Preble County Sanitary Landfill. Plan For Expansion of Waste Receipts

Transcription

1 Preble County Sanitary Landfill Plan For Expansion of Waste Receipts Executive Summary February 2014 Prepared for: Preble County Solid Waste Policy Committee Preble County Board of County Commissioners By: Randy J. Gilbert, P.E. Sanitary Engineer Page 1 of 24

2 Preble County Sanitary Landfill Plan For Expansion of Waste Receipts Executive Summary History The Preble County Commissioners, Edwin Brubaker, Leonard Duke, and Joe Pierson, along with Preble County Engineer, Kenneth Yost, developed the Preble County Sanitary Landfill in Preble County received their permit from the Ohio Department of Health on September 14, The Preble County Sanitary Landfill began operations in 1971, receiving 16,000 tons of waste annually and using 3.0 acres of land per year in an unlined trench fill operation. In 2007, over 35 years later, Preble County Sanitary Landfill received 42,009 tons of waste. This was the peak of a long steadily increasing growth curve. In 2008, a decline in waste received began due to a slowing economy combined with the beginnings of the national push to reduce packaging. By 2012, waste receipts at the landfill had declined to 32,070 tons per year. The resulting decrease in revenue coupled with increasing costs resulted in serious financial issues for the landfill management. Initially major expenditures were deferred, equipment repair delayed and replacement schedules extended, along with depleting the small cash reserve that they had built up. By 2011, it became apparent that the downward trend was not going to be reversing and a rate increase was needed to survive. On October 5, 2011, the Preble County Commission passed Resolution # , which raised the tipping fee from $31.25/ton to $40.00/ton and increased the parcel tax assessment from $65.20 to $94.34 per year. This provided a much-needed influx of cash necessary to continue operations at the landfill in compliance with the permit. The Commission also decided that it was time to hire a full time Sanitary Engineer to manage the landfill and reduce the engineering consulting fees. On November 7, 2011, the first full time Sanitary Engineer was employed by Preble County. Need for a Plan The commission has expressed a desire to develop alternatives proposals to reduce the property assessment, look for new sources of revenue, while at the same time improving efficiency of operations at the landfill. The expressed desire is that the landfill be operated as much like a self-sufficient enterprise as permissible within the constraints of county government. The only practical option to meet these goals would be to eliminate the prohibition of out-of-county waste and begin marketing the landfill as a valuable asset in the community. This option is not without its own challenges; the life span of the landfill and public perception. Public concerns may be the most difficult to address in light of the results from the 2003 Landfill Advisory Committee discussions where a strong opinion developed that the landfill should be for County use only. Page 2 of 24

3 Financial The current 2014 Landfill budget of $3,669,000 is supported by projected revenues of $3,775,922 from the sources shown below: Total Estimated Revenue for 2014 Tipping Fee based on 29,000 tons MSW $1,160, Property Tax Assessment $1,934, Cash Carry over $ 500, Misc. Funding $ 181, Total $3,775, The county owns sufficient property to expand the landfill to have a life of over 113 years at a maximum daily rate of fill of 500 tons/day. This would involve three expansion phases, first to the west into the existing borrow area, south as a separate cell in the field, and then filling the valley between the existing footprint and the south expansion. By increasing the tonnage to the landfill from the existing average 110 tons/day to something between 400 to 500 tons/day revenues would increase in excess of $1,000,000 which could be utilized to offset a portion of the Property Tax Assessment. Montgomery County and Rumpke have been approached to inquire as to the possibility of their entities sending out-of-county waste to the landfill. Rumpke currently transports 200 tons/day from their Greenville transfer facility to their Colerain landfill. These trucks drive past the Preble County Sanitary Landfill gates every day. Both Rumpke and Montgomery County would consider utilizing the Preble County landfill for disposal if the price is cost effective. Both entities would receive the benefit of substantially shorter round trips, less fuel usage, and require fewer drivers and equipment due to the shorter cycle times involved. Currently the landfill is at a decision point for this expansion. To expand west means that a portion of the existing berm located to the west would need to be relocated. This results in losing approximately 2 years of the constructed 3.5 years of constructed volume at current rates of fill. It will require approximately 1.5 years to gain approval for the expansion permit to install (PTI). It will also require 12 to 18 months to complete the scale relocation project which includes the maintenance and administrative offices. Construction of the storm water confluence and cell 2C cannot begin until the scale is relocated. It is anticipated that it will take two years to construct cell 2C. The scale relocation project is required regardless of the decision to expand and increase waste received. However, large volumes of additional waste cannot be accepted without the new scales. Semi-trailer loads of waste, such as the Rumpke transfer loads from Greenville, cannot be accepted without new scales. A timeline is included in the body of the report which shows the various elements involved. Page 3 of 24

