Solid Waste and Milford Recycling Operations 3/30/09

Solid Waste and Milford Recycling Operations 3/30/09
Where we have been and where we want to go …

Agenda Areas of Focus/Discussion Transfer Station Facility
Multi-Stream vs. Single-Stream Comparison Single-Stream Cooperative contract opportunity

Multi-Stream vs. Single-Stream Comparison Single-Stream Cooperative contract opportunity High Level Operational Review

Multi-Stream vs. Single-Stream Comparison Single-Stream Cooperative contract opportunity High Level Operational Review Chronological Update of Review Process

Multi-Stream vs. Single-Stream Comparison Single-Stream Cooperative contract opportunity High Level Operational Review Chronological Update of Review Process Financial Analysis

Multi-Stream vs. Single-Stream Comparison Single-Stream Cooperative contract opportunity High Level Operational Review Chronological Update of Review Process Financial Analysis Decisions to make….

Your strategic position on any one area may impact the other two!
Agenda Areas of Focus/Discussion Transfer Station Facility Multi-Stream vs. Single-Stream Comparison Single-Stream Cooperative contract opportunity High Level Operational Review Chronological Update of Review Process Financial Analysis Decisions to make…. Your strategic position on any one area may impact the other two!

Milford Solid Waste & Recycling Operations
2008 Total Cost $748,218 Revenue $188,021 Net Cost $560,197

Milford Solid Waste & Recycling Operations
2008 Total Cost $748,218 Revenue $188,021 Net Cost $560,197 2008 Recycling Materials Revenue was $57,775 or 31% of total revenue. Current staffing model is 6 full time employees

Solid Waste/Recyclable
2008 Solid Waste/Recyclable Annual Data Category Volume Tons MSW * 3043 tons Demo 1030 tons Batteries 41 tons Electronics 22 tons Freon 311 units Propane Tanks 400 units Tires Clothing 72 tons Misc Income Metals - Scrap** 121 tons Glass 258 tons Aluminum Cans 18 tons Corrugated Cardboard 91 tons Metals - Tin Cans* 30 tons Mixed Paper 501 tons Plastics #1/#2 60 tons Co-Mingle Subtotal 958 tons Total 5309 tons * Plastics 3 through 7, aerosol cans, and plastic toys included in MSW, not currently recycled. ** Metals currently scrap metal and tin cans are mixed. We have separated them since tins cans will be part of single stream.

Solid Waste/Recyclable
2008 Solid Waste/Recyclable Annual Data Category Volume Income Expense Net Tons $ MSW * 3043 tons $ 27,299.00 $ 229,538.00 $ (202,239.00) Demo 1030 tons $ 60,754.00 $ 95,776.00 $ (35,022.00) Batteries 41 tons Misc Income $ Electronics 22 tons $ ,672.00 $ (4,672.00) Freon 311 units $ ,799.00 $ (2,799.00) Propane Tanks 400 units Tires $ ,508.00 $ (2,508.00) Clothing 72 tons $ $ 12,154.00 $ ,154.00 Metals - Scrap** 121 tons $ 26,230.00 $ ,230.00 Glass 258 tons $ ,809.00 $ (3,809.00) Co-mingled recyclables Aluminum Cans 18 tons $ 18,449.00 $ ,449.00 Corrugated Cardboard 91 tons $ ,500.00 $ ,500.00 Metals - Tin Cans* 30 tons $ ,503.00 $ ,503.00 Mixed Paper 501 tons $ ,052.00 $ ,052.00 Plastics #1/#2 60 tons $ 21,080.00 $ ,080.00 Co-Mingle Subtotal 958 tons $ 61,584.00 $ ,775.00 Total 5309 tons $ 188,021.00 $ 339,102.00 $ (151,081.00) * Plastics 3 through 7, aerosol cans, and plastic toys included in MSW, not currently recycled. ** Metals currently scrap metal and tin cans are mixed. We have separated them since tins cans will be part of single stream.

