A City Landfill Plan

One person's proposal

1. Change the new cell expansion financing method from cash in advance because:

a. Based on the service directors statement of new construction cost being $680,000, the present method depletes the land fill reserve fund from $630,000 to $50,000.

b. The present method causes a technical default of the $100,000 annual payment due the city for a past expansion costs. This causes the landfill debt to the city to remain at its present $300,000 balance.

2. Suggested method of financing:

a. Use $300,000 of the reserve fund to pay off the balance of the debt owed to the city.

b. Finance the construction by either borrowing from the city or issuing a seven bond revenue bond.

3. The reduced tipping at the landfill by outside the county haulers should extend the life of the of the new cell expansion well into the next decade.

a. The reserve fund can grow over the next 10-15 years in anticipation of the eventual closure of the facility.

4. If low tipping volume and/or increased operating costs in the future negatively effect the reserve funds growth, three options are available.

a. Request a one dollar per ton reduction from $7.50 in the amount the landfill must pay to the Clinton County Solid Waste District.

b. Increase the fees paid by “in city” commercial haulers whom, by ordinance, are required to use the city landfill.

c. Increase the fees for city performed residential and commercial waste collection.

Note: The landfill got in trouble in 2010-2012 by undervaluing airspace in an effort to increase volume. By lowering tipping fees without authorization from Council out of district tipping volume increased but revenues declined at the same time airspace consumption increased.

Paul Hunter