Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ordinance 6898
113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Ordinance: 6898 File Number: 2025-1135 AN ORDINANCE TO ALIGN THE CITY'S RECYCLING AND TRASH COLLECTION RATES WITH THE RECENT RATE STUDY AND INCREASE THE RECYCLING AND TRASH USER FEE BY 9.5% FOR 2026 AND 7.5% FOR 2027 BY AMENDING § 50.40 (A) RATES FOR SERVICES OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY CODE WHEREAS, the 2025 Recycling and Trash Rate Study completed by Raftelis made several recommendations based on a cost of service analysis and the goals of the City which includes a ten-year financial plan and proposed five-year rate schedule of solid waste rates including more substantial increases in the Recycling and Trash User Fee for 2026 and 2027. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 50.40 (A) Rates for Services by adding a sentence at the end as follows: "However, for the year 2026 the Fee shall be increased by 9.5% and for the year 2027 the Fee shall be increased by 7.5%." PASSED and APPROVED on August 5, 2025 Approved: N* ?\ Molly Rawn, Mayor Attest: Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer This publication was paid for by the City Clerk -Treasurer of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Amount Paid: $ 100.32 Page 1 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEMO 2025-1135 TO: Mayor Rawn and City Council THRU: Keith Macedo, Chief of Staff FROM: Peter Nierengarten, Environmental Director SUBJECT: Recycling and Trash Division Rate Increase Adoption for 2026 and 2027 and Conversion to an Automated Cart -Based Recycling Collection System. RECOMMENDATION: The 2025 Recycling and Trash Rate Study evaluated three recycling operational scenarios in addition to current recycling operations for rate -setting purposes. The proposed operational changes were evaluated based on their potential to enhance overall program performance, safety, and long-term fiscal sustainability, relative to their financial impact on the system. 1. Status Quo: Current Curb -sort Recycling (Manual — requires two 18-gallon bins) 2. Scenario 1: Dual Stream Cart -based Recycling (Automated — requires two 64-gallon carts) 3. Scenario 2: All -in -one Cart -based Recycling — Weekly (Automated — requires one 64-gallon cart) 4. Scenario 3: All -in -one Cart -based Recycling — Every Other Week (Automated — requires one 96-gallon cart) The status quo and three alternative scenarios were evaluated and ranked according to identified key objectives in the table below: iowa d Employee _ Custonrr [gut"/ MessVrg/ (ontarnimatlon CgRal IC494 1-WnaM S-W ibll�hll Injury/Safety Etfk" Coneerden[a Growth Poorttlet ManagerrrenOt A I I States Quo Madrwn Manual Sort SI Dwl Strearn Cart (lased RecrdwV 3,727 Low r.t�d,�- Medrurn Good ff.� S2: ALNr-one Cart Bow ContmMnatlon Racrc*VIFW) S,093 low Software $2.011111 1.Sm $S 74 Anb S3 All m one Cart liau.: t'_• 't on ^W) 5,0113 low St.on,t Solt'.. $1 bht b "0" $; xx Raftelis evaluated the potential financial impacts to the system for each scenario. The table below breaks down the impact of each of the scenarios, by tons, trucks, the customers per route, and the costs associated. Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Tons Truck Weekl Households Incremental IncrementalOperating Expenses Recycle s y / Vehicle Cart Costs d Routes Route /Day Costs (1) Status Quo 2,534 12 50 465 n/a n/a $19,105,142 S1: Dual Stream 3,727 8 30 776 $1,514,000 $3,540,522 $17,916,857 Cart Recycling S2: All -in -one Cart 5,083 6 23 1,008 $418,750 $1,770,261 $17,663,957 Recycling S3: All -in -one Cart 5,083 4 14 1,629 $0 $2,655,392 $17,184,665 Recycling EOW 1. The City utilizes fleet replacement credit for vehicles through their Fleet Department and these values are reflective of the approximate costs after the use of the credit. Staff recommend converting the existing curb -sort bin system to an automated cart -based collection system where recyclable materials are disposed of in a common bin that can be collected automatically and aggregated in a truck to be sorted at a materials process facility. Additionally, City staff are evaluating possible grant opportunities to help the transition to a cart -based recycling system. The proposed timeline for the implementation of cart -based recycling is as follows: • Summer 2025 - Order new recycling trucks and carts. • Fall 2025 — Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for co -mingled recyclable processing. • Spring 2026 — New recycling trucks and carts arrive. • Spring/Summer 2026 - Initiate education campaign followed by the launch of cart -based recycling BACKGROUND: The City of Fayetteville Recycling and Trash Collections Division (RTC) provides solid waste and recycling collection services to City residents and businesses. All materials are delivered to the City -owned and RTC - operated transfer and recycling center. The City has the exclusive rights to solid waste and recyclables generated within the City limits, but franchises to private haulers to provide some roll -off services. RTC operates through an enterprise fund with revenues derived from fees levied for trash collection, recycling and compost revenues, and container sales and leases. In 2024, RTC operations had a cost of $17,380,544 and revenue generation of $17,187,599. The City has operated a Pay -As -You -Throw residential trash collection program since 2003. Residents can choose from three trash cart sizes and pay less for smaller cart sizes. Recyclables are collected curbside in 18-gallon bins and manually sorted at the curb into multiple compartment trucks. This service is available to mostly single-family residential developments and some small commercial businesses. The City services a few multifamily residential developments with large, partitioned recycling roll -off containers at the largest apartment complexes with >100 units. However, the majority of the approximately 21,000 multifamily units are not able to receive recycling services due to limitations of the City's current programs. Developing an on -site recycling program to service these households is critical to being able to increase the community's waste diversion rate, which has remained stuck at 20% for over a decade. The City also operates two recycling drop-off centers and 5 food waste drop-offs where residents can bring recyclables and organics. In 2024, the City processed 6,423 tons of materials (cardboard, mixed paper, aluminum cans, steel cans, 1 and #2 plastic bottles and glass). Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Additionally, the City collected 8,672 tons of food and yard waste for composting. The City's current recycling programs include the following services offered to residents and businesses: • Curb Sort Recycling - This program primarily serves single-family housing units and RTC staff sort the 7 permitted materials by hand at the curb. This program currently accounts for 43% of the RTC's recycling collections and has a low contamination rate of -1 %. However, compared to other community curbside recycling programs, it has a low participation rate of between 30-40%. • Apartment Recycling - This Program serves large apartment complexes that have adequate parking space for a large "battleship" container. RTC currently has 10 containers in apartment complexes. Residents sort recyclables and dispose of them in the appropriate container. This program has a higher rate of contamination (12%) and it accounts for -1 % of the total recyclable materials collected by RTC. • Commercial Recycling - Commercial customers can recycle glass, paper and cardboard. This program sees moderate levels of contamination and accounts for 37% of the overall recyclables collected by RTC. • Recycling Drop-offs are available at two locations and account for 19% of overall collections. 2025 Recycling and Trash Collection Rate Study: In August 2024, the City contracted with Raftelis Financial Consultants to conduct a Recycling and Trash Collection Rate Study (Study) which includes a ten-year financial plan and proposed five-year rate schedule of solid waste rates. In recent years, inflation has significantly increased impacting existing operating and infrastructure costs. Factors such as rising fuel prices, increases in labor expenses, collection, and disposal costs have necessitated reassessing the revenue sufficiency of the Division. The City's last solid waste rate study occurred in Fiscal Year 2018 with recommendations through Fiscal Year 2023. It is important to note that while the City has a Consumer Price Index (CPI) escalation, that rate has not kept pace with inflation and the costs of changing operations. Increasing operational costs are primarily driven by labor costs, employee turnover, and injury costs. DISCUSSION: The existing Curb -Sort Recycling Program faces numerous challenges that stand in the way of achieving the goal of a 40% diversion rate from the landfill by 2027 that was adopted in the 2017 Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan. These challenges include employee retention, on-the-job injuries, collection efficiency, messaging, and meeting future growth needs. Existing Recycling Collection Program Challenges - One of the most pressing challenges facing the RTC division is Recycling Division employee retention and on-the-job injuries. Low Capture Rates - The 2024 Fayetteville Waste Characterization study determined that the current residential recycling program collected 10.9% of the overall waste stream. An additional 16.3% of recyclable materials were disposed of by residents as trash. The total residential recycling capture rate (% of total recyclable materials that get recycled) was just 40%. Similarly, the commercial recycling program captured 2.9% of the waste stream with an additional 18.9% of recyclable materials going to the landfill. The existing commercial recycling program has a modest capture rate of just 13%. Injuries - Drivers of recycling trucks are required to exit the cab at each stop and then hand sort the recyclable materials into the back of the recycling truck. These repetitive motions lead to significant injuries. RTC staff compiled driver injuries for the last 3 years (2022-2024) and found that the injury rate for recycling Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 truck operators was 3 times higher than for automated side -arm trash collection drivers. The RTC Recyclers averaged 8.3 injuries per year over this same period. The most common types of injuries faced by recycling truck operators are heat stress, knee and ankle sprains, shoulder and back injuries, cuts from sharp objects, and slips, trips and falls when carrying recyclables. Additional safety challenges include the occasional need for a driver to climb into the back of the collection vehicle to compress the cardboard or paper bins as they become filled up en route. Hand -sorting materials also have risks associated with contamination, such as broken glass, diapers, dog waste and other unpleasant contents. Weather— Recycling drivers spend a lot of time outside the cab of the truck sorting materials regardless of the weather. Summer is especially hard on drivers, and the Division typically experiences increased driver turn- over during the hot months. It is anticipated that summer temperatures in Arkansas will continue to increase on average because of global climate change. More heat and humidity make it harder for the body to cool down, which may result in heat illness for recycling drivers. Traffic — Perhaps the most pressing safety challenge facing the current curb -sort recycling drivers is traffic dangers. Drivers are most vulnerable when hand -sorting materials while stopped on the roadside, especially along high traffic and/or high-speed roadways. Employee Turnover— The cumulative impact of these on-the-job challenges is quantified through the Division's high rate of employee turnover. Between 2022 and 2024 (3-year average), the Division saw that 62% of employees who voluntarily left were recycling drivers. Over this period, the average length of employment for recycling route drivers is less than one year. Employee turnover has many associated costs, including increased overtime pay, lost productivity, increased training time, new uniforms and preemployment costs such as background checks. Efficiency Challenges — Due to the time-consuming nature of hand sorting materials at the curb, there are inherent inefficiency challenges with the current system. The Recycling Division runs 12 curb -sort routes per day with an estimated bin set -out rate of 30-40%. In other words, on any given recycling day and route, only 30-40% of customers set out bins for collection. By industry standards, this set -out rate is very low. The industry average is a 70% set -out rate. This leads to route inefficiency as drivers skip down the street looking for bins to collect. In contrast, automated cart -based recycling that is collected with a sidearm truck increases efficiency while running fewer routes. It is estimated that transitioning to a cart -based system would require only 6 routes per day and an expected 70 - 80% set -out rate. An additional efficiency challenge is the amount of idle time associated with curb -sort recycling. Current data collected from our in -truck software estimates that the average stop takes approximately 75 seconds. This translates to an average of 48 stops per hour with approximately 29 minutes of this hour being idle time. Unnecessary truck idling is fuel intensive and creates long-term maintenance issues for vehicles. An automated cart -based collection system averages 19 seconds per stop for an increase to 190 stops per hour and only 4 minutes of idling per hour. Messaging — How the City operates its trash and recycling services says a lot about the community's priorities. While not intentional, the current system appears to promote the ease of throwing away materials over prioritizing recycling. This can be seen in the size of containers available for both trash and recycling. For instance, customers can choose three different trash cart sizes (32, 64, or 96 gallons), while only one size of small recyclable container is available (18-gallon bin). An all -too -common complaint from customers is that the recycling box is too small and the desire to have a recycling cart with wheels to aid in the convenience of getting the materials to the curb. Growth — The City of Fayetteville has experienced tremendous growth in the last few years and these growth pressures impact nearly all aspects of the City's operations. Population projections indicate that the City will Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 have over 150K residents by 2045. This represents a 4% annual growth with multifamily residential units growing faster than single-family units. Cart -Based Recycling — Cart -based recycling refers to the recycling collection method where recyclable materials are disposed of in a common bin that can be collected automatically and aggregated in a truck to be sorted at a materials process facility. There are currently two operational material processing facilities in Northwest Arkansas that can sort co -mingled materials. Cart -Based Recycling Pilot Project — In 2016, the City piloted a cart -based recycling program to determine and gauge the efficacy of a program change. In all, approximately 1,000 households participated in the pilot and were given 64-gallon carts. Set -out rates varied from 44% to 67%, equating to a 52% increase in set -out rates. Additional findings from the pilot included the following: • A 96% increase in the weight of materials collected, • A 94% increase in recyclables per household, • A 58% decrease in service time, • And a 3% contamination rate. Customer feedback from the cart -based pilot was very positive, with 97% saying it was much more convenient to put all materials into a single cart and 90% saying it was easier to just roll the cart to the curb. Interestingly, 83% stated that the larger cart allowed them to recycle more, indicating that customers may be intentionally throwing recyclable materials away due to bulkiness or overloading the small 18-gallon bins. Cart -based collection systems are generally very positively viewed by residents. However, this convenience can lead to increased levels of contamination in the materials collected. Contamination refers to the material that residents include in their recycling collection but is not accepted in the program, as well as acceptable materials with unacceptable amounts of residue. Data collected from the Recycling Partnerships 2020 State of Curbside Recycling reports and peer city analysis indicated that the average inbound contamination rate was around 17%. This aligns with staff -initiated research of similar programs in cities such as Denver, CO, Sarasota, FI, Des Moines, IA, and Austin, TX, which have contamination rates in the 12-17% range. There are also examples of peer cities that have contamination rates of 35% due to a variety of factors mostly associated with poor communication, education, and outreach efforts. To keep contamination rates low, the conversion to a cart -based recycling program will require significant investment in community and customer -based outreach to inform residents of the change in the collection system and acceptable recyclable materials. Additionally, the deployment of anti -contamination truck -mounted cameras and software will enable the RTC Division to identify carts with contaminated materials and notify customers of acceptable materials. Conversion to a Cart -Based Recycling Program Projected Results — Staff in consultation with the Recycling Partnership and Raftelis Consultants estimate that converting to a cart -based automated recycling collection system would result in the following gains and efficiencies: An increased diversion rate from the existing baseline of 20% to over 30%, A doubling in the volume of recyclables collected and diverted from the landfill, A 2X reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 • A contamination rate of less than 10%, • A more equitable recycling program that could reach all city residents regardless of housing type, • The ability to increase commercial recycling participation, and • Continued recycling transparency through reporting tied to contractual agreements with processors. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: The attached 2025 Recycling and Trash Collection Rate Study details the methodology, key assumptions, multiple scenarios, and proposed solid waste financial plan. Through the development of the scenarios and financial plans with City Staff, it was determined that Scenario 2: All -in -one weekly recycling collection meets the operational objectives of the Division, while providing for a smaller overall bill and impact on residents. The proposed revenue adjustments help ensure adequate revenue to fund operating expenses, capital expenditures, and meet reserve targets. The Financial Plan modeling assumes the first revenue adjustment occurs on January 1, 2026. It is recommended that the need for any future identified rate revenue adjustments be reviewed in the Fiscal Year 2028 or in the event of a significant change in conditions during the recommendation period which would necessitate additional rate revenues (i.e., change in regulations, material increase in the cost of contracted disposal, recycling operational changes etc.). Proposed Solid Waste Revenue Adjustments (S2: All -in -one Weekly Collection) Effective Date Rate Adj. January 1, 2026 9.50% January 1, 2027 7.50% January 1, 2028 3.50% January 1, 2029 3.50% January 1, 2030 3.50% ATTACHMENTS: 3. Staff Review Form, 4. FayetteviIIe_SW Report_Draft 2_With Appendices, 5. Cart Based Recycling - EAC, 6. Fayetteville Solid Waste - Agenda Session Presentation 061025, 7. Cart Based Recycling - CC Presentation 071525 Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Legislation Text File #: 2025-1135 AN ORDINANCE TO ALIGN THE CITY'S RECYCLING AND TRASH COLLECTION RATES WITH THE RECENT RATE STUDY AND INCREASE THE RECYCLING AND TRASH USER FEE BY 9.5% FOR 2026 AND 7.5% FOR 2027 BY AMENDING § 50.40 (A) RATES FOR SERVICES OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY CODE WHEREAS, the 2025 Recycling and Trash Rate Study completed by Raftelis made several recommendations based on a cost of service analysis and the goals of the City which includes a ten-year financial plan and proposed five-year rate schedule of solid waste rates including more substantial increases in the Recycling and Trash User Fee for 2026 and 2027. