
1,421,787
$52.08
Valor of Avddsd Tonnage To LandRil or Loss of Value ff Third Party Agreement Fags Through & Cannot be Re-Negotiated
Mnual Value of airspace saved $4,335,500
Im~tadort7e>~ai3lTon $3.05
Adjusted $/Ton if Value Captured $49.03
Adjusted $lTon if Value lost $55.13