4 Expenses for the expansion and scale project are as follows: Scale Project $ 1,500, Consulting Fees for PTI $ 449, Purchase of Tipper $ 450, $ 2,399, The landfill is currently carrying an annual debt load for 2014 of $624,877 which represents 17% of the $3,669,000 budget. Table 13 which is reproduced here from the full report shows the effects on the anticipated 2015 budget of various financing scenarios for the required expenditures and optional expenditures for expansion. You will note that the last line of this table shows that we can build the required scale relocation project, pay the upfront costs for expanding the landfill, and actually lower the annual debt payment to 12% of the annual budget. This reduction would free up cash flow needed for additional construction costs to accelerate construction of cells for waste placement to meet demand. Table 13 Summary of Debt Payment Impacts for 2015 Table 2015 Debt Payment Percentage of $3,669,000 budget Savings From Existing Schedule Increase from Existing Schedule Existing Debt Table 6 $ 623,139 17% $ - $ - Required Improvements Table 7 $ 723,963 20% $ - $ 100,824 Required Improvements & Refinancing Debt Table 8 $ 411,017 11% $ 212,123 $ - Required Improvements Construction Loan & Refinancing Debt Table 9 $ 384,421 10% $ 238,718 $ - Adding Expansion to Req. Imp. Table 10 Expanasion with Refinancing Table 11 Expansion with Refinance & Construction LoanTable 12 Recommendations $ 851,004 23% $ - $ 227,865 $ 471,444 13% $ 151,696 $ - $ 444,848 12% $ 178,292 $ - Authorize staff to move forward with preparing plans and bidding documents for scale relocation project. Begin process to eliminate exclusion of out-of-county waste. Establish new rate structure to include out-of-county waste. Page 4 of 24

5 Preble County Sanitary Landfill Plan For Expansion of Waste Receipts Full Report February 2014 Prepared for: Preble County Solid Waste Policy Committee Preble County Board of County Commissioners By: Randy J. Gilbert, P.E. Sanitary Engineer Page 5 of 24

6 Preble County Sanitary Landfill Plan For Expansion of Waste Receipts History Among the many documents stored at the landfill is a brief history of the facility believed to authored by previous Landfill Manager, Tom Barnes. This document is the source of most of the early history that follows. The Preble County Commissioners, Edwin Brubaker, Leonard Duke, and Joe Pierson, along with Preble County Engineer, Kenneth Yost, developed the Preble County Sanitary Landfill in Preble County received their permit from the Ohio Department of Health on September 14, The Preble County Sanitary Landfill began operations in 1971, receiving 16,000 tons of waste annually and using 3.0 acres of land per year in an unlined trench fill operation. In 2007, over 35 years later, Preble County Sanitary Landfill received approximately 40,000 tons of waste per year. In 1989 H.B. 592 became law in Ohio. This legislation required the development of Solid Waste Districts and changed the way landfills would operate into the future. Preble County spent several years gathering hydrogeological data for the site and determined that the 45 acres to the west of the original property, based on the rules at that time, could not be utilized for landfilling. The option of going vertical over existing waste was determined to be the most cost-effective method to manage Preble County s waste. Preble County applied for a Permit to Install (PTI) to place waste vertically over the existing waste and on May 7, 1996, Ohio EPA approved the permit. In 1997, construction began on the improvements required to bring the landfill into compliance with the new rules. The first lined cell was constructed in 1998 (10.5 acres) and filling started in March During the first quarter of 2003, in response to a proposal from a private company to lease the landfill, an appointed landfill advisory committee evaluated the lease proposal and other options for the landfill. At that time, the leasing of the landfill received an extremely negative response, both for the lack of control it gave the county and the speed at which the landfill would be filled. A sentiment that the Preble County Sanitary Landfill should be for Preble County use only also came out of the discussion held by the committee. In 2004, the County, in order to ensure the financial viability of the Landfill and to protect its available air space for the residents of Preble County, enacted flow control rules. These rules, which are still in effect today, require that all in-county generated waste be disposed of at the landfill, while at the same time prohibiting out-of county waste from being disposed of at the landfill. Additionally, all property owners in Preble County subsidize the funding of the operation and maintenance of the landfill through an assessment on the real estate property taxes annually. Page 6 of 24

7 Since receiving the PTI in 1996, Preble County has purchased additional property adjacent to the original site; 120 acres to the south, 68 acres to the west, and 20 acres to the southwest, providing buffer area and borrow areas for soils to be used for daily operations and future construction and expansion. Total land owned by Preble County at the landfill is approximately 438 acres of which 52 acres are currently permitted for waste placement. Preble County Sanitary Landfill submitted a modification to the current PTI for vertical expansion to gain addition airspace within the existing footprint of the landfill in April A new approved PTI for the vertical expansion was issued in May This permit increased the capacity of the landfill by 1,092,100 cubic yards of airspace to bring the total capacity of the current permitted landfill to 4,044,500 cubic yards. In 2007 the landfill received 42,009 tons of waste. This was the peak of a long steadily increasing growth curve. In 2008, a decline in waste received began because of a slowing economy combined with the beginnings of the national push to reduce packaging. By 2012, waste receipts at the landfill had declined to 32,070 tons per year. The resulting decrease in revenue coupled with increasing costs resulted in serious financial issues for the landfill management. Initially major expenditures were deferred, equipment repair delayed and replacement schedules extended, along with depleting the small cash reserve that they had built up. By 2011, it became apparent that the downward trend was not going to be reversing and a rate increase was needed to survive. On October 5, 2011, the Preble County Commission passed Resolution # , which raised the tipping fee from $31.25/ton to $40.00/ton and increased the parcel tax assessment from $65.20 to $94.34 per year. This provided a much-needed influx of cash necessary to continue operations at the landfill in compliance with the permit. The Commission also decided that it was time to hire a full time Sanitary Engineer to manage the landfill and reduce the engineering consulting fees. On November 7, 2011, the first full time Sanitary Engineer was employed by Preble County. Need for a Plan The commission has expressed a desire to develop alternatives proposals to reduce the property assessment, look for new sources of revenue, while at the same time improving efficiency of operations at the landfill. The expressed desire is that the landfill be operated as much like a self-sufficient enterprise as permissible within the constraints of county government. The only way to meet the first two items is to increase the waste that crosses the scales at the landfill. Since all of Preble County s waste is currently disposed of at the landfill, there are two ways to increase the waste stream. One option is to wait for the economy to improve hoping that additional companies enter the area and that population increases to generate additional waste. This option is impractical since the economy and the choices of company executives cannot be predicted. A second option would be to eliminate the prohibition of out-of-county waste and begin marketing the landfill as a valuable asset in the community. This option is not without its Page 7 of 24