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 50.40 (A) Rates for Services by adding a sentence at the end as follows: "However, for the year 2026 the Fee shall be increased by 9.5% and for the year 2027 the Fee shall be increased by 7.5%." Page 1 Leif Olson Submitted By City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2025-1135 Item ID 7/15/2024 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 6/26/2025 SUSTAINABILITY/RESILIENCE (631) Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Approval of an ordinace adopting the proposed Recycling and Trash Division's Rate Increase for 2026 and 2027 and Conversion to an Automated Cart -Based Recycling Collection System. Account Number Project Number Budgeted Item? No Budget Impact: Total Amended Budget Expenses (Actual+Encum) Available Budget Does item have a direct cost? No Item Cost Is a Budget Adjustment attached? No Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget Fund Project Title $ - V20221130 Purchase Order Number: Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Change Order Number: Approval Date: Original Contract Number: Comments: tPeveiino and -ury mipetion Rate stut THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK R RAFTELIS June 24, 2025 Mr. Peter Nierengarten, PE Environmental Director Sustainability Department 125 W Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Subject: 2025 Recycling and Trash Collection Rate Study Dear Mr. Nierengarten: Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis) has completed for your consideration, our analysis of the City of Fayetteville (City) Recycling and Trash Collection Division (Division) revenue sufficiency study (Study). The Study review period encompassed the Fiscal Year 2025 (current budget year) through 2034 (collectively, the "Forecast Period") with the account period from January 1 through December 31 being the "Fiscal Year". The purpose of the Study was to: • To evaluate and recommend operational improvements to the collection system • Develop and recommend that fairly recover costs while supporting the financial sustainability of the enterprise fund. The Study is based on information provided by City staff including, but not limited to, the number of properties charged for collection services, historical waste deliveries, historical financial operating results, budgetary information, capital plans, fixed asset information, and other financial and statistical information. While Raftelis relied upon the information provided by City staff, care and due diligence measures were taken where practical to validate information for purposes of financial planning such as but not limited to: i) interviews with staff concerning questions related to data interpretation; ii) data testing such as revenue testing reported customer accounts; iii) trend analysis; and iv) other analytical procedures as needed. Following this letter, we have detailed our findings, observations, and recommendations in greater detail for your consideration. It has been a pleasure working with you and we thank you and the City staff for the support provided during the course of this study. Sincerely, Thierry A. Boveri, CGFM Sarah Neely Vice President Senior Consultant 341 N. Maitland Avenue, Suite 300, Maitland, FL 32751 www.raftelis.com City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study Table of Contents xecutive Summary..................................................................... 8 1.1. Background...................................................................................................................8 1.2. Methodology................................................................................................................10 1.3. Key Assumptions........................................................................................................10 1.4. Recycling Operations Scenarios...............................................................................11 1.5. Solid Waste Financial Plan — Status Quo..................................................................12 1.6. Proposed Solid Waste Financial Plan — Scenario 2.................................................14 1.7. Proposed Solid Waste Rates......................................................................................17 1.8. Monthly Residential Bill Comparison........................................................................20 2. siiethuw,%#.u9Y..............................................................................■ L 1 3. Key Inputs and Assumptions..................................................... 23 3.1. Current Rates and Operations...................................................................................23 3.2. Customer Statistics....................................................................................................25 3.2.1. Customer Accounts......................................................................................................25 3.2.2. Waste Generation........................................................................................................27 3.3. Revenues.....................................................................................................................27 3.3.1. Other Revenues...........................................................................................................30 3.4. Expenditures...............................................................................................................32 3.4.1. Operating Expenses....................................................................................................32 3.4.2. Escalation Factors.......................................................................................................34 3.4.3. Capital Expenditures....................................................................................................34 3.4.4. Existing and Proposed Debt Service............................................................................35 3.4.5. Minimum Cash Reserve Targets..................................................................................35 3.5. Recycling Scenarios...................................................................................................36 4. solid Waste Financial Plan ......................................................... 40 4.1. Proposed Financial Plan and Revenue Adjustments...............................................40 5. Cost of Service........................................................................... 43 6. Proposed Solid Waste Rates and Charges ................................ 44 6.1. Proposed 5-Year Solid Waste Rate Schedule...........................................................44 City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 7. Solid Waste Fee Comparison..................................................... 47 7.1. Monthly Residential Bill Comparison........................................................................47 City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study List of Tables Table 1-1: Recycling Scenario Operational and Financial Comparison....................................................11 Table 1-2: Solid Waste Revenue Adjustments (Status Quo)....................................................................12 Table 1-3: Proposed Solid Waste Revenue Adjustments (S2: All -in -one Weekly Collection)...................14 Table 1-4: Proposed Five -Year Solid Waste Monthly Rate Schedule - Carts...........................................17 Table 1-5: Proposed Five -Year Solid Waste Rate Schedule - Dumpsters................................................18 Table 3-1: Current Residential Solid Waste Rate Structure......................................................................23 Table 3-2: Current Commercial Solid Waste Rate Structure....................................................................24 Table 3-3: Projected Residential Customer Statistics...............................................................................25 Table 3-4: Projected Commercial Customer Statistics..............................................................................26 Table 3-5: Projected Waste Generation....................................................................................................27 Table 3-6: Projected Cart Collection Revenues Under Current Rates (in thousands)..............................28 Table 3-7: Projected Collection Revenues Under Current Rates (in thousands)......................................29 Table 3-8: Other Operating Revenues (in thousands).............................................................................. 31 Table 3-9: Operating Expense Projection by Cost Center........................................................................33 Table 3-10: Inflationary Assumptions........................................................................................................34 Table 3-11: Capital Improvement Plan......................................................................................................34 Table3-12: Reserve Targets.................................................................................................................... 35 Table 3-13: Recycling Scenario Operational and Financial Comparison..................................................38 Table 4-1: Proposed Solid Waste Revenue Adjustments (S2: All -in -one Weekly Collection)...................40 Table 5-1: Proposed 5-Year Cart -Based Solid Waste Rate Schedule......................................................44 Table 5-2: Proposed 5-Year Non -Residential Solid Waste Rate Schedule..............................................45 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Historical Bill Comparison for Average 64-gallon Residential Customer..................................9 Figure 1-2: Solid Waste Financial Plan (Status Quo)................................................................................13 Figure 1-3: Solid Waste Financial Plan: Cash Reserves (Status Quo).....................................................14 Figure 1-4: Proposed Solid Waste Financial Plan (S2: All -in -one Weekly Collection)..............................15 Figure 1-5: Proposed Solid Waste Financial Plan: Cash Reserves (S2: All -in -one Weekly Collection)...............................................................................................................................................16 Figure 1-6: Monthly Residential Fee Comparison Based on 64 gallon.....................................................20 City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study Figure 3-1 Operating Expense by Type of Cost........................................................................................32 Figure 3-2: Residential Waste Composition................................................................................ Figure 3-3: Recycling Options Analysis...................................................................................... Figure 4-1: Proposed Solid Waste Financial Plan (S2: All -in -one Weekly Collection) ................. Figure 4-2: Solid Waste Financial Plan: Cash Reserves (S2: All -in -one Weekly Collection)....... Figure 6-1: Monthly Residential Fee Comparison....................................................................... List of Appendices Appendix A: Solid Waste Cash Flow Appendix B: Operating Expense Projections Appendix C: Capital Improvement Plan City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 8 1. Executive Summary 1.1. Background The Fayetteville Recycling and Trash Collections Division operates and is established as an enterprise fund. As such, the enterprise fund must have revenues equal to the cost of services provided by the system and the City must establish rates sufficient to cover the cost of operating, maintaining, repairing and financing the system. According to the Governmental Accounting Standards Board: "Enterprise Funds should be used to account for operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises — where the intent ofthe governing body is that costs ofproviding services to the general public on a continuing basis be financed or recovered primarily through user charges. " In August 2024 the City of Fayetteville (City) contracted with Raftelis Financial Consultants (Raftelis) to conduct a Recycling and Trash Collection Rate Study (Study) which includes a ten-year financial plan and proposed five-year rate schedule of the solid waste rates. This report presents the financial plans and the resulting solid waste rates. In recent years, inflation has significantly increased impacting existing operating and infrastructure costs. Factors such as rising fuel prices, increases in labor expenses, collection, and disposal costs have contributed to reassessing the revenue sufficiency for the Division. The City's last solid waste rate study occurred in Fiscal Year 2018 with recommendations through Fiscal Year 2023. It is important to note that while the City has a Consumer Price Index (CPI) escalation, that rates have not kept pace with inflation and the costs of changing operations. Highlighted in the figure below, we notice this difference in how the rates that have been in effect have been outpaced by the Garbage and Trash Index over the last several years. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 9 Figure 1-1: Historical Bill Comparison for Average 64-gallon Residential Customer $ 25.00 $19.49 $20.35 $17.39 $20.00 $18.66 $18.94 $14.78 $15.26 $15.79 $16.54 $15.00 ,14 L - $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 Fayetteville Cart 64 Inf Adj. Bill The City's Sustainability Department through the Recycling and Trash Collection Division (Division) provides trash collection service and recycling collection to a population of over 29,400 customers in the City. These collection services are managed by the Division which are funded through service charges billed monthly to customers based on their level of service. Residential customers and commercial customers have the flexibility to choose their level of service based on their individual needs. This choice includes options such as the size of trash carts, additional trash carts, extra one-time pickups, bulky waste collection, recycling, food waste and yard waste collection. The City also provides disposal services through their transfer station and composting sites. On an annual basis, the City generates over 76,100 refuse tons. Additionally, the City generates approximately over 6,000 recycling tons annually. The City offers waste collection services tailored to meet the needs of both residential and commercial customers. For residents, the base level of service includes options for one-32, 64, or 96-gallon cart for weekly refuse collection. Additionally, the base level of service includes weekly curb -sort recycling 2-18-gallon bins, and yard waste, and every other week food waste collection as a pilot program. Any additional yard waste or bulky waste collection required will incur an additional charge. Commercial customers have a variety of different levels of service for refuse and recycling collection, ranging from two to eight cubic yard dumpsters and compactors with pickups ranging from one to six times a week, drop box collection from 20-40 cubic yard City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 10 dumpsters and compactors and cart service for glass recycling and food waste collection. To facilitate these collection services, the City operates and maintains its own fleet through an Internal Fleet Fund. The Division works with the City's Fleet Department that oversees the procurement and upkeep of vehicles for various trash collection services. Presently, the City's fleet comprises of 27 residential trucks to service 90 routes with 38 full-time employees (FTEs) and 14 commercial trucks to service 53 routes per week with 12 FTEs. 1.2. Methodology The foundation of the Study and the primary objective of the solid waste rates are to reasonably recover the cost of providing service, cost of infrastructure investment and compliance with covenants of internal fiscal targets (referred to as the "Revenue Sufficiency" evaluation). In order to address the sustainability of the City's charges for service, Raftelis developed a solid waste financial plan for the City which set forth the total revenue adjustments needed to meet capital investment, operational expenses, and cash reserves needs during the five-year rate -setting period. Raftelis worked with City staff to refine inputs and provide scenarios of revenue adjustments for the City consideration. A key component of the plan was a projection of the Net Revenue Requirements from rates, which equates to the expenditure requirements funded from monthly user charges. An illustration of the components that make up the Net Revenue Requirements is summarized below: + Cost of Operation and Maintenance + Indirect Cost Allocations + Capital & Fleet Funding Requirements + Deposits to Reserves for Policy Compliance and Future Expenditures — Other Operating Revenue — Interest Income / Transfers from Operating Reserves = Net Revenue Requirements (Funded from Rates) Expenses Monthly Fees Debt Other Fees & Capital / Income Working Capital Performing a thorough evaluation of the City's funding requirements allows us to provide sound -rate recommendations to help ensure the City has sufficient resources to fund operations and achieve their objectives. 1.3. Key Assumptions Raftelis developed the solid waste financial model in Microsoft Excel to project financial and rate calculations over a 10-year study previously defined as the Forecast Period. All assumptions were discussed with and reviewed by City staff. This report will detail all the assumptions developed in support of the financial plan, however below details some of the key assumptions City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 11 • The City's fiscal year spans from January 1 through December 31. • Customer growth was assumed on average at 2% throughout the forecast year • Projections in future years were generally made based on the budgeted Fiscal Year 2025 data using a range of escalation factors from 4%-7% o Expenses were based on the Fiscal Year 2025 budget and escalated for inflation and changes in operations o Revenues were based on billing statistics and reported financials and were escalated for growth and rate adjustments • The forecast targets a 120-day operating reserve balance by the end of the Forecast Period 1.4. Recycling Operations Scenarios Through the Study, the Division looked to evaluate three recycling operational scenarios in addition to their current recycling operations for rate setting purposes. The proposed operational changes were evaluated based on their potential to enhance overall program performance, safety, and long-term fiscal sustainability, relative to their financial impact on the system. 1. Status Quo: Current Curb -sort Recycling 2. Scenario 1: Dual Stream Cart -based Recycling 3. Scenario 2: All -in -one Cart -based Recycling - Weekly 4. Scenario 3: All -in -one Cart -based Recycling — Every Other Week The table below breaks down the impact of each of the scenarios, by tons, trucks, the customers per route, and the costs associated. Table 1-1: Recycling Scenario Operational and Financial Comparison Status Quo 2,534 12 50 465 n/a n/a $19,105,142 S1: Dual Stream Cart 3,727 8 30 776 $1,514,000 $3,540,522 $17,916,857 Recycling S2: All -in -one Cart 5,083 6 23 1,008 $418,750 $1,770,261 $17,663,957 Recycling SI All -in -one Cart 5,083 4 14 1,629 $0 $2,655,392 $17,184,665 Recycling EOW (1) The City utilizes fleet replacement credit for vehicles through their Fleet Department and these values are reflective of the approximate costs after the use of the credit. (2) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 12 More detail is provided in later sections in the report on each scenario and their impact to the City and its residents. 