Pacific Grove City Council MRWMD Update Tim Flanagan, General - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Monterey Regional Waste Management District Turning Waste Into Resources Since 1951 Pacific Grove City Council MRWMD Update Tim Flanagan, General Manager Peter Skinner, Director of Administration and Finance October 17, 2018 1

Board rd of f Di Directors ors Jurisdiction Director Appointed Pacific Grove Gary Bales 1969 Pebble Beach Comm. Leo Laska 2004 Services District Monterey Libby Downey 2007 Marina Bruce Delgado, Chair 2009 Monterey County Jane Parker 2009 (Unincorporated) Del Rey Oaks Dennis Allion 2011 Carmel-by-the-Sea Carrie Theis 2014 Sand City Jerry Blackwelder 2017 Seaside Jason Campbell 2017

Le Legi gislativ slative Ma Mand ndate ates s Gui uiding ding Our ur Fu Futur ure 1989 - AB 939 Mandates 50% waste diversion by 2000. District builds Construction & Demolition MRF(1996) to ensure compliance 2006 - AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act • Reduce GHG emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2035 2012 - AB 341 Mandatory Commercial Recycling • Establishes 75% recycling goal by 2020 2014 - AB 1826 Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling • Phased in ban on disposing of commercial organics in landfills 2016-2020 2016 - SB 1383 Organic Waste Methane Emissions Reductions • By 2025, achieve 75 percent reduction in statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level 2017 CalGreen Requires 65% diversion from construction projects

5 y 5 year ar Cap apital tal Outlay ay pl plan an Investment by Regulatory Mandate Admin./No Recycling & Mandate, $2.2 , Diversion, $3.4 4% , 7% Solid Waste & Air & Water Hazardous Polution Waste Control, $17.9 , Handling, $25.4 37% , 52% 10/17/2018 4

5 y 5 year ar Cap apital tal Outlay ay pl plan an Capital Spending by Investment Type $18.0M $16.0M $14.0M $12.0M $10.0M $8.0M $6.0M $4.0M $2.0M $0.0M 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Facilities Improvements Facilities Repair & Maintenance Equipment Replacement Equipment Repair & Maintenance 10/17/2018 5

2018 20 18 R Revenue venue Bonds ds Amount $25 million Purpose Capital spending required to: • Maintain regulatory compliance • Replace existing equipment • Maintain existing facilities Interest Rate ~3.6% Annual Debt Service $1.8 million Impact on Ratepayers Lessens cost pressures on current ratepayers. Spreads payment for long-term assets over many years. 6

Ju July 201 y 2018 Ra 8 Rate Incr crease ease • Increase for 4 material types • Purpose - cover current District operating costs • Result - cost increases for residential and commercial customers ranging from 1% to 4% • Minimum charges unchanged • Disposal rates remain lowest in region 7

MRWMD WMD repr presents esents ~16% % of total al solid id wast ste e systems tems cost sts Agency Fees 13% 16% 71% Processing & Disposal Collection Changes in disposal rates have a non-proportional impact on overall Franchise rates 8

Rate e in incr crease e impact ct on n re resid identia ntial ra ratep epaye ayers rs $22.17 $22.70 +2.4% Ave./Mo. Ave./Mo. • Disposal rate increase results in an average increase* of 2.4% for a typical residential customer (32 gal container, recycling, yard waste) • Average increase: 53 cents/month; $6.36/year * Impact of disposal fee only; calculated across all District jurisdictions assumes collection costs and Franchise fees held constant 9

How the District’s costs compare to other regional soli lid waste te syste tems ms • District’s overall solid waste system efficiency compares favorably to similar systems in northern California • Equals lower monthly garbage/recycling bills for the District’s residents and businesses • Disposal rates remain lowest in the region – $10/ton less than next-lowest Tip Fee rate 10

Compar arat ative ive Nort rthe hern rn Cali liforn rnia ia Soli lid Waste te System tems 11

Compar arat ative ive Nort rthern hern Cali liforn rnia ia Resid iden enti tial al ra rates es Residential Rate Comparison 32 Gal Solid Waste Bin Monthly Charge $70.00 $60.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $- Average District rate ($22.17) is 8% below the average rate for the bottom quartile of study area ($24.00) 12

Re Recycling ycling in n PG – Gree eenW nWast aste Re Recov overy ery Co Colle llected cted Tons ns Local Recycling Rates Compared 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Pebble Beach Carmel Pacific Grove Seaside Resdential Commercial Multi Family

EMC Resea earc rch h Pu Publi lic Op c Opin inio ion n Sur urvey y - Jul uly 2018 Key Fi Find ndin ings  Seven in ten residents have a generally positive opinion of the Monterey Regional Waste Management District. – Opinion is even more favorable among the 75% of resondents who have visited one or more of the District’s facilities.  75% of District residents surveyed say they are interested in sorting their waste correctly, but fewer think “upstream” about waste generation.  A majority of District residents believe the amount they pay for garbage and recycling services is about right; – Adding a small surcharge to cover new regulations did not generate significant negative feedback.

What Goes Where? New www.WhatGoesWhere website and App take the guesswork out of recycling!

Turning Waste into Resources Thank You 16