8 own challenges; the life span of the landfill and public perception. Public concerns may be the most difficult to address in light of the results from the 2003 Landfill Advisory Committee discussions. Current Rate Schedule Currently the rate for disposal of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) at the Preble County Landfill is $40/ton. This rate is broken down as follows: Landfill Operations $18.79 Financial Assurance $ 6.77 OEPA Fees $ 4.75 Solid Waste District Generation Fees $ 2.00 Solid Waste District Designation Contract Fees $ 7.44 Host Township Fee (Gasper) $ 0.25 Total $40.00 Landfill Operations - Costs including; salaries, equipment costs, engineering services, fuel, debt payments, and other expenses necessary to operate the landfill Financial Assurance - Funds needed to guarantee the landfill can be properly closed once it is full as well as provide funding for the 30-year post closure care period currently required by state law. OEPA Fees - Fees paid to the OEPA for their oversight of the landfill and waste industry across the state. Solid Waste District Generation Fees - Fees charged for each ton of waste generated within the Preble County Solid Waste District defined. This is part of the funding for the Solid Waste district. Solid Waste Designation Contract Fees - Fees collected at the point of disposal at a facility designated by contract with the Solid Waste District, from which the waste originated. For example if a ton of waste from Darke County were to be brought directly the landfill, The landfill is required to collect Darke County s Designation Fee and then forward it to the Darke County Solid Waste District. Host Township Fee - Fee set by state law and required to be paid to the host Township, Gasper Twp., as compensation for additional expenses incurred such as road repair, resulting from the additional truck traffic generated by use of the landfill. Page 8 of 24

9 An additional source of funding for the landfill is in the form of a property assessment tax. The current assessment on a single-family residence is $94.34 annually. Commercial properties are assessed by a calculation of potential tons generated based on the dumpster size they utilize. Commercial Property Assessment Schedule Estimated Waste Annual Assessment Generated (Ton) 0-1 $ $ $ $1, $2, $4, $7, $8, $14, $24, The residential and commercial property tax assessments are estimated to generate $1,934, in revenue for the 2014 budget. Total Estimated Revenue for 2014 Tipping Fee based on 29,000 tons MSW $1,160, Property Tax Assessment $1,934, Cash Carry over $ 500, Misc. Funding $ 181, Total $3,775, As the table above shows, the property tax assessment is currently a major component (approx. 51%) of the revenues received to operate the landfill. In order to offset any decrease in the property tax assessment portion of the funding for the landfill, the only practical alternative is to increase tipping fees. Increasing the tipping fee, however will have the same impact on the existing customer base as the property tax assessment. The increased tipping fees would be passed along to the residents in the form of higher trash collection fees. In order to obtain new revenue there needs to be increased tonnage that crosses the scale. As previously stated, with flow control the only option for additional waste is to look outside of the county. Page 9 of 24

10 During 2013 approximately 33,000 tons or 111 tons/day of municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction & construction demolition (C&CD) materials was placed in the landfill. Based on the 2013 fill rate of 111 tons/day it will be approximately 52 years before the landfill is full, based on current permitted capacity. The current permit allows up to 195 tons/day. At the maximum permitted rate of fill (195 tons/day), there is approximately 30 years of life. Obviously, increasing the waste stream with out-of county waste will shorten the life of this valuable community asset. Preble County currently owns 438 acres of land. However, the currently permitted landfill footprint occupies only 52 of these acres. This large acreage provides substantial room for expansion. The engineering consultant has looked at the expansion potential for the existing site and concluded that the potential exists to increase the available volume at least 10 times. This would result in a potential life of the landfill at current rates of fill approaching 509 years. The potential expansion areas are shown in the following map: Expansion Areas See Exhibit # 1 for larger scale drawing Page 10 of 24

