United States Office of Environmental Protection The Comptroller Agency (H-3304) June 1991 Public-Private Partnerships "Environmental Entrepreneurs Changing Directions in the 1990s" Region 3 Workshop Proceedings Penn Harris Inn and Convention Center Camp Hill, Pennsylvania , September 20.-1-990 PUBLIC Solid Waste Drinking Water Wastewater PRIVATE EPA' ~'205V , 1991.2 *!'<' M I c.2 Printed on Recycled Paper ------- ------- Preface These edited proceedings are from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region in conference entitled "Environmental Entrepreneurs: Changing Directions in the 1990s", convened in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on September 20,1990. This is the first State level Public-Private Partnerships conference to be held in the nation. Several case studies are included here which document initiatives underway in Region IE. These case studies were developed by interviewing both public officials and their respective private partners. We ask that you provide us with your views and comments on the ideas and suggestions presented during the conference. As you explore the viability of public-private partnerships for your community or environmental program, we hope you find the materials useful and informative. Charles L. Grizzle Edwin B. Erickson Assistant Administrator Regional Administrator Office of Administration and Resources Management Region III U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2 HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 ------- ------- Table of Contents Page Preface Welcome/Opening Remarks Cathy Mastropieri P3 Coordinator Chief, Grants and Audit Management Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Philadelphia, PA Keynote Address Financing Environmental Protection: A National Challenge John J.Sandy Director, Resource Management Division ~ ' Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC What are Public-Private Partnerships? 7 Leonard Bechtel Public-Private Partnership Staff Resource Management Division Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Panel #1: Privatization: The Myths and Realities 10 Panel #2: Affordability 18 Luncheon Speaker 27 The Honorable Stephen Reed Mayor City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania it ------- Page Case Study #1: 31 Berks County, Pennsylvania Supporting the Operation and Maintenance of Drinking Water Systems at Mobile Home Parks Case Study #2: 38 Welch, West Virginia Wastewater Collection System Turnkey Project to Tie-in with Wastewater Treatment Merchant Facility Case Study #3: 41 Mercersburg, Pennsylvania Wastewater Treatment System Privatization Case Study #4: 44 Downingtown, Pennsylvania Wastewater Treatment Plant Partial Privatization Case Study #5: 46 Conemaugh Township, Pennsylvania Residential Recycling List of Workshop Attendees 49 EPA Office of The Comptroller 53 P3 Staff Roster Roster of EPA Regional P3 Coordinators 53 tii ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Welcome/Opening Remarks Cathy Mastropieri Publk-Private Partnership Coordinator Chief, Grants and Audit Management Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Philadelphia, PA Welcome to EPA's second Region HI Public-Private Partnerships (P3) conference. Last year's conference, "Public-Private Partnerships for Environmental Services: Solid Waste, Drinking Water, and Wastewater", outlined roles for key players in P3 initiatives. It sought to promote public-private partnerships as one of several available innovative approaches to financing environmental protection. This conference focuses on small communities and the benefits that partnerships can bring as they seek to provide environmental services within their financial and budgetary constraints. Public and private partners from Berks County, Mercersburg, Conemaugh Township, and Downingtown, , Pennsylvania, and from Welch, West Virginia have brought their experiences to share with us today on diverse projects involving water supply provision, wastewater treatment, and recycling. Their approaches are likewise diverse, including privatization, turnkey, and merchant facility methods to be discussed in this morning's session on "What is a Public-Private Partnership?" We are fortunate to have John Sandy, the official responsible for EPA's Public-Private Partnership Initiative, offer our keynote speech today on financing environmental protection. We are also pleased that Stephen Reed, the Mayor of Harrisburg is with us today and will speak during lunch about the experiences and prospects of public-private partnerships for Harrisburg and similar communities. The conference includes three panels, discussing the myths and realities of privatization, affordability of environmental services by communities/ and five presentations on local experiences with partnerships. We are pleased you have joined us today and we hope the discussions are useful in helping you explore the viability of partnerships, especially in communities seeking to provide environmental services in a period of fiscal constraint. ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Keynote Address: Financing Environmental Protection John J.Sandy Director, Resources Management Division Office of The Comptroller U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC Introduction Public-private partnerships are really nothing new. What is new is that EPA has taken the position of supporting these partnerships as a way to finance environmental infrastructure projects. And what's also very new, is that EPA is no longer pursuing only a "command and control approach." Writing regulations and enforcing compliance is of course one of the Agency's critical missions, but today, we're looking to get ahead of the curve and provide whatever help we can to communities across America in the fight against environmental pollution problems. The Public-Private Partnerships Initiative, or P3, as we call it, was born in 1988, out of the conflict of two very important national priorities: Society as a whole his placed the protection of the environment on the front burner in the political arena The federal government is facing a period of necessary and real budget cutting, leading to fewer and fewer federal dollars available to help with environmental financing. Perhaps the single most important factor of governing over the past decade is the effort to limit spending at the Federal level. And environmental protection has not been an exception. EPA's operating budget in real dollars has not increased much since 1981 and Congress continues to authorize new programs every year. The United States is currently spending close to $85 billion each year on environmental protection. That annual expenditure is expected to jump to one hundred forty-six billion by the year 2000. And, what's more, a recent EPA study has identified an environmental infrastructure "funding gap" of more than twenty billion dollars annually in the year 2000. Most of this gap will be experienced at the local level. ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 We continue to see significant shortfalls between resources required to protect our environment and human health, and the resources that will be available for spending. As all of you face your own local budget problems, the President and Congress are grappling with an enormous Federal budget deficit. The effects of all of this are likely to ripple through all of our pocketbooks before long. The problem is of such magnitude, that simply put, our needs go beyond the reach of public revenues alone. All over the country, new landfills need to be sited at a great cost. A generation of waste treatment facilities are nearing the end of their useful life. And many water works, some built a hundred years ago, function with archaic distribution systems and are in severe need of upgrading. Repair or replacement is inevitable. The Problems of Small Communities At the same time, there exists a very important subset of communities that have yet to meet their existing regulatory obligations. And what must be most frustrating is that we see new regulations and programs heaped on top of the old. We hope that we can be of help to all communities, large and small, but we are especially aware of the significant and sometimes overwhelming problems that lie before the smallest of communities. We are a nation of small communities. One-half of all of our local governments represent fewer than 1,000 people and 63% represent fewer than 2,000. That's more than 25,000 governmental units. More astonishing is that the average annual revenues of these governments are about $200,000. And those annual revenues must go to pay for road and bridge repair, police and fire protection, salaries, rents, maintenance and on, and on. And you know who is running these small governments. Merchants, farmers, housewives and more; citizen volunteers participating in the greatest political experiment the world has ever known: representative democracy. I don't think you'll find too many environmental research scientists or engineers or financiers as part of these governments. I'm aghast when I think of how much paperwork these citizens must have to pour over daily to assure compliance with one regulation or another. Well, we certainly don't have all the answers to help small communities through their trials, but we do have the will and determination at the EPA to try to be of assistance. One example of this is the recent appointment of a Small Community Coordinator at the EPA in Washington. This coordinator serves as an advocate for small community issues throughout the Agency. ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 EPA's Public-Private Partnership Initiative And another major response to these ever growing burdens has been the Public-Private Partnership or "P3" Initiative. We have charted this course because in the final analysis, financing is the engine that drives public policy forward. Without proper financing in the environmental area, all the regulations written in Washington will have little effect. The "P3" program has several key objectives: increase awareness about the potential for partnerships in the environmental arena, eliminate unnecessary the barriers to non-traditional financing mechanisms, and facilitate a dialogue between the public sector at the federal, state and local levels and the private sector across the country. Last year, we began a series of regional conferences designed to bring together representatives from governments, industry, the legal and financial communities, and academia to discuss what-it takes to create successful, working partnerships. We hope to spark new public-private ventures through these conferences and encourage the states to sponsor workshops for local governments like this effort today. We've held five regional conferences to date and more are planned in the near future. Are these conferences having any effect? Well, a North Carolina community recently formed a partnership after attending one of these sessions and is well on the way to environmental compliance. Achieving public acceptance of these partnerships takes a lot of work. So we at EPA have become actively involved in a number of demonstration projects. One such project is right here in Pennsylvania. A major objective of these hands-on projects is to build a body of knowledge about public-private partnership techniques and working experience in partnerships. We're also increasing the pool of successful partnerships that can serve as examples for other interested communities. Our demonstration program consists of small one-time grants from the EPA to help defray legal and financial expenses incurred when entering into a public-private partnership. By the end of this month, we will have funded ten such projects, and additional projects will be chosen annually beginning next year. In exchange for these grants, the recipient agrees to act as a model for other communities. This is an important requirement because we are looking to replicate success through this active body of knowledge. ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 The Environmental Financial Advisory Board ("EFAB") The last element of our P3 program, though certainly not the least, is the Environmental Financial Advisory Board or "EFAB" as we call it. It's made up of elected and appointed officials from towns, cities, counties and states as well as members from the federal government, industry, and the financial and banking communities. Two of our members come from communities with populations of fewer than five thousand people. This independent body is charged with advising EPA on financial issues as they relate to environmental management. We hope their recommendations will influence national policy in the future. The Board has several important goals: first, to study and recommend new ways to finance environmental infrastructure and program needs, A wide range of options are on the table including: environmental infrastructure bonds, infrastructure banks, income tax check-offs and the expanded use of state revolving funds. There is also some talk about an environmental trust fund to help capitalize environmental needs. The second goal is to review tax policy with an eye towards making recommendations that would make environmental financing easier. As you are all probably aware, many feel that the changes in the 1986 Tax Reform Act set up barriers to innovative financing. We are looking at many ideas, such as those proposed in Senator Pete Domenici's Environmental Infrastructure Bill, which was introduced in the last session of Congress. The Senator, who is a member of the Board, is recommending the creation of a new class of tax exempt bonds to finance environmental projects as well as provide other incentives for private involvement. The Board is also considering advocating a new direction in tax policy - the use of tax incentives to discourage polluting behavior. Identify financing solutions for small communities This third goal is perhaps the most ambitious. As we are painfully aware, there are communities which lack the basic environmental services. In this category are the smallest of communities which have found it impossible to meet their environmental needs. The Board is tasked here to find financial arrangements that have worked in the past or could work at the smallest community level. A special subcommittee has been formed to address this most pressing of issues and we are looking forward to its recommendations. ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Finally, the Board will be examining ways to encourage greater private investment in environmental infrastructure projects and environmental services. We have a number of private interests represented on the Board, so I'm sure we'll be seeing a wide range of proposals. Some of the ideas the Board is presently reviewing are changes in government procurement practices, regulatory provisions which discourage competition, and ways to mitigate risk for private investors. Priorities do change, especially in the environmental arena. But what has not changed is the continued growth in environmental protection programs. To meet those demands, EPA must become ever more responsive to state and local officials who are on the front line. To do so, we must be innovative. We need to support new ideas that bring groups together, so that lasting answers are found. The problem of infrastructure financing will only be solved by actions taken in every community across the country. Public-private partnerships are one solution. I think this conference will bring us a little closer to realizing how these partnerships can help our communities. ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 What are Public-Private Partnerships? Leonard Bechtel Public-Private Partnersh Resources Management Division Office of The Comptroller U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC The purpose of my presentation is to provide some background information on what a public-private partnership is and to define the different types of public-private partnerships. This afternoon's panel will review case studies that exemplify several forms of partnerships. In each of those case studies we hope to describe: implementation of the partnership; selection of the private partner; financing and procurement arrangements; and advantages and disadvantages associated with the partnership. Partnership Definitions "A public-private partnership is a contractual relationship between a public and private party that commits both to providing an environmental service." At least five types of public-private partnerships exist. They involve varying amounts of private involvement. The key features of each type of partnership are as follows: Contract Services In this type of partnership, the private sector is contracted to provide a specific municipal service, such as garbage collection or to maintain and operate a facility such as a waste treatment facility. The facilities are owned by the public sector. Contract services are most common in the solid waste area; the primary advantage is lower costs, or improved service delivery. The municipality also loses some control over operations. Turnkey Projects In this type of arrangement the private sector designs, constructs, and operates an environmental facility. The facility is still owned by the public sector. The private sector assumes more risk, and cost savings may result by working with only one contractor for design, construction and operation rather than two or three. These partnerships are pursued mostly in waste-to-energy and recycling facilities. ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Developer Financing In this type of arrangement, the private sector (usually private developers) finances the construction or expansion of an environmental facility in return for the right to build residential or commercial facilities. This type of partnership works best in growing communities since those responsible for growth pay for the expansion of the facility. Privatization In this type of public-private partnership, the private sector owns, as well as builds and operates the facility. They also partially or totally finance the facility. Private investment reduces public need for capital, but the municipality has reduced control over policy objectives. Merchant Facilities In this type of arrangement, the private sector makes a business decision to provide an environmental service to a community with the expectation that they will profit from the service provided. In merchant facilities not only does the private sector own and operate the facility as in privatization deals, but it also makes the decision to provide an' environmental service to a community. Merchant facilities are usually 100% financed with private sector funds; this type of financing, however, will not work for all types of environmental services. The chart (on the following page) depicts the general division of responsibilities between the public and private partner for potential activities according to each type of partnership. Note that as private involvement increases, two things happen: } the private sector invests more of its funds; and the private sector assumes more of the risk for the effective operation of the facility, Conversely, the greater the private involvement the less control the municipality has over the delivery and cost of the service. In deciding what kind of partnership is most appropriate, communities have to make trade-offs between these three factors: private investment, risk, and control. Partnerships have to be tailored to the needs of communities. Certain types of partnerships will work more effectively than others, depending on the requirements and needs of the community. ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20,1990 Activity Decision to Provide Services Financing Design Construction Ownership Operation & Maintenance Contract Services Public Public Public . Public Public Private Turnkey Facility Public Public Private Private Public Private Developer Financing Public Private Either Either Either Either Privat- ization Public Private Private Private Private Private Merchant Facility Private Private Private Private Private Private In summary, there are three considerations to keep in mind: there are many different types of public-private partnerships; a partnership must be tailored to meet the needs of a community; and advantages to public-private partnerships include lower cost, greater expertise, improved performance, and faster completion. As we listen to the case studies later today, we should seek to understand, first, what makes these partnerships successful, second, what was the advantage in using the private sector (reduced costs, speedier project completion, access*to specialized expertise) and, third, what were some of the barriers that had to be overcome in implementing the projects. ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill. PA September 20, 1990 Panel #1: Privatization: The Myths and Reality Moderator: Stephen Allbee Director, Planning and Analysis Division Office of Municipal Pollution Control U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC The purpose of this panel is to discuss the value and role of privatization in supporting public sector goals to provide environmental services. What and how much can be expected of the private sector to carry out publicly mandated services? Privatization may have much to offer in the provision of such service innovation, creativity, and flexibility in planning and carrying out projects are primary among them. It is a myth, however, to think that the public sector no longer plays a role in providing environmental services once they have been "privatized." Although the public sector may not be involved in daily operations, it must continue to work with the private partner to ensure that performance and policy goals are achieved. The panelists this morning will discuss the important roles that both public and private parties fulfill in order to ensure that partnerships occur as often as they can meaningfully contribute to environmental protection. Panelist: Cynthia C. Kelly Director of Environmental Programs International City Managers Association (ICMA) Washington, DC There is much to be said for public-private partnerships from the community's perspective. However, there are a number of considerations that local officials should keep in mind while exploring partnerships options. First, you need an impetus for action. In some cases this may be a strong and sustained crisis, such as lack of adequate wastewater treatment or drinking water supplies. Alternatively, there 10 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20. 