1. Waukesha County Recycling Perry Lindquist, Land Resources Manager Waukesha County Dept. of Parks & Land Use Fall 2012 Looking Ahead

2. Presentation Outline Background on current county recycling program/ Material Recycling Facility (MRF) Review of MRF studies & conclusions –2007 Waukesha Co. MRF study –2009 City of Milwaukee MRF study –2010/11 Milwaukee MRF data (value/repairs) –2010 Waukesha Co. Transportation study –2012 Milw./Wauk. Co. Regional MRF study Implementing the recommendations Background on current county recycling program/ Material Recycling Facility (MRF) Review of MRF studies & conclusions –2007 Waukesha Co. MRF study –2009 City of Milwaukee MRF study –2010/11 Milwaukee MRF data (value/repairs) –2010 Waukesha Co. Transportation study –2012 Milw./Wauk. Co. Regional MRF study Implementing the recommendations

3. Background on County Program Waukesha County is Responsible Unit for 25 of 37 communities (since 1990) –Co. took the risk of investing in MRF/no tipping fee to communities –Co. receives state grant funds on behalf of 25 communities –Co. oversees MRF operation & building maintenance –Co. leads/coordinates recycling education program –Co. pays for blue recycling bins (used by 22/25 communities) County-owned/privately operated MRF –Dual-stream system (paper & containers separate) –Average 22,000 tons/year of recyclables –Very competitive for private operators –Last expansion in 1995 Waukesha County is Responsible Unit for 25 of 37 communities (since 1990) –Co. took the risk of investing in MRF/no tipping fee to communities –Co. receives state grant funds on behalf of 25 communities –Co. oversees MRF operation & building maintenance –Co. leads/coordinates recycling education program –Co. pays for blue recycling bins (used by 22/25 communities) County-owned/privately operated MRF –Dual-stream system (paper & containers separate) –Average 22,000 tons/year of recyclables –Very competitive for private operators –Last expansion in 1995

4. 25 Municipalities in the Waukesha County Recycling Program Waukesha County Material Recycling Facility

5. 25 Participating Communities must: –Collect dual stream recyclables – 2012 Data: 89,300 households (pop. 270,000) $11.4 million/yr. in private contracts ($3.6 mil. recycle) –Deliver recyclables to county MRF –Report program costs to county/annual grants 25 Participating Communities must: –Collect dual stream recyclables – 2012 Data: 89,300 households (pop. 270,000) $11.4 million/yr. in private contracts ($3.6 mil. recycle) –Deliver recyclables to county MRF –Report program costs to county/annual grants Background on County Program (continued)

6. Year Dollars Per Ton Total Revenue Per Ton Shipped Waukesha County MRF 1991-2011 2007 MRF Study Used $78/ton 2012 MRF Study Used $100/ton

7. MRF Enterprise Fund Self-sustaining – no tax levy or processing fees to communities (up front County risk/loan - paid off) Revenues (no fees to communities): –Material sales (currently 50%) –State grants (approx. $1 million/yr.) –Operator processing fees (recent: up to $6.50/ton) Saves about $0.9 million per year in landfill fees (1/4 collection $) Available fund balance approx. $14 million –Good markets and competitive operating contracts –Community dividends of $10 million in the last 11 years Recent dividends cover about 1/3 of community collection $ Self-sustaining – no tax levy or processing fees to communities (up front County risk/loan - paid off) Revenues (no fees to communities): –Material sales (currently 50%) –State grants (approx. $1 million/yr.) –Operator processing fees (recent: up to $6.50/ton) Saves about $0.9 million per year in landfill fees (1/4 collection $) Available fund balance approx. $14 million –Good markets and competitive operating contracts –Community dividends of $10 million in the last 11 years Recent dividends cover about 1/3 of community collection $

8. 2007 MRF Study Can handle future dual stream program for the short term, however: Major issues need to be addressed: –Container sort line –Tipping floor –Bale storage All require space Can handle future dual stream program for the short term, however: Major issues need to be addressed: –Container sort line –Tipping floor –Bale storage All require space Must expand MRF or build new in future

