![Page 1: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Board of County Commissioners
October 16, 2012
Solid Waste Study Update
![Page 2: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
• Study Progress
• Operations Review
• Waste Flow Analysis
• Preliminary Financial Review
• Next Steps
Presentation Outline
2
![Page 3: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Study Progress
• Scope of Services
• Phase I – Background Document Review
• Phase II – Market Analysis
• Phase III – Operations Review
• Phase IV – Flow Analysis
• Phase V – Financial Review
• Phase VI – Legal and Political Review
• Phase VII – Structural Review
• Completed work for Phases I-IV
![Page 4: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
• Study Progress
• Operations Review
• Waste Flow Analysis
• Preliminary Financial Review
• Next Steps
Presentation Outline
4
![Page 5: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Operations Review
• Objectives
• Review components of OCU waste system to identify how solid waste management services are provided
• Analyze what services are provided by OCU, and what services are provided by other entities
• Perform initial benchmark comparisons with other public agencies and private sector to identify potential efficiencies
![Page 6: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Operations Review
• Quick refresher: OCU waste operations are comprehensive and include:
• Class I and Class III landfills
• 2 waste transfer stations and 1 recyclables transfer station
• Recycled materials processing facility
• Yard waste processing facility
• Household hazardous waste facility
• Waste tires processing facility
• Additional waste-related programs and services
![Page 7: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Operations Review
• OCU is the largest Class I provider in the County
• 3 competing in-county transfer stations also receive Class I waste which is primarily disposed at non-OCU landfills
Class I Waste Disposal (2010)
594,529
163,416
133,872
81,963
Orange County Landfill WMI-Orlando Transfer Station WSI-Taft Transfer Station RCID Transfer Station
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Cla
ss I
To
ns
![Page 8: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Operations Review
8
Class III and C & D Debris Facilities
• Class III, including C & D debris, is a sizable waste stream
• OCU provides Class III and C & D debris waste transfer and disposal
• Competing in-county facilities include:– 3 Class III
landfills– 4 C & D facilities– 2 private transfer
stations– Facilities located
in west half of County
Class III waste includes yard trash, C & D debris, cardboard, processed tires, glass and asbestos
![Page 9: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Operations Review
• OCU managed 25% of Class III and C & D waste disposed from the County in 2010
• C & D facilities also recycle large amounts of materials (35% in 2010)
• Tonnage processed at C & D facilities decreased 64% from 2006 to 2010
Class III /C & D Waste Disposal (2010)
12,534
109,609
132,726 134,271
4,100
42,161
61,245
80,541
Ang
elo'
s
Mid
-Flo
rida
Pin
e R
idge
LF
Wes
t Ora
nge
Env
.
Bay
Lak
e LF
Gol
den
Gem
LF
Ora
nge
Cou
nty
LF
Vis
ta L
F
0
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
Cla
ss II
I & C
/D T
ons
C/D Debris Facility Class III Landfill
![Page 10: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
1010
Operations Review
Yard Waste & Organic Processing Facilities
• OCU operates the largest yard waste facility in the County
– Nearly 100,000 tons managed in 2010
• Other sites in the County managed about 50,000 tons in 2010
![Page 11: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Operations Review
Recycling Facilities• OCU is the
principal recycling processing facility in the County (132,000 tons)
• Private transfer stations also separate recyclables (43,000 tons)
• 64 other sites reported handling recyclables from Orange County– Scrap and auto
yards
– Brokers/retailers
![Page 12: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Operations Review
• Summary of OCU’s role in managing Orange County’s solid waste
• OCU is the largest single-source provider of comprehensive services to manage all types of waste from Orange County
• Other entities also manage components of the County’s overall waste stream, but not as comprehensive as OCU
• OCU’s level of service must be considered when benchmarking with competing facilities, as there are trade-offs between cost and services provided
![Page 13: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Operations Review
OCU comparison with other Florida Counties
• As an initial benchmark, it is reasonable to compare OCU with other public waste systems
• The objective was to evaluate whether other counties provide similar services at lower cost, potentially pointing to operational efficiencies
![Page 14: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Operations Review
• Researched eight public solid waste systems in Florida• Brevard, Hillsborough, Lake, Lee, Miami-Dade, Palm
Beach, Seminole and Volusia
• Systems handle from 327,000 tons to 1,620,000 tons (FY2010-11)
• OCU handled 780,000 tons
• Metrics for comparison • Operating costs relative to system tonnage
• Staffing relative to system tonnage
![Page 15: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Operations Review
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Thousands
System Tonnage
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
Mill
ions
Ope
ratin
g E
xpen
ses
Hillsborough
Brevard
Miami Dade
Palm Beach
Lee
Volusia
Source: Annual Financial Reports (FY2010/11), except for Volusia County (FY2009/10). Orange County operating expenses adjusted to reverse the closure/post-closure cost adjustment reported in FY2010/11 and to include the average closure/post-closure cost from the previous 5 budget years.