1.5. Solid Waste Financial Plan - Status Quo Based on the key assumptions of the Study we have determined that the existing rates for solid waste services under each scenario will not be adequate to generate sufficient revenues to fund the projected needs of the Division. For purposes of this section, the following figures and tables depict the forecast under Status Quo which is the continuation of current operations. Table 1-1 shows the necessary rate revenue adjustments for the Forecast Period and highlights the initial five-year study recommendation period under current operations. Implementation for the identified rate adjustments were assumed at the outset of each fiscal year, beginning on January 1. It is recommended that the need for any future identified rate revenue adjustments be reviewed in the Fiscal Year 2030 or in the event of a significant change in conditions during the recommendation period which would necessitate additional rate revenues (i.e., change in regulations, material increases in cost, change in operations, etc.). Table 1-2: Solid Waste Revenue Adjustments (Status Quo) January 1, 2026 4.50% 5.00% 9.50% January 1, 2027 4.50% 5.00% 9.50% January 1, 2028 4.50% 1.00% 5.50% January 1, 2029 4.50% 0.00% 4.50% January 1,2030 4.50% 0.00% 4.50% Key factors influencing the need for identified revenue adjustments include: • As can be seen in Figure 1-1, solid waste rates have not kept pace with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or Water and Sewer and Trash Collection Services Index (WS&T). • As shown in Figure 1-2, the Study indicates a funding deficiency to cover rate -funded capital improvements within the Fiscal Year 2026, which continues to grow through the forecast period. • The Division is looking to potentially change their recycling operations from a manual curb -sort to all - in -one cart -based recycling • The remainder of the necessary revenue increase is to address assumed inflation in operating expenses. • Addressing the Solid Waste Services funding deficiency, changes in operations, and inflation will provide adequate funding for operations, capital funding, and support deposits to reserves in outer years to help maintain compliance with internal minimum cash reserve targets. Figure 1-2 provides a breakdown of the projected revenue requirements of the Division. As can be seen from the gap analysis, the Division's current period expenditure exceeds existing revenues, which only grows over time due to inflation in the cost of operations and the increased need for sufficient reserves. The rate revenues at existing rates is shown by the green line. Projected rate revenues with the status -quo rate adjustments is City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 13 shown by the dotted green line. Annual expenditures are shown by the dark blue columns. The bright blue bar represents transfers to reserves, and the pink bar represents capital funded through rates. Figure 1-2: Solid Waste Financial Plan (Status Quo) $30 c 0 $25 $20 $15 $10 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 MO&M Expenses MDebt Service Rate Funded CIP M(Use of) /Transfers to Reserves —Existing Revenue* *-*Proposed Proposed Revenue *Existing revenue includes assumed 4. 5% CPI escalation increases City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 14 Figure 1-3: Solid Waste Financial Plan: Cash Reserves (Status Quo) $9 c o $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 = Ending Cash Reserves —Reserve Target Figure 1-3 shows projected operating cash balances (blue bars) at the end of each fiscal year over the Forecast Period relative to the City's total reserve targets of 120-day operating reserves under the status quo financial plan. Reserves are drawn down in the first fiscal year to help cover annual operating costs, fund capital expenditures, and allow for the phase -in of annual rate revenue adjustments for the benefit of the rate payers. As can be seen, with the rate increases, the City does not meet the reserve target within the five-year rate setting window and is short approximately $1 million in reaching the target by FY 2030. 1.6. Proposes iolicl waste Financiali Plan - Scenario 2 Through the development of the scenarios and financial plans with City Staff, it was determined that Scenario 2: All -in -one weekly recycling collection meets the operational objectives of the Division, while providing for a smaller bill overall impact to residents. The following tables and figures below show the proposed rate revenue adjustments for the Forecast Period and highlights the initial five-year study recommendation period. Table 1-3: Proposed Solid Waste Revenue Adjustments (S2: All -in -one Weekly Collection) Effective Date Rate Adj. January 1, 2026 ' 1' , January 1,2027 7.50% January 1,2028 3.50% January 1,2029 3.50% January 1,2030 3.50% City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 15 Key benefits of the proposal include: • Increased Recycling Diversion by expanding service to multi -family and commercial customers, potentially doubling recycling collection volumes; • Enhanced Driver Safety through the automation of collection processes, reducing manual handling and related risks; • Lower Operational Costs driven by automation, enabling route consolidation, fewer trucks on the road, and reduced labor hours; • Smaller Rate Adjustments as a result of cost savings, helping to minimize customer impact and maintain competitive rates compared to peer communities; and • Policy Compliance through improved operational performance, full funding of the capital plan, and achievement of minimum fiscal targets. • Contamination Management through the use of anti -contamination software on collection trucks Figure 1-4 provides a breakdown of the projected revenue requirements of the Division under Scenario 2. As can be seen from the gap analysis, as with Status Quo, the Division's current period expenditure exceeds existing revenues, which only grows over time due to inflation in the cost of operations and the increased need for sufficient reserves. The rate revenues at existing rates is shown by the green line. Projected rate revenues with the proposed rate adjustments is shown by the dotted green line. Annual expenditures are shown by the dark blue columns. The bright blue bar represents transfers to the general fund, the yellow bar represents capital funded through rates, and the red bar represents deposits to cash reserves. Figure 1-4: Proposed Solid Waste Financial Plan (S2: All -in -one Weekly Collection) $30 c 0 $25 $20 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 M0&M Expenses MDebt Service Rate Funded CIP (Use of) / Transfers to Reserves —Existing Revenue* ••••• Proposed Revenue *Existing revenue includes assumed 4. S% CPI escalation increases City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 16 Figure 1-5: Proposed Solid Waste Financial Plan: Cash Reserves (S2: All -in -one Weekly Collection) N $8 C 0 $7 $6 $5 $4 M Ending Cash Reserves —Reserve Target Figure 1-3 shows projected operating cash balances (blue bars) at the end of each fiscal year over the Forecast Period relative to the City's total reserve targets of 120-day operating reserves under the status quo financial plan. Reserves are drawn down in the first fiscal year to help cover annual operating costs, fund capital expenditures, and allow for the phase -in of annual rate revenue adjustments for the benefit of the rate payers. As can be seen, with the rate increases, the City meets the reserve target within the five-year rate setting window at Fiscal Year 2029. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 17 1.7. Proposed Solid Waste Rates The proposed five-year solid waste rate schedule was developed based on the overall revenue adjustment needs of the System as discussed in further detail in Section 4 of this report. Error! Not a valid bookmark self -reference. and Table 1-4 below presents a summary of the proposed monthly rates for the Study. Table 1-4: Proposed Five -Year Solid Waste Monthly Rate Schedule - Carts Residential Inside City Residential Curbside Service - 32ga1 Residential Curbside Service - 64ga1 Residential Curbside Service - 96ga1 Outside City Residential Curbside Service - 32ga1 Residential Curbside Service - 64ga1 Residential Curbside Service - 96ga1 Commercial Inside City Commercial Curbside Service Food Waste Cart Recycling Cart Glass Cart Outside City Commercial Curbside Service $12.40 $13.58 $14.60 $15.11 $15.64 $16.18 $18.94 $20.74 $22.29 $23.08 $23.88 $24.72 $26.89 $29.44 $31.65 $32.76 $33.91 $35.09 $18.58 $20.34 $21.87 $22.63 $23.42 $24.24 $28.36 $31.05 $33.38 $34.55 $35.76 $37.01 $40.25 $44.07 $47.37 $49.03 $50.75 $52.53 $24.21 $26.51 $28.50 $29.50 $30.53 $31.60 $20.47 $22.42 $24.10 $24.94 $25.82 $26.72 $6.10 $6.68 $7.18 $7.43 $7.69 $7.96 $6.10 $6.68 $7.18 $7.43 $7.69 $7.96 $36.36 $39.81 $42.80 $44.30 $45.85 $47.45 (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 18 Table 1-5: Proposed Five -Year Solid Waste Rate Schedule - Dumpsters Shared Bin (Multi -Meter Inside City Multi -Meter Dumpsters $11.84 $12.96 $13.94 $14.42 $14.93 $15.45 Outside City Multi -Meter Dumpsters $17.76 $19.45 $20.90 $21.64 $22.39 $23.18 Inside City Commercial Dumpsters Commercial Dumpster Pickup 2YD $57.86 $63.36 $68.11 $70.49 $72.96 $75.51 Commercial Dumpster Pickup 4YD $107.74 $117.98 $126.83 $131.27 $135.86 $140.62 Commercial Dumpster Pickup 6YD $140.09 $153.39 $164.90 $170.67 $176.64 $182.83 Commercial Dumpster Pickup 8YD $175.41 $192.07 $206.48 $213.71 $221.19 $228.93 Cardboard 4YD $26.93 $29.49 $31.70 $32.81 $33.95 $35.14 Cardboard 6YD $35.02 $38.35 $41.23 $42.67 $44.16 $45.71 Cardboard 8YD $43.86 $48.02 $51.62 $53.43 $55.30 $57.24 Food Waste Pilot 2 CY $43.40 $47.52 $51.09 $52.87 $54.72 $56.64 Food Waste Pilot 4 CY $80.80 $88.48 $95.12 $98.45 $101.89 $105.46 Compactors Compacted Trash 2YD $122.10 $133.70 $143.72 $148.75 $153.96 $159.35 Compacted Trash 4YD $244.22 $267.42 $287.48 $297.54 $307.95 $318.73 Compacted Trash 6YD $366.33 $401.13 $431.22 $446.31 $461.93 $478.10 Compacted Trash 8YD $488.43 $534.83 $574.94 $595.06 $615.89 $637.45 Compacted Cardboard 2YD $30.52 $33.42 $35.93 $37.19 $38.49 $39.84 Compacted Cardboard 4YD $61.05 $66.85 $71.86 $74.38 $76.98 $79.67 Compacted Cardboard 6YD $91.57 $100.27 $107.79 $111.57 $115.47 $119.51 Outside City Commercial Dumpsters Commercial Dumpster Pickup 2YD $86.79 $95.04 $102.16 $105.74 $109.44 $113.27 Commercial Dumpster Pickup 4YD $161.62 $176.97 $190.24 $196.90 $203.79 $210.92 Commercial Dumpster Pickup 6YD $210.13 $230.09 $247.35 $256.00 $264.96 $274.24 Commercial Dumpster Pickup 8YD $263.12 $288.11 $309.72 $320.56 $331.78 $343.39 Cardboard 4YD $40.47 $44.31 $47.64 $49.31 $51.03 $52.82 Cardboard 6YD $52.65 $57.65 $61.98 $64.14 $66.39 $68.71 Cardboard 8YD $65.93 $72.19 $77.60 $80.32 $83.13 $86.04 Commercial Bin Recycling $6.10 $6.68 $7.18 $7.43 $7.69 $7.96 Paper 4YD $26.93 $29.49 $31.70 $32.81 $33.95 $35.14 Table Continued on Following Page City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 19 Compactors Compacted Trash 4YD $348.89 $382.03 $410.68 $425.06 $439.93 $455.33 Compacted Trash 6YD $523.32 $573.04 $616.02 $637.58 $659.89 $682.99 Compacted Cardboard 4YD $87.21 $95.50 $102.66 $106.25 $109.97 $113.82 Compacted Cardboard 6YD $130.82 $143.25 $154.00 $159.39 $164.97 $170.74 Roll -Offs - By Pickups 20 yd - Roll Off $450.00 $492.75 $529.71 $548.25 $567.43 $587.29 30 yd - Roll Off $525.00 $574.88 $617.99 $639.62 $662.01 $685.18 40 yd - Roll Off $600.00 $657.00 $706.28 $730.99 $756.58 $783.06 Trash Compactor $300.00 $328.50 $353.14 $365.50 $378.29 $391.53 Cardboard Compactor $200.00 $219.00 $235.43 $243.66 $252.19 $261.02 Disposal Per Ton $64.00 $70.08 $75.34 $77.97 $80.70 $83.53 Roll -Offs - By Pickups Disposal Minimum (per Load) $44.00 $48.18 $51.79 $53.61 $55.48 $57.42 Disposal (Resident) (per Ton) $68.00 $74.46 $80.04 $82.85 $85.75 $88.75 Disposal (Out of Town) (per Ton) $82.00 $89.79 $96.52 $99.90 $103.40 $107.02 (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 20 1.8. Monthly Residential Bill Comparison For the purposes of this analysis, a solid waste fee comparison was prepared with other comparable entities for informational purposes. It should be noted that not all the entities in the comparison operate as an enterprise fund and service may be subsidized by the entity's general fund. Figure 1-6 shows a comparison of the residential single-family monthly rates for solid waste collection as of Fiscal Year 2025. Figure 1-6: Monthry residential Fee Comparison Based on 64 gallon Little Rock, AR (m) *** Lawrence, KS *** = $25.17 Siloam Springs, AR (m)**** $22.02 Fayetteville, AR (Proposed FY26) $20.74 Rogers, AR ** $19.97 Springdale, AR ** 19.55 Fayetteville, AR (Existing) $18.94 Bentonville, AR ** M $17.81 $29.68 $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 m = Municipally operated trash and recycling ** = Subscription yard waste collection or drop-off only for yard waste *** = Every other week recycling collection **** = Every other week yard waste collection Key observations from the comparison include: i) the City provides comparable levels of service to the other entities with weekly solid waste collection; ii) the City provides higher level of service, yard waste collection and drop-off operations, glass recycling and multiple pay -as -you -throw options; iii) while the survey did not assess whether other entities fully funded operations from user fees alone, it should be noted that the City's operations are funded exclusively from user fees and not subsidized by transfers from the general fund. City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 21 2. Methodology The foundation of the Study and the primary objective of the solid waste rates are to reasonably recover the cost of providing service, cost of infrastructure investment and compliance with covenants of internal fiscal targets (referred to as the "Revenue Sufficiency" evaluation). Ensuring adequate cash reserves and appropriate cash flows generally results in a sustainable long-term financial plan that can mitigate the financial and operating risk from unanticipated or sudden events to financial operations (e.g., changes in market conditions affecting operations, recovered materials revenues, reduced growth or tonnages, unanticipated or extraordinary expenses, unfunded mandates, etc.). The identified revenue requirements to be funded from rates are then allocated based on the type and level of service. Monthly Fees MW Other Fees & Income At Expenses Debt Capital / Working Capital In order to assess the sustainability of the City's charges for service Raftelis developed a financial model capable of forecasting solid waste operations over a ten-year Forecast Period but with the recommended rate revenue adjustment period comprising the Fiscal Years 2026 through 2030. By forecasting operations over this period of time we are able to capture funding requirements that may not be annually occurring, test sensitivity to potential changes in operations or costs, and examine projections of cash reserves and net revenue margins to evaluate compliance with formal and informal fiscal policies. Performing a thorough evaluation of the City's funding requirements allows us to provide sound rate recommendations to help ensure the City has sufficient resources to fund operations and achieve their objectives. The following provides a brief overview of the key activities performed for the Study: City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 22 An evaluation of the service area requirements for the City was performed. This included a review of recent historical customers served and corresponding waste generation such that: i) a representative forecast of the Division's needs from a financial standpoint could be prepared; and ii) a projection of rate revenues consistent with the projected service area needs could be developed. 2. Raftelis with support of City staff, analyzed a projection of the Net Revenue Requirements from rates, which equates to the expenditure requirements funded from monthly user charges. An illustration of the components that make up the Net Revenue Requirements is summarized below: + Cost of Operation and Maintenance + Indirect Cost Allocations + Capital & Fleet Funding Requirements + Deposits to Reserves for Policy Compliance and Future Expenditures — Other Operating Revenue — Interest Income / Transfers from Operating Reserves = Net Revenue Requirements (Funded from Rates) 3. Based on the identified funding requirements and the cost of service associated with providing service over the Forecast Period, provide rate recommendations to ensure adequate funding for the City's needs and meet the City's rate goals and objectives. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 23 3. Key Inputs and Assumptions Raftelis developed a solid waste financial model in Microsoft Excel to project financial and rate calculations over a 10-year study previously defined as the Forecast Period. The City's fiscal year spans from January 1 through December 31. Projections in future years were generally made based on the budgeted Fiscal Year 2025 data using key assumptions as outlined below. All assumptions were discussed with and reviewed by City staff. This section will detail all the key assumptions developed in support of the financial plan. 3.1. Current Rates and Operations The City offers comprehensive waste collection services, including household garbage, recycling, yard waste, and bulky waste collection, to approximately 26,390 residential and over 4,400 commercial accounts, generating approximately 76,100 tons of waste and 6,000 recycling tons annually. These collection services are managed by the Sustainability Department through the Recycling and Trash Collection Division, funded through service charges billed monthly to customers based on their level of service. Residents have the flexibility to choose their level of service based on their individual needs. For residents, the base level of service includes options for one-32, 64, or 96-gallon cart for weekly refuse collection. Additionally, the base level of service includes weekly curb -sort recycling 2-18-gallon bins, and yard waste, and every other week food waste collection as a pilot program. Any additional yard waste or bulky waste collection required will incur an additional charge. These service options allow residents to tailor their waste management solutions according to their specific needs, providing them the flexibility to customize their services accordingly. As it relates to residential refuse collection service, the City provides residents with weekly residential refuse collection using a three -bin /cart system for garbage and recycling. The monthly rate for residents includes one (1) trash cart for their household garbage of their choice, and two (2) 18-gallon cart for recycling waste. Any additional carts are available for an additional fee. Table 3-lError! Reference source not found. shows the current adopted residential trash rates Table 3-1: Current Residential Solid Waste Rate Structure Fayetteville Cart 32 $12.40 Fayetteville Cart 64 $18.94 Fayetteville Cart 96 $26.89 Outside Cart 32 $18.58 Outside Cart 64 $28.36 Outside Cart 96 $40.25 [1] Charge for service includes garbage, recycling, yard waste City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 24 Along with residential collection service, the City provides dumpster collection service to its commercial customers, for trash, recycling, and cardboard which varies in the level of service based on demand. Table 3-2 shows the current adopted rates for commercial customers. Table 3-2: Current Commercial Solid Waste Rate Structure Carts Commercial Cart $24.21 Commercial Recycling $6.10 Commercial Glass Cart $6.10 Commercial Food Waste $18.14 Outside City Commercial Cart $36.36 Multi -Meter - Commercial Shared Bin $11.84 Inside City Dumpsters 2 Cubic Yard - Trash $57.86 4 Cubic Yard - Trash $107.74 