9. Plastic Containers Overwhelming Sort System

10. Tipping Floor Space Limited

11. Bales Storage is Inadequate

12. Loading Dock Existing MRF Tip Floor Entrance Exit Prairie Ave. N Scale MRF – 2 Acre Site

13. MRF Expansion Options Limited If 1 acre site to the north purchased, limited expansion is possible –Expand MRF for dual stream = $6.5 million + property + business relocation costs –Expand MRF for single stream = $7 million + property + business relocation costs If 1 acre site to the north purchased, limited expansion is possible –Expand MRF for dual stream = $6.5 million + property + business relocation costs –Expand MRF for single stream = $7 million + property + business relocation costs

14. Concept Drawing – North Expansion (single or dual stream) New paper tipping (DS) or single stream processing Sorting & bale storage New container (DS) or single stream tipping floor 300 ft. 130 ft. 290 ft.

15. Recyclables Collection Dual Stream vs. Single Stream Industry trend (cart) (automated/all recyclables mixed) Existing program (blue bin) (manual/paper & containers separated)

16. Single Stream Collection Less workers comp. Every other week (more storage) Faster/more efficient Use same trucks Higher recycling rates Save money on collection, but costs more/T to sort at MRF Less workers comp. Every other week (more storage) Faster/more efficient Use same trucks Higher recycling rates Save money on collection, but costs more/T to sort at MRF Trash Recycle (SS) Yard waste TrashRecycle (SS)

17. Collection Trends Haulers are switching to SS to save $ –Only one out of three private haulers locally still offers dual stream collection (Veolia/ADS) –Trend is playing out nationwide (>50% SS MRFs) Lack of competition on community collection bids –Potential to save $ on collection & disposal costs with single stream Haulers are switching to SS to save $ –Only one out of three private haulers locally still offers dual stream collection (Veolia/ADS) –Trend is playing out nationwide (>50% SS MRFs) Lack of competition on community collection bids –Potential to save $ on collection & disposal costs with single stream

18. Scenarios for Future Projections: Tonnage (current vs. increased) Single vs. Dual Stream Market price for recyclables Tonnage (current vs. increased) Single vs. Dual Stream Market price for recyclables

19. Annual Tons Recycled (50,000 Tons)* 44% (22,000 T) 12% (6,000 T) 44% (22,000 T) *Rounded from 2010 data (no other communities included with City of Milwaukee data)

20. Possible Regional MRF Locations Waukesha Co. MRF Wauwatosa Site Waukesha Co. MRF Milwaukee County Milwaukee MRF Waukesha County Wauwatosa site 18 miles

21. Key Findings & Recommendations 2007 MRF Study 1.Switching to Single Stream is strongly recommended Could save partic. communities >$700,000/year in collection & disposal costs ($10.5 mil./15 yrs.) 2.Recycling tons will increase 25% with a switch to Single Stream (assumed) In-county data shows 45% increase/capita 1.Switching to Single Stream is strongly recommended Could save partic. communities >$700,000/year in collection & disposal costs ($10.5 mil./15 yrs.) 2.Recycling tons will increase 25% with a switch to Single Stream (assumed) In-county data shows 45% increase/capita

22. Key Study Findings & Recommendations (continued) 3.Doubling tonnage greatly improves the economics of Single Stream 10 times faster return on investment (2 shifts) Note: 5-year capital payback vs. 58 years (NET: $0.12 vs.$1.7 million/yr.) No room at current MRF site to double tonnage, even with the one-acre expansion 3.Doubling tonnage greatly improves the economics of Single Stream 10 times faster return on investment (2 shifts) Note: 5-year capital payback vs. 58 years (NET: $0.12 vs.$1.7 million/yr.) No room at current MRF site to double tonnage, even with the one-acre expansion Its all about the tons!