Lake Seminole
Orange
Operating Expenses vs. System Tonnage
![Page 16: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Thousands
System Tonnage
0
100
200
300
400
500
Sta
ffing
(F
TE
)
Hillsborough
Brevard
Miami Dade
Palm Beach
Lee
Volusia
Source: Annual Financial Reports (FY2010/11), except for Volusia County (FY2009/10).
Orange
LakeSeminole
Operations ReviewStaffing vs. System Tonnage
![Page 17: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Operations Review
Conclusions
• Each solid waste system is unique
• OCU is comparable to other large county solid waste systems in Florida relative to operating expenses and staffing levels and considering tonnage handled
![Page 18: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Operations Review
Private Sector Benchmarks
• Financial data for private sector landfills is proprietary information
• Technical Memorandum #1 provides some benchmark information
– Public contracts for disposal capacity at Okeechobee Landfill and Holopaw (J.E.D.) Landfill are in the low $20s per ton ($21.50 - $22.30 per ton) for waste delivered to the landfills (excluding transfer and transport costs)
• Other benchmark data was compiled by reviewing operating permits for private sector landfills
![Page 19: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Operations Review
• Operating permits filed with FDEP• Okeechobee Landfill = 17 personnel• Holopaw (J.E.D.) Landfill = 11 personnel
• Current staffing at OCU Landfill is 45 personnel
• Staffing varies based on day of week and is lowest on weekends (7-11 personnel)
![Page 20: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Operations Review
• Staffing is higher than private landfills due to following factors
• Separate disposal areas for Class I and Class III waste
• Yard waste operations personnel • Small vehicle drop-off personnel• Soil hauling • OCU operates 7 days per week versus 5 ½
days for most private landfills
![Page 21: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Operations Review
• Weekday staffing for OCU Landfill:
• Separate Class III disposal area, small vehicle drop-off, and yard waste processing are services not provided at competing landfills
Work Area Mon Wed
Class I 7 11
Class III 7 9
Soil Hauling 7 10
Small Vehicle 2 3
Yard Waste 3 5
Yard Dog 4 7
Total 30 45
![Page 22: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Operations Review
Potential Options to Increase Efficiencies
• Combine Class III waste into Class I Landfill:– Consistent with operating practice at private landfills
– Class III tipping fee would be maintained to preserve waste flow
– Class III waste tonnages are lower due to economy
– Potential cost savings from operating one disposal area instead of two
• Combine yard waste into Class I Landfill:– Yard waste now allowed in Class I landfills with landfill gas
management systems to enhance energy production
– Yard waste tipping fee would be maintained to preserve waste flow
– Potential cost savings by reducing separate handling of yard waste
– However, compost would not be produced
![Page 23: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Operations Review
Potential Options to Increase Efficiencies
• Soil hauling efficiencies:– Current borrow pit location on landfill property is located
further away from Class I and Class III disposal areas
– New borrow area being permitted that is adjacent to Class I disposal area
• Closure and long-term care costs:– During the construction boom, estimates of closure costs
were impacted by escalating construction costs
– Following the boom, construction costs have moderated
– Investigating the impact on future funding requirements
• These are preliminary options that are being analyzed in more detail
![Page 24: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
• Study Progress
• Operations Review
• Waste Flow Analysis
• Preliminary Financial Review
• Next Steps
Presentation Outline
![Page 25: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Waste Flow Analysis
• Objectives
• Further investigate flows of waste generated within Orange County and managed by OCU
• Builds upon preliminary research performed for market assessment
• Analyze trends in customer deliveries to OCU waste system
![Page 26: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
110
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Th