11 Western Expansion - would involve expanding the landfill westward into the borrow area that has been previously excavated to obtain materials for construction of the landfill. This expansion would stop short of the existing electrical lines, which run north to south through this portion of the property. This option, was not available in 1996, due to an underling aquifer with a 100 gpm aquifer designation, which the rules did not permit overlaying with waste. Since that time the OEPA has approved several exceptions to this rule with appropriately engineered separation controls in place at other landfills. The existing conditions would permit the use of these previously approved engineering controls at the Preble County landfill. Southern Expansion - would be a separate landfill structure that would encompass the field south of the existing landfill. Valley Fill - would involve filling in the gap between the existing landfill footprint and the southern expansion to create a monolithic fill when completed. The following Table 1 provides projections for life of expansions at various fill rates. Table 1 Theoretical Years Capacity at Average Daily Tonnage based on 301 days per year Tons/Day Existing Landfill Western Expansion Southern Expansion Valley Fill Total Years With this expansion potential, the Preble County landfill has room to accept out-of-county waste at a controlled rate and maintain in excess of 100 years of life in the landfill. It is recommended that the landfill apply for a permit to accept a maximum daily rate of 500 ton/day. This would allow the landfill to solicit contracts for transfer loads for an additional 300 to 350/ton/day. This would result in average fill rates fluctuating in the 420 to 470 ton/day range. Expanding the landfill allows for both the extended life of the facility and at the same time spreads the collection of the financial assurance costs over a significantly larger volume of disposed waste. While the volume is dramatically increased, only a minor increase in cost is expected. The time available to collect these costs also dramatically increases, allowing investment income to become a source of funding. The net effect is a reduction in this Page 11 of 24

12 component of the tipping fee from approx. $6.77 to less than $2.00 per ton. This reduction would help in setting rates that are attractive to out of county haulers and transfer facilities. A potential revised rate structure showing the breakdown of rates charged by type and method of delivery with the reduced financial assurance fee contained in Table 2. Table 2 Potential Revised Rate Structure OEPA Township Health Preble Financial Base Rate Total Fees Fee Dept Fee SWMD Assurance Out of County MSW rate = $ $ 4.75 $ 0.25 $ 1.00 $ 1.50 $ Out of County Transfer Loads = $ $ - $ 0.25 $ 1.00 $ 1.50 $ Out of County C&CD Rate = $ $ - $ 1.60 $ 1.50 $ Out of State MSW Rate = $ $ 4.75 $ 0.25 $ 2.00 $ 1.50 $ Out of State C&CD Rate = $ $ - $ 1.60 $ 1.50 $ In County MSW rate= $ $ 4.75 $ 0.25 $ 9.44 $ 1.50 $ In County C&CD rate= $ $ - $ 1.60 $ 1.50 $ Out of County, rates would be subject to addition of Originating County SWD designation fees. Actual rate charged would vary by county of origin. Extrapolating various base rates into an expanded landfill capacity at different fill rates yields the potential additional revenues that could be used to reduce the property tax assessment, fund improvements, and equipment replacement as shown in Table 3. Table 3 Theoretical Revenue in Excess of Expenses at Average Daily Tonnage Tons/Day Total Years $20/Ton Base ($466,000) $454,000 $707,000 $1,140,000 $1,746,000 $1,909,000 $4,929,000 $22/Ton Base ($403,000) $585,000 $874,000 $1,397,000 $2,154,000 $2,467,000 $6,090,000 $24/Ton Base ($341,000) $716,000 $1,041,000 $1,654,000 $2,562,000 $3,025,000 $7,250,000 The above calculations assume that all waste over the current budgeted 111 tons per day would be from other counties. For detailed breakdowns of the revenue and expense, estimates see attached Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 respectively. The current equipment and work force required to operate a landfill at the current rate of fill would be capable of handling fill rates up to approximately 350 tons/day. An increase to the 500 ton/day rate would require either a second compactor or a larger/heaver compactor and potentially could require extended hours of operations. Page 12 of 24

13 Montgomery County and Rumpke have been approached to inquire as to the possibility of sending out-of-county waste from either of these entities to the landfill. Rumpke currently transports 200 tons/day from their Greenville transfer facility to their Colerain landfill. These trucks drive past the Preble County Sanitary Landfill gates every day. Rumpke has stated that they would consider utilizing the Preble County landfill for disposal if the price was cost effective. Montgomery County is also interested in sending a portion of their waste to the facility if the venture can be proven cost effective. Both entities would receive the benefit of substantially shorter round trips, less fuel usage, and require fewer drivers and equipment due to the shorter cycle times involved. It is estimated the potential time savings for Rumpke would be 12 to 16 hours per day. Rumpke is experiencing an issue with obtaining approval for proposed expansion of their Colerain Twp. landfill. As a result, they may be forced to send their Darke County Waste to another facility to conserve space at Colerain. Competing Landfill Rates Montgomery County entered into contracts effective August 1, 2013, with the Cherokee Run Landfill in Logan County and the Stoney Hollow Landfill in Dayton to dispose of their 2,000 plus tons/day waste stream. The following tables are summaries of the relevant rate tables from these contracts. 5 year average rates for disposal with Montgomery County transporting waste. Time Period Tipping Fee Local SWD Fees Total Cherokee Run Aug July 2018 $11.97 $2.50 $ miles each way Aug July 2023 $13.26 $2.50 $15.76 Aug 2023 July 2028 $14.82 $2.50 $17.32 Time Period Tipping Fee Local SWD Fees Total Stony Hollow Aug July 2018 $20.29 $2.00 $ miles each way Aug July 2023 $23.07 $2.00 $25.07 Aug 2023 July 2028 $27.55 $2.00 $ year average rates for disposal including Contractor Transport of Waste Time Period Tipping SWD Transportation Fee Fees Price / ton Total Cherokee Run Aug July 2018 $11.97 $2.50 $15.18 $ miles each way Aug July 2023 $13.26 $2.50 $16.77 $32.53 Aug 2023 July 2028 $14.82 $2.50 $18.74 $36.06 $0.12/mile, $0.13/mile, $0.15/mile Page 13 of 24