23. Recycling Program Similarities: Waukesha County & City of Milwaukee Publicly-owned/private operated MRFs –Dual stream / Tonnage processed (22,000/yr.) –Aging facilities facing costly updates Pressures to improve program efficiencies and to switch to Single Stream: –Reduce collection & landfill disposal costs +Increase recycling rate –Concerns about future price stability 15-year history of coordinating education efforts Publicly-owned/private operated MRFs –Dual stream / Tonnage processed (22,000/yr.) –Aging facilities facing costly updates Pressures to improve program efficiencies and to switch to Single Stream: –Reduce collection & landfill disposal costs +Increase recycling rate –Concerns about future price stability 15-year history of coordinating education efforts

24. Milwaukee Recycling Study 2009 Recommended to switch to single stream: 1.Convert existing Milwaukee MRF to transfer station & haul recyclables to private MRF; or 2.Convert existing Milwaukee MRF to single stream and partner with Waukesha Co. Note: –Ruled out Tosa MRF site due to high capital costs for new building ($6 million) Recommended to switch to single stream: 1.Convert existing Milwaukee MRF to transfer station & haul recyclables to private MRF; or 2.Convert existing Milwaukee MRF to single stream and partner with Waukesha Co. Note: –Ruled out Tosa MRF site due to high capital costs for new building ($6 million)

25. Milwaukee MRF Location

26. Milwaukee MRF Site (7.69 acres) 13 th Street 16 th Street Menomonee River Mt. Vernon Ave.

27. Milwaukee MRF Large enough for combined tonnage Needs $3.15 million in upgrades to blg./grounds

28. Milwaukee MRF Data (2010 /2011 studies) MRF Building –75,000 square feet / 45 foot high ceilings –Needs $2.15 million in upgrades (poor condition) ½ roof, sprinkler system, paint, overhead doors Replacement value $3.2 million (current use) MRF Grounds –7.69 acres along Menomonee River –Needs $1 million in upgrades Storm drain, perimeter fence, pavement $615,000 value (2011 appraisal) MRF Building –75,000 square feet / 45 foot high ceilings –Needs $2.15 million in upgrades (poor condition) ½ roof, sprinkler system, paint, overhead doors Replacement value $3.2 million (current use) MRF Grounds –7.69 acres along Menomonee River –Needs $1 million in upgrades Storm drain, perimeter fence, pavement $615,000 value (2011 appraisal)

29. Milwaukee MRF Tipping Floor

30. Milwaukee MRF – Processing Area

31. 2010 Transportation Study (Waukesha County) Three options for regional MRF: 1.Direct haul all recyclables to Milwaukee MRF by municipalities 2.Build new regional MRF in New Berlin 3.Convert Waukesha MRF to a transfer station and haul compacted trailers to Milw. MRF Three options for regional MRF: 1.Direct haul all recyclables to Milwaukee MRF by municipalities 2.Build new regional MRF in New Berlin 3.Convert Waukesha MRF to a transfer station and haul compacted trailers to Milw. MRF

32. 2010 Trans. Study Results Not a huge cost difference between the three options (+/- $96,000 system/year) –Direct haul is most cost-effective, but it would cost communities $183,000 more per year & traffic issues –New Berlin location requires $6 million more in capital costs and Milwaukee will not support it Recommend to convert Waukesha MRF to a transfer station & haul to Milwaukee –Same hauling costs, flexible hours, control of product stream, verify municipal tonnage Not a huge cost difference between the three options (+/- $96,000 system/year) –Direct haul is most cost-effective, but it would cost communities $183,000 more per year & traffic issues –New Berlin location requires $6 million more in capital costs and Milwaukee will not support it Recommend to convert Waukesha MRF to a transfer station & haul to Milwaukee –Same hauling costs, flexible hours, control of product stream, verify municipal tonnage

33. 2012 Regional MRF Study Scope (Milwaukee & Waukesha County) Update previous studies & cost estimates Prepare preliminary layout & business plan for a MRF partnership Update previous studies & cost estimates Prepare preliminary layout & business plan for a MRF partnership

34. MRF Design Capacity A.City of Milwaukee: 27,000 tons/year B.Waukesha County: 27,000 tons/year C.Third Party (Tosa): 6,000 tons/year Total: 60,000 tons/year 2080 hrs./yr. = 29 tons/hour Design for 30 tons/hour A.City of Milwaukee: 27,000 tons/year B.Waukesha County: 27,000 tons/year C.Third Party (Tosa): 6,000 tons/year Total: 60,000 tons/year 2080 hrs./yr. = 29 tons/hour Design for 30 tons/hour

