CO SOLID WASTE SURVEY - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 16
About This Presentation
Title:

CO SOLID WASTE SURVEY

Description:

Collected 2002 program data. Disclaimer quality and completeness of survey results vary ... CITY of DURANGO (Enterprise Fund) 15,000 people - $800k budget ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:33
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 17
Provided by: lauri114
Category:
Tags: solid | survey | waste | durango

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: CO SOLID WASTE SURVEY


1
CO SOLID WASTE SURVEY
  • By LBA Associates (with CAFR)
  • Collected 2002 program data
  • Disclaimer quality and completeness of survey
    results vary

2
CO SOLID WASTE SURVEY BACKGROUND
  • Surveyed 30 counties and 8 municipalities
  • County populations ranged from 600 to 555,000
  • County solid waste budgets ranged from 4,000 to
    19M

3
CO SOLID WASTE SURVEYCOUNTY-OWNED FACILITIES
  • 33 own transfer stations
  • 60 own landfills
  • 20 own drop-offs
  • 10 own MRFs
  • 13 own compost facilities
  • 20 own HHW facilities
  • Privately owned facilities
  • NPO facilities

4
CO SOLID WASTE SURVEYFISCAL MANAGEMENT
  • 33 of counties (10) operate as Enterprise Funds
  • Another 17 of counties (5) have segregated
    funds
  • 17 municipalities have residential user fees
  • 7 municipalities have PAYT for residential trash
    collection

5
CO SOLID WASTE SURVEYFUNDING SOURCES
  • County user fees - transfer station/landfill tip
    fees (several with tip fee surcharges)
  • Municipal user fees per household service
  • (including examples of mandatory fee voluntary
    participation programs)
  • Other material sales, CESQG, municipal
    payments, grants, sponsors

6
CO SOLID WASTE SURVEYOUTSTANDING ISSUES
  • Resources to be innovative and efficient
  • Obtaining good data
  • Cutting budgets adding fees, taxes
  • Turning new facilities into sustainable
    operations
  • Competing for private sector tons
  • High hauling and illegal dumping
  • Safe-guarding Enterprise Fund accounts

7
HOW TO MAKE COLORADOS MSW ECONOMICALLY VIABLE?
8
RURAL v. URBAN COUNTIES
  • Rural counties typically more hands on with
    full system
  • Urban counties often more facility-specific
  • More rural landfills than urban landfills
  • Rural transfer stations needed to service
    sparsely populated areas (increased self-haul)
  • Urban transfer used to reach large, regional
    (private) landfills

9
PUBLIC PRIVATE SECTOR COMMON GROUND
  • Operate system as a business (enterprise for
    local government)
  • Full costs of integrated system are known
  • Accountability for costs and revenues
  • Defensible rates
  • Self-sustaining cost center
  • Apply net-revenues to operating expenses, debt,
    future investments
  • Issue revenue bonds
  • Separate from economic swings that affect the
    General Fund

10
CITY of BOULDER (segregated fund)
  • 103,000 people - 1M budget
  • Hands-off approach
  • Open hauling with stringent ordinances trash,
    recyclables, yard waste
  • Strong education, BY composting, yard waste and
    commercial programs
  • 49 diversion
  • Dedicated trash tax
  • SW system impacted by citys 18M deficit

11
PITKIN COUNTY (Enterprise Fund)
  • 15,300 people - 2.8M budget
  • MRF, Compost, Landfill HHW
  • Collection of county buildings/DOCs
  • Plus aggregate, soil, rock, dropswap
  • Non-profit recycling outreach
  • Funded by LF tip fees, material sales
  • 250k appropriation by Gen Fund (02) 5-year
    plan

12
CITY OF LOVELAND (Enterprise Fund)
  • 53,000 people - 3.1M budget
  • Public collection of residential trash,
    recyclables, yard waste
  • Drop-off center, joint compost venture
  • 43 residential diversion rate
  • Funded by user fees (flat base plus variable
    depending on services), materials sales

13
CITY of DURANGO (Enterprise Fund)
  • 15,000 people - 800k budget
  • Automated collection of trash/ recyclables at 1-2
    units
  • 3 municipal DOCs (incl 2 outside city)
  • Regional MRF
  • Seasonal yard waste, paint, e-scrap
  • Funded through both trash (variable) and
    recyclable (flat) user fees

14
GRAND COUNTY
  • 12,000 people - 1M budget
  • Landfill and other wastes
  • Grand Recycles (NPO) 3 DOCs, 2 sorting
    facilities
  • Includes Kremmling with municipal collection,
    flat user fees
  • Funded by LF tip fees, tires (no direct general
    fund support)

15
MESA COUNTY (Enterprise Fund)
  • 116,000 people - 2.7M budget
  • Landfill, HHW/CESQG, Compost
  • 4 transfer stations
  • No formal recycling
  • Includes Grand Junction with municipal
    collection, and variable user fees
  • Funded by LF, CESQG fees and compost sales

16
MORGAN COUNTY (Enterprise Fund)
  • 28,000 people - 725,000 budget
  • 6 transfer stations with recyclables drop-off
  • Includes Brush and Fort Morgan with municipal
    collection, and flat user fees
  • Funded by landfill tip fees (plus 50 surcharge
    for uncovered loads)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com