14 Time Period Tipping SWD Transportation Fee Fees Price / ton Total Stony Hollow Aug July 2018 $20.29 $2.00 $7.51 $ miles each way Aug July 2023 $23.16 $2.00 $8.46 $33.62 Aug 2023 July 2028 $27.55 $2.00 $10.21 $39.76 $0.68/mile, $0.77/mile, $0.93/mile After review of the per mile cost per ton for the Montgomery County Contract, the estimated transportation costs from Montgomery County s south transfer station to the Preble County s landfill over three different routes is shown in Table 4. Table 4 Potential Per Ton Cost Calculations for Montgomery County Routes to Preble Co. Landfill One Way Mileage $0.12/mile $0.15/mile $0.20/mile $0.30/mile $0.40/mile US m $ 7.56/ton $ 9.45/ton $ 12.60/ton $ 18.90/ton $ 25.20/ton ST. Rt m $ 7.87/ton $ 9.84/ton $ 13.12/ton $ 19.68/ton $ 26.24/ton I m $11.45/ton $14.22/ton $ 18.96/ton $ 28.44/ton $ 37.92/ton The calculated costs for Rumpke to transport the Greenville Transfer Facility waste to the Preble County s landfill site, as well as both their Colerain Twp. and Brown County Landfills, is shown in Table 4A. Table 4A Potential Per Ton Cost Calculations for Rumpke Routes to Landfills One Way Mileage $0.12/mile $0.15/mile $0.20/mile $0.30/mile $0.40/mile Preble County 29 $ 6.96/ton $ 8.70/ton $ 11.60/ton $ 17.4/ton $ 23.20/ton Colerain Twp. 66 $ 15.84/ton $19.80/ton $ 26.40/ton $ 39.60/ton $ 52.8/ton Brown Co. 126 $30.24/ton $37.8/ton $ 50.40/ton $ 75.60/ton $ /ton The Richmond Landfill fee schedule, which is included in the attachments, shows the following fees for MSW: In District Out of District $27.00 / ton + $2.00 = $29.00 / ton $33.00 / ton + $2.00 = $35.00 / ton Capital Costs for Current Operation Page 14 of 24

15 To maintain existing operations it is necessary to continue with the projected construction schedule to ensure that the landfill does not run out of certified airspace to place waste. There are several construction projects that must be completed before the next scheduled cell can be built and certified. The first is construction of sedimentation pond #2, this must then be followed by the construction of the confluence of the surface water drainage channels along the east side of the landfill. The construction of this confluence will involve substantial amount of fill directly behind the existing administrative office and scales. Once the construction of this storm water confluence begins the existing scales will be unusable as there will be insufficient space for trucks to exit the scales. In order to maintain sufficient space available for waste disposal construction on this confluence must begin no later than June of (This schedule ignores the fact that the surface water is currently being carried with temporarily approved piping that is grossly undersized for the flows received in a large rain event and the landfill is experiencing washouts several times a year. A Notice of Violation for this could be issued by the OEPA at any time should they conduct an inspection after a major rain event and sees the result.) Since the scales represent the cash register for the landfill, a functioning scale is necessary to remain open. Replacement and relocation of the scale and the associated administrative offices and maintenance facility will require approximately one year to complete once approval is given to proceed. The scale relocation projects current cost estimate is $1,500,000. The details for this cost estimate is shown in Exhibit 4. The second major expenditure that will be incurred in 2015 will be the purchase of a replacement compactor. The compactor is the most important piece of equipment at the landfill. This unit consolidates the garbage to keep loose material from blowing around, tightens the surface to allow route trucks to drive on the surface, and most importantly conserves the available airspace within the design envelope of the landfill. The existing compactor is now 5 years old and has accumulated approximately 8,500 hours of operation. Operators at other landfills tell us that the model of compactor used at the landfill will begin to experience major mechanical failures after 10,000 hrs. In order to maintain a high reliability of operation for this valuable piece of equipment a second compactor will need to be procured in 2015 for current operations. The purchase price of a new compactor will range between $500,000 and $650,000. Due to this high cost, consideration should be given to the purchase of a newer used unit. The existing unit will then be placed into a back-up status. Having the existing compactor in reserve would provide the added benefit of having the two compactors necessary to handle waste loads approaching 500 tons/day should it be decided to expand the landfill. Page 15 of 24

16 Construction Schedule qtr 3rd qtr 3rd 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr 1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr 1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr 1st qtr 2nd qtr 4th qtr 1st qtr 2nd qtr 4th qtr J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Filling existing Space to SW Corner Place waste in 2C and 2D to prep for Liner Sedimentation Pond 2 Construction Wetlands Relocation and replanting Construct Storm Water Confluence Phase 2C Construction Western Expansion New Construction Construct Confluence and East Berm Allow Out-Of- County Waste Establish New Rate Structure Refinance / New Bond issue Preparation & Review of Expansion PTI Scale Replacement Project Prepare Bid Documents Bid Project Construct Project Obtain Commitments for Waste Purchase Trailer Tipper Recieve transfer loads of waste Costs involved in Expansion to Handle Additional Waste Both Rumpke and Montgomery County have replaced all or most of their walking floor trailers with solid floor trailers. These new trailers require a tipper at the landfill to empty the load. This raises the operational costs for accepting semi-trailer loads of MSW as the tipper units are quite expensive, approximately $ 450,000 new, and require additional labor to operate and maintain. During discussions with Rumpke, it was brought up that by reconfiguring some of their collection routes a portion of the waste, that is now delivered to their transfer facilities in Darke, and Butler County s, could be brought to the landfill in route trucks instead of the larger semitrailers. The receipt of out of county waste delivered via route trucks could begin as soon as the out-of county exclusion is lifted and a new rate structure is established without any improvements being completed at the landfill. This increased revenue would assist with the financing of the improvements. Page 16 of 24