6 Cubic Yard - Trash $140.09 8 Cubic Yard - Trash $175.41 2 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash $122.10 4 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash $244.22 6 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash $366.33 8 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash $488.43 4 Cubic Yard - Cardboard $26.93 6 Cubic Yard - Cardboard $35.02 8 Cubic Yard - Cardboard $43.86 2 Cubic Yard - Compacted Cardboard $30.52 4 Cubic Yard - Compacted Cardboard $61.05 6 Cubic Yard - Compacted Cardboard $91.57 Dumpster Lease 2 YD $16.48 Dumpster Lease 4 YD $18.84 Dumpster Lease 6 YD $21.92 Dumpster Lease 8 YD $25.88 Outside City Dumpsters 2 Cubic Yard - Trash $86.79 4 Cubic Yard - Trash $161.62 6 Cubic Yard - Trash $210.13 8 Cubic Yard - Trash $263.12 4 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash $366.33 6 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash $549.49 4 Cubic Yard - Cardboard $40.47 6 Cubic Yard - Cardboard $52.65 8 Cubic Yard - Cardboard $65.93 Table Continued on Following Page. City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 25 4 Cubic Yard - Compacted Cardboard $91.57 6 Cubic Yard - Compacted Cardboard $137.36 Dumpster Lease 2 YD $24.73 Dumpster Lease 4 YD $28.26 Dumpster Lease 6 YD $32.88 Dumpster Lease 8 YD $38.82 Commercial Drop Box (per Pick-up) 20 Yard - Roll Off $450.00 30 Yard - Roll Off $525.00 40 Yard - Roll Off $600.00 Trash Compactor $300.00 Cardboard Compactor $200.00 Commercial Drop Box $450.00 Transfer Station (Per Ton) Disposal Minimum (per Load) $44.00 Disposal (Resident) (per Ton) $68.00 Disposal (Out of Town) (per Ton) $82.00 3.2. Customer Statistics 3.2.1. Customer Accounts The forecast of solid waste service revenues relied upon a review of recent historical trends in solid waste customer account growth and tonnage statistics. A 2% residential growth rate was assumed for the forecast and we assume an average growth rate of 1% for non-residential customers based on a detailed review of the historical period which consisted of Fiscal Year 2019 to Fiscal Year 2024 The following table provides a summary of projected trends in solid waste customer billing statistics: Table 3-3: Projected Residential Customer Statistics Fayetteville Cart 32 5,653 5,803 5,930 6,058 6,186 6,314 Fayetteville Cart 64 13,991 14,362 14,678 14,994 15,310 15,626 Fayetteville Cart 96 7,353 7,548 7,714 7,880 8,046 8,212 Outside Cart 32 48 49 50 51 53 54 Outside Cart 64 153 157 161 165 168 172 Outside Cart 96 124 127 130 133 136 139 City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 26 Table 3-4: Projected Commercial Customer Statistics Carts Commercial Cart 698 698 698 698 698 698 Commercial Glass Cart 10 10 10 10 10 10 Greenland Commercial Cart 37 37 37 37 37 37 Multi -Meter - Commercial Shared Bin 9,426 9,426 9,426 9,426 9,426 9,426 Inside City Dumpsters 2 Cubic Yard - Trash 161 161 162 162 163 163 4 Cubic Yard - Trash 320 321 322 323 324 325 6 Cubic Yard - Trash 436 437 438 439 441 442 8 Cubic Yard - Trash 428 429 431 432 433 434 2 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 Cubic Yard - Cardboard 80 82 84 86 88 90 6 Cubic Yard - Cardboard 115 118 121 124 127 130 8 Cubic Yard - Cardboard 106 109 ill 114 117 120 2 Cubic Yard - Compacted Cardboard 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Cubic Yard - Compacted Cardboard 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 Cubic Yard - Compacted Cardboard 4 4 4 4 4 4 Outside City Dumpsters 2 Cubic Yard - Trash 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 Cubic Yard - Trash 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Cubic Yard - Trash 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 Cubic Yard - Trash 3 3 3 3 3 3 Commercial Drop Box — Pick-ups 20 Yard - Roll Off 299 299 299 299 299 299 30 Yard - Roll Off 893 893 893 893 893 893 40 Yard - Roll Off 819 819 819 819 819 819 Trash Compactor 834 834 834 834 834 834 Cardboard Compactor 57 57 57 57 57 57 Disposal Per Ton 5,747 5,747 5,747 5,747 5,747 5,747 Transfer Station Disposal Minimum (per Load) 4,228 4,228 4,228 4,228 4,228 4,228 Disposal (Resident) (per Ton) 2,433 2,433 2,433 2,433 2,433 2,433 Disposal (Out of Town) (per Ton) 7,264 7,264 7,264 7,264 7,264 7,264 City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 27 3.2.2. Waste Generation With respect to waste generation, the City currently collects approximately 76,100 tons of waste per year. The refuse is processed and disposed of at the City's Transfer Station on Holly Road. The recycling waste is sorted at the curb, collected, processed, and disposed of by the City. The table shown below summarizes the City's tonnage reports by type of customer. Table 3-5: Projected Waste Generation Commercial 32,817 34,108 35,397 36,688 37,975 39,254 Residential 20,021 20,540 20,982 21,425 21,867 22,309 Commercial Drop Box 10,272 10,272 10,272 10,272 10,272 10,272 Transfer Station 15,044 15,044 15,044 15,044 15,044 15,044 Total Tons 78,154 79,964 81,695 83,429 85,158 86,879 3.3. Revenues The revenues for the Division are principally generated from the rates for the solid waste services it provides, which include revenues generated from the monthly collection charges. Such revenues account for approximately 90% of gross revenues over the Forecast Period while the remaining balance of revenues or 10% of gross revenues are generated from recycling revenue (e.g., glass, cardboard), franchise fees, miscellaneous service charges, interest income on investments, and other fees. Since the majority of the system revenues are generated from the monthly residential charges, the forecast of revenues is primarily predicated on assumptions of the estimated number of customers receiving service and their demands (i.e., waste disposed) assumed for the Forecast Period. The rate revenue projections shown below assume that the current Fiscal Year 2025 rates as presented in Table 3-1 and 3-2 are effective throughout the Forecast Period and, therefore, represent estimated revenues in the absence of any rate increase. This provides a baseline to evaluate the need for rate revenue adjustments. Table 3-6 and Table 3-7 presents the revenues under the current rates for Solid Waste Services. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 28 Table 3-6: Projected Cart Collection Revenues Under Current Rates (in thousands) Fayetteville Cart 32 $859.3 $881.6 $900.7 $919.6 $938.6 $957.7 Fayetteville Cart 64 $3,248.7 $3,332.8 $3,404.7 $3,476.7 $3,548.5 $3,620.3 Fayetteville Cart 96 $2,424.0 $2,486.9 $2,540.5 $2,594.0 $2,647.6 $2,701.2 Outside Cart 32 $11.1 $11.4 $11.8 $12.0 $12.3 $12.5 Outside Cart 64 $54.8 $56.2 $57.2 $58.5 $59.9 $61.3 Outside Cart 96 $62.8 $64.2 $65.7 $67.1 $68.6 $70.0 Subtotal Residential Carts $6,661 $6,833 $6,980 $7,128 $7,275 $7,423 (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 29 Table 3-7: Projected Collection Revenues Under Current Rates (in thousands) Carts Commercial Cart $202.8 $202.8 $202.8 $202.8 $202.8 $202.8 Commercial Glass Cart $4.4 $4.4 $4.4 $4.4 $4.4 $4.4 Greenland Commercial Cart $2.7 $2.7 $2.7 $2.7 $2.7 $2.7 Multi -Meter - Commercial Shared Bin $2,577.0 $2,577.0 $2,577.0 $2,577.0 $2,577.0 $2,577.0 Inside City - Dumpsters 2 Cubic Yard - Trash $168.0 $170.8 $173.6 $177.1 $179.8 $182.6 4 Cubic Yard - Trash $623.2 $633.5 $645.2 $655.5 $665.9 $677.5 6 Cubic Yard - Trash $1,101.1 $1,119.6 $1,139.7 $1,158.2 $1,176.7 $1,196.9 8 Cubic Yard - Trash $1,355.6 $1,378.7 $1,401.9 $1,425.0 $1,448.2 $1,473.4 2 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash $5.9 $7.3 $7.3 $7.3 $8.8 $8.8 4 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash $14.7 $14.7 $17.6 $17.6 $17.6 $20.5 6 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash $65.9 $70.3 $74.7 $79.1 $83.5 $87.9 8 Cubic Yard - Compacted Trash $17.6 $17.6 $23.4 $23.4 $23.4 $23.4 4 Cubic Yard - Cardboard $37.9 $39.8 $41.4 $43.4 $45.3 $46.9 6 Cubic Yard - Cardboard $71.2 $74.6 $77.9 $81.3 $84.7 $88.0 8 Cubic Yard - Cardboard $82.3 $86.0 $90.2 $93.9 $97.6 $101.8 4 Cubic Yard - Compacted Cardboard $2.2 $2.2 $2.2 $2.2 $2.2 $2.2 6 Cubic Yard - Compacted Cardboard $5.5 $6.6 $6.6 $6.6 $6.6 $6.6 Dumpster Lease 2 YD Dumpster Lease 4 YD Dumpster Lease 6 YD Dumpster Lease 8 YD Table Continued on Following Page $45.5 $46.9 $48.3 $49.6 $51.0 $52.4 $100.8 $103.8 $106.9 $110.1 $113.3 $116.4 $131.8 $136.0 $139.9 $144.2 $148.1 $152.3 $106.5 $109.9 $113.4 $116.5 $119.9 $123.0 City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 30 Outside City - Dumpsters 2 Cubic Yard - Trash $2.1 $2.1 $2.1 $3.1 $3.1 $3.1 4 Cubic Yard - Trash $11.6 $13.6 $13.6 $13.6 $15.5 $15.5 6 Cubic Yard - Trash $12.6 $12.6 $15.1 $15.1 $15.1 $15.1 8 Cubic Yard - Trash $12.6 $12.6 $12.6 $12.6 $15.8 $15.8 Dumpster Lease 2 YD $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 Dumpster Lease 4 YD $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 Dumpster Lease 6 YD $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 Dumpster Lease 8 YD $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 Commercial Drop Box 20 Yard - Roll Off $134.6 $134.6 $134.6 $134.6 $134.6 $134.6 30 Yard - Roll Off $468.8 $468.8 $468.8 $468.8 $468.8 $468.8 40 Yard - Roll Off $491.4 $491.4 $491.4 $491.4 $491.4 $491.4 Trash Compactor $250.2 $250.2 $250.2 $250.2 $250.2 $250.2 Cardboard Compactor $11.4 $11.4 $11.4 $11.4 $11.4 $11.4 Transfer Station Disposal Minimum (per Load) $186.0 $186.0 $186.0 $186.0 $186.0 $186.0 Disposal (Resident) (per Ton) $165.4 $165.4 $165.4 $165.4 $165.4 $165.4 Disposal (Out of Town) (per Ton) $595.6 $595.6 $595.6 $595.6 $595.6 $595.6 Non -Residential Subtotal $9,068 $9,153 $9,247 $9,329 $9,416 $9,504 3.3.1. Other Revenues Other revenues include but are not limited to recycling revenues due to the sale of commodities, franchise fees, penalties, miscellaneous service charges and investment income. As mentioned previously these other revenues equate to approximately 9% of gross revenues throughout the Rate Study Period. Based on discussions with City staff and to be conservative, under the Status Quo scenario recycling revenues and franchise fees are held constant throughout the Forecast Period. It should be noted, under the alternatives discussed in Section 3.5 Recycling Scenarios, recycling revenues may differ in the projection based on the respective processing costs. The table below details the revenues from the recycling commodities, and other revenues. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 31 Table 3-8: Other Operating Revenues (in thousands) Revenue Type FY 2025I. FY 20271 1' FY 2030 Franchise Fees $296.0 $296.0 $296.0 $296.0 $296.0 $296.0 Franchise Fees Waste Management $158.4 $158.4 $158.4 $158.4 $158.4 $158.4 Solid Waste Fees $206.3 $206.3 $206.3 $206.3 $206.3 $206.3 Miscellaneous $43.4 $43.4 $43.4 $43.4 $43.4 $43.4 Solid Waste Fees Dumpster Lease $387.7 $399.6 $411.5 $423.4 $435.3 $447.2 Long Term Lease $12.0 $12.0 $12.0 $12.0 $12.0 $12.0 Recycling Revenue Glass $2.7 $2.7 $2.7 $2.7 $2.7 $2.7 Recycling Revenue Aluminum $121.9 $121.9 $121.9 $121.9 $121.9 $121.9 Recycling Revenue Composting $102.9 $102.9 $102.9 $102.9 $102.9 $102.9 Recycling Revenue Cardboard $358.4 $358.4 $358.4 $358.4 $358.4 $358.4 Petroleum Plastic $32.1 $32.1 $32.1 $32.1 $32.1 $32.1 HDPE Plastic $20.6 $20.6 $20.6 $20.6 $20.6 $20.6 Office Paper $34.0 $34.0 $34.0 $34.0 $34.0 $34.0 Freon Recovery $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 Recycling Revenue Steel Cans $8.9 $8.9 $8.9 $8.9 $8.9 $8.9 Recycling Revenue Scrap Metal $12.0 $12.0 $12.0 $12.0 $12.0 $12.0 Recycle Bids and Carts $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 Total Other Revenues $1,798.7 $1,810.7 $1,822.6 $1,834.4 $1,846.4 $1,858.2 (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 32 3.4. Expenditures The expenditures during the Forecast Period are primarily comprised of operation and maintenance (operating) expenses, capital outlay, and deposits to cash reserves to maintain adequate balances in compliance with the City's reserve policy. 3.4.1. Operating Expenses The forecast of operating expenses was developed based upon: i) a review of the recent trends in historical expenses; ii) the adopted Fiscal Year 2025 budget, iii) assumed growth rates and escalation factors of costs based on industry trends in such costs to account for inflation in the costs of operation; and iv) discussions with the City staff. The table shown below presents an overview of the operating expense projections by type of cost. Figure 3-1 Operating Expense by Type of Cost $25 c o - $20 — $15 $10 $5 $0 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 ■ Labor ■ Disposal ■ Fleet Costs ■ Contractual Services ■ Indirect Cost Allocations ■ Payment in Lieu of Taxes ■ General Material and Supplies ■ Fuel and Maintenance The forecast assumes a customer growth rate of 2% and inflation in unit costs from 4% to 7%, which equates to an overall annual increase in the cost of operation of approximately 5% annually. The escalation factors are listed in more detail in section 3.4.2. Labor costs represent the largest funding requirement at 30%, followed by disposal, accounting for 21 %, and fleet -related costs represent 20% of the total operating expenses of the Division. City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 33 The table below details the expense projection broken out by the Division's budgetary cost centers representing the lines of service. Table 3-9: Operating Expense Projection by Cost Center 5000 - Operations & Administration $3,150,908 $3,272,340 $3,399,539 $3,532,783 $3,672,355 $3,818,560 5010 - Commercial Collections $3,966,086 $4,124,575 $4,351,589 $4,589,655 $4,839,214 $5,100,453 5020 - Residential Collections $3,357,733 $3,480,540 $3,641,814 $3,810,313 $3,986,410 $4,483,533 5030 - Commercial Drop Box Collections $1,023,237 $1,043,665 $1,083,774 $1,125,420 $1,168,748 $1,213,797 5040 - Transfer Station $2,278,188 $2,350,478 $2,453,822 $2,561,767 $2,674,643 $2,792,638 5060 - Recycling $3,285,561 $3,431,544 $3,806,027 $3,974,304 $4,150,252 $4,334,225 5070 - Composting $1,347,087 $1,402,001 $1,459,231 $1,518,878 $1,581,042 $1,645,830 Total - Operating Expenses $18 408 799 ' ' $19 105 142 $20 195 796 $21 113 119 $22 072 664 $23 389 036 (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 34 3.4.2. Escalation Factors The operating expenses as presented in section 3.4.1 relied upon the application of inflation factors to the adopted Fiscal Year 2025 operating expense budget and are presented in the following Table 3-8. To ensure that future costs are reasonably forecasted, Raftelis worked with City staff to confirm the assumptions as outlined below. Table 3-10: Inflationary Assumptions Direct Labor Costs 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% Insurance 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% General - Inflation 4.25% 4.25% 4.25% 4.25% 4.25% Maintenance 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% Disposal 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Fuel 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% Fleet 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% Supplies 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% Other Charges and Services 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Capital Appropriations 7.00% 6.00% 5.50% 5.00% 5.00% 3.4.3. Capital Expenditures The City has developed a comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) over the course of the Forecast Period. Over the next five (5) years the City has allocated approximately $6.3 million into capital funding. The following table presents a summary of the planned annual capital spending over the Rate Study Period which is expected to average approximately $1.2 million annually. The capital needs are primarily for the fleet needs and infrastructure of the Division. Table 3-11: Capital Improvement Plan Technology Equip Replacement $19,000 $3,000 $8,000 $7,000 $21,000 Rate Study $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Master Plan Expansion(') $750,000 $800,000 $800,000 $850,000 $900,000 Route Optimization & RFID System $50,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Compost Site Improvements $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Compactors & Containers $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 Total Capital $1,179,000 $1,203,000 $1,208,000 $1,257,000 $1,421,000 1) Master plan expansion capital proiect includes vehicle purchases to address City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 35 It should be noted that vehicle replacement expenditures are accounted for through the fleet services fund and recognized as an operating expense to the system. 3.4.4. Existing and Proposed Debt Service The Division does not have any existing debt service and the Study assumes no new debt issued and that all capital will be funded from reserves or future revenues. 3.4.5. Minimum Cash Reserve Targets Industry best practices recognize the need and benefit of maintaining minimum cash reserves to provide necessary liquidity to fund day to day operations, provide resources in order to appropriate funds for expected capital outlays, and provide a reasonable allowance for unexpected needs. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that enterprise funds consider establishing reserves by purpose. Pursuant to discussions with City staff the Study assumed a 120 day minimum cash reserve target to provide adequate liquidity for day-to-day operations and provide a reasonable allowance for unexpected costs. The table below presents the forecast of minimum cash reserve targets assumed for the Study. Table 3-12: Reserve Targets Operating Reserves $6,052,208 $6,281,143 $6,639,714 $6,941,300 $7,256,766 $7,689,546 (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 36 3.5. Recycling Scenarios The City currently offers multiple recycling programs for their customers, including manual residential curb - sorted recycling, apartment recycling, commercial recycling, and recycling drop-off centers. The predominant component of the recycling program is the residential single-family curb -sorted recycling. According to the City's September 2024 Waste Characterization Study, which analyzed residential waste and recycling composition, a significant volume of both recyclables and organic materials was identified within the municipal solid waste stream. This analysis determined a recycling capture rate of 40% of the total identified recoverable materials. The low recycling capture rate is likely due to lack of convenience and scalability of the curb -sort bin recycling program. The accompanying figure illustrates the recycling tonnage breakdown. Figure 3-2: Residential Waste Composition Food Waste in Trash, 11.7% Yard Waste in Trash, 5.1% Food Waste Collection, 0.4% Trash, 46.5% Recyclables in Trash, 16.3% 3,778 tons Bulk, 0.916 Yard Waste, 8.2°b Recyclables, 10.906 2,534 tons Source: Sept 2024 Fayetteville Waste Characterization Study The curb -sort program requires Staff to sort bins at the curb into seven material streams. Under these current manual operations, the City has kept a low contamination rate of approximately 1%, however, as mentioned previously, with the low capture rate, there are many operational challenges with the curb -sort program. These challenges include but are not limited to, driver injuries, driver safety (e.g., bin hazards, weather, traffic), high driver turnover, and collection efficiency. Based on these challenges and from the findings of the waste characterization study, the Division looked to evaluate three recycling operational scenarios in addition to their current recycling operations for rate setting purposes through this Study. The proposed operational changes were evaluated based on their potential to enhance overall program performance, safety, and long-term fiscal sustainability, relative to their financial impact on the system. Below is a listing of the scenarios analyzed: City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 37 1. Status Quo: Current Curb -sort Recycling (Manual) a. Requires two 18-gallon bins with lids 2. Scenario 1: Dual Stream Cart -based Recycling (Automated) a. Requires two 64-gallon cart 3. Scenario 2: All -in -one Cart -based Recycling — Weekly (Automated) a. Requires one 64-gallon cart 4. Scenario 3: All -in -one Cart -based Recycling — Every Other Week (Automated) a. Requires one 96 gallon cart The figure below evaluates how each of the recycling options was ranked by the Division to reach their key objectives. Figure 3-3: Recycling Options Analysis Tons of Recyclables Employee Customer Equity/ Messaging/ Contamination Capital 1-yr Rate 5-yr Rate Captured Injury/Safety Efficiency Convenience Growth Priorities Management Cost Increase Increase Status Quo 2,534 Medium Manual Sort n/a 9.50% $7.22 High Slow Anti- Sl: Dual Stream Cart Contamination Based Recycling 3,727 Low Medium Medium Good Strong Software $SM 12.50% $6.93 Anti- S2: All -in -one Cart Based High Contamination Recycling(EW) 5,083 Low Fast High Potential Very Strong Software $2.OM 9.50% $5.78 Anti- S3: All -in -one Cart Based High Contamination Recycling (EOW) 5,083 Low Fast Medium Potential Strong Software $2.6M 6.50% $4.88 (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 38 In addition to the safety and operational objectives, Raftelis evaluated the potential financial impacts to the system for each scenario. The table below breaks down the impact of each of the scenarios, by tons, trucks, the customers per route, and the costs associated. Table 3-13: Recycling Scenario Operational and Financial Comparison Status Quo 2,534 12 50 465 n/a n/a $19,105,142 Sl: Dual Stream Cart 3,727 8 30 776 $1,514,000 $3,540,522 $17,916,857 Recycling S2: All -in -one Cart 5,083 6 23 1,008 $418 750 $1 770 261 $17,663,957 S3: All -in -one Cart 5,083 4 14 1,629 $0 $2,655,392 $17,184,665 Recycling EOW (1) The City utilizes fleet replacement credit for vehicles through their Fleet Department and these values are reflective of the approximate costs after the use of the credit. (2) Incremental change in operating expenses for S1-S3 include potential reductions in labor and fleet costs associated with route requirements, as well as potential changes in processing costs related to the quantity and method of processing recovered materials. For purposes of evaluating the rate increase needs and impacts to customers, all scenarios were assumed to reach the same endpoint of meeting revenue requirements and working towards meeting reserve targets. The table below details the bill impacts for the average customer with 64-gallon trash service. Status Quo 0.00% 9.50% 9.50% 5.50% 4.50% 4.50% 38.1% S1: Dual Stream Cart Recycling 0.00% 12.50% 9.00% 5.00% 3.50% 3.50% 37.9% S2: All -in -one Cart Recycling 0.00% 9.50% 7.