ou
san
ds
Ton
s
Residential Commercial Total
Waste Management Transfer Station begins operating
Waste Services begins operating Taft Recycling
Phased increase of County tipping fee begins
Waste Flow Analysis
OCU SystemClass I Tonnages
• Residential– Steady increase
from 1996-2008
– Decreased since 2008, likely economy driven
• Commercial– Decreased 1996-
2000 following opening of WM transfer station
– Steady growth from 2000-2008 along with economy
– Decrease since 2008, bigger decline than residential
![Page 27: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
110
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Th
ou
san
ds
Ton
s
Class I (Trash) Transfer
Waste Management Transfer Station begins operating
Waste Services begins operating Taft Recycling
Phased increase of County tipping fee begins
Waste Flow Analysis
OCU SystemTransfer vs. Total Class I
• Transfer tonnage shows steady increase up to 2008
• Over the same period, total Class I waste had greater variability
• Transfer stations provide value and address needs of the densely populated western half of the County
![Page 28: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Waste Flow Analysis
Orange County SystemCustomer Breakdown
• Tonnage from each customer sector has decreased over the past 5 years
• Decrease lower for unincorporated residential franchise and 4 large cities
• Largest decreases were for large private haulers and “other” customers which includes many roll-off container businesses
![Page 29: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Waste Flow Analysis
Conclusions
• Historically, OCU has lost tonnage to competing facilities, but regained some tonnage during periods of economic growth
• The economic downturn has reduced waste deliveries from all customer classes
• Decline in tonnage has been smaller for unincorporated residential franchise waste and waste delivered by 4 large municipalities
• Waste delivery agreements help to stabilize tonnage
• Continue to evaluate operational efficiencies as incentive to secure waste delivery agreements
![Page 30: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Presentation Outline
30
• Study Progress
• Operations Review
• Waste Flow Analysis
• Preliminary Financial Review
• Next Steps
![Page 31: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Preliminary Financial Review
• Objectives
– Share preliminary financial information
– Baseline financial data being used to evaluate potential operating efficiencies
![Page 32: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Preliminary Financial Review
System Revenue/Cost Components (FY2010/11)
• Tipping fees are major source of system revenues • Revenues must cover annual operating costs and future capital
improvements
System Revenues System Costs
![Page 33: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Preliminary Financial Review
Class I Waste Tipping Fee Components• Tipping fee is
average of residential and commercial fees
• Cost/ton varies based on tonnage
– FY2009/10 = 608,344 tons
– FY2010/11 = 564,762 tons
• Capital includes equipment, smaller projects and closure/long-term care
– Closure costs are an average over prior 7 years
– Capital based on average requirements over next several years
• Construction reserve is for major projects (e.g. next cell)
FY2009/10 FY2010/11
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$/F
acili
ty T
on
Construction ReserveCapital
Other Oper.County Admin
Equip. Maint.Fuel
Labor
$4.49
$11.99
$1.20$2.27$1.64
$9.58
$4.90
$14.13
$1.42$1.97
$2.21
$9.59
$4.87 $4.09
$36.06$38.31
![Page 34: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Presentation Outline
• Study Progress
• Operations Review
• Waste Flows Analysis
• Preliminary Financial Review
• Next Steps
![Page 35: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Next Steps
• Complete evaluation of potential operations efficiencies
• Complete financial review
• Perform legal and structural review
• Develop recommendations
• Schedule next BCC Update
• Schedule next Mayors Group meeting
35
![Page 36: Board of County Commissioners October 16, 2012 Solid Waste Study Update](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062809/5697bfb61a28abf838c9e3b5/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Board of County Commissioners
October 16, 2012
Solid Waste Study Update