17 In order to prepare the PTI application necessary to obtain approval for the expansion of the landfill the county's engineering consultant, T&M Associates, will need to perform extensive additional hydrogeological investigation and design work. This PTI application preparation work would be in addition to the annual contract for engineering services that they currently have with the county. Another issue that must be resolved is the status of the existing approved wetland remediation plan and stream preservation plan. A complication to the proposed modification to the surface water permit was recently discovered. The permit states that the landfill must construct and maintain 10 acres of wetland with additional acreage of upland buffer zone, instead of the less than 0.5 acres originally required for mitigation. This now results in the landfill being required to replace any portion of the developing wetland that is disturbed. The area to accommodate this relocation exists north of the drive to the Camden Rd rental house. Coordination with the OEPA and Corps of Engineers will be required in order to modify the approved plan. This discussion will take time and effort and will need to be completed prior to issuance of the approved PTI for expansion by the OEPA. The wetland will need to be constructed prior to the issuance of the final surface water permit which will be a precondition for issuance of the expansion PTI. The estimated cost for Engineering Services to prepare and submit the application for the PTI for expansion of the landfill would be $ 449,000. This would include the work necessary to revise the Corp permit for the relocation of the wetlands. The total anticipated upfront cost for the expansion that would allow us to begin accepting large volumes of additional waste at the landfill would be $450,000 + $449,000 = $899,000. Financing The landfill is currently carrying four different debt instruments; a 20-year bond issue, a loan from the County General Fund, an OWPC loan for the leachate system, and an equipment note for the purchase of the loader. The existing schedule of payments as shown in Table 6: Table 6 Existing Landfill Debt Repayment Schedule Capital Bonds General Fund OWPC Leachate Loader Note Total Annual Debt Payment 2014 $ 392,580 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 57,297 $ 624, $ 395,680 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 55,762 $ 626, $ 392,378 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 54,227 $ 621, $ 131, Years $ 52,692 $ 184,160 Total $ 1,180,638 $ 431,468 $ 1,350,000 $ 219,978 $ 3,182,083 Page 17 of 24

18 As Table 6 shows, the landfill is currently covering annual debt payments that account for approximately 17% of the 2014-operating budget of $3,669,000. The following tables of annual debt expense were generated to evaluate the impact of various financing scenarios for both the required improvements and the potential expansion of the landfill. Assumptions o All financing costs shown in the following tables for future debt are based on a 3% average interest rate with equal annual payments with a 20year term.. o The construction costs for the cells required to place waste have not been included in the debt payment calculations as this is and would remain as a standard cost item in the budget. o The costs for the construction loan have also not been included in these calculations as it is anticipated that they will be covered under the 20% contingency for the project estimate. Table 7 shows the effect of adding the new debt for the scale relocation project to the existing debt schedule in Table 6. Table 7 Potential Landfill Debt Repayment Schedule - Required Improvements Capital Bonds General Fund Repayment OWPC Leachate Loan Scale Relocation Loader Note Project $1,500,000 $ - $ 100,824 $ 100,824 $ 100,824 $ 100,824 $ 100,824 Total Annual Debt Payment 2014 $ 395,680 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 57,297 $ $ 627, $ 392,378 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 55,762 $ $ 723, $ 393,680 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 54,227 $ $ 723, $ - $ 131,468 $ 75,000 52,692 $ $ 359, $ - $ - $ 75,000 - $ $ 175, $ - $ - $ 75,000 - $ $ 175,824 $ - $ - 18 Years $ - 20 years $ - Total $ 1,181,738 $ 431,468 $ 1,350,000 $ 219,978 $ 2,016,471 $ 5,199,654 This would result in debt load as percentage of the proposed $3,669,000 budget for 2015 at 20%. An option that would reduce the annual debt expense to the budget in the short term would be to refinance the outstanding 3 years of capital bonds and role the debt into a new bond issue that includes the required scale relocation project. This new capital bonds issue would be for approximately $2,681,737. This would generate the repayment schedule shown in Table 8. Page 18 of 24