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 30.5% S3: All -in -one Cart Recycling 0.00% 6.50% 6.50% 3.50% 3.50% 4.50% 27.0% EOW Status Quo $18.94 $20.74 $22.71 $23.96 $25.04 $26.16 n/a Sl: Dual Stream Cart Recycling $18.94 $21.31 $23.23 $24.39 $25.24 $26.12 n/a S2: All -in -one Cart Recycling $18.94 $20.74 $22.29 $23.08 $23.88 $24.72 n/a S3: All -in -one Cart Recycling $18.94 $20.17 $21.48 $22.23 $23.01 $24.05 n/a EOW $ Change - Baseline n/a $1.80 $1.97 $1.25 $1.08 $1.13 $7.22 S1 -Adjust n/a $2.37 $1.92 $1.16 $0.85 $0.88 $7.18 S2 - Adjust n/a $1.80 $1.56 $0.78 $0.81 $0.84 $5.78 S3 - Adjust n/a $1.23 $1.31 $0.75 $0.78 $1.04 $5.11 Based on the operational and financial evaluation, the Division has proposed to adapt their current operations to Scenario 2: All -in -one Weekly Cart Based Recycling. City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 39 Key benefits of the proposal include: • Increased Recycling Diversion by expanding service to multi -family and commercial customers, potentially doubling recycling collection volumes; • Enhanced Driver Safety through the automation of collection processes, reducing manual handling and related risks; • Lower Operational Costs driven by automation, enabling route consolidation, fewer trucks on the road, and reduced labor hours; • Smaller Rate Adjustments as a result of cost savings, helping to minimize customer impact and maintain competitive rates compared to peer communities; and • Policy Compliance through improved operational performance, full funding of the capital plan, and achievement of minimum fiscal targets. • Contamination Management through the use of anti -contamination software on collection trucks (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 40 4. Solid Waste Financial Plan This section combines the assumptions previously discussed in the report to determine the overall revenue adjustments and total amount of revenue required from rates. The revenue covers operating and maintenance (O&M), and capital expenses as well as reserve funding. Revenue adjustments represent the average rate increase for the City as a whole, with the rates adjusted across the board. Financial plan assumptions previously discussed in Section 3 were provided by and discussed in detail with City staff. To develop the financial plan, Raftelis projected annual expenses and revenues, modeled reserve balances, and added planned capital expenditures. The City is not anticipating financing any capital improvements. 4.1. Proposed Financial Plan and Revenue Adjustments The proposed revenue adjustments help ensure adequate revenue to fund operating expenses, capital expenditures, and meet reserve targets. The Financial Plan modelling assumes the first revenue adjustment occurs on January 1, 2026 and is representative of an operational change to Scenario 2's All -in -one weekly collection. The proposed revenue adjustments would enable the City to meet operating costs and to execute the CIP shown in Table 3-11, adapt recycling operations based on the estimated plan for Scenario 2, and meet reserve targets by Fiscal Year 2029. Table 4-1 presents the proposed revenue adjustments for the initial five- year rate -setting period. It is recommended that the need for any future identified rate revenue adjustments be reviewed in the Fiscal Year 2028 or in the event of a significant change in conditions during the recommendation period which would necessitate additional rate revenues (i.e., change in regulations, material increase in the cost of contracted disposal, recycling operational changes etc.). Table 4-1: Proposed Solid Waste Revenue Adjustments (S2: All -in -one Weekly Collection) January 1, 2026 9.50% January 1, 2027 7.50% January 1, 2028 3.50% January 1, 2029 3.50% January 1, 2030 3.50% Appendices A presents the cash flow detail over the Rate Study Period for the solid waste operating fund. Figure 4-1 provides a breakdown of the projected revenue requirements of the Division under Scenario 2. As can be seen from the gap analysis, as with Status Quo, the Division's current period expenditure exceeds existing revenues, which only grows over time due to inflation in the cost of operations and the increased need for sufficient reserves. The rate revenues at existing rates is shown by the green line. Projected rate revenues with the proposed rate adjustments is shown by the dotted green line. Annual expenditures are shown by the dark blue columns. The bright blue bar represents transfers to the general fund, the yellow bar represents capital funded through rates, and the red bar represents deposits to cash reserves. Assuming the City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 41 implementation of the recommended rate revenue adjustments, we have forecasted the City to maintain compliance with minimum operating and capital reserve targets. Figure 4-1: Proposed Solid Waste Financial Plan (S2: All -in -one Weekly Collection) $30 c 0 $25 $20 $15 $10 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 M0&M Expenses MDebt Service Rate Funded CIP (Use of) / Transfers to Reserves —Existing Revenue* *****Proposed Revenue *Existing revenue includes assumed 4.5% CPI escalation increases (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study El ya Figure 4-2 shows projected operating cash balances (blue bars) at the end of each fiscal year over the Forecast Period relative to the City's total reserve targets of 120-day operating reserves under the status quo financial plan. Reserves are drawn down in the first fiscal year to help cover annual operating costs, fund capital expenditures, and allow for the phase -in of annual rate revenue adjustments for the benefit of the rate payers. As can be seen, with the rate increases, the City meets the reserve target within the five-year rate setting window at Fiscal Year 2029. Figure 4-2: Solid Waste Financial Plan: Cash Reserves (S2: All -in -one Weekly Collection) N $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 M Ending Cash Reserves —Reserve Target j (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 43 5. Cost of Service The last cost of service study was performed in 2018 and the City has not materially changed operations. While Raftelis performed a cost of service evaluation as part of the engagement, based on discussions with City staff and to minimize variations to bill impacts across customer classes an across-the-board application of the rate revenue adjustments was assumed. It is recommended that the City consider reviewing and potentially revising rates as operations change. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 44 6. Proposed Solid Waste Rates and Charges The City's solid waste fee is charged monthly for residential and non-residential bin collections. The proposed five-year solid waste rate schedule was developed based on the overall revenue adjustment needs of the System as previously discussed in further detail in Section 4 of this report. 6.1. Proposed 5-Year Solid Waste Rate Schedule Table 6-1 and Table 6-12 show the proposed 5-year schedule of solid waste rates. Table 6-1: Proposed 5-Year Cart -Based Solid Waste Rate Schedule Residential Inside City Residential Curbside Service - 32ga1 Residential Curbside Service - 64ga1 Residential Curbside Service - 96ga1 Outside City Residential Curbside Service - 32ga1 Residential Curbside Service - 64ga1 Residential Curbside Service - 96ga1 Commercial Inside City Commercial Curbside Service Food Waste Cart Recycling Cart Glass Cart $12.40 $13.58 $14.60 $15.11 $15.64 $16.18 $18.94 $20.74 $22.29 $23.08 $23.88 $24.72 $26.89 $29.44 $31.65 $32.76 $33.91 $35.09 $18.58 $20.34 $21.87 $22.63 $23.42 $24.24 $28.36 $31.05 $33.38 $34.55 $35.76 $37.01 $40.25 $44.07 $47.37 $49.03 $50.75 $52.53 $24.21 $26.51 $28.50 $29.50 $30.53 $31.60 $20.47 $22.42 $24.10 $24.94 $25.82 $26.72 $6.10 $6.68 $7.18 $7.43 $7.69 $7.96 $6.10 $6.68 $7.18 $7.43 $7.69 $7.96 Outside City 1 Commercial Curbside Service $36.36 $39.81 $42.80 $44.30 $45.85 $47.45 (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 45 Table 6-2: Proposed 5-Year Non -Residential Solid Waste Rate Schedule Shared Bin (Multi -Meter Inside City Multi -Meter Dumpsters $11.84 $12.96 $13.94 $14.42 $14.93 $15.45 Outside City Multi -Meter Dumpsters $17.76 $19.45 $20.90 $21.64 $22.39 $23.18 Inside City Commercial Dumpsters Commercial Dumpster Pickup 2YD $57.86 $63.36 $68.11 $70.49 $72.96 $75.51 Commercial Dumpster Pickup 4YD $107.74 $117.98 $126.83 $131.27 $135.86 $140.62 Commercial Dumpster Pickup 6YD $140.09 $153.39 $164.90 $170.67 $176.64 $182.83 Commercial Dumpster Pickup 8YD $175.41 $192.07 $206.48 $213.71 $221.19 $228.93 Cardboard 4YD $26.93 $29.49 $31.70 $32.81 $33.95 $35.14 Cardboard 6YD $35.02 $38.35 $41.23 $42.67 $44.16 $45.71 Cardboard 8YD $43.86 $48.02 $51.62 $53.43 $55.30 $57.24 Food Waste Pilot 2 CY $43.40 $47.52 $51.09 $52.87 $54.72 $56.64 Food Waste Pilot 4 CY $80.80 $88.48 $95.12 $98.45 $101.89 $105.46 Compactors Compacted Trash 2YD $122.10 $133.70 $143.72 $148.75 $153.96 $159.35 Compacted Trash 4YD $244.22 $267.42 $287.48 $297.54 $307.95 $318.73 Compacted Trash 6YD $366.33 $401.13 $431.22 $446.31 $461.93 $478.10 Compacted Trash 8YD $488.43 $534.83 $574.94 $595.06 $615.89 $637.45 Compacted Cardboard 2YD $30.52 $33.42 $35.93 $37.19 $38.49 $39.84 Compacted Cardboard 4YD $61.05 $66.85 $71.86 $74.38 $76.98 $79.67 Compacted Cardboard 6YD $91.57 $100.27 $107.79 $111.57 $115.47 $119.51 Outside City Commercial Dumpsters Commercial Dumpster Pickup 2YD $86.79 $95.04 $102.16 $105.74 $109.44 $113.27 Commercial Dumpster Pickup 4YD $161.62 $176.97 $190.24 $196.90 $203.79 $210.92 Commercial Dumpster Pickup 6YD $210.13 $230.09 $247.35 $256.00 $264.96 $274.24 Commercial Dumpster Pickup 8YD $263.12 $288.11 $309.72 $320.56 $331.78 $343.39 Cardboard 4YD $40.47 $44.31 $47.64 $49.31 $51.03 $52.82 Cardboard 6YD $52.65 $57.65 $61.98 $64.14 $66.39 $68.71 Cardboard 8YD $65.93 $72.19 $77.60 $80.32 $83.13 $86.04 Commercial Bin Recycling $6.10 $6.68 $7.18 $7.43 $7.69 $7.96 Paper 4YD $26.93 $29.49 $31.70 $32.81 $33.95 $35.14 Table Continued on Following Page City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 46 Compactors Compacted Trash 4YD $348.89 $382.03 $410.68 $425.06 $439.93 $455.33 Compacted Trash 6YD $523.32 $573.04 $616.02 $637.58 $659.89 $682.99 Compacted Cardboard 4YD $87.21 $95.50 $102.66 $106.25 $109.97 $113.82 Compacted Cardboard 6YD $130.82 $143.25 $154.00 $159.39 $164.97 $170.74 Roll -Offs - By Pickups 20 yd - Roll Off $450.00 $492.75 $529.71 $548.25 $567.43 $587.29 30 yd - Roll Off $525.00 $574.88 $617.99 $639.62 $662.01 $685.18 40 yd - Roll Off $600.00 $657.00 $706.28 $730.99 $756.58 $783.06 Trash Compactor $300.00 $328.50 $353.14 $365.50 $378.29 $391.53 Cardboard Compactor $200.00 $219.00 $235.43 $243.66 $252.19 $261.02 Disposal Per Ton $64.00 $70.08 $75.34 $77.97 $80.70 $83.53 Roll -Offs - By Pickups Disposal Minimum (per Load) $44.00 $48.18 $51.79 $53.61 $55.48 $57.42 Disposal (Resident) (per Ton) $68.00 $74.46 $80.04 $82.85 $85.75 $88.75 Disposal (Out of Town) (per Ton) $82.00 $89.79 $96.52 $99.90 $103.40 $107.02 (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 47 7. Solid Waste Fee Comparison 7.1 , Monthly Residential Bill Comparison For the purposes of this analysis, a solid waste fee comparison was prepared with other comparable entities for informational purposes. It should be noted that not all the entities in the comparison operate as an enterprise fund and service may be subsidized by the entity's general fund. Figure 7-1 shows a comparison of the residential single-family monthly rates for solid waste collection as of Fiscal Year 2025. Figure 7-1: Monthly Residential Fee Comparison Little Rock, AR (m) *** Lawrence, KS *** Siloam Springs, AR (m)**** Fayetteville, AR (Proposed FY26) Rogers, AR * * Springdale, AR ** Fayetteville, AR (Existing) Bentonville, AR ** = $20.74 $19.97 19.55 $18.94 $17.81 $29.68 $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 m = Municipally operated trash and recycling ** = Subscription yard waste collection or drop-off only for yard waste *** = Every other week recycling collection **** = Every other week yard waste collection Key observations from the comparison include: i) the City provides comparable levels of service to the other entities with weekly solid waste collection; ii) the City provides higher level of service, yard waste collection and drop-off operations, glass recycling and multiple pay -as -you -throw options; iii) while the survey did not assess whether other entities fully funded operations from user fees alone, it should be noted that the City's operations are funded exclusively from user fees and not subsidized by transfers from the general fund. City of Fayetteville / Trash Collection Rate Study 48 APPENDIX: Beginning Cash Reserves $ 6,451,584 $ 3,477,207 $ 3,023,291 $ 3,460,367 $ 4,378,518 $ 5,577,347 $ 6,658,368 $ 8,017,448 $ 9,750,471 $ 11,901,888 Rate Revenues Commercial Collection Rate Revenue 5010 $3,664,273 $3,726,153 $3,801,120 $3,862,598 $3,928,646 $3,995,906 $4,063,583 $4,125,323 $4,192,107 $4,259,471 Residential Collection Rate Revenue 5020 $7,142,476 $7,270,064 $7,378,694 $7,487,519 $7,596,266 $7,705,013 $7,813,742 $7,922,414 $8,031,311 $8,140,467 Commercial Drop Box Rate Revenue 5030 $1,765,327 $1,765,175 $1,765,175 $1,765,175 $1,765,175 $1,765,175 $1,765,175 $1,765,175 $1,765,175 $1,765,175 Transfer Station Revenues Rate Revenue 5040 $1,314,932 $1,314,932 $1,314,932 $1,314,932 $1,314,932 $1,314,932 $1,314,932 $1,314,932 $1,314,932 $1,314,932 Recycling Rate Revenue 5060 $2,280,458 $2,343,807 $2,398,516 $2,453,119 $2,507,552 $2,562,116 $2,616,500 $2,671,209 $2,725,715 $2,779,922 Composting Rate Revenue 5070 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Rate Revenue Under Existing Adopted Rates $16,167,466 $16,420,130 $16,658,436 $16,883,343 $17,112,572 $17,343,142 $17,573,931 $17,799,052 $18,029,239 $18,259,966 Revenue Adjustments Year Effective Month %Adj. Fy 2025 12 January 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fy 2026 12 January 9.5% $1,559,912 $1,582,551 $1,603,918 $1,625,694 $1,647,598 $1,669,523 $1,690,910 $1,712,778 $1,734,697 Fy 2027 12 January 9.5% $1,732,894 $1,756,290 $1,780,135 $1,804,120 $1,828,128 $1,851,546 $1,875,492 $1,899,493 Fy 2028 12 January 5.5% $1,113,395 $1,128,512 $1,143,717 $1,158,937 $1,173,783 $1,188,963 $1,204,179 Fy 2029 12 January 4.5% $974,111 $987,236 $1,000,373 $1,013,188 $1,026,291 $1,039,425 Fy 2030 12 January 4.5% $1,031,662 $1,045,390 $1,058,782 $1,072,474 $1,086,199 Fy 2031 12 January 4.5% $1,092,433 $1,106,427 $1,120,736 $1,135,078 Fy 2032 12 January 4.5% $1,156,216 $1,171,169 $1,186,157 Fy 2033 12 January 4.5% $1,223,871 $1,239,534 Fy 2034 12 January 4.5% $1,295,313 Subtotal $0 $1,559,912 $3,315,445 $4,473,603 $5,508,453 $6,614,334 $7,794,785 $9,050,852 $10,391,773 $11,820,074 Total Revenues from Rates $16,167,466 $17,980,043 $19,973,882 $21,356,946 $22,621,024 $23,957,475 $25,368,717 $26,849,904 $28,421,012 $30,080,040 Other Revenues Fund Classification Franchise Fees 5000 Franchise Fees Franchise Fees Waste Management 5000 Franchise Fees Solid Waste Fees 5000 Other Solid Waste Tax 5000 Other Non routine Maint Fee 5000 Other Long Term Lease Sales Tax 5000 Other Miscellaneous 5000 Other Solid Waste Fees Dumpster Lease 5010 Lease Long Term Lease 5030 Lease Long Term Lease Short Term Rental 5030 Lease Recycling Revenue Glass 5060 Recycle Recycling Revenue Aluminum 5060 Recycle Recycling Revenue Newspaper 5060 Recycle Recycling Revenue Composting 5060 Recycle Recycling Revenue Cardboard 5060 Recycle Petroleum Plastic 5060 Recycle HDPE Plastic 5060 Recycle Office Paper 5060 Recycle Freon Recovery 5060 Recycle Recycling Revenue Steel Cans 5060 Recycle Recycling Revenue Scrap Metal 5060 Recycle Apartment Recycling 5060 Recycle Recycle Bids and Carts 5060 Recycle Subtotal Investment Income Interest Rate Investment Income Total Revenues Revenue Model Check (s/b zero) $295,968 $295,968 $295,968 $295,968 $295,968 $295,968 $295,968 $295,968 $295,968 $295,968 $158,406 $158,406 $158,406 $158,406 $158,406 $158,406 $158,406 $158,406 $158,406 $158,406 $206,336 $206,336 $206,336 $206,336 $206,336 $206,336 $206,336 $206,336 $206,336 $206,336 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,448 $43,448 $43,448 $43,448 $43,448 $43,448 $43,448 $43,448 $43,448 $43,448 $386,675 $398,528 $410,440 $422,304 $434,216 $446,081 $457,965 $470,140 $481,742 $493,654 $11,979 $11,979 $11,979 $11,979 $11,979 $11,979 $11,979 $11,979 $11,979 $11,979 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,685 $2,685 $2,685 $2,685 $2,685 $2,685 $2,685 $2,685 $2,685 $2,685 $121,933 $121,933 $121,933 $121,933 $121,933 $121,933 $121,933 $121,933 $121,933 $121,933 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $102,868 $102,868 $102,868 $102,868 $102,868 $102,868 $102,868 $102,868 $102,868 $102,868 $358,380 $358,380 $358,380 $358,380 $358,380 $358,380 $358,380 $358,380 $358,380 $358,380 $32,079 $32,079 $32,079 $32,079 $32,079 $32,079 $32,079 $32,079 $32,079 $32,079 $20,632 $20,632 $20,632 $20,632 $20,632 $20,632 $20,632 $20,632 $20,632 $20,632 $33,973 $33,973 $33,973 $33,973 $33,973 $33,973 $33,973 $33,973 $33,973 $33,973 $542 $542 $542 $542 $542 $542 $542 $542 $542 $542 $8,941 $8,941 $8,941 $8,941 $8,941 $8,941 $8,941 $8,941 $8,941 $8,941 $11,969 $11,969 $11,969 $11,969 $11,969 $11,969 $11,969 $11,969 $11,969 $11,969 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $888 $888 $888 $888 $888 $888 $888 $888 $888 $888 $1,797,702 $1,809,555 $1,821,467 $1,833,332 $1,845,244 $1,857,109 $1,868,992 $1,981,168 $1,892,769 $1,904,681 1.25%1 1.25%1 1.25%1 1.25%1 1.25%1 1.25%1 1.25%1 1.25%1 1.25% 1.25% $62,055 $40,628 $40,523 $48,993 $62,224 $76,473 $91,724 $111,049 $135,327 $164,638 $18,027,223 $19,830,226 $21,835,872 $23,239,271 $24,528,492 $25,891,057 $27,329,433 $28,842,121 $30,449,108 $32,149,360 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 O&M Expenses Direct Labor Costs Labor $5,765,615 $6,025,068 $6,296,196 $6,579,524 $6,875,602 $7,185,004 $7,508,328 $7,846,204 $8,199,282 $8,568,250 Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Benefits General -Inflation Gen -Inflation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Maintenance Maintenance $80,200 $83,408 $86,744 $90,216 $93,825 $97,578 $101,480 $105,539 $109,759 $114,147 Disposal Disposal $4,081,202 $4,175,720 $4,415,615 $4,667,018 $4,930,648 $5,206,658 $5,496,292 $5,800,406 $6,119,248 $6,451,770 Fuel Fuel $501,759 $524,338 $547,932 $572,589 $598,355 $625,280 $653,418 $682,821 $713,548 $745,658 Fleet Fleet $3,780,108 $3,931,314 $4,088,568 $4,252,110 $4,422,196 $4,599,085 $4,783,049 $4,974,369 $5,173,343 $5,380,276 Supplies $624,190 $649,158 $675,126 $702,132 $730,218 $759,427 $789,807 $821,398 $854,254 $888,423 Supplies Other Charges and Services Prof"c $2,653,953 $2,786,655 $2,925,988 $3,072,294 $3,225,910 $3,387,205 $3,556,564 $3,734,396 $3,921,117 $4,117,172 Interfund Transfers/Contribution to Reserves Co nstant $921,772 $921,772 $921,772 $921,772 $921,772 $921,772 $921,772 $921,772 $921,772 $921,772 Capital Appropriations Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Incremental Expeneses $0 $7,709 $237,855 $255,464 $274,137 $607,027 $906,042 $953,673 $1,003,745 $1,127,190 Incremental Total O&M Expenses $18,409,799 $19,105,142 $20,195,796 $21,113,119 $22,072,664 $23,389,036 $24,716,753 $25,840,578 $27,016,067 $28,314,658 12.9% 3.8% 5.7% 4.5% 4.5% 6.0% 5.7% 4.5% 4.5% 4.8% Capital Expenses funded by Rates Containers Containers $404,792 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 Equipment $76,382 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Equipment Vehicles Vehicles $305,608 $750,000 $800,000 $800,000 $850,000 $900,000 $820,000 $834,000 $840,800 $848,960 Technology Technology $11,696 $69,000 $43,000 $48,000 $47,000 $61,000 $53,600 $50,520 $52,024 $52,829 Infrastructure Infrastructure $1,211,922 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Maintenance/Repair Maintenance/Repair $13,291 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Other $569,111 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $20,000 $24,000 $28,800 $34,560 Cart Grants Cart Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total CIP $2,592,802 $1,179,000 $1,203,000 $1,208,000 $1,257,000 $1,421,000 $1,253,600 $1,268,520 $1,281,624 $1,296,349 Debt Service Existing Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Proposed Debt Service Long Term Debt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Leases $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Tranfers Subtotal Transfers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Cash Flow ($2,974,377) ($453,916) $437,076 $918,151 $1,198,829 $1,081,021 $1,359,080 $1,733,023 $2,151,417 $2,538,353 Ending Cash Reserves $3,477,207 $3,023,291 $3,460,367 $4,378,518 $5,577,347 $6,658,368 $8,017,448 $9,750,471 $11,901,888 $14,440,241 Operating Reserve Target 120 $6,052,208 $6,281,143 $6,639,714 $6,941,300 $7,256,766 $7,689,546 $8,126,056 $8,495,532 $8,881,995 $9,308,929 Net Above/(Below)Target $1,254,939 $3,019,893 $5,131,312 om $4,a-o,173 $a,-,3flafl $5,-,-515 a 5a $5,z-5,51a5 $-,ax-fl $-,m-,15a- $6,s,s5xaa $-,flz5,ox $z,1fl5,a $z,-,35xafl $1,a-,xM $fl,155,2$x Se,fl,zsa $a o $a $a $o $o o o n Sa a Sa 5a 5a $' a a Sa 5a 5a $a Sa e $1--,3zs S2,s31,a56 $15z,asSa $2,928,615 $m,zaa $3,40,403 5a ,zsas Sm,zao $a,o;zo Sa3,4Sa $4,175,720 .17S4a $4A15,615 Sm,z1s5a $4,667,018 .1$5 $sz,5zfl 51o1,aflo $s,as-,s 51as,s3s $$oaa- $1.1s 56,119,24e 511a,1oz $-,a l1 ofl Sass,st ,362 1,7s L755 Sa,338 S7,932 $szys 55s,3 5xuflx-sfl - $-53,a18 5-2,- 573,fl 5a5 $3,13,s53 $3,3z,s $3,zm,1. Sao $3,m,- $3,53;31a $afl6 $4,xsx,o soo a a- 53 $5,m,,zn-zs- S59,se7 S2,oa9,a14 $2,-37,00 524,- $2,-53,s53 $o 5-xa,1M S2,653,553 5-a%- $2,za6,-55 5-71,1z- $2,9xs,sflfl $70 132 $3,0z2,294 $73s,- $3,225,sm $I59,ax7 $3,387,ms 5zas A. $3,556,1. Sfl21,358 $3,z3a,3ss %.,xso 53,921,11z Seee,u3 $a,1lz,tzz sfers/corrtrinunonm reserves Sasa,a0 $1,.x 124 $sx;zzz $o $sx;zzz $sx;zzz 5sxl,nx 5sxl,nx 5sxl,zzx 5sx1,m $sxl,zn $921,zn $sz1,m $szl,nx $25,071 $az,e5z 5a % $a Sa 5a Sa Sa $a $o 5o $o 5o xvenses $a $a Sa $a Sa $7,709 $x3z,e55 $xss,a-a $xza,137 W7,oxz $a -,Mx $953,673 $1,-17$a $1,1xz,lso [bmmxe [bmmrte Sess,uz %,-ss,-zs Ssos,aaa ISsos,aaal So $o So So $o So $o So So So S,s,ssap-a Svan,1-o 51e,zzs,aao 153,a,zo11 51e,aaa,zaa 51a,,0s,1az Szo,,as,zas Sv,u3,va $zz,0n,--a Sz3sea,m- $za,n-ss3 $zs,eao,ne Sn,o,-,a-z Sze,3,a,-se arse summary by eon cemer o 522,1 z,s11 53xo,z $3,-,s $o 53s1pas $3,27y34o $3,3s5 $3,53x,zz $3,-,351 $3,112,1. 553,sz1,n3 $ S,o,213 $4,476,267 ev2,z1ae 3 $3,-,127 $-,ss $a,a,5z5 $a351,sfl $ a,s,ss $4A3s,xa $111-1 3 za s,--i,- Ss,s 73 56,s,763 $z,z,zaz $3,o,3a $3,126,387 $x313a- 513,3zz33 $3,m,o 3, $p1,flla $3flo313 $3p-,a10 $4A83,533 Sa,-fls,o $a,so3p- 121,e 5t5,a3ylzz xcoiieons S1,te5 $19,5xa s,sz $xa,-a5 ox,z37 $1,o3,zza $11x$axo $1,1,fl $1,213,797 1,sxap13 $1,s,e24 12,a21 $1,672,263 52,917,171 $1:1 34 $3o,z31 $z,xx133fl $3,a,5 $o ,x $2 ""1 $3,x5,s61 Sz,o,azfl $3,431,544 $xAs3,azx $o,n - Sx,sl,3- $3,974,1, $x,-za,o , S2,792,38 ,3, $xsso osol- $sw,fl $3,1s3 $,226,663 $3,3xo,a13 $"-,t14 51115z1tse St,214,a14 $1,3a7,07 $o 51,3a7pflz 51,aoyaol $1,ass,z31 51,52,878 Sysel,wx $1,sas,vo 51,z13,352 $1,783,zxs $1,flszpzz 51,533,- saes 5080 soils -vane. Sess,uz $1,-,-zs Ssos,aao ISsos,aaol $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o rorei $lsssap-a $11, , -o $1.z ,- 51aao - $1a,m1141 $m 1,za- $11,u - $npnsea $21,-,o3- S21n-,ss3 $2s.na $np,-p-z $ze,3,q-se ms/vacs m Pos�ea. m r/s.w.r ¢/emumes sox lmim vam/oaowael sox lxo - i. del mremooe rrn-//co oo ro aes.r.e: vm1-Mvmv on: p Saa1,0a- $-n,1aa $". ,saa So $".,3a3 $'-$'-$". ,-az $". ,ass $',$1,ma,zm $1Aze,3-z $Lsaa,eee $,,-,o,aae Sn,-a1 $sass3 5a1,o3z So $a,,037 $84,278 $az,-aa $a,,1ss Saa,eol $aa,sa3 $mz,s3z $m-,-3a $u0,aoa $us,3ao So $zza So S1. So $ma So So So Ssao So $szs So $ss1 So Ssza So $eas So $-3e So 5-zo So Szoa So Sz3a So $n- Sss,na 5ss,aao So 5ss,aao $sa,zso $n,--3 Szs,zae $zapoe $az,ssa $az,los $a,,ae1 $,a0,a3s S.,-za W,,ea $-gaaa 5s0,aao So 5s0,aao $-3.aao $--1so $-a,a41 $ns31 $z-na 5sa,am sa $aa,-aa Ss3,ceo Sss,an Snz,Ose $zs,,00 $zoa,-m Sss,000 5,-ss,a So So 5ss,aao 5,-ss,o Sss,zso Sns,zs- $n,s-3 51s$16a $sssa1 $,a$ $30see $z0$1.3 $3,,aoz $u3ozs $33soz $zss,szs $3snz 01111 $z3$212 $3- $zo$223 53e,ze3 $ss$ 33 So $ss0 Ssso So S $1sa 51-- 12.4 Sva 51e3 $zoz Sz1z Szz3 Sz3a $s,s00 $s,s0o Ss,ns So $s, 75 $sass $-s-z $-,-es $$6. ,31z $zam $7,z3a Sa'm 5$- $sass 5asz0 %sax $- $, 0 $- $n 11 So 50 0. $soo 5n,ma $szs $,'-5,3,ssa $ss1 $sza 514,z32 5-ae $,oAaa $-3a $,'.'$,-,az- $-zo $zoa $,z,3oo Sna $fa,f65 $n- $,a,oz3 S,a,s3s $21,-ss $.,-ss $0 Sz,,-ss $zzne $,.azs $,5,o-a Sss,322 $,'.e Szs,ozo $3 11 531,sss 533,sss 53a,,w $3asm $,30 So 5z3ssa Szslaa $l, $121 $za,111 $.". 53z,ms $33mo $3s3es 53z,1sa 1620 $a,a00 $%- $a,300 $a,ma So $0 $spas $9,s00 $a,ns $9,azs $9,1s1 S,O,aza $9,sae S,a,eae $,goes s.". $,0,sa3 $n,1zs $u,123 5n,n1 $upza $,3p-a $n,z-3 $,qo3- $,a,na $ean $-00 $soo $0 $-00 $630 5662 $-as $13o $161 Secs $eas $eez $a31 ,,605 $ss,eIII $ss,10 $0 $n,aao Sn,1as Szs,saa Szs,971 $31,azo $33oaa $3q-a- $35a $3 53 $40A $0 $0 $-,a00 Ssoo $0 Ssoo $0 So $0 Ssoo $0 Sszs $0 Sss1 $0 Ssza $0 5-0e $0 5-3a $0 5-zo $0 Sma $0 Sz31 $0 Sn- Sn S,00 S,00 50 S,00 S,as 511, Su- 51zz 51ze 513a 51a1 51. 51ss (Su,z1) $13A-00 $, 00 $0 $- . $ss,,a10 $ss - $ --p3o $nsnz $-Ml $,a3.za3 $z0zpos $.. $n3,z1 Suopza S92,3es $-000 $-300 $, 000 $, 000 $0 $0 $,m,aao $-, Di $,Ospao S,ns,aao $.0,21u $10,zv $u1z-3 $usz-3 $,u,ss1 $,u,ss1 $,n,sza $,n,sza $13gmo $,3gom $, 11 $1a 11 $,oz,zm $,oz,zm $sss134 $sss,13a 5aa-,azz 5a-n,,ez $s 000 $0 5s,,,000 5s3s,sso $.137e 5591,s47 $.1,124 $.'- 5sea 1 $nsPza $71,171 $zvz,na $0 $13A-, $3I -, $0 $33,5-1 53sp3a $,- $.' 11 $40,zaa 5 1- $aa,z- $az,zz1 $49,1e- $", $1,3e3 $1,200 $,,zso $1,200 $1,m $0 $0 $1,z00 $,,zso $1,26o $1,- $1,323 $1,- $1,ae9 $z,on 5se 5z,12e S1,531 $12. $1, -1 5z,a- $1,11 $- $1,nz $zse $1,-1 5z,ns 13az S5o $,a, $14,000 So ,a,aao $,a,z5o $as $,-,zoz SvoSo SvsSs $s,- $,as $z0,a $uSa ($0) ($2)$0 0 $0 $0 o $0 $0 $0 o $1,z36 $10,saz $1,as- $upaz $Z,nO $.,6a0 50 So n $z,a $1,,-ao $1,361 Sn,1az $1,11 Sn,-33 $1,s13 $,3.13e 11-$z,z-1 $13664 $14,211 $z,ez1 $14,na $zp $1137o $3,1os si p $3,z2s $,-,sza $,,,,1 $1,- $1,- $0 $1,s3a $,,sas $1,-sa $1,n1 5,,za4 $,,eee $1p41 $z,o1a $L1oo $z,1ea 5aea $203 5677 $0 $-n $zaa $732 $z-1 $- Sa23 $es- $- $ - $ ' 0 a1,3e0 $32 $9,3aa $3z $0 $o $0 z WI!ISo z WI!ISo 53z $0 $_$0 $$0 $- $0 $- $0 $s$o $s $o $s,M $o Szs,230 $ass00 $-'Ooo $0 $.' 00 $szpoa $.,.. $33 $-3z-- $-sz $ea $nSn1. $0 Ssoo Ssoo So Ssoo Ssz $s-3 5-01 5-33 5-se 5-e4 1 $zzs So $o S,00 So $- z $- $100 $3 $100 $100 $10a 33 $100 $100 a $100 Sn1 $100 So 5az,asz $0 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -071 $0 Soo Soo Soo Soo Soo Soo Soo Soo Soo Soo Soo Soo $0 $2,1 ,zaa S,maa $2,-2e0 $3ss0 $o $3,ss - $3,nzpao $3,3aa- $3,13z,za3 $3,- ,- $,e1e,5-o 53p7L713 $4,,3z,110 $4,- v $4A1267 5s-zs43 $- $- So $=,5$0 $a %2$z $eo,,ae1 $anpaa $9l $aw,n0 $1,0o 2 $1,0aaesa $1pas.aza $1,,aslaa $o So $0 So So So $0 $0 $9 So $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,374 $3,aao $zsaa So $z,eao $1 - $11z- 53z51 $3,3e1 $3s1e $1 7 $3 $3,- $4,113 $1,na S,sa,001 $1,n0 $lsasaz $z000 5,-3a7a So $0 $zpao $163e7a $zaao Snl,zaa $1- $n 54 5zz5. 5lszpo1 $13. 519saz2 $a $-21. $1s31 $z13,aas $1.2 $zsspos $1737 $ss3.oaa $zea- 1143,s31 53 $,a,450 $.,eoo $0 $,3eao $14,352 $14,az- $11s23 $111aa $11zao $,1 2 $.a $18,ee- $,s,-a1 5az331 $31$a16 $1 000 So 51s1pao $ls Q $,a5,no $z03 1 $z1,,zas $zzn,- $zza,0za $2.a $zoz,nz $zn,ez0 $0 $- $o $2,000 $o $2,000 So $0 $0 $2,a00 $0 $-0 $o $z,ms So $1 11 So $1- So $1113 So $1 111 So $zees So 11111 So 1311 $0 5,00 S,00 $0 $,00 $- $.o $ " $- $12a $13a $141 $1. $1 s" $,,mepn $1,ua,0ss $1,-1. $z-a,asa $1,M3 $1 1,lzo $1a13,zce $z0113n $z,aa,zs3 $z,3szaaz $z,11q 4 $2,-ecpw $2, -e,3$0 $3,013$3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 50 $0 $0 50 5a 50 $2.,- $4aoA72 $mapal $sa-,Sze $21-aa $.1,42e $0 $0 5z3z,-0a 5--,,aze $-113 $.7,ees $zs-pae $711 o $sszne $7ao,o111 Sznp-a $13,777 $zsapee $-,na $e00ssz 5a31517 $311sza $a1- $321,1. $sos,zlo $33e,- $sal,ala $sa,zee $53,t24 $a5,aa2 $0 $a5,aaz $aap-a 591414 5a-,111 $saps $m - $-- $„;a35 $„-p32 s. ,5oa $21,M $1-,a20 $zs,z-- $0 $M,z-- $zs,- $31,114 53zpsa $33e13 s.- $3 $31ess $39,3-a $40,saa Sz4sea 5a5,370 $2,- S92,e04 %,611 $3m S92,1104 $10,00o $3,-a7,127 $0 $o $2.- $azpaa $10,- $3,9 - . $azaaa 510,aao $1.4,171 $azaaa $10, - $1311sas $azpoa $11,2aa $o,sea,sss $azaoa $11,-ss $1.31214 $azpoa $12,1-z 5s,mgas3 $azpoa $11.4 5s,31-aa $azpoa $131w $s,--zaza $azpoa $13-e- $sp-a,an $sz,soa $14,233 56,zm,z63 5ao-,216 So $s0z,11e $0 $1,mzzea $0 So 50 $1,am,z-e $0 $1,0o-pz- $0 $1, 411 $0 $1,,ozela $0 $1,,agmz $0 $1,zezm3 $0 $1,3o3,a1z $0 $1,3-zssa $0 $1Az3paa $0 $1,aazpaa So $0 Smosaa S,msza $zo00 S,os,eaa $mz,n0 Saoo $,mpao $-0. $0 $o $0 $eaa S,m,aoo S,cs,au Se32 SIOa,000 Sn3,s1- $a-s $mat-o $.1,324 $aao W ,ae6 51sa,ae4 $ - $u . $,as,o11 $- $,u,--o $z0-pv $1,o12 $"' 11 s_,z3z $1,osz $131saz $zzsp-z $1,14 $13- . $m-,13o $1,131 $,4z33o $-' S2,0e3 $3,m0 S,,000 So S,,aao S,,aao $1,aez $1,1zs $1,1zo $1,uz $1,zss $1,3$0 $1,3m $,,azs ($0) 162 $0 Szsm $0 51,3m 50 $0 $0 $1,350 $0 $,A,a $0 $,,aaa $0 $1,s-3 $0 $z 1 So $1,n3 So S,,em So Szeaa $o $1,-$z,ma So $o 5sz3,zu1 ($0) Szaapaz S1a3ss3 $-o,s30 Sss .0 $- $zaasaa $0 Szu,a,o $-za,ea3 $ss,-aa $21,a64 Szso .14,151 $0 $202, 11 $110 $a-,,-- $27,1126 $0 $ss,pae $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $- $1pas,aaz $0 $202,211 $-w,aaa $-,1-- $126 $z-3 $1,mz,sea $0 Sz10,a6a 5-az-a- $a,-13 Szapa3 $n- $1,13gozz $0 $z 1.3 $z 12 $a ,1. $3 . $mo $1,, 111 $0 5zn,134 $7ss,31. $a-pz- $31,a13 $3as $1,z--,ms $0 $z3-,-3s $zsz,eea $,a0,eo3 $32,67o $32o $1,33-,sza $0 $lo . $zaa,saa $10 3s $33111 $3311 $IAIL11z $0 $-$z--1az 5a30,sa3 $-.. 131 31 $3s3 $1A 1- $0 $e-3zes $„3,3aa $3171 $371 $, -za $0 $-- $aaa31- $u 125 11,211 $- $,,-w,zzz $0 $sszpm $a3a,2. $nzeaz $1 1 11- $sapaa $ s64 $-s,e-a $0 5-sp64 56s1164 %1 -a $-sp-a $-s,s-a $-sp-a $-sp-a $-'. $-spso $-spas $3,eez Szz1-,zaz $.,zas $3,0m,3aa $,.00 $3,n6,3e1 $- $ss,pae Szeao $3,e11733 5z,a12 $3,a 1. $3oze $3,-o1a14 $3,- $3,e10,- $ins $3pa-alo $3.aa- $'l- $3,saz $4,3-z,z-z $3-ea $4,163,111 $3 1 $4,773,asz $3p $a,aazaza 5-- $zmpa3 $`1- So $2n 5sszzzo $zozeas $zsapso $2 q 7 $sszeaa $sss,-1a $30apzz $3zzaz3 $331- ISoI $o $o So $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5666 $L371 $1,n1 $0 $1,-$1,330 51,3e3 $1, $1,aa- $zss- $z-1e $1,-e3 $1,710 $1,am $zz 533,-00 $0 $spas $,,000 $aa,06a $0 50 S,,000 5aa,a-a $,,aaa $1,231 $1,0a2 $12,11 $1,121 $K 13 $1,17o $npzl $1,217 $sapoo $1,2- $.' II- $1,317 $-sa13 $1,37. $ea3sz $1,421 $n,aa3 $-$-$- So $- $sza $- $ -3 $sa- $-aa $633 $-sa $-aa $n1 (50) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 So $o $0 $0 So $o $e,002 $a,o00 $a,000 $0 5a,000 $a,aaa $s,azo $9,z61 $ara $10,210 $,0,n1 $u,zsz $wam $1z411 5ass,na $o $420p59 $0 $-,zsa $0 $Mp $0 5s3-,aaa $0 $s3-,aaa $0 $--5,zoz $0 'n 16 $0 $sagzaa $0 $-1s 1 $0 $-3zAn $0 $-sa,aez $0 $111,na $0 $1111 $0 $10e1 $z1,,,e $.,30a $0 53apaa 53s-aa $". $as,sal gw,131 $u,zao k3.a10 $as,las $a-psz 5aa,a3o $ea,en $m,ua $,3,saa $0 $,3,saa $111-s $,az-sz $,asps- $11- $1 $,-1ea3 $173ssa $,agsm $1azn0 11- S7,.02 $z,-3a $1- $0 5sspas $,-,a11 $1.,-5np1z $.'-$1sz3o $19,a7a $zn,zsa Sz,.a-a $" 11 53,m2 $10,30. $zn, $104 $asas $1104 So So $a,ees $.' $s,aaa $n,ma $1,2a3 $.". 5saaa ",ma $1714 $n,saa $'- $n,saa $11e1 ",ma $-.aze $n,ma $--as $,zma $-psz $,zsoa $,p-a $1,n3 $a,a,sm 51,000 $-,- $o $zs,-as $z $1,0ss,z37 $1a $'- $1,113 $1,0a3,774 $zzsu $1,ns42o $1,3ao $1,,-a $za34 $1,113,mz $1,131 $1,z -13 $1,-3z $1,30a,z3a $1,717 $1,31a,aza $teas $u,2,421 t on 5ss 11 $,-opzl 5lszzz- So $-,zm $lases, $-.1 $u3,-s1 $-$ss3.31- $z I3 sss - $z- - $naz33 $ u,z1e $1 21 $n,s1s So 5zzsss $z 1- $zo,3s3 S 5,3n $z-pao $npaa $z 11. $zaps. $.,- $3z0aa So $ o $ o So So So So So So So So So So So $o 5,00 $100 $0 5,00 $- $.o $ u- $122 $12a $13a $141 $1. $1ss Sso3pn $l'- ea $1,.1,-00 So $".1,-ao $-$1,a0zna $1,e-zeso $1p3sza3 $1,mapss 51,sa3,asa $1,--z,-31 $1,zas,z-3 S,,a33p11 .1.-1,201 1-,z12 Szzs,zaa -,110 S7 a1s11 17a1111 5s13,1ze 5eo1,s-1 $anpae Ssm,saz $933,171 Ss-spz5 $a 14 $I'ln- Sss,- S92,ae3 $93,673 $0 S9 3,-73 $azazo $m1,311 $ms,am $ma,ses $113p ".,sn $,z3,2aa $,ssAaa $,33,327 $sass $a,,z- $q,z- $0 $a,v- $4,176 54,176 54,176 54,171 14,17e $a,v- Sane $a,ne 1a,n- n7ai�re�a�a Su 31 $1a,av $3p $o P3 P3 $3,1. $3,nz $3,.. gams $475 $4,342 $4,516 $4.7 $1-n,263 $1,aags34 $2,M,33a $sseso $2,-,- $2,esg47a $2A-3,12 $2,s zez $2fil a.3 $2,7azesa $2, ss 1a 53,-- 53,17, $3p - ow -a Mim¢ $1,na,$2< $ 1su,e$l 51as0,s-e So $1,-Sz,aas,zaa $2,--Szssz33s $zp3e,ms $z,ae3,zz- $z,ss3,m $z.--s,ow $z,zaa,,n $za,3,s$3 n7m.r Szs So So So So $ o $ o $ o So $ o So $ o So So Ss,na S1,60a 5c,00a So 5s,aao $s,zao $-,aao $szso $1.. $13o1 $zsa3 $1aaz $a,213 $a,saz sgn:�.-suv or - vp Sssa 5300a 5,,00a So 5,,00a S,,aao S,,oez $1,121 $,,vo $,,uz $,,zz- $,pn $,pm $,,azs =dSIPPI` lee, Repb Sh.PO-Ih- 1.1p.1 0. 1— P— $2,3. $2 $2,— $2,.2 $2,— -pe'...Z.—O., $0 $0 so so so so so so so$1,..,414 $17 $1AII,231 $1,3a1..2 P., 39 75 $5,000 ($5,000) $, 33 lh. �P. .pe,...—.—.., 5%27 $1 5,5zs $.5,— (55 1—) PRII $111, 21 51L131 $1 $ 12 1137 Z' $., 33 $.3 $14 $., 13 5.,— 11— $.,133 $.3 $sI,— $.,.13 s.'.. IbIl "Ill 22 1. 513 W7 1-1 $4�, $41,— �2 $.3 2. ll $,"ll $14,9So $2D $31,155 W,262 $2 $72 $84,292 So ;, So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So � � So So So So So So So So So So Flenvarlanie Flee. So So So So So So So So So So $. $. $. $. $1,— $.. $— $-137 $WI.7 W— $953,sz3 $1 $1,127,19D $17,-,- $Ill,7.,— ($319,2GI) $18,a ,799 $A, -,IQ $20155,796 $21,113,11s $22,072,l- $23,389,— $24,716,753 S 5,NO,578 $27,016,067 $28,311laL CIP Projects Capital Improvement Plan CIP Source Updated 5.5.2025 RTC Technology Equip Repl Rates $19,000 $3,000 $8,000 $7,0D0 $21,000 $11,600 $10,120 $11,544 $12,253 RTC Rate Study Rates $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $20,000 $24,000 $28,800 $34,560 RTC Master Plan Expansion Rates $750,000 $800,0D0 $800,000 $850,000 $900,000 $820,000 $834,000 $840,800 $948,960 RTC Scale House Impr Rates $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 RTC Route Optimization & RFID System Rates $50,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $42,000 $40,400 $40,480 $40,576 RTC Compost Site Impr Rates $200,000 $200,0010 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 RTC Compactors & Containers Rates $160,000 $160,0D0 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 Technology Equipment Replacements, Recycling Trash Collection Minor Equipment Rates $9,085 Fixed Assets Rates 8,000 Fiber Optic Cable (Other Funds) Minor Equipment Rates 47,297 RTC - Solid Waste Compactors Improvements - Solid Waste Rates 107,999 Container Costs Rates 200,786 RTC - Solid Waste Commercial Rate Study Professional Services Rates 94,601 Fixed Assets Rates 51,174 Contingency -Capital Project Rates 11,186 RTC - Office and Transfer Station Exp, Site Improvements Improvements - Solid Waste Rates 3,563 RTC - Office and Transfer Station Exp, Solid Waste New Offices Professional Services Rates 699 Building Costs Rates 681 Building Efficiency Improvements, Energy Savings Performance Contract Building Costs Rates 1 RTC -Container Maint Building Upgrade Improvements -Solid Waste Rates 13,290 RTC - Master Plan Expansion Vehicles&Equipment - base Rates 292,696 Improvements - Solid Waste Rates 665,683 Trannsfers to Funds - Shop Rates 412,150 RTC- Master Plan Expansion, RTC Facility Improvements Improvements - Solid Waste Rates 23,603 Capital Prof Svcs - Engineering Rates 68 RTC -Scale House Improvements Building Costs Rates 54,390 Improvements - Solid Waste Rates 274 RTC - Route Optimization & RFID System Improvements -Solid Waste Rates 11,696 RTC -Truck Electrical Outlets & Block Heaters Improvements -Solid Waste Rates 12,000 RTC -Compost Site Improvements Vehicles&Equipment - base Rates 12,912 Improvements -Solid Waste Rates 462,961 RTC - Compactors & Containers, Miscellaneous Containers - RTC Rates 15,151 Container Costs Rates 70,000 RTC - Recycling Grant, 2021 Recycle Dollies Containers- RTC Rates 296 RTC- Recycling Grant, Publuic Spaces Recycling Containers Containers - RTC Rates 10,244 RTC - Recycling Grant, Food Waste Collection Buckets Containers- RTC Rates 251 RTC - Recycling Grant, Compost Collection Containers Containers - RTC Rates $65 Subtotal Capital Costs $2,592,802 $1,179,000 $1,203,000 $1,208,000 $1,257,000 $1,421,000 $1,253,600 $1,268,520 $1,281,624 $1,296,349 Incremental Capital Costs related to Scenarios Sl: Dual Stream Glass Curb Sort Trucks Capital Lease $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers Rates $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers- Grant Funding Grant Funding $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 S2: Dual Stream Cart Recycling Trucks Capital Lease $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers- Debt Funded Proposed Debt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers - Cash Funded Rates $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers- Grant Funding Grant Funding $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 S3: All -in -one Cart Recycling Weekly Trucks Capital Lease $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers- Debt Funded Rates $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers - Cash Funded Rates $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers- Grant Funding Grant Funding $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 S4: All -in -one Cart Recycling EOW Trucks Capital Lease $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers- Debt Funded Proposed Debt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers - Cash Funded Rates $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers- Grant Funding Grant Funding $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Costs $2,592,802 $1,179,000 $1,203,000 $1,208,000 $1,257,000 $1,421,000 $1,253,600 $1,268,520 $1,281,624 $1,296,349 Summary by Funding Source Rates Rates $2,592,802 $1,179,000 $1,203,000 $1,208,000 $1,257,000 $1,421,000 $1,253,600 $1,268,520 $1,281,624 $1,296,349 Existing debt Existing debt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Proposed Debt Proposed Debt $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Lease Capital Lease $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grant Funding Grant Fundin $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,592,802 $1,179,000 $1,203,000 $1,208,000 $1,257,000 $1,421,000 $1,253,600 $1,268,520 $1,281,624 $1,296,349 SCENARIO RELATED INCREMENTAL CAPITAL S2: Dual Stream Cart Recycling Trucks Assumed#of Trucks Needed 12.