Milford Solid Waste & Recycling Operations (continued)
Items collected but not measured: Clean Waste Oil Grass Clippings Leaves Tree Limbs, Brush, and Untreated Wood Wood Chips

Milford Solid Waste & Recycling Operations (continued)
Items collected but not measured: Clean Waste Oil Grass Clippings Leaves Tree Limbs, Brush, and Untreated Wood Wood Chips Other Activities: Operate the “Still Good” Shed Conduct Annual Hazardous Household Collection

Chronological Update of Activities Recycling / Solid Waste (MSW)

Spring and Summer 2007 – Concern rose regarding the long term feasibility of continued operation at the current Transfer Station facility - assuming a continuation of our current mode of operation:

1. Spring and Summer 2007 – Concern rose regarding the long term feasibility of continued operation at the current Transfer Station facility - assuming a continuation of our current mode of operation: Drop-off facility for residents / businesses Multi-stream recycling

1. Spring and Summer 2007 – Concern rose regarding the long term feasibility of continued operation at the current Transfer Station facility - assuming a continuation of our current mode of operation: Drop-off facility for residents / businesses Multi-stream recycling Long term issues with current facility Not practical to expand Traffic – North River Road and Oval Area

1. Spring and Summer 2007 – Concern rose regarding the long term feasibility of continued operation at the current Transfer Station facility - assuming a continuation of our current mode of operation: Drop-off facility for residents / businesses Multi-stream recycling Long term issues with current facility Not practical to expand Traffic – North River Road and Oval Area 2. Fall Aries Engineering conducts study to prepare a preliminary design and cost estimate for the Town to assess the feasibility of constructing a new Transfer Station

1. Spring and Summer 2007 – Concern rose regarding the long term feasibility of continued operation at the current Transfer Station facility - assuming a continuation of our current mode of operation: Drop-off facility for residents / businesses Multi-stream recycling Long term issues with current facility Not practical to expand Traffic – North River Road and Oval Area 2. Fall Aries Engineering conducts study to prepare a preliminary design and cost estimate for the Town to assess the feasibility of constructing a new Transfer Station 3. Jan – Aries Engineering study is completed – estimated cost of $1.5 Million to duplicate our current operation (same mode of operation) at a new location with a twenty year growth consideration. Cost estimate did not include land or infrastructure cost.

4.Q – High cost of a replacement facility fostered the review of our current mode of operation and consideration of other alternatives:

4.Q – High cost of a replacement facility fostered the review of our current mode of operation and consideration of other alternatives: Curb side pick-up as an alternative to a drop-off facility – key considerations are:

4.Q – High cost of a replacement facility fostered the review of our current mode of operation and consideration of other alternatives: Curb side pick-up as an alternative to a drop-off facility – key considerations are: Allows for the continued use of the current facility due to the reduced need for space

4.Q – High cost of a replacement facility fostered the review of our current mode of operation and consideration of other alternatives: Curb side pick-up as an alternative to a drop-off facility – key considerations are: Allows for the continued use of the current facility due to the reduced need for space Reduction of traffic to the current facility

4.Q – High cost of a replacement facility fostered the review of our current mode of operation and consideration of other alternatives: Curb side pick-up as an alternative to a drop-off facility – key considerations are: Allows for the continued use of the current facility due to the reduced need for space Reduction of traffic to the current facility Significant value to the resident

4.Q – High cost of a replacement facility fostered the review of our current mode of operation and consideration of other alternatives: Curb side pick-up as an alternative to a drop-off facility – key considerations are: Allows for the continued use of the current facility due to the reduced need for space Reduction of traffic to the current facility Significant value to the resident Considerable up front capital cost – or a long term contractual commitment with a third party

4.Q – High cost of a replacement facility fostered the review of our current mode of operation and consideration of other alternatives: Curb side pick-up as an alternative to a drop-off facility – key considerations are: Allows for the continued use of the current facility due to the reduced need for space Reduction of traffic to the current facility Significant value to the resident Considerable up front capital cost – or a long term contractual commitment with a third party Single Stream Recycling concept emerged as an obvious process most compatible with curb side pick-up, but also compatible with our drop-off mode of operation i. Value to the resident – less effort

What is Single Stream? Single Stream or Single Sort is the comingling of recyclables – mixed paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, tin, aluminum, and # 1 through # 7 plastics. No manual sorting by resident or town employees; the materials are loosely dumped into a roll-off connected to a compactor - identical to how we process MSW. The Roll-off is then transported to a single stream processing facility that through technology and automation sorts the various streams of recyclable material. The process has very minimal manual intervention. Each generation of technology improves the process, reduces manual interventions and reduces the overall net cost.

