Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approach E The approach used in Charlotte, NC for their two stream commingled MRF is much like <br />Public Ownership, <br />this, with the exception that the Operator also selected the equipment and its layout, but <br />Financing, Design and <br />in a building already designed and constructed by the public sector. Again, the City has <br />Construction w/ Private <br />its obligations for the bond financing so is committed to bond payments and thus to <br />Sector Operation Under <br />continue using this facility. The contract with the MRF operator has incentives for them <br />Contract <br />to secure additional tonnage from other sources, which it is successfully accomplishing. <br />Approach F <br />The Winnebago County two stream commingled MRF in Wisconsin uses a variation of <br />Public Ownership, <br />this approach in which a work force of minimum security corrections labor (and <br />Financing, Design, and <br />supervisors) operate sorting lines and some of the material handling equipment at this <br />Construction w/local <br />publicly owned, financed, designed and constructed MRF. Some municipal employees <br />Community Based <br />also assist in management and equipment operations. Unfortunately, demand for <br />Operation <br />processing of recycling both from local sources and regional sources has outstripped <br />the capabilities of this MRF which can not be easily expanded. <br />Approach G <br />The Portage County Solid Waste District in Ohio just south of Cleveland successfully <br />Public Ownership, <br />operates a two stream commingled MRF with county employees after having designed, <br />Financing, Design, <br />financed and constructed an addition to its existing transfer station. The District <br />Construction and <br />manager is able to run the MRF like a business with a system enterprise fund <br />Operation <br />approach. The MRF has been successful in marketing its material and has become a <br />regional processing facility taking in material from a wide variety of sources throughout <br />the area. <br />PROS AND CONS OF VARIOUS MRF PUBLIC /PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP MODELS <br />As shown in the following table, there are advantages and disadvantages to each of these public/pdvate <br />approaches to MRF development -- taken from the perspective of the public sector municipal recycling <br />program and its elected officials. <br />Approach A: Private Merchant MRF <br />PRO <br />- No capital outlay by public sector <br />- No long term commitment required to use a particular vendor <br />- Not tied to a particular facilities capabilities (eg: source separation only) <br />- Buying MRF services on spot market can sometimes result in discount pricing <br />CON <br />- Private financing has higher interest rates with shorter payback required <br />- Buying on the spot market often results in higher pricing <br />- No connection between actual costs and your fee <br />- No market revenues (typically) shared back to municipality <br />- No guarantees of service availability <br />- No guarantees of type of service (eg. two stream commingled) <br />- No control over quality of service, adding new materials, etc. <br />- Possible disruption of service w /no backup <br />- Facility is often not in a good location resulting in high transportation costs <br />- Siting can be difficult especially with expansions <br />- No ability to get other value added services (educational center, etc.) <br />Approach B• Merchant MRF w/Maior Public Contract <br />PRO <br />- No capital outlay by public sector <br />- Commitment of tonnage over long term can get favorable pricing <br />2/5/99 Orange Regional MRF LOG Workshop Materials 17 <br />