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 9.00 Assumed Cost of Trucks $500,000 $515,000 $530,450 $546,364 $562,754 $579,637 $597,026 $614,937 $633,385 $652,387 Truck Costs $0 $3,605,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Replacement Truck Credit (2,091,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recognized Related Truck Costs $0 $1,514,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers 60 Gallon Cart - Rate $60.00 $61.80 $63.65 $65.56 $67.53 $69.56 $71.64 $73.79 $76.01 $78.29 Start up 60 Gallon Cart -Amount Needed 27,922 28,645 29,263 29,881 30,499 31,117 31,735 32,352 32,971 33,590 Carts per HH 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Start up Container Costs $0 $3,540,522 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Incremental Amount of Carts Needed 0 723 618 618 618 618 618 617 619 619 Growth Related Container Costs $0 $0 $39,338 $40,518 $41,734 $42,986 $44,275 $45,530 $47,048 $48,459 Grants for Carts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal S2 $0 $5,054,522 $39,338 $40,518 $41,734 $42,986 $44,275 $45,530 $47,048 $48,459 S3: All -inane Cart Recycling Weekly Trucks Assumed liof Trucks Needed 12 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 Assumed Cost of Trucks $380,000 $391,400 $403,142 $415,236 $427,693 $440,524 $453,740 $467,352 $481,373 $495,814 Start-up Truck Costs $0 $2,348,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Replacement Truck Credit (2,091,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recognized Related Truck Costs $0 $257,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers 60 Gallon Cart - Rate $60.00 $61.80 $63.65 $65.56 $67.53 $69.56 $71.64 $73.79 $76.01 $78.29 Start up 60 Gallon Cart -Amount Needed 27,922 28,645 29,263 29,881 30,499 31,117 31,735 32,352 32,971 33,590 Start up Container Costs $0 $1,770,261 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Incremental Amount of Carts Needed 0 723 618 618 618 618 618 617 619 619 Growth Related Container Costs $0 $0 $39,338 $40,518 $41,734 $42,986 $44,275 $45,530 $47,048 $48,459 Grants for Carts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal S3 $0 $2,027,661 $39,338 $40,518 $41,734 $42,986 $44,275 $45,530 $47,048 $48,459 S4: All -in -one Cart Recycling EOW Trucks Assumed If of Trucks Needed 12 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Assumed Cost of Trucks $430,000 $442,900 $456,187 $469,873 $483,969 $498,488 $513,442 $528,846 $544,711 $561,052 Start-up Truck Costs $0 $1,771,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Replacement Truck Credit (1,771,600) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recognized Related Truck Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers 90 Gallon Cart - Rate $90.00 $92.70 $95.48 $98.35 $101.30 $104.33 $107.46 $110.69 $114.01 $117.43 Start up 90 Gallon Cart -Amount Needed 27,922 28,645 29,263 29,881 30,499 31,117 31,735 32,352 32,971 33,590 Start up Container Costs $0 $2,655,392 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Incremental Amount of Carts Needed 0 723 618 618 618 618 618 617 619 619 Growth Related Container Costs $0 $0 $59,007 $60,777 $62,601 $64,479 $66,413 $68,295 $70,572 $72,689 Grants for Carts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Containers Subtotal S4 $0 $2,655,392 $59,007 $60,777 $62,601 $64,479 $66,413 $68,295 $70,572 $72,689 From: Nierengarten, Peter To: CityClerk Cc: Turk, Teresa; Macedo, Keith Subject: City Council Agenda Addition Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 5:29:19 PM Attachments: Cart Based Recycling - EAC.pdf Fayetteville Solid Waste - Agenda Session Presentation 061025.odf Cart Based Recycling - CC Presentation 071525.pdf Could you please add these presentations to agenda item B5 — Recycling and Trash Division Rate Increase Adoption: • EAC Presentation from 4/21/25 • CC Agenda Session Presentation from 6/10/25 • CC Presentation from 07/15/25 Peter Nierengarten, PE Environmental Director Sustainability Department City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Dnierenaartenla favetteville-ar.aov 479.575.8272 o 479.601.7834 c Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube rpaqw- I a 001� RECYCLE WO SOMETHING •••. fllETiEllllf, �II�MS�S BE 8IG4 START SMALI Agenda 1. Current Recycling Programs 2. Waste Composition/capture I3. Curbsort Recycling Challenges I4. Messaging 5. Growth I6. Cart Based Recycling 7. Projected Results 8. Case Studies 9. Cost/Savings Fayetteville Environmental Action Ctteei 21, 2025 Current Recycling Programs — 20% diversion • Curbsort Recycling Program • Primarily Single Family • Staff sort bins at curb (7 materials) • 30 — 50% participation rate • Low contamination (1%) • 43% of collections • Apartment Recycling • Large Apartment Complexes (10) w/parking lot space • Residents sort recyclables • Higher contamination — plastics • 1% of collections Commercial Recycling • Glass, Paper & Cardboard • Moderate Contamination • 37% of collections • Recycling Drop-off (w/part time staff) • 2locations • Plastics Contamination • 19% of collections Residential Waste Composition (tons per year) Capture Rate = 40% (2534 tons) residential recyclables a collected Food Waste in Trash, 11.796 Yard Waste in Trash, 5.196 Recyclables in Tra,''-, 16.3% 3778 tons Bulk, 0.996 Yard Waste, 8.296 Food Waste Collection, 0.40% Trash, 46.5% Recyclahles, 10.996 Source: Sept 2024 Fayetteville Waste 2534 tons Characterization Study 2024 Commercial Waste Composition (tons per year) Capture Rate = 13% (1,005 tons) of commercial recyclables are collected Food Waste in Trash, 20.9% Yard Wastes in Trash, 4.596 Recyclables it Trash, 18.996 6513 tons -....................... Other Food Waste, 3.096 X\ Food Waste, 0.9% Recyclables, 2.996 1005 tons Trash, 48.996 Source: Sept 2024 Fayetteville Waste Characterization Study Korn. Envlron—tN St—rdship Community FAGe Nowt 6 Updete Tontitown air quality tests find harmful chemicals near landfill SNME A • ® v TRENDING STORIES TONTITOWN, Ark. (KN WA/KFTA) -As the city of Tontitown continues its legal fight against the expansion of the Eco Vista landfill, its mayor is asking Arkansas Governor Sarah Hucka bee Sanders for support. Meanwhile, the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment did not respond to KN WA/FOX24's request for comment on when its next steps would occur following a report revealing toxic chemicals were found in the air surrounding the Eco Vista landfill. 2 Man arrested in human trafficking raids 2 AGFC temporarily closing WMAs for wild hog control 3 Hogs add Greenwood WR Karnes 4 Sanders announces Jefferson Co. The report was released by the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, or E&E, in July operations plan Curbsort Recycling Challenges - Injuries • Recycler Injury rate is 3x higher than non-recyclers* • 8.3 injuries per year* • Types of Injuries • Heat Stress • Knee and Ankle Sprains • Shoulder Strain • Back injury • Cut from sharp objects • Slips, trips and falls when carrying recyclables *Based on 3 yr avg (2022 — 2024) 11,11, ANN III Curbsort Recycling Challenges - Safety Climbing in and out of trucks — fall hazard Ili Curbsort Recycling Challenges — Bin Hazards 0 Vomit 0 6 Curbsort Recycling Challenges — Weather • Avg Arkansas temps are expected to increase by 5.0°F by 2050. • More days above 95°F • Heat +Humidity =harder for the human body to cool down Projected Change in Number of Days Over 95uF Projected Difference from Historical Climate �r 1 Change in Number of Days 0 10 20 30 40 SC 114 Source: EPA National Climate Assessment �k s 'nJ r• �� `� ` L . � �� ���� s- �� ��� �X ��r _ ,�. _ . �" Curbsort Recycling Challenges - Turnover • 62% of turnover is Recyclers* • 18 of the 29 route drivers who have voluntarily left RTC were Recyclers* • Costs associated with turnover • Overtime • Lost Productivity • Training time • Uniforms • Background Check • Avg length of employment for recycle route drivers is less than 1 year *Based on 3 yr avg (2022 — 2024) Curbsort Recycling Challenges - Efficiency • Recycling —manual sort • Set out rates were 30-40 (industry avg = 70%) • 12 routes per day • Sidearm collection — automated sort • 90% set out rate is 7 — 8 routes per day WE S.D A Y • -• ••-- -. f'..._..... M O N.,D•A Y .. 1 T U�E�S D A Y _ ., ...... .. c.. .. ----------- ---- -- ~- _._••_._ :j• - W E D N E S D"A'Y• ',' .. ___ -I ' � '�• sq i-? •__-_. T H U IR _S D A Y :.. c t T H U R S D A Y •-._ ""' - T H U R S D A Y:= W E D N E S D A V - x FA k hIlNG TON T H U:R S D A Y o, 0 , S,a DM 075 15 2,2 3 m Lj Monday Wednesday Trash Route AREA OF SERVICE,,:.., Tuesday Thursday - ' Curbsort Recycling Challenges — Idle Time • Recycling —manual sort • ^J75 secs per stop • Averaging 48 stops/hr • 29 minutes of idling per hour • Sidearm collection — automated sort • ^J19 secs per stop • 190 stops/hr • 4 minutes of idling per hour if 7""60a 1'', � � Wad x7 96 �64 GAL GAL c X 5 is 32 GAL x3 PTO" of the City of 479 575 8396 AE SBYEIN�R6� 4 Growth/Equity • 150k people by 2045 • Grow 4% annually • Multi -Family will grow faster than single family • Currently only able to offer recycling to: • 10 large apartment complexes is ^020 smaller complexes Four plex (2.1%) Duplex (7%) Single Family Residential (42%) Triplex (0.6%) — Multi -Unit Residential/Apartment (4ft 1 2023 Fayetteville Housing Units Source: Skyline Report 1H2O23 Summary — Challenge with existing Curbsort Recycling • Low Capture Rate • Landfill Filling Up • Driver Injuries • Driver Safety • Bin Hazards • Weather • Traffic • Driver Turnover • Collection Efficiency • Truck Idling • Messaging/Priorities • Growth/Equity Cart Based Recycling Allow ar' oast Three Feet of Space Around Your Carts. �one�taa. -- F.ZHEREC`ICLING ��PARTNERSHIP • Collect more material • Expand customers • 2x collection efficiency • Reduced injuries &turnover �Oi Clothing or Textiles' (Ropa y textiles) �� Greasy Cardboard ' (Cartdn grasien[o) Food or Liquids (Comitla y l,qu,dos) Film plastics Tanglers (Lammas (Enredos/cuertlas) de pldstico) C7 sr r.UL THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE Curbside Collection Guidelines usv SERVICE BEGINS DECEMBER 1, 2023 Summer Mixed Recycling Pilot — 0.7% Contamination I! r_= Figure 3-4: Composition of City of Fayetteville's Single -Family Residential Recyclables Non-processab a Contaminants, 0 7 - Recyclable Matena , =_ 0 3 % f Glass Bottles ai 20.6% Metal Cans, 3 7% Recyclable Plastic Bottles, 5.0% Corrugated Cardboard 58 41t Mixed Recyctablf Paper, 11 3% 2016 Pilot Results �1000 households • 96% increase in weight of material collected • 94% increase in recyclables per household • 58% decrease in service time • 3% Contamination "'#"' •. WHAT CAN 1 RECYCLE? RW ,�• SF © . r .�...�.. City of FMHevillw SMOLF ST ffA w........er.n '��` NIGTCLING PLOTP"OGq M THYOUFOR P MIN VpYOUARTC iATNG' On slwerwwllcR`y �.eTwn Oor.rb brrn n_— Oiw wlw Pa.q �III�tN Mwwt/rM! ycIeSomatfijngorg TSTIAfMr+�xlwr..P.�Nwwrw�vP f1RRec. 2016 Customer Feedback • 97% stated more convenience, putting all materials into a single cart • 90% stated convenience, cart easier to roll to the curb for collection • 83% stated the larger cart allowed them to recycle more Projected Results • Diversion rate from 20% to 30% • 2x Recyclable Collections & Efficiency • 2x GHG emission reduction • Contamination < 10% • More equitable residential recycling (multi -family) • Ability to grow commercial recycling participation • Decreased worker injuries • Increased worker retention • Regional Coordination • Continued Recycling Transparency • Long-term Operational Cost Savings 411: RECYCLE *0 :0. SOMETHING 0 0•0 f11ETTEYIllE,11MINSIS" .' 0000 � BE BIG 0000000, START SMAL.09 a/ *,. sperc�hlteveveMk. ea x (- C -. tayene.;lk-a.Aov/3�55/rmsoa.e�cy c' y o f FAYETTEVILLE Residential Commercial ARKANSAS r 1 i• .v Facilities Recycling Waste Not/Use Less 0 ro] © a Transparency .haccordance with Faye i,, CM Cou Resolution19-11. the Recycing land Trash C011od— Dry r ptovldes quarterly and year -gyp -date inlprmalio� _ volumes collected. vo disposed, and end mallet information(,, recycled matetals. The City s diversion percenmge and greenhouse gas e r abed to solid waste disposals are also reportetl. The purpose of me resoluh. Is to assure that Clry of Fayenevme Is as ha p,t e t as - possldleiegarding our recycling V ew he wane v Repgplpg Resp a on (PQF) Cart Based Recycling Case Studies Sarasota, FL - Bins to 95 gal carts in 2019 • 71% increase in recycling volume • 82% participation rate • 62% recycling capture rate Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio - Bins to 64 gal carts in 2019 • Recycling participation went from 52% to 74% • 22% capture rates increase for plastics and 11% for aluminum Benton County, Ark — Cart based recycling programs since 2014 • City of Rogers curbside recycling program collected 6026 tons of recyclables in 2023 • City of Bentonville curbside recycling program collected 3834 tons of recyclables in 2023 **By comparison Fayetteville collected 2,697 tons of curbside recycling in 2023 Cost/Savings Operational Cost • Reduced commodity sales • Processing facility costs Operational Savings • Reduced disposal cost • Reduce recycle routes (drivers &trucks) • Reduced Employee Turnover &Worker Injury Cost Capital Cost • Recycling Carts &Containers • Anti -contamination software • New Recycle Trucks • Working on EPA and private grants to fund capital investments Question? From: Nierengarten, Peter To: CityClerk Cc: Turk, Teresa; Macedo, Keith Subject: City Council Agenda Addition Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 5:29:19 PM Attachments: Cart Based Recycling - EAC.pdf Fayetteville Solid Waste - Agenda Session Presentation 061025.odf Cart Based Recycling - CC Presentation 071525.pdf Could you please add these presentations to agenda item B5 — Recycling and Trash Division Rate Increase Adoption: • EAC Presentation from 4/21/25 • CC Agenda Session Presentation from 6/10/25 • CC Presentation from 07/15/25 Peter Nierengarten, PE Environmental Director Sustainability Department City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Dnierenaartenla favetteville-ar.aov 479.575.8272 o 479.601.7834 c Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube r mmr,�- City of Fayetteville Solid Waste Cost of Service Study June 10, 2025 VQ- ra -ago lma edit: https://www.fayetteville-ar.govl3l60/About-Fayetteville Ag.,nda Key Objectives Background Operational Scenarios 4. Financial Plan 5. Findings Summary io Key Ob n 0 j ectives 1. Key Objectives Scope Existing program review Financial Plan and COS Analysis Key Objectives Develop ten-year forecast that recovers the full cost of service Evaluate Changes to Operations Propose rates that promote fiscal sustainability 4 1. Key Objectives: Revenue Sufficiency for Recycling and Trash Collections (RTC) Enterprise Fund Data Driven Process: Historical Billing Statistics Historical Financial Data Collection Routing Data Current Budget and Financial Plan Capital Improvement Plan FINANCIAL PLAN REVENUE SUFFICIENCY Gross Revenues Revenue Requirements Monthly Charges & Tip Fees Other Revenues Expenses Capital Reserves $ Surplus & $ (Deficiency) $ Balanced 2. Background 0 2. Background - Recent Trends Historical Bill Comparison $25.00 MA A $19.49 $20.35 $20.00 $17.39 — $1579 $16.54 � � $18.94 . $14.78 $15.26 _ $15.00 illillillim-III a M $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 FY FY FY FY 2018 2019 2020 2021 Fayetteville Cart 64 FY FY FY FY 2022 2023 2024 2025 - - Inf Adj. Bill $20.0 o $18.0 g $16.0 $14.0 $12.0 $10.0 S8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Historical Operating Expense vs. Operating Revenue Comparison FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 Operating Expenses Operating Revenues I= 2. Background - Status Quo Baseline Financials Projected Revenue Requirements $30 c $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 ($5) FY 2025 =O&M Expenses Rate Funded CIP Current Revenue FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 =Debt Service =(Use of) / Transfers to Reserves ($15) ($20) Projected Cash Reserves r � Ending Cash Reserves Reserve Target Revenue Requirements and Reserves shown as status quo with no rate increases 8 2. Background: Services Overview Service V* Class Too we we It 011 Trash Recycling Food Waste Yard Waste Bulk HHW Residential 1 x Week 1 x Week 1x EOW 5 gal 1 x Week On -Call Self -haul to Collection 32-64-96 gal 2-18 Gal Bins PILOT program No Cart 1 pickup / year Drop-off Site $ for Extra Bags Curbsort $ forAdd'I pickups 4x year resident free drop off at Transfer Station Commercial & 1x — 6x Week 1x — 6x Week 3x Week Self -haul to Self -haul to Self -haul to Roll off 2-8 cy Dumpsters 2-8 cy Dumpsters 64 Gal Carts Compost Facility Drop-off Site Drop-off Site & Compactors & Compactors 2-4 cy Dumpster Collection 20-40 cy Roll -offs (Cardboard, Glass, Paper, Bottle/Cans) Transfer Inside / Outside Recycle Drop Off Compost for Sale / Compost for Sale Inside / Outside Self -haul to Station City Tip Fee Delivery City Tip Fee Drop-off Site 2. Current Recycling Programs Curbsort Recycling Program Primarily Single Family Staff sort bins at curb (7 materials) 30 - 40% participation rate Low contamination (1 %) 43% of collections Apartment Recycling Large Apartment Complexes (10) w/parking lot space - Residents sort recyclables - Higher contamination - plastics 1 % of collections Commercial Recycling Glass, Paper & Cardboard Moderate Contamination 37% of collections Recycling Drop-off (w/part time staff) 2 locations Plastics Contamination 19% of collections It RECYCLE `: SOMETHING '••. f1YETiEYIllf,11111SIS~ :` iY DE 0164 START SMALL 12 2. Background- Tonnages Material Type Food Waste FY 2024 1,218 Yard Waste 7,454 15,095 tons Recyclables 6,423 diverted Solid Waste 62,147 Total Tonnages 77,242 Source: City transparency collection end market reports. Transfer Station 165512 Commercial Drop Box 10,272 Source. City waste management reports 2024 Recycling Tonnage Breakdown Cardboard and Paper 65% 2024 Waste Diversion Rate= 20 0 HHW&E Waste Plastics � % -5% Comingled 3% 04 Metal and Aluminium 6% IF Glass 20% Source: Fayetteville Transparency Website https://www.fayetteville-ar.gov/3766/Transparency 2. Background: Residential Waste Composition (tons per year) Food Waste in Trash,11.79A Yard Waste in Trash, 5.106 Recyclables in Trash, 16.3% 3,778 tons Bulk, 0.996 Yard Waste, 8.2% 13 Food Waste Collection, 0.4% Recyclables, 10.9% 2,534 tons Trash, 46.596 Capture Rate = 40% (2534 tons) residential recyclables collected Source: Sept 2024 Fayetteville Waste Characterization Study Chall enge with existing Curbsort Recycling ...... .... .. ZWRN�,'aDture Rate • Driver Injuries (3x) • Driver Safety • Bin Hazards • Weather • Traffic • Driver Turnover • Collection Efficiency • Messaging/Priorities • Truck Idling do • Growth/Equity OPerational Scenarios 0 15 Recycling Options Status Quo — Current Curbsort Recycling S 1: Dual Stream Cartbased Recycling NEW DUAL STREAM PROGRAM The Somerset County Recycling Division is providing two 65-gallon wheeled recycling totes to residents. Each tote has a different color lid (yellow and lime green). Stickers on the lids indicate what materials are to be placed in the totes. Regular scheduled pickups with the new totes will begin on yournext scheduledrecycling date after deliveryoftotes. The tote with the lime green lid its for the cardboard and paper products, and the tote with the yellow lid is for commingled glass, cans, and plastic materials. Accepted Hems are as follows fw the paper tote Accepted items are as follows fw the (lime green lid): Newspapers, inserts, junk mail, commingled tote (yellow lid): Aluminum, steel magannes,catalogs, envelopes, paperback books, and bimetal cans, glass bottles (all colors), glasslars corrugated cardboard, colored paper, clean pica (all colors), plastic bottles and containers #1 - #7 boxes, office and school papers, shredded paper, (Examples:water, soda, milk, juice, soap, detergent, chipboard boxes including cereal, cookie, pasta, bleach, shampoo, and cleaning -agent bottles). you take,cracker,detergent(remove plastic liners), gift, may also include peanut butter, yogurt and shoe, shirt and any retail boxes, paper egg cartons, diaper -wipe containers, margarine tubs, plastic paper bags, books (hard covers must be removed), trays and clear plastic clamshell containers from phone books, non-metallic gift wrap and greeting restaurant salad ba¢ cards. a We will NOT take the Mowing items: Plastic bags, Styrofoam', garbage cans, flower pots, or kitty litter containers. 7�fa�rkynu�o3 ynwrpaz/ay.Gl�arc ----------------------------- I � All -in -one Cartbased Recycling I I � S2: Every S3: Every other week (EW) week (EOW) I � I As 6% , ' I , E..,, '41 `a a.. tn.ee r.:e or se .n,eune ro.. c.n: -cy`-� 1xERECVCIING I SF I � • I I Rerycle/Reciclar Trash/Basura I THE CITY 1934 SPRINGDALE Hite. ..., ...� p^� ems' • • - • • I Guidelines c. IREMEMBER: I I I � SERVICE BEGINS I � I � I *Glass Collection TBD I � --————————————————————— — — — — —— Recycling Options Analysis Tons of Recyclables Employee Customer Equity/ Messaging/ Contamination Capital 1-yr Rate 5-yr Rate Captured Injury/Safety Efficiency Convenience Growth Priorities Management Cost Increase Increase Very Status Quo 2,534 High Slow Medium Limited Weak Manual Sort n/a 9.50% $7.22 Anti- S1: Dual Stream Cart Contamination Based Recvcliniz 3.727 Low Medium Medium Good Strone Software $5M 12.50% $6.93 Anti- S2: All -in -one Cart Based High Contamination Recycling (EW) 5,083 Low ast High I Potential Very Strong Software $2.OM 9.50% $5.78 mn u- S3: All -in -one Cart Based High Contamination Recycling (EOW) 5,083 Low Fast Medium Potential Strong Software $2.6M 6.50% $4.88 All -in -one weekly Cart Based Recycling has additional benefits: • Reduced Fleet due to Redundancy • Continued Recycling Transparency • Regional Coordination 4. Financial Plan n 0 19 4. Financial Plan - Key Assumptions Growth Assumed at 2% Inflation in Unit Costs from 4% to 7% Revenues based on billing statistics and financials Escalated for growth & rate adjustments Expenses based on FY25 Budget Escalated for Inflation & Changes in Operations Targeted 120-day operating reserve balance S3.5 Ln - 0 S3.0 S2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 C I P by Project Type FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Infrastructure Vehicles Containers ■ Equipment ■ Other Technology 20 4. Financial Plan - Projected Revenue Projected Revenue Requirements $30 c 0 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 ($5) FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 M O&M Expenses M Debt Service Rate Funded CIP � (Use of) / Transfers to Reserves —Current Revenue ••••*Proposed Revenue All -in -one Cart Based Recycling (EW) provides sufficient revenue to cover expenses 21 4. Financial Plan - Recycling Scenarios Tons Weekly Households per Vehicles Recycled Trucks Routes Route per Day CostsjL Cart Cost 11 • 1 • '1 111 '.1 111 $19,105,142 $17,663,957 All -in -one Cart Based Recycling (EW) has lower operating expenses tatus Quo 2: All -in -one Cart Recycling tatus Quo 2: All -in -one Cart Recycling Change — Status Quo 2 - Adiust 9.50% 9.50% 5.50% 4.50% 4.50% 9.50% 7.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% $18.94 $20.74 $18.94 $20.74 n/a $1.80 n/a $1.80 $22.71 $23.96 $25.04 $26.16 $22.29 $23.08 $23.88 $24.72 $1.97 $1.25 $1.08 $1.13 $1.56 $0.78 $0.81 $0.84 n/a n/a $7.22 $5.78 All -in -one Cart Based Recycling (EW) allows lower rate increases 22 4. Financial Plan — Scenario 2 Rate Revenue Adj. $9 o $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $o Projected Cash Reserves Ending Cash Reserves Reserve Target Status Quo: Curbsort Recycling Projected Cash Reserves $9 c o $g $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $o Ending Cash Reserves Reserve Target All -in -one Cart Based Recycling (EW) All -in -one Cart Based Recycling (EW) rebuilds RTC reserves by 2029 23 5. Findings & Recommendations 24 5. Findings & Recommendations - Rate Comparison Most other NWA Cities provide EW Cart Based Recycling No Peer City provides level of service as high as Fayetteville RTC Subscription or drop-off yard waste PAYT - (32, 64, 96 gal carts) Add EOW Trash Collection option —NEW! Residential Food Waste Collection —NEW! Glass Recycling Fayetteville provides higher level of services at rates that are comparable to other peer cities 5. Recommendations & Findings - Next Steps Rate Study to City Council in July Transition to Cart Based Recycling with Every Week (EW) Collections — S2 Issue RFP for Processing Recyclables — Glass? Order new trucks Order recycling carts Design Education & Outreach Campaign .0- .0 - - �-- -** �RECYCLE SOMETNING '•. FIIEI1EIIllE,11UASIS� '•. �t BE BIG-► START SIUII 26 5. Recommendations & Findings - Summary Improved Recycling Program Diversion & Equity Expand to Multi -Family and Commercial Customers > 2x Recycling Collections Improved Driver Safety ol Reduce employee injuries > Reduced employee turnover Reduced RTC Cost & Fiscal Sustainability Lower Operating Expenses > Provides sufficient revenue to cover expenses Rebuild RTC reserves by 2029 Lower Rate Increases oo 2-yr phase in with 9.5% rate increase in 2026 and 7.5% in 2027 (CPI = 4.8%) > Fayetteville Rates continue to be competitive with peer Cities Plan results in compliance with all policy goals and fully funds CIP 27 28 Thank you! Raftelis Contacts: Thierry Boveri, CGFM, Vice President tboverWraftelis.com Sarah Neely, Senior Consultant sneely@raftelis.com 4 r W� 29 From: Nierengarten, Peter To: CityClerk Cc: Turk, Teresa; Macedo, Keith Subject: City Council Agenda Addition Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 5:29:19 PM Attachments: Cart Based Recycling - EAC.pdf Fayetteville Solid Waste - Agenda Session Presentation 061025.odf Cart Based Recycling - CC Presentation 071525.pdf Could you please add these presentations to agenda item B5 — Recycling and Trash Division Rate Increase Adoption: • EAC Presentation from 4/21/25 • CC Agenda Session Presentation from 6/10/25 • CC Presentation from 07/15/25 Peter Nierengarten, PE Environmental Director Sustainability Department City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Dnierenaartenla favetteville-ar.aov 479.575.8272 o 479.601.7834 c Website I Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube Agenda Recycling & 1. Rate Study Purpose Collections Rate Sto 2. Results &Recommendations 3. Climate Action Plan Goals 4. Capture Rate/Cost —Council Member Wiederkehr Questions 0 &;(H 5. Rate Increase I mpacts/ � ...' d RECYCLE Communications/Assistance —Council Member IBM . SOMETHING mi Moore Questions rirEtrEri<<E.1111Ns11 6. Cost/Contamination/Trucks —Council Member BE BIG4 BM START SMAII Turk Questions 7. Employee Safety/Turnover —Council Member Stafford Questions Fayetteville City Council - July 15, 2025 8. Transition Plan 9. Projected Results Rate Study Purpose Background • Raftiles Consultants • Hired August 2024 via RFP Scope • Existing program review • Financial Plan and COS Analysis Key Objectives • Develop a ten-year forecast that recovers the full cost of service • Evaluate changes to Operations • Propose rates that promote fiscal sustainability z $20.0 o $18.0 $16.0 $14.0 S12.0 S10.0 $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Inflation has had significant impact expenses leading to overall revenue aericiency to cover existing programs Historical Operating Expense vs. Operating Revenue Comparison FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 � Operating Expenses Operating Revenues Projected Revenue Requirements $30 .° $25 $20 $15 $10 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 M0&M Expenses Debt Service Rate Funded CIP Current Revenue (Use of) / Transfers to Reserves Recycling Options for dealing with revenue deficiency Tons of Recyclables Employee Customer Equity/ Messaging/ Contamination Capital 1-yr Rate 5-yr Rate Captured Injury/Safety Efficiency Convenience Growth Priorities Management Cost Increase Increase Very ml Status Quo 2,534 High Medium Limited Weak Manual Sort n/a 9.50% $7.22 Anti- S1: Dual Stream Cart Contamination Based Rec cl i'i ng 3,727 Low Medium Medium Good Stron Software $5M 12.50% 6.93 Anti- S2: All -in -one Cart Based High Contamination Recycling (weekly) 5,083 Low Fast High Potential Very Strong Software $2.1M 9.50% $5.78 Anti- S3: All -in -one Cart Based High Contamination Recycling (EOW) 5,083 Low Fast Medium Potential Strong Software $2.6M 6.50% $4.88 All -in -one weekly Cart Based Recycling will: • Improve customer convenience and equity • Increase the amount of material we recycle • Reduce cost • Reduce worker injuries Recycling and Trash Collection Study Recommendations 1. Transition to Weekly Cart Based Recycling 2. Necessary Rate Changes to Implement Car L Ba.,)cd Recycl i rir, Cu rbsort Recycling • 2026 = 9.5% • 2027 = 7.5% • 5YR=30.1% • 2026 = 9.5 • 2027 = 9.5 • 5 YR = 38.1% CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE Recycling and Trash Collection Rate Study REPORT I Jun* 24, 2025 RAFTELIS Cart -Based Recycling will help the City Achieve Waste Reduction Goals in CAP 1. Achieve a 40% waste diversion rate. • Will increase diversion from 20% to 30% 2. Increase commercial and residential recycling program participation rates YOY. • Fa rtici pation rates go from ^'40% to ^'70% 3. Reduce per capita waste to the landfill by S% by 2030. • 2500 tons of additional recycling = 4% reduction in per capita waste %0 CI O, FAYETTEVILLE Adopted by Fayetteville City Council on July 16, 2024 Cost to collect and process recyclables • Status Quo — Curbsort Recycling • Operational Cost = $19.11M/yr • $1296/ton to collect and process recyclables Cart Based Recycling (weekly) _ • Operational Cost = $17.7M/yr • $363/ton to collect and process recyclables 5 yr Rate Impact • Curbsort Recycling (Status Quo) — 38.1%increase • Cart Based Recycling (weekly) = 30.5%increase ***7.6% Less with Cart Based Recycling** r, 1 Cart Based Recycling Capital Costs 1. Cart Cost = $1.7M 2. Truck Cost (net) _ $420k 3. Options for $2.1M Capital Expenditure • Solid Waste Reserve Fund, Current Cash Reserves = $6.4M • Grants • EPA Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling Grant — notice in December • The Recycling Partnership (TRP) — application in Sept/Oct Cart Based Recycling Case Studies Sarasota, FL - Bins to 95 gal carts in 2019 • 71% increase in recycling volume • 82% participation rate • 62% recycling capture rate Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio - Bins to 64 gal carts in 2019 • Recycling participation went from 52% to 74% • 22% capture rate increase for plastics and 11% for aluminum Benton County, Ark — Cart based recycling programs since 2014 • City of Rogers curbside recycling program collected 6026 tons of recyclables in 2023 • City of Bentonville curbside recycling program collected 3834 tons of recyclables in 2022 **By comparison Fayetteville collected 2697 tons of curbside recycling in 2023 Other City Contamination Analysis Denver, CO —12% Des Moines, IA —15% Austin, TX —17 Minot, ND-17% Peoria, AZ —17% "None None of these cities are using Anti - Contamination Cameras/Software on Trucks Strategies to help manage contamination • Well-educated public • Continued Education (bi-lingual) • Clear Information on Cart Lids • Anti -Contamination Software % A 1 1 rr - OM A% WHAT CAN I RECYCLE? 4QUE PUEDO RECICLAR? - -A —DA 45; AustinReeyeles.eom Postcard During our recent collection We found items in your can that are not recyclable: 1 8603815558 , t % Hurtb,m Ro SCRRRA Aes",CT06Ds Download the app to learn* "What Goes Where"! i j ®- P Ca � OCC j" u•: 0 Employee Safety/Turnover Issues with Curbsort Recycling 3x Driver Injuries • Slips, trips and falls when carrying recyclables • Knee and Ankle Sprains • Shoulder Strain • Back injury • Cut from sharp objects T �! • Heat Stress go • Traffic Safety • Bin Hazards • Weather • Driver Turnover **Avg length of employment for recycle route drivers is less than 1 year s AWL AN&L. Communications Plan — Examples VVEIMCNA Sarasota County, say hello to your IWLL new recycling cart! Your home is •ecNv" Ihh, side) new racycl4ig car thanks m an Important relseatship between Sarasota County aiW The Recycling Partnership a nonorollt nrga,air n ufehimg rva.ar-emote narhrwrhirw to t—trwn rr Iwo am armaa A. Your comnkxsty was selected to receive grant stpoort because of Sarasota County's longstandleg dedication to advancing recycling n the come nity. Smpiy put Sarasots County "grew es old recieMg bin. Recycfng cars have irony advantages over smell wyWng bins They roll easer to the cjrb, they provide sore capacity for recycteblet. and they educe IRIN by protecting your materials from the elairry ys This nukes it easier tot you •o recycle more. And the more we recycle these valuable materts. instead of sending then to tandMl, the mere feedttxk we provide to nun factuters to use in the creation of the prodxts and 1 pacseg rV vre buy and use every day In at. everyone wtirs when recyc" wan cats. Ssmoea Cuunty eini Tx Re,yi N,y Partnershsp know that recycling Is fundamental to a healthy environment end economy V= e,=a�wla ,nee a �. k v lent ls protected and convrWnRMs tfvlve. Thank You fox rnakvq Me most of this cart by —wing to WtlitY 0TIE R£C1CM PARi UMIP TO LEARN MORE. vfskscgov.wt/recrc— cr call 941-861-5000. Example from Sarasota, FL Stormwater Utility Program Stormwater is rainfall that runs over properties and does not soak into the ground. Stormwater Infrastructure and maintenance funding has not kept up with our regions growth. As a result, a backlog of projects contributes to flooding issues and water quality threats to Beaver Lake, which is the source of our regional drinking. Properly functioning and maintained infrastructure and development features can effectively reduce impacts from storm events that transport sediments, harmful nutrients and chemicals to our drinking water source, leading to increased treatment costs. Why are we Implementing the Stormwater Utility? o Improved water quality in our streams and watersheds o Regularly scheduled ongoing maintenance, repair and cleanout of drainage features o Regular replacement of aging infrastructure o City management of some drainage features currently on private property where no City easement is currently present (such as older parts of town where easements were not previously required) o Assistance with management of residential detention basins o Compliance with increasing state and federal regulations mandated to the City Stormwater Utility Fees Tier 1 Tier Range (by square footage of impervious area on a property) s2 000 2025 Monthly Fee $1 69 2 >2,000 and 53,500 53.71 3 >3,500 and s5,000 $5.73 4 >5,000 and 56,500 $7.76 5 >6,500 and 58,000 $9.79 6 >8,000 "Billing Unit x $1,35 Rate "Roll: I ne Dining unn Is Impervious area 0IVIUeO oy I, - What is my Property's Impervious Area? o Beaver Water District Water ualityReports o Beaver Watershed Alliance o Illinois River Watershed Partnership o NWA Urban Stormwater Educatlon Progrgm Frequently Asked Questions o How will the Ciry use the fees collected for the Stormwater Utilnv7 o Do other cities implement IN "r orzm? v o When will I receive my fir ill? .. o How are you going to determine the impervious area for my P,Q ONO o What if my imnemous area is wrong? o My_pno doesn't ever Flood, why am I res0onsiDle for Flootling on other peopl=s properties o What is a Billing Unit? o Why are we billing sewer customers Only? o I have a 2,500 sa,ROgusg,what will my rate be if this is passed? o can't look at the online map;;. how do I determine my_ rate? r view AtL 1 Example from Fayetteville Stormwater Program webpage Bill Assistance Programs Pay As You Throw (PAYT) • Right size cart with PAYT • Cooperative Emergency Outreach • Second Mile Ministries **5 yr Rate Impact is 7.6% Less with Cart Based Recycling** Reporting/tracking on unpaid/late bills 32 GAL Cx3 _.Aj Transition Planning • Summer 2025 — Order New Recycle Trucks & Order Recycle Carts • Fall 2025 — Issue RFP for Recycling Processing • Fall 2025 — Design Education & Outreach Campaign • Early 2026 — New Recycle Trucks & Carts arrive • Early 2026 — Initiate Education Campaign followed by Launch of Cart Based Recycling for Residential Collections • Later 2026 — Expand Recycling to Multi -Family Collections & Commercial Projected Results • More equitable residential (multi -family) • Grow commercial recycling recycling participation • Divert 2x Recyclables from Landfill • Save Money • Reduce worker injuries & turnover PAYETTEVMLE Re 1.1 Cortvn 1 �...wsa RECYCLE ETSOMHING Z' FAUTTEYIRE, AIIANSH i) * BE BIG4 START SMALL F_,U_ w.a.ravuuins 0 ri� O s " S1Xll,+1114-M-7 1. "Continue providing Transparency and Reporting to the community on Recycling End Markets Form v1.55 NV\ ECEIVE 8/11/2025 Z C1TY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Account#: NWCL5004205 Company: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE-CLERKS OFFI 113 W MOUNTAIN FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 Ad number#: 529889 PO #: Matter of: ORD 6898 AFFIDAVIT•STATE OF ARKANSAS 1. Maria Hernandez-Lopez do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the NWA Democrat Gazette,a daily newspaper printed and published in WASHINGTON/BENTON county,State of ARKANSAS;that I was so related to this publication at and during the publication of the annexed legal advertisement in the matter of: ORD 6898 Pending in the court,in said County,and at the dates of the several publications of said advertisement stated below,and that during said periods and at said dates,said newspaper was printed and had a bona fide circulation in said County, that said newspaper had been regularly printed and published in said county,and had a bona fide circulation therein for the period of one month before the date of the first publication of said advertisement;and that said advertisement was published in the regular daily issues of said newspaper as stated below. And that there is due or has been paid the NWA Democrat Gazette for publication the sum of$100.32. (Includes$0.00 Affidavit Charge). NWA Democrat Gazette 08/10/25;NWA nwaonline.com 08/10/25 ��AAIVillil(Iil//� • G.4 BR A s . Legal Clerk J` N;iss;cy'• F-p State of ARKANSAS,County of Sebastian = \,401.AR cr, Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 11th day of August, 2025 !2'. PU g\\G NO Y PUBLIC Ordinance:6898 File Number:2025-1135 AN ORDINANCE TO ALIGN THE CITY'S RECYCLING AND TRASH COLLECTION RATES WITH THE RECENT RATE STUDY AND IN- CREASE THE RECYCLING AND TRASH USER FEE BY 9.5%FOR 2026 AND 7.5%FOR 2027 BY AMENDING§50.40(A)RATES FOR SERVICES OF THE FAYET- TEVILLE CITY CODE WHEREAS, the 2025 Recy- cling and Trash Rate Study com- pleted by Raftelis made several recommendations based on a cost of service analysis and the goals of the City which includes a ten-year financial plan and proposed five-year rate sched- ule of solid waste rates includ- ing more substantial increases in the Recycling and Trash User Fee for 2026 and 2027. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT OR- DAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1.That the City Coun- cil of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 50.40(A)Rates for Services by adding a sentence at the end as follows: "However,for the year 2026 the Fee shall be increased by 9.5%and for the year 2027 the Fee shall be increased by 7.5%.* PASSED and APPROVED on August 5,2025 Approved: Molly Rawn,Mayor Attest: Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer This publication was paid for by the City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Amount Paid:$100.32 August 10,2025 529889