SPSA Update: Agency Reforms and Flow Control

1
SPSA UpdateAgency Reforms and Flow Control

• Norfolk City Council Work Session
• September 18, 2007
• John S. Hadfield, P.E., B.C.E.E.
• Executive Director, SPSA
• Jeffrey F. Clunie, Principal
• R.W. Beck, Inc.

2
SPSA Reforms and Efficiencies

• Committed to continuing evaluations of new
  technologies and enhancement of
  services/operations for the benefit of all served
• Committed to continued operation of activities in
  a transparent, accessible, and open manner

3
Operational Innovation Privatization
Considerations

• Streamlined operations decentralization and some
  outsourcing of transportation services
• RFP issued for potential outsourcing of landfill
  disposal capacity
• RFP issued June 29, 2007
• Proposals received September 5, 2007
• Continued exploration of divestiture of
  Waste-to-Energy system
• Yard waste program downsized to mulch-only
  operation by January 1, 2008
• SPSA has issued an RFP for a private contractor
  to manage composting services

4
FY 07-08 Cost Reductions

• Operating budget 5.3
• Administration 14.2
• Some divisions had cuts as high as 50
• 39 deleted positions
• Annual salary savings of 1,748,690
• Reduction in Force program
• 31 higher salaried employees took early
  retirement
• Cost of this program can be paid back in one year
  as a result of savings from the program

5
Debt Reductions

• Current financial policies assure SPSA will be
  debt free by 2017
• 38 of SPSAs current budget is dedicated to debt
  service

6
SPSA Debt Repayment Schedule
7
Financial Reforms

• 100/ton municipal tipping implemented to fund
  SPSA financial management policies required by
  Board
• Full compliance with policies within three years
• Policies include
• Cash funding closure of all SPSA facilities
• Funding a Reserve and Contingency account
• Provision of significant annual cash
  contributions which reduce reliance on debt
  financing of capital assets
• Moodys has re-affirmed SPSAs A3 bond rating

8
Independent Financial and Technical Review

• Jeffrey F. Clunie, Principal
• R.W. Beck, Inc.

9
R.W. Beck, Inc.

• Serves as representative to the bond holders
• Performs independent annual review of facilities
• Reviews adequacy of system revenues to meet debt
  service requirements
• This includes reviews of SPSA financial policies

10
Review of Debt Repayment Model

• Four key conclusions
• Assumptions used in SPSAs debt repayment model
  are reasonable
• Proposed programs will allow SPSA to continue to
  provide waste management services
• SPSA is projected to be viable to 2018
• SPSA is projected to be able to pay off debt by
  2018

11
Review of Financial Reforms

• Through implementation of financial reforms, SPSA
  will
• Improve its overall financial strength
• Establish funds typical of other authorities
• Have greater flexibility in the event of an
  unforeseen occurrence
• Enhance the ability to pay off bonds

12
Flow Control Overview
13
Flow Control

• Definition
• Flow control refers to the legal right of
  localities to control where waste generated
  within their jurisdictions is taken for disposal
• Implementation
• Flow control, if adopted by all SPSA members,
  will equalize the disposal rate paid by members
  and private trash haulers

14
Legal Context Authorizations

• Federal
• April 30, 2007 U.S. Supreme Court United Haulers
  decision
• Virginia Local
• Authorized by Virginia Code
• Use and Support Agreements
• Allows SPSA members to meet contractual
  obligation established under use and support
  agreements

15
Key Groups Affected

• SPSA Member Communities
• Chesapeake, Franklin, Norfolk, Portsmouth,
  Suffolk and Virginia Beach and the Counties of
  Southampton and Isle of Wight
• Residents
• Homeowners, condominium owners, and renters
• Businesses that use the private sector for waste
  disposal
• Owners, tenants, and property managers
• Businesses that use the public sector for waste
  disposal
• Private Haulers
• Environmental Community

16
Impact on SPSA Member Communities

• Pros
• Fairness in rates
• Cost of disposal is the same whether the waste is
  generated by a homeowner, condominium owner,
  apartment renter, or business owner
• Eliminates the current financial need to contract
  for out-of-state solid waste (excluding
  proprietary waste documents and products)----a
  policy opposed by a significant number of
  citizens
• Reduces costs for member localities (from
  100/ton to the mid-50s per ton)
• Restores original SPSA business model

• Cons
• Administrative and enforcement responsibilities
• Potential litigation (costs covered by SPSA)
• Increase in costs of disposal for waste collected
  from public facilities under contract with
  private haulers (i.e. schools and municipal
  buildings)

17
Impact on SPSA Member Communities (cont.)

• Pros
• May reduce need to raise the real estate tax
• Provides members with more disposal options post
  2018
• Ensures stable revenue and waste stream for SPSA,
  providing system predictability and adequate fuel
  supplies to Waste-to-Energy
• Ensures that SPSA continues to provide an array
  of environmental and reuse services

• Cons

18
Estimated Member Community Financial Impact
Notes 1These figures are estimates only they
are based on a combination of previous tonnages
and a 52/ton tipping fee 2The total estimated
savings are in constant dollars, through January
2018 3If SPSA ceases using the Regional
Landfill, Suffolk will pay the prevailing
municipal tipping fee 4Savings for Virginia
Beach are compared to the Citys capped rate of
53.88 in FY2009 the cap expires July 2015.
19
Impact on Residents

• Pros
• Fairness in rates
• Cost of disposal is the same whether the waste is
  generated by a homeowner, condominium owner,
  apartment renter, or business owner

• Cons
• Equalizing rates may cause some increases to
  residents who live in apartments and condominiums
  served by private waste disposal companies

20
Impact on Residents

• Pros
• Eliminates the current financial need to contract
  for out-of-state solid waste---a policy opposed
  by a significant number of citizens
• May reduce need to raise the real estate tax

• Cons

21
Impact on Area Businesses

• Pros
• May bring about additional competition for waste
  collection
• Will reduce charges in some communities for small
  businesses that receive solid waste services from
  their local governments

• Cons
• Will cause some increases to businesses who
  contract out waste disposal to the private sector

22
Impact on Area Businesses (cont.)

• Pros
• May reduce need to raise the real estate tax

• Cons

23
Impact on Private Haulers

• Pros
• Ensures same rates for all haulers
• No discernible impact on hauling operations

• Cons
• May receive complaints from customers for price
  increases
• Eliminates option of disposing of out-of-state
  waste at SPSA facilities
• Haulers who own landfills will no longer be able
  to dispose of the regions solid waste at their
  facilities

Note Construction demolition debris and
recyclables are not covered under flow control.
24
Environmental Community

• A broad section of the local environmental
  community has opposed SPSAs acceptance of
  out-of-state solid waste. The financial need to
  accept this waste would be eliminated through the
  adoption of flow control.

25
Other Issues

• Ensures that all disposal occurs with a public
  agency that is sensitive to public health and
  safety concerns, with governance and decision
  processes that are open to public scrutiny

26
Questions