1990 may be the threat of penalties for failure to provide a specific service or pressure from the public for action. Second, a sound, flexible plan to achieve its goal is critical The key here is good data and analysis. Planning for environmental services should involve an advisory group of stakeholders such as environmental interests, other public agencies, the private sector, affected interests and the public. Planning should seek to learn from the past, deal with political changes, and borrow sblutions from others. Third, communities should look for affordable solutions. They should understand there is no free lunch. Small communities are especially shackled by high per capita costs and should identify cost savings like using staff more and consultants less, seek out peer exchanges, and again, capitalize on the solutions others have found rather than reinventing them. Fourth, public involvement is important in order to prevent future surprises and to limit unanticipated costs. Survey the public in advance and ask exactly how much they are willing to pay and what they are willing to do. Present some options and use the input to refine the choices. And finally, open the decision making process to gain ideas and encourage participation, leadership, and responsibility on the part of the public. Fifth, projects work when there is strong project leadership. Find a leader and obtain a professional team with technical, financial, legal, and political expertise. And make sure the team can and does work together with a common purpose. Sixth, communities should use the media. It's a powerful tool for shaping public opinion. There is always the potential for opposition to the services that a community provides. The media can help educate and raise the awareness of the public and decision makers to enhance the debate and improve the prospects for informed decision making. 11 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990. Finally, all these things should take place in the context of considering the long-term needs of the community. Immediate and pressing problems need to be resolved. But they are best solved by thinking through the long-term implications rather than by a short- term fix. Panelist: James F. Hopkins Director of Marketing PSC Engineers & Consultants, Inc. No longer can the Federal government principally support the efforts to maintain our environment. Considering the fact that the current level of environmental protection programs will require the local public sector to spend an additional $20 billion per year by the year 2000; there is clearly a substantial need for utilization of the private sector in public-private partnerships. EPA's "Self-Help Guide for Local Governments" contains a matrix chart showing various types of partnerships and the roles of the public and private partners. The myth is that tax law changes have taken the attractiveness out of the business. While the impact is real, the fact is there are still many other potential arrangements. "Why Undertake a Public-Private Partnership?" Again, referencing the Self-Help Guide, there are five basic reasons to consider entering into a public-private partnership. As we review these reasons today, I'd like to provide some insight into the realities associated with these reasons. These insights are based upon personal experiences with successful P3 cases. As we do this it is important to understand the relationship of the private and public sector. All too often the ways of the private sector are dismissed as not appropriate because they are profit driven. Yet all the goods and services purchased by the public sector have a private sector source. In effect, what we are saying is while the ideology of the private and public sectors are different and perhaps incongruent, the real goal of EPA's Public-Private Partnership Initiative is to utilize the methodology of the private sector, which is tried, proven and constantly refined to satisfy a major need of the public sector. 12 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 There are a number of reasons for undertaking public-private partnerships: Access to more sophisticated technology As local officials, part-time volunteers in most cases in Pennsylvania, your awareness and access to technology may be limited. The private sector has greater capabilities, understands the limits of various technological applications, and is able to predict more accurately the costs and benefits. For example, the private sector was able to identify the utility of a wastewater treatment system with biological nutrient removal requirements. In Kerrville, Texas, Air Products was able to install its A/O process into an existing wastewater facility upgrading its performance levels from a 30/30 (BOD/TSS in mg/1) permit to 5/5 with seasonally varying NH^ and P limits and an increased plant capacity from 2.2 to 3.5 MGD. The alternative proposals using more traditional technology all proposed installing a second parallel facility. The project which included significant collection work was awarded at $6.5 million versus over $10 million for their competitors' more traditional approaches. In Upper Saucon Township (Lehigh County) Pennsylvania, again Air Products utilized its A/O technology for a new grass roots facility which provided the lowest cost alternative to the Township in response to a privatization bid in early 1988. All proposals were lower than the engineer's estimate for a design, bid, construct approach. On the drinking water side in Howell Township, New Jersey, PKF-Mark in was the successful bidder in a design/build or turnkey project for a 4.0 MGD water treatment facility. Utilizing the Krofta process, PKF Mark ffl provided the lowest cost alternative to the Authority. Kerrville and Upper Saucon are in operation and have been meeting permit requirements for over a year. Howell Township has not yet initiated operations. Cost effective design, construction, and/or operation The private sector offers several advantages to the public sector here, including an awareness for "the bottom line", experience, and timeliness. For example, municipalities and small utilities are often subject to the belief that "it costs what it costs", and so there is little desire to properly manage costs. However, if the private company wishes to survive it must properly control and manage costs. In addition, the private sector possesses substantial 13 ------- Pubiic-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 experience. Its employees are specialists who offer a variety of expertise, whose skills are available on an as-needed basis. For instance, the Borough of Lititz, Pennsylvania was concerned about increasing problems with quality and reliability of their water and wastewater treatment facilities, a 3.0 MGD and a 3.5 MGD facility, respectively. Lititz investigated several contracting operations and maintenance services and selected PSC Environmental Services, Inc. Since then, O&M costs have been reduced, and the community has been able to project costs more accurately. The wastewater treatment plant was recently awarded EPA Region III Operations Excellence Award. Finally, through a sole responsible party, the time between design completion and procurement of a construction contractor is minimized. Also, it may be possible to reduce the amount of review time required by regulatory agencies through the efforts a public-private partnership. In both Kerrville, Texas and Upper Saucon Township, the facilities were designed, permitted, constructed, and operating in less than 16 months. Flexible financing, including the use of private capital A third reason for investigating the viability of a partnership is the potential for flexible financing. Although most believe that financing advantages departed with the Tax Act, there is still room for the private sector to offer the public sector significant benefits. An obvious example of this is the use of private capital to fund environmental facilities. The private sector can also assist communities that have multiple capital financing needs, particularly those with insufficient debt capacity to pursue financing on its own. For example, PSC/ES is considering financing a water system for a county that wants to reserve its bonding capacity to support school and other community projects. Delegation of responsibility and risk Designing, constructing or operating new environmental facilities may far exceed the expertise of your municipal organization. The establishment of a public-private partnership can offer the capacity to have these skills and still be focused on (mutually) desired goals. These risks could include delay, plant performance or compliance, liabilities for costs, reliability of equipment and services, and future needs. Contract operations services traditionally include protection from fines for permit violations, back-up personnel and equipment for emergencies and technical services to address changing situations. Risk sharing options are available to offset contingencies for costly yet rarely expected occurrences. A risk issue on the Kerrville/ Texas project was the location of the collection 14 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 system since there were no studies made for certain potential expansion areas. The final contract included a listing of units and costs for piping allowances which would be finalized after a review of City needs. Guaranteed cost Finally, a fifth reason for partnering with a private firm is the cost guarantee for the development, construction, and operation of a facility. "Bottom-line" accountability for a major undertaking can be obtained from the private sector. By eliminating or reducing contingencies, it also simplifies the budget process. Panelist: Donald Rugh Planning and Analysis Division Office of Municipal Pollution Control U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC Partnerships between the Federal, State, and local governments already exist in the environmental protection field. Those of us at the Federal level acknowledge, however, that serious problems exist in financing our projects and programs. Something needs to be done. States and municipalities across the country face new Federal regulatory requirements, particularly in the surface water and drinking water areas. The partnership between EPA and communities in the Clean Water Act's Construction Grant program is evolving. Despite the phase-out of the Title II program and implementation of the State Revolving Fund program, the Federal government continues to be ready to lend its expertise and experience to the funding problem in order to protect its investment in the wastewater field. In addition, environmental projects and programs must compete with education, police, health care and other public programs for a shrinking piece of the public dollar. The Federal budget deficit continues to occupy the attention of Congress. Back to our topic today public-private partnerships. Changes to the Federal Tax Code Tax in 1986 and 1988 have made P3s more complicated. Rather than being involved because of the tax benefits granted to this class of projects, private companies must now consider the viability and profitability of each project. Let me assure you, opportunities still exist. To respond to constituent concerns about cuts in Federal aid to State and local governments, Congressman Beryl Anthony of Arkansas formed the 15 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20,1990 Anthony Commission on Public Finance in January of 1988 to review the effects of the 1986 Tax Reform Act on the ability of State and local governments to finance their growing responsibilities particularly in the infrastructure area. While the Commission's October, 1989 report applies to all infrastructure investment, it is particularly applicable to environmental infrastructure. The Commission recommended that tax provisions designed to prevent abuses to the system be re-examined. For example, bonds should be treated as tax-exempt if the facility to be financed is publicly-owned or the benefits from it accrue to the community at large. Limited exceptions to the arbitrage rebate requirements were also proposed. To encourage investment in these types of bonds, the