What is Single Stream? Single Stream or Single Sort is the comingling of recyclables – mixed paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, tin, aluminum, and # 1 through # 7 plastics. No manual sorting by resident or town employees; the materials are loosely dumped into a roll-off connected to a compactor - identical to how we process MSW. The Roll-off is then transported to a single stream processing facility that through technology and automation sorts the various streams of recyclable material. The process has very minimal manual intervention. Each generation of technology improves the process, reduces manual interventions and reduces the overall net cost. Advocates of Single Stream provide strong proof that the ease and convenience of Single Stream has resulted in an increase in recycling rates. However: Income per ton from single stream recyclable products is considerably less than the income from sorted recyclables. Less expense in manual sorting labor, bailing, and other equipment cost, etc. During recession periods it may cost to get rid of single-stream recyclables.

A sample listing of “Single-Stream” Towns / Cities
(Now or in the near future) Boston (curbside) Goffstown (curbside) Nashua (curbside) Windham (drop-off) Manchester (curbside) Laconia (drop-off) Concord (curbside) Hooksett (drop-off) Bedford (drop-off) Franklin (drop-off) Salem (drop-off) Exeter (curbside) Single Stream is common in many states - starting in California over 10 years ago. The number of communities nationwide converting to single stream is growing at an increasing rate. All information collected from these communities has been positive.

Chronological Update of Activities Recycling / Solid Waste (MSW) (continued)
5. Q Investigation of “Single Stream” concept

5. Q Investigation of “Single Stream” concept a. Met with leadership of the Concord Co-op, a 27 community co-operative that plans to build a single-stream processing facility just north of Concord on I-93. Facility is scheduled to open in Q

5. Q Investigation of “Single Stream” concept a. Meeting with leadership of the Concord Co-op, a 27 community co-operative that plans to build a single-stream processing facility just north of Concord on I-93. Facility is scheduled to open in Q b. Toured Integrated Paper’s single stream facility in Haverhill, MA c. Toured Casella’s single stream facility in Auburn MA d. Attended a Single Stream informational meeting hosted by NRRA at the Local Government Center.

6.Q2 / Q – Began analysis of the operational and financial impact of moving to curbside pickup and to a single stream recycling operation:

6.Q2 / Q – Began analysis of the operational and financial impact of moving to curbside pickup and to a single stream recycling operation: a. Manual study to determine the maximum opportunity to recycle – what % of the current MSW volume is recyclable material

Summer 2008 Manual Trash Contents Survey

30 Bags Total Total Weight (lb): 320 292.5 270.5 883 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 281 269 240 790 Recycled Material (see detail below) 39 23.5 30.5 93 % Recycled 8.2% 12.4% 8.9% 10.5%

30 Bags Total Total Weight (lb): 320 292.5 270.5 883 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 281 269 240 790 Recycled Material (see detail below) 39 23.5 30.5 93 % Recycled 8.2% 12.4% 8.9% 10.5% Breakdown of Recyclables (lb): Mixed Paper 14 9 12 35 48% Corrugated Cardboard 4 2.5 3 9.5 Glass - Mixed Colors 8 11 Tin Cans 1 5 Aluminum Cans & Foil 1.5 5.5 Plastic Bottles - # 1 & # 2 16 20.5 26.5 82

30 Bags Total Total Weight (lb): 320 292.5 270.5 883 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 281 269 240 790 Recycled Material (see detail below) 39 23.5 30.5 93 % Recycled 8.2% 12.4% 8.9% 10.5% Breakdown of Recyclables (lb): Mixed Paper 14 9 12 35 48% Corrugated Cardboard 4 2.5 3 9.5 Glass - Mixed Colors 8 11 Tin Cans 1 5 Aluminum Cans & Foil 1.5 5.5 Plastic Bottles - # 1 & # 2 16 20.5 26.5 82 Waste streams not accepted at this time (lb): Plastic Bottles - # 3 - # 7 30.9

30 Bags Total Total Weight (lb): 320 292.5 270.5 883 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 281 269 240 790 Recycled Material (see detail below) 39 23.5 30.5 93 % Recycled 8.2% 12.4% 8.9% 10.5% Breakdown of Recyclables (lb): Mixed Paper 14 9 12 35 48% Corrugated Cardboard 4 2.5 3 9.5 Glass - Mixed Colors 8 11 Tin Cans 1 5 Aluminum Cans & Foil 1.5 5.5 Plastic Bottles - # 1 & # 2 16 20.5 26.5 82 Waste streams not accepted at this time (lb): Plastic Bottles - # 3 - # 7 30.9 - A 10.5% reduction in solid waste is the maximum opportunity. - Goal - to achieve a 5% reduction in solid waste (approximately half of the maximum opportunity).