19 Table 8 Refinancing of Bonds Landfill Debt Repayment Schedule Capital Bonds $2,681,737 General Fund Repayment OWPC Leachate Loan Loader Note Total Annual Debt Payment 2014 $ - $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 57,297 $ 232, $ 180,255 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 55,762 $ 411, $ 180,255 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 54,227 $ 409, $ 180,255 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 52,692 $ 407, $ 180,255 $ 31,468 $ 75,000 $ - $ 286, $ 180,255 $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ 255, $ 180,255 $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ 255, years $ - 18 Years $ - $ - Total $ 3,605,097 $ 431,468 $ 1,350,000 $ 219,978 $ 5,606,542 This would result in debt load as percentage of $3,669,000 budget for 2015 at 11% representing annual savings to the budget of $312,946 in 2015 compared to Table 7 with required improvements, or $212,122 compared to the Existing Landfill Debt Repayment Schedule Table 6. Based on the time required to complete the construction of the scale relocation project, bonds may not be able to issued until mid-2015, as a result the 2014 Bond payment will need to paid as scheduled. This creates the debt repayment schedule shown in Table 9 with a new bond issue of 2,286,057: Refinancing of Bonds Landfill Debt Repayment Schedule OWPC Capital Bonds General Fund Leachate Loader Note $2,286,057 Repayment Loan Original Bond Table 9 Total Annual Debt Payment 2014 $ 395,680 $ - $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 57,297 $ 627, $ - $ 153,659 $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 55,762 $ 384, $ - $ 153,659 $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 54,227 $ 382, $ - $ 153,659 $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 52,692 $ 381, $ - $ 153,659 $ 75,000 $ 31,468 $ - $ 260, $ - $ 153,659 $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ 228, $ - $ 153,659 $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ 228,659 $ - 20 years 18 Years $ - $ - $ - Total $ 395,680 $ 3,073,180 $ 1,350,000 $ 431,468 $ 219,978 $ 5,470,305 This would result in debt load of 10% of the anticipated 2015 budget of $3,669,000. This represents savings to the budget of $339,543 compared to Table 7 or $238,718 compared to Table 6, Existing Landfill Debt Repayment Schedule. Page 19 of 24

20 The additional costs for expansion of the landfill with acceptance of additional waste would include the engineering costs to obtain the PTI for expansion and the costs for the required tipper. This modifies the debt repayment schedule as shown in Table 10. Capital Bonds General Fund Repayment 2014 $ 395,680 $ 100,000 75, $ 392,378 $ 100,000 75, $ 393,680 $ 100,000 75, $ - $ 131,468 75, $ - $ - 75, $ - $ - 75, $ - $ - 75,000 Table 10 Potential Landfill Debt Repayment Schedule Scale Engineering OWPC Relocation Cost for Loader Note Leachate Loan Project Expansion $1,500,000 $449,000 $ $ 57,297 $ - - $ $ 55,762 $ 100,824 30,180 $ $ 54,227 $ 100,824 30,180 $ $ 52,692 $ 100,824 30,180 $ $ - $ 100,824 30,180 $ $ - $ 100,824 30,180 $ $ - $ 100,824 30,180 Tipper Note $450,000 Total Annual Debt Payment $ $ - $ 627,977 $ $ 96,861 $ 851,004 $ $ 96,861 $ 850,772 $ $ 96,861 $ 487,024 $ $ 96,861 $ 302,865 $ $ 96,861 $ 302,865 $ $ - $ 206,003 $ $ - $ - $ - 18 Years $ - 20 years 20 years - Total $ 1,181,738 $ 431,468 $ 1,350,000 $ 219,978 $ 2,016,471 $ 603,597 $ 484,305 $ 6,287,556 The scenarios shown in Table 10 reduces the total debt load at the fastest rate but places an enormous burden on the budget as debt payments increase by nearly 37% in 2015 to become 23% of the budget. Timing of this debt load would also be problematic, as increasing revenues would lag significantly behind the required expenditures necessary to be capable of handling the increased waste stream. As discussed in previous scenarios by refinancing the outstanding 3 years of capital bonds with the scale relocation project, tipper purchase, and engineering fees for expansion results in a new capital bonds issue of approximately $3,380,737. This would generate the repayment schedule shown in Table 11. Page 20 of 24

21 Table 11 Refinancing of Bonds Landfill Debt Repayment Schedule Capital Bonds $3,580,738 General Fund Repayment OWPC Leachate Loan Loader Note Total Annual Debt Payment 2014 $ - $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 57,297 $ 232, $ 240,682 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 55,762 $ 471, $ 240,682 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 54,227 $ 469, $ 240,682 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 52,692 $ 468, $ 240,682 $ 31,468 $ 75,000 $ - $ 347, $ 240,682 $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ 315, $ 240,682 $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ 315, years $ - 18 Years $ - $ - Total $ 4,813,637 $ 431,468 $ 1,350,000 $ 219,978 $ 6,815,082 Note that this results in a very low debt repayment in 2014 due to the first bond payment not being due until the year following sale of the bonds. This savings would be available to fund a portion of the costs that are included in the capital bonds, thereby reducing the future loan repayments, or be applied to the general fund repayment. This scenario reduces the total 2015 debt repayment by $151,696 from Table 6, Existing Landfill Debt Repayment Schedule, resulting in the debt payment being 13% of a projected $3,669,000 budget. As discussed for Table 9 the time required to complete the construction of the Scale relocation project will most likely delay the issue bonds until mid-2015, as a result the 2014 bond payment will need to be paid as scheduled. This creates the debt repayment schedule in Table 12 with a new bond issue of 3,185,058: Table 12 Refinancing of Bonds Landfill Debt Repayment Schedule Original Bond Capital Bonds $3,185,058 OWPC Leachate Loan General Fund Repayment Loader Note Total Annual Debt Payment 2014 $ 395,680 $ - $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 57,297 $ 627, $ - $ 214,086 $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 55,762 $ 444, $ - $ 214,086 $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 54,227 $ 443, $ - $ 214,086 $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 52,692 $ 441, $ - $ 214,086 $ 75,000 $ 31,468 $ - $ 320, $ - $ 214,086 $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ 289, $ - $ 214,086 $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ 289,086 $ - 20 years 18 Years $ - $ - $ - Total $ 395,680 $ 4,281,719 $ 1,350,000 $ 431,468 $ 219,978 $ 6,678,844 Page 21 of 24

22 This scenario reduces the total 2015 debt repayment by $178,291 from Table 6, Existing Landfill Debt Repayment Schedule, resulting in the debt payment being 12% of a projected $3,669,000 budget. This method of financing allows for the construction of necessary improvements for the existing landfill operation as well as pay for the engineering and the tipper required for the expansion ending up with a lower annual debt payment than the landfill is currently carrying. Table 13 provides a summary of the impacts of the various scenarios on the annual debt payment for the landfill. Table 2015 Debt Payment Percentage of $3,669,000 budget Savings From Existing Schedule Increase from Existing Schedule Existing Debt Table 6 $ 623,139 17% $ - $ - Required Improvements Table 7 $ 723,963 20% $ - $ 100,824 Required Improvements & Refinancing Debt Table 8 $ 411,017 11% $ 212,123 $ - Required Improvements Construction Loan & Refinancing Debt Table 9 $ 384,421 10% $ 238,718 $ - Adding Expansion to Req. Imp. Table 10 Expanasion with Refinancing Table 11 Expansion with Refinance & Construction LoanTable 12 Table 13 Summary of Debt Payment Impacts for 2015 $ 851,004 23% $ - $ 227,865 $ 471,444 13% $ 151,696 $ - $ 444,848 12% $ 178,292 $ - Table 12 represents the most practical option from a budget standpoint, as it allows for the continuation of the current planned and permitted construction of the landfill together with preparations required to expand the landfill for accepting larger waste volumes. The reduced annual debt payment realized immediately, will free up funds to either accelerate repayment of other debts, accelerate the construction of additional cells, or allow for the purchase of new equipment. Recommended Next Steps 1. Authorize staff to begin preparing plans and bidding documents for replacement of scale, administration, and maintenance facilities. This is on critical path for both current operations and possible expansion. a. Required for current or expanded operation Page 22 of 24

23 b. This is a 12 to 16 month project. c. Completion is required to begin construction of next cell for waste placement. d. Completion is required to accept semi-trailer loads of waste. e. Take additional farm land out of service. 2. Pass resolution to allow capture of project costs for future bonding of expenditures. 3. Begin process to obtain construction loans or sell bonds to refinance existing debt and pay for required improvements. 4. Make decision on expansion a. Authorize consultant to begin preparing PTI application for expansion. i. Major commitment of resources, would take 12 to 24 months to obtain OEPA approval. b. Eliminate prohibition on out-of-county waste. i. This could happen immediately and would allow for a small increase in waste stream. c. Establish new rate structure. i. Would need to be done in conjunction with Item 4b. Would not recommend lower rates immediately. ii. Should include a competitive rate for semi-trailer transfer loads. 5. Accelerate cell construction schedule. a. Scale relocation project must be complete before this can begin. b. Required to accommodate planned higher daily waste disposal. c. Potential expansion would require removal of portions of the western berm, resulting in less life in constructed capacity until this work is completed. This work cannot start until the planned expansion has been approved. Therefore, the construction of next cell (east side of landfill behind existing scale) needs to begin as quickly as possible. 6. Obtain commitments from major waste source(s) to bring waste to landfill. a. Necessary to insure repayment of additional major equipment; i.e. costs like tipper and larger compactor. 7. Purchase trailer tipper. a. Long lead time for this item, 9 to 12 months needed from start of bidding to delivery. 8. Begin accepting large loads of waste that require tipper to empty trailers. 9. Begin making substantial reductions to landfill assessment on property. a. This would occur after landfill has been able to establish a $4 million contingency fund from increased revenues. b. Anticipated to take 2-1/2 to 3 years at 500 tons/day dependent on tipping fee and actual costs. Page 23 of 24

24 ATTACHMENTS PREBLE COUNTY LANDFILL FACTS Received Permits: 1970; 1996; 2009 Started Landfilling: 1971 Groundwater Monitoring Wells: Methane Gas Monitors: Leachate generated per year: Remaining Capacity : Total: Constructed: Estimated Compaction 2012: AMDWR: 17 total wells in 3 different groundwater aquifers 2 probes, 12 punch bar locations 5,474,086 average gallons per year last 5 years 2,577,890 cubic yards (59.6 yrs. At current waste receipts) 162,277 cubic yards 1,480 pounds/cubic yard 195 tons per day 2013 Ave. Daily Waste Receipts: 111 tons per day based on 301 days 2013 Total Tonnage: 33,366 tons Preble County Population: Approximately 43,000 Residential Living Units: 15,495 (2003) Operations Funding: Tipping Fee: Residential Assessment: Capital Funding: 34% Tipping Fees; 66% Improved Parcel Tax Assessments $40.00 per Ton $94.36 per year $4,604,000 borrowed in 1996 ($400,000/yr. for 20 yr. pay back) Current Operating Budget: $3,669,000 Closure Cost ( ): $2,656, yr. Post Closure Cost ( ): $9,308,143 Page 24 of 24

25

26

27

28

29