AGENDA 12j
BUDGET WORKING PAPER
TO: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
FROM: Bill Letteri, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Commercial Garbage Collection
DATE: April 20, 2005
This report discusses three options for collection of commercial garbage waste. Option 1 maintains the current service at current fees and has no budgetary or operational impact; Option 2 expands the collection fees to all customers served, including apartments/multi-family, fraternities/sororities and non-profits resulting in a net increase in estimated revenue of $145,000; and Option 3 presents additional cost saving measures and marginal increases in service fees for consideration.
Currently the Town of Chapel Hill provides commercial garbage collection to businesses, apartments, selected condominiums/town-homes and non-profit organizations. During the fiscal year 2005-06 budget process, the commercial garbage function was examined by both the MAXIMUS consultants and the Citizen’s Subcommittee of the Budget Review Committee. Their findings and recommendations were presented to the Town Council in separate reports.
Present commercial services consist of the following resources:
Additionally, the town maintains two 30-cu yd compactors in the 100 block of Franklin Street and pays disposal fees for private compactors at Meadowmont Apartments, Cedars of Chapel Hill Retirement Community, Carolina Brewery, A Southern Season, West Franklin Preserve LP (formerly Michael Jordan’s restaurant) and the roll off container at Big Fraternity Court.
Actual audited commercial service costs in fiscal 2003-04 totaled $1,071,000. Disposal costs represented 53% of this total ($566,300). The total fiscal 2003-04 budget for the Solid Waste Services Division was $3,403,928. While commercial operation costs comprised 31% of the total of $3,403,928 for the Solid Waste Services Division in 2003-04, commercial quantities represented 61% of the total waste stream of about 20,600 tons.
In recent years, we have analyzed and changed such program areas as residential collections; yard waste collections; side-loading commercial collections; commercial services to exempt entities, general businesses and multi-family complexes; and recycling programs. We also have reported on various alternative “pay-as-you-throw” programs.
One main purpose of such on-going analysis, especially during annual operating budget preparation, has been targeted recovery of as much of actual operating costs through fees as practical. Both the consultant and the citizen budget committee discussed the present systems of general fund subsidies to solid waste service programs.
In fiscal 2002-03 we reduced weekly commercial services from 2.5 routes to 2 routes, resulting in elimination through attrition of one Equipment Operator III position in the Solid Waste Services Division. This change has resulted in cumulative savings of $152,600 through fiscal 2004-05, with a projected annual saving starting in fiscal 2005-06 of $46,000. In addition, we restructured the two remaining front-loading routes from 4 day, 10 hour work days to 5 day, 8 hour work days, incorporating the new commercial fee structure authorized by the Council in fiscal 2002-03.
Commercial revenues realized within the general fund have increased 96% since fiscal 2000-01 as noted below. Prior to fiscal 2001-02 and adoption of the new commercial fee structure, the only commercial revenue was to optional marginal services for which businesses were charged nominal amounts based on number of containers and frequency of collections.
FY 2000-01 $ 14,476
FY 2001-02 $100,352
FY 2002-03 $201,887
FY 2003-04 $255,788
FY2004-05 (Estimated) $355,000
FY 2005-06 (Revised Fees) $500,000
We have reviewed findings and recommendations made by Maximus and the citizens group concerning the provision of commercial collection services. We agree with the citizens committee that the commercial service operation should be maintained with net cost mitigated through fee adjustments. We also agree with the consultants that potential savings from discontinuance of the commercial program may be largely offset by tipping fees imposed by Orange County due to waste stream diversion (see Attachment 3) and the need to provide services to Town facilities and special events.
Accordingly, this report focuses on what we consider three viable options:
Option 1--Continue present service
Our base budget request for next year submitted to the Town Manager includes provisions for continuation of present commercial services at fees in effect in the current year. The estimated (requested) revenues under this continuation total $381,000, with commercial fee revenue at $355,000 and compactor fees at $26,000. This represents about 35% of the total cost of $1.08 million for commercial services.
Option 2--Charge all organizations the same fee for service
We agree with both the Citizens Budget Subcommittee and MAXIMUS that all organizations should be charged equally for commercial refuse service. Working with the consultant, we applied our basic fee structure to all customers served.
We estimate that universal application of our fee schedule would generate an additional $145,000 next year (if made effective on July 1, 2005), bringing the total commercial fee revenue from $355,000 to $500,000. Coupled with compactor fees in the base budget, the total revenue from commercial operations next year would be $526,000, or about 49% of program costs.
The spreadsheet shown as Attachment 1 presents data identifying the various categories of commercial customers and the numbers of each. These data were used in our base budget request to estimate general fund commercial revenues totaling $355,000 next year using the existing fee schedule
Attachment 2 presents respective data by customer using the revised equalized fee system. Under this scenario, total additional revenue next year could reach $200,000+. We strongly recommend against using this total as a general fund revenues increase; rather, we suggest use of about 75% (rounded to $145,000) because customer reaction is unpredictable. We expect some customers will change their service, either in terms of number/size of containers and/or frequency of collections.
The breakdown of the projected additional $145,000 annually from this policy change is noted below by category of those served.
Option 3— Other Cost recovery/saving measures
1. Increase collection fees across the board by 10%. We believe, based on our understanding of the market, that a 10% increase in our fee schedule is feasible. In arriving at a final number, care must be taken not to price our services beyond those of the private sector, or create an environment where our customers attempt to reduce the frequency of collection even if volumes would not permit such a reduction. As discussed above, our revised estimates for total revenues is $500,000 (assuming all customers pay equally). A 10% percent fee increase would generate an addition $50,000.
Attachment 1: Present Commercial Customer Profile
Attachment 2: Proposed Commercial Customer Profile
Attachment 3: Letter dated April 15, 2005, from Orange County Board of Commissioners Chair Moses Carey, Jr., to Chapel Hill Mayor Kevin Foy