2008 Actual Tonnage Data MSW 3,043 (tons) 76% Recyclables 958 (tons)
24% Total 4,001 (tons) A 5% reduction in MSW (3,043 x 5% = 152 tons) results in a 16% increase in recyclables (152 ÷ 958 = 16%)

24% Total 4,001 (tons) A 5% reduction in MSW (3,043 x 5% = 152 tons) results in a 16% increase in recyclables (152 ÷ 958 = 16%) 3,043 (tons) - 152 (tons) = 2,891 (tons) 72% 958 (tons) + 1,110 (tons) 28% 4,001 (tons)

24% Total 4,001 (tons) A 5% reduction in MSW (3,043 x 5% = 152 tons) results in a 16% increase in recyclables (152 ÷ 958 = 16%) 3,043 (tons) - 152 (tons) = 2,891 (tons) 72% 958 (tons) + 1,110 (tons) 28% 4,001 (tons) 4 percentage point increase (24% to 28% recyclable rate) At $86 per ton disposal rate for MSW x 152 tons = $13,072 annual savings generated from a 5% reduction in MSW

6.Q2 / Q – Began analysis of the operational and financial impact of moving to curbside pickup and to a single stream recycling operation: a. Manual study to determine the maximum opportunity to recycle – what % of the current MSW volume is recyclable material b. Determine operational changes necessary to facilitate: i. Curb side pick-up of MSW and Single Stream Recyclables ii. Drop-off of MSW and Single Stream Recyclables

6.Q2 / Q – Began analysis of the operational and financial impact of moving to curbside pickup and to a single stream recycling operation: a. Manual study to determine the maximum opportunity to recycle – what % of the current MSW volume is recyclable material b. Determine operational changes necessary to facilitate: i. Curb side pick-up of MSW and Single Stream Recyclables ii. Drop-off of MSW and Single Stream Recyclables c. With the assistance of the Concord Co-op consultant, determine the financial impact based on Milford’s data of moving to: Drop-off of MSW and Single Stream Recyclables

7. 10/1/08 – Update to the Recycling Committee
Chronological Update of Activities Recycling / Solid Waste (MSW) (continued) 7. 10/1/08 – Update to the Recycling Committee

7. 10/1/08 – Update to the Recycling Committee Support the continued investigation of curb side

7. 10/1/08 – Update to the Recycling Committee Support the continued investigation of curb side Presented and gained concurrence on future goals

Updated Goals for Milford Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Balancing our Environmental responsibility with the Economic Impact to the Tax payer

Updated Goals for Milford Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Balancing our Environmental responsibility with the Economic Impact to the Tax payer Expand the number of items we recycle # 3 through # 7 plastics, rigid plastic toys, and aerosol cans

Updated Goals for Milford Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Balancing our Environmental responsibility with the Economic Impact to the Tax payer Expand the number of items we recycle # 3 through # 7 plastics, rigid plastic toys, and aerosol cans Increase recycling rates for the following groups: Single family residential Multi family residential (no program and no measurement exists today) Commercial (no program and no measurement exists today) Industrial (no program and no measurement exists today)

Updated Goals for Milford Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Balancing our Environmental responsibility with the Economic Impact to the Tax payer Expand the number of items we recycle # 3 through # 7 plastics, rigid plastic toys, and aerosol cans Increase recycling rates for the following groups: Single family residential Multi family residential (no program and no measurement exists today) Commercial (no program and no measurement exists today) Industrial (no program and no measurement exists today) 3. Increase enforcement of mandatory Recycling Ordinance

Updated Goals for Milford Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Balancing our Environmental responsibility with the Economic Impact to the Tax payer 4. Consider an operational change from multi-stream recycling to single-stream recycling