35. Operating Costs Processing O&M cost estimate: $30/ton -30 tons per hour rate -One train (processing line) MRF Transfer station O&M -$410,400/yr. incl. hauling $ -$19/ton -Assume 20% direct haul Processing O&M cost estimate: $30/ton -30 tons per hour rate -One train (processing line) MRF Transfer station O&M -$410,400/yr. incl. hauling $ -$19/ton -Assume 20% direct haul

36. Preliminary Regional MRF Layout Tip Floor Processing Area Bale Storage

37. Capital Costs $10 million in new equipment (shared) $3.15 million upgrade Milw. MRF/grounds –paving, roof, doors, fence, sand blasting/painting, etc. Transfer station/Waukesha County –$160,000 to convert/install compactor $10 million in new equipment (shared) $3.15 million upgrade Milw. MRF/grounds –paving, roof, doors, fence, sand blasting/painting, etc. Transfer station/Waukesha County –$160,000 to convert/install compactor

38. Revenues Material sales: $100/ton –Assume 80% split with Milw. Third party sales (Tosa, etc.): –Assume $16/ton x 6,000 tons/year –Split with Milwaukee 50/50 –Not included in business plan Assumed no state grants Material sales: $100/ton –Assume 80% split with Milw. Third party sales (Tosa, etc.): –Assume $16/ton x 6,000 tons/year –Split with Milwaukee 50/50 –Not included in business plan Assumed no state grants Saved $40/ton in landfill fees

39. Costs & Revenue Summary Regional MRF (54,000 tons/year for Waukesha Co. & Milwaukee) Waukesha County City of Milwaukee Capital Costs (one time) MRF Building/Grounds Improvements$0-$3,150,000 MRF Equipment Capital Cost ($10 million)-$5,000,000 Transfer Station Capital Costs-$160,000$0 Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs MRF O&M Costs ($30/ton)-$810,000 Transfer Station O&M / Hauling Costs ($19/ton)$410,000$0 Capital reserve – equipment replacement ($6/T)$162,000 Annual Revenue Recyclable sales – Milw. & Wauk. Co. ($80/ton)$2,160,000

40. 15-Year Fiscal Analysis (P.W. = Present Worth) Waukesha County City of Milwaukee P.W. Total Capital Costs (15 yrs. x 3.5% interest)-$6,720,000-$10,614,000 P.W. Total Annual Costs (15 yrs.)-$20,736,000-$14,580,000 P.W. Total Annual Revenue (15 yrs.)$32,400,000 NET Present Worth$4,944,000$7,206,000 No building value/costs/rental included for use of Milwaukee MRF building Assumed same tonnage/no state grants/no 3 rd party tonnage Reminder: 2012 recyclable collection costs = $3,641,000

41. 2012 Study Recommendations City of Milwaukee and Waukesha County should develop an agreement for a Regional Single Stream MRF Backup plan: explore private MRF option City of Milwaukee and Waukesha County should develop an agreement for a Regional Single Stream MRF Backup plan: explore private MRF option

42. Why Work with City of Milwaukee? (Regional Single Stream MRF) Both MRFs outdated/need switch to SS We need each others tonnage to: –Lower costs/ton - capital and O & M –Better return on investments/reduced risk –Stabilize prices long-term (regionally) Good example of intergovern. cooperation Both MRFs already publicly-owned and privately operated - No threat to private sector Both MRFs outdated/need switch to SS We need each others tonnage to: –Lower costs/ton - capital and O & M –Better return on investments/reduced risk –Stabilize prices long-term (regionally) Good example of intergovern. cooperation Both MRFs already publicly-owned and privately operated - No threat to private sector

43. Steps to Make it Happen Negotiate intergovernmental agreement –Finalize joint business plan –Research design/build/operate options Community outreach –MRF plans –Single stream collection contracts Current schedule: –RFP process in 2013 –Construction late 2013 - early 2014 –Goal: operational by July 2014 Negotiate intergovernmental agreement –Finalize joint business plan –Research design/build/operate options Community outreach –MRF plans –Single stream collection contracts Current schedule: –RFP process in 2013 –Construction late 2013 - early 2014 –Goal: operational by July 2014

44. The End