COLORADO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: THE 2003 SNAPSHOT

1
COLORADO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT THE 2003
SNAPSHOT

• Facts, Figures and Legalese
• By Laurie Batchelder Adams
• LBA Associates
• Denver, Colorado

2
The STATE OF AFFAIRSTHE STATE OF AFFAIRS

• 25.6M landfill tons in 2002
• 12 increase since 2000
• Calculated 6.88 lbs/cap-day based on average
  3.333 cy/ton (Natl average was 4.5 lbs/cap-day
  in 2000)
• No diversion goal,
• no technical assistance and
• virtually no state funding

3
COLORADO SOLID WASTE STATUTES

• Waste facility laws
• Declarations!
• State landfill tip fee surcharge law
• 70 HSRF, 30 SWMF
• Tax credit for plastic recycling technology
• Recycled content laws for state agencies

4
STATUTES30-15-401 (Govt Police Power - Solid
Waste)

• Can require vehicle registration/ license,
  insurance requirements
• Cannot award exclusive territories or regulate
  rates
• Cannot hinder private sector competition
• Cannot mandate public service
• (residential lt 8 units)
• After 1994, must invite competition when
  implementing new user fees

5
STATUTESNEW LEGISLATION IN 2003

• Appropriations out of HSRF, Waste Tire Fund, Adv
  Technology Fund
• Increase state LF tip fee surcharge by 0.02/cy
  to cover litigation
• Increased fee on waste tires to 1
• FAILED reduction of govt control without
  reduced responsibility

6
(No Transcript)
7
CO SOLID WASTE SURVEY

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

8
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
  27M

9
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

10
CO SOLID WASTE SURVEYPRIVATE SECTOR OBSERVATIONS

• Predominant private trash collection
• Predominant private disposal (tons)
• Private sector disinterest in rural counties
  (larger companies)
• Private sector benefits from revised state
  statute 30-15-401

11
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

12
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

13
CO SOLID WASTE SURVEYOUTSTANDING ISSUES

• System/program restructuring
• New fee schedule
• Better quantity data
• Budget cuts
• Turning new facilities into sustainable
  operations
• Competing for private sector tons
• High hauling and illegal dumping
• Safe-guarding Enterprise Fund accounts

14
HOW TO MAKE OUR PROGRAMS SUSTAINABLE IN COLORADO?
15
GEOGRAPHICAL DEMOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCES

• No discernable difference in system
  comprehensiveness or success
• Enterprise Funds not limited to largely populated
  service areas
• Residential user fees not limited to large
  municipal trash collectors

16
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

17
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

18
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

19
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

20
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

21
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

22
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)

23
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

24
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)