Updated Goals for Milford Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Balancing our Environmental responsibility with the Economic Impact to the Tax payer 4. Consider an operational change from multi-stream recycling to single-stream recycling 5. If single stream process is implemented, then develop and propose an offering to commercial haulers to accept their bulk single stream recycling as a way to promote recycling, increase the town’s revenue for recycling tonnage, while saving the commercial hauler’s operational cost. [Some commercial hauls do not have adequate recycling tonnage to justify the compaction and hauling cost for the minor revenue received. ]

Updated Goals for Milford Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Balancing our Environmental responsibility with the Economic Impact to the Tax payer 4. Consider an operational change from multi-stream recycling to single-stream recycling 5. If single stream process is implemented, then develop and propose an offering to commercial haulers to accept their bulk single stream recycling as a way to promote recycling, increase the town’s revenue for recycling tonnage, while saving the commercial hauler’s operational cost. [Some commercial hauls do not have adequate recycling tonnage to justify the compaction and hauling cost for the minor revenue received. ] 6. Reduce traffic on North River Road and through the Oval Approximately 1% growth each year will cause gridlock in 10 years during peak periods

Milford Recycling - Action Items
Conduct a recycling process survey for multi-family, commercial, industrial, and schools (partially complete)

Why Focus on Multi-family Recycling?

Multi-family represents 45% of housing March 2009 Estimated Housing Units 3345 single-family units – 55% 2737 multi-family units – 45% 6082 Total Housing Units

Multi-family represents 45% of housing March 2009 Estimated Housing Units 3345 single-family units – 55% 2737 multi-family units – 45% 6082 Total Housing Units Town Ordinance governing Mandatory Recycling applies to all! Not all commercial haulers providing single family curb side pickup offer recycling services

Large Multi-Family* Solid Waste/Recyclable Survey Complete – Q4 2008
Survey Highlights: 28 Large multi-Family complexes units surveyed or 69% of total multi-family * “Large Multi-Family” represents complexes with 20 units or more

Survey Highlights: 28 Large multi-Family complexes units surveyed or 69% of total multi-family 9 of 28 offer recycling collection (serving 29% of the units) * “Large Multi-Family” represents complexes with 20 units or more

Survey Highlights: 28 Large multi-Family complexes units surveyed or 69% of total multi-family 9 of 28 offer recycling collection (serving 29% of the units) 9 companies serve these 28 complexes * “Large Multi-Family” represents complexes with 20 units or more

Survey Highlights: 28 Large multi-Family complexes units surveyed or 69% of total multi-family 9 of 28 offer recycling collection (serving 29% of the units) 9 companies serve these 28 complexes 3 of 9 companies offer recycling * “Large Multi-Family” represents complexes with 20 units or more

Survey Highlights: 28 Large multi-Family complexes units surveyed or 69% of total multi-family 9 of 28 offer recycling collection (serving 29% of the units) 9 companies serve these 28 complexes 3 of 9 companies offer recycling 1 of 3 companies dispose of the collected recyclables at the Town Transfer Station * “Large Multi-Family” represents complexes with 20 units or more

Survey Highlights: 28 Large multi-Family complexes units surveyed or 69% of total multi-family 9 of 28 offer recycling collection (serving 29% of the units) 9 companies serve these 28 complexes 3 of 9 companies offer recycling 1 of 3 companies dispose of the collected recyclables at the Town Transfer Station No financial incentive to complex owners to promote recycling * “Large Multi-Family” represents complexes with 20 units or more

Survey Highlights: 28 Large multi-Family complexes units surveyed or 69% of total multi-family 9 of 28 offer recycling collection (serving 29% of the units) 9 companies serve these 28 complexes 3 of 9 companies offer recycling 1 of 3 companies dispose of the collected recyclables at the Town Transfer Station No financial incentive to complex owners to promote recycling It is our strong belief that the medium and small multi-family and the mobile home parks have an even lower recycling rate * “Large Multi-Family” represents complexes with 20 units or more

Conduct a recycling process survey for multi-family, commercial, industrial, and schools (partially complete) Depending on survey results, develop programs to encourage / enforce mandatory recycling. (pending)

Conduct a recycling process survey for multi-family, commercial, industrial, and schools (partially complete) Depending on survey results, develop programs to encourage / enforce mandatory recycling. (pending) Develop and implement an ongoing education program – residential and business (pending) Partner with the schools Stress the environmental impact Stress the financials (for every ton of recycling we get a reduction in solid waste - $86 per ton savings in taxes)

