Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-07-2008 - 7a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2008
>
Agenda - 10-07-2008
>
Agenda - 10-07-2008 - 7a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2013 10:37:48 AM
Creation date
10/7/2008 12:22:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/7/2008
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
7a
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20081007
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 Lower financing �os��' Tax-exempt debt is generally less costly than <br />' private debt-equity structures, even if the private portion of the <br />financing io through tax-exempt private activity bonds. <br />2' More waste flow control. Public owners have a greater ability to control waste <br />flow to their facilities based on the recent Oneida-Herkimer Supreme Court <br />decision (See reference in Section 4.0). <br />3 Post-financing control. After the expiration of the iniUa|finandng, usually 2O- <br />' |d still b the owner of the plant, reaping the benefit 3Oy�ars,the�ountywou a � <br />of lower disposal costs without debt service payments, and not subject to <br />market pricing by a private mwneropenator. Several existing plants, <br />especially in New England, are now reaching the end of their initial service <br />agreements and financings, and the communities they are serving that still <br />need disposal services are facing higher tipping fees or loss of guaranteed <br />available capaoity. <br />Of course/ the actual procurement method should be the result of an open <br />procurement process with several alternatives open to proposers bo suggest asthey <br />deem them advantageous to the County. <br />5.1.2 - Assumptions <br />The following are the assumptions used for the pro forma Operating Statement: <br />1 ' Size/Throughput. As stated above, the representative plant is 300 TPD <br />processing a total of 87,600 tone per year, which equals an availability of <br />' ----' <br />about 80 percent. <br />The remainder of the annual waste generated would need <br />to be transferred <br />and | a dfiUed; a cost of $50.00 per ton has been assumed <br />for bypass. <br />2 Ash Generation/Disposal. Using a rule of thumb, 35 percent of the annually <br />' '' <br />processed waste /^21,900 tons) would remain as ash after the thermal <br />recovery process. e <br />ash can be disposed at landfill at $50.00 per ton but <br />may have to be di- posed separately from the bypassed waste in an ash noro� fi'|| ' If found tobe hazardous, ash would need to b eseparately disposed <br />of as a hazardous waste. The cost of such ash management would be in the <br />range o `150 to $250 per ton, including transportation and disposal at a <br />specially designed and operated landfill. If a beneficial use, such as <br />alternative daily <br />landfill cover, was found, the cost could be reduced. <br />3. Capital Cost/Financing. The capital cost per ton is sot at $150,000 per ton of <br />installed capacity or total of $45 million. The effective net amount to be <br />financed was estimated at 125 percent of the cost of the installed capacity, <br />taking into account development and permitting costs, financing costs, etc. <br />That brings the total financed to $56.25 million. The a||-in cost of financing <br />using revenue bonds was estimated at S percent for 25 years, an annual <br />financing factor ofO.OG51, bringing net annual debt service to $3.99 million. <br />4 Electricity Revenues. The n�� amount of electricity generated from the <br />' t 3�O kilowatt-hours per ton <br />system, excluding in-plant use was s et a kilowatt-hours <br />processed. The assumed price of the electricity sold was $O.O6 per kilowatt- <br />hour, which is typical of what many plants receive for their electrical sales. <br />electrical "|ec±rica| agreement and its associated price would have to be negotiated <br />with the utility. It was also assumed that the plant operator would receive 10 <br />— <br />percent of the electricity sales as an incentive payment, with 90 percent going <br />to the County. <br />GBB/C08027-01 24 August 15, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.