Conduct a recycling process survey for multi-family, commercial, industrial, and schools (partially complete) Depending on survey results, develop programs to encourage / enforce mandatory recycling. (pending) Develop and implement an ongoing education program – residential and business (pending) Partner with the schools Stress the environmental impact Stress the financials (for every ton of recycling we get a reduction in solid waste - $86 per ton savings in taxes) Complete the analysis on Single Stream Recycling (complete)

Operational Cost Savings Associated with Single-Stream

Operational Cost Savings Associated with Single-Stream
$41,000 One H/C Reduction (salary and benefits) $13,000 Reduction of 5% Solid Waste $6,500 Expenses Reduction – Electricity, Bailing Materials, Equipment Repair -$12,000 Equipment requirement – lease of 2 compactors and 3 roll offs $48,500 Savings (Constant savings, not economy dependent)

Actual Multi-Stream Revenue $ Rate Per Ton
2008 Tonnage Per Ton Rate Glass 258 -$15 Aluminum Cans 18 $1,025 Corrugated Cardboard 91 $93 Metal – Tin Cans 30 $217 Mixed Paper 501 $14 Plastics #1/#2 60 $351 Total 958 Tons $60/Ton Glass & Mixed Paper = 759 Tons or 79% of the total tonnage 2008 per ton rate of $4.27 2009 1st qtr rate of $1.85

Actual Multi-Stream Revenue $ Rate Per Ton
2008 Tonnage Per Ton Rate 1st Qtr 2009 Glass 258 -$15 -$20 Aluminum Cans 18 $1,025 $580 Corrugated Cardboard 91 $93 $25 Metal – Tin Cans 30 $217 $90 Mixed Paper 501 $14 $7.50 Plastics #1/#2 60 $351 $68 Total 958 Tons $60/Ton $19/Ton Glass & Mixed Paper = 759 Tons or 79% of the total tonnage 2008 per ton rate of $4.27 2009 1st qtr rate of $1.85

Change to Single-Stream
Revenue Impact Change to Single-Stream 2008 Actual M/S Projected S/S Tons 958 $ per Ton $60 $25 Revenue $57,775 $23,950 Revenue Reduction - -$33,825 S/S = Single Stream M/S = Multi Stream

Revenue Impact Change to Single-Stream 2008 Actual M/S Projected S/S Projected S/S with 16% Increase Tons 958 1,110 $ per Ton $60 $25 Revenue $57,775 $23,950 $27,750 Revenue Reduction - -$33,825 -$30,025 S/S = Single Stream M/S = Multi Stream

Revenue Impact Change to Single-Stream 2008 2009 Actual M/S Projected S/S Projected S/S with 16% Increase Tons 958 1,110 $ per Ton $60 $25 $19 Revenue $57,775 $23,950 $27,750 $18,093 Revenue Reduction - -$33,825 -$30,025 2009 per ton $ rate is based on Q1 actual market and is probably the worst case scenario

Revenue Impact Change to Single-Stream 2008 2009 Actual M/S Projected S/S Projected S/S with 16% Increase Tons 958 1,110 $ per Ton $60 $25 $19 -$35 Revenue $57,775 $23,950 $27,750 $18,093 -$33,530 -$38,850 Revenue Reduction - -$33,825 -$30,025 -$51,623 -$56,943 2009 per ton $ rate is based on Q1 actual market and is probably the worst case scenario

Revenue Impact Change to Single-Stream 2008 2009 Actual M/S Projected S/S Projected S/S with 16% Increase Tons 958 1,110 $ per Ton $60 $25 $19 -$35 Revenue $57,775 $23,950 $27,750 $18,093 -$33,530 -$38,850 Revenue Reduction - -$33,825 -$30,025 -$51,623 -$56,943 S/S Cost Savings $48,500 Annual Net $14,675 $18,475 -$3,123 -$8,443 2009 per ton $ rate is based on Q1 actual market and is probably the worst case scenario

Financial Analysis Summary of Single-Stream Operation (Annual Impact)
Normal Economy/Actual Market 2008 Conditions $18,475 annual savings without profit sharing Recession Economy/Actual Q Market Conditions -$8,443 annual cost without profit sharing

Normal Economy/Actual Market 2008 Conditions $18,475 annual savings without profit sharing Recession Economy/Actual Q Market Conditions -$8,443 annual cost without profit sharing “Upside” during either economy

Normal Economy/Actual Market 2008 Conditions $18,475 annual savings without profit sharing Recession Economy/Actual Q Market Conditions -$8,443 annual cost without profit sharing “Upside” during either economy Quarterly profit sharing from Cooperative to associate members based on tonnage

Normal Economy/Actual Market 2008 Conditions $18,475 annual savings without profit sharing Recession Economy/Actual Q Market Conditions -$8,443 annual cost without profit sharing “Upside” during either economy Quarterly profit sharing from Cooperative to associate members based on tonnage Serving as a Recycling Center/Transfer Station for commercial hauler Provides an opportunity to cover a portion of our fixed costs Increased volume drives increased profit sharing

Normal Economy/Actual Market 2008 Conditions $18,475 annual savings without profit sharing Recession Economy/Actual Q Market Conditions -$8,443 annual cost without profit sharing “Upside” during either economy Quarterly profit sharing from Cooperative to associate members based on tonnage Serving as a Recycling Center/Transfer Station for commercial hauler Provides an opportunity to cover a portion of our fixed costs Increased volume drives increased profit sharing Implementation of Single-Stream allows: Ease of process encourages/simplifies compliance (for all participants - single- family, multi-family, commercial, industrial) Increases Town-wide recycling rates

Potential for Profit Sharing

“ECO Maine” is an existing Cooperative single-stream processing facility in southeast Maine; similar to what is planned for New Hampshire. Their actual 2008 pay out history to associate towns was $25.00 per ton

“ECO Maine” is an existing Cooperative single-stream processing facility in southeast Maine; similar to what is planned for New Hampshire. Their actual 2008 pay out history to associate towns was $25.00 per ton Their actual 2008 end of year surplus was $928,000 or $33.75 per ton. Their actual 2007 end of year surplus was $24.57 per ton.

Benefits to Single Stream Recycling

Cost Savings to Town – Upside is significantly more than downside

Cost Savings to Town – Upside is significantly more than downside Environmental Obligation to promote recycling Single Stream makes it easier

Cost Savings to Town – Upside is significantly more than downside Environmental Obligation to promote recycling Single Stream makes it easier Obligation to enforce the existing Mandatory Recycling Ordinance Town-wide An easier process will result in more voluntary compliance, less burden on enforcement

Cost Savings to Town – Upside is significantly more than downside Environmental Obligation to promote recycling Single Stream makes it easier Obligation to enforce the existing Mandatory Recycling Ordinance Town-wide An easier process will result in more voluntary compliance, less burden on enforcement Single stream is a process step that will be required if/when the town converts to curbside pickup

Conduct a recycling process survey for multi-family, commercial, industrial, and schools (partially complete) Depending on survey results, develop programs to encourage / enforce mandatory recycling. (pending) Develop and implement an ongoing education program – residential and business (pending) Partner with the schools Stress the environmental impact Stress the financials (for every ton of recycling we get a reduction in solid waste - $85 to $90 per ton savings in taxes) Complete the analysis on Single Stream Recycling (complete) Evaluate joining Single-Stream Cooperative – May 2009 decision for associate membership. (pending)

Benefits to Associate Membership In the Single Stream Cooperative

Unique opportunity to participate in profit sharing over the life of the facility

Unique opportunity to participate in profit sharing over the life of the facility Most economical alternative Void of traditional profit sharing

Unique opportunity to participate in profit sharing over the life of the facility Most economical alternative Void of traditional profit sharing We will have proportionate rights in the governing of the operation

Unique opportunity to participate in profit sharing over the life of the facility Most economical alternative Void of traditional profit sharing We will have proportionate rights in the governing of the operation While there are no guarantees, the model has proven successful – ECO Maine

Unique opportunity to participate in profit sharing over the life of the facility Most economical alternative Void of traditional profit sharing We will have proportionate rights in the governing of the operation While there are no guarantees, the model has proven successful – ECO Maine Formal decision to join must be made in May 2009

Solid Waste and Milford Recycling Operations 3/30/09

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Solid Waste and Milford Recycling Operations 3/30/09"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Solid Waste and Milford Recycling Operations 3/30/09

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Solid Waste and Milford Recycling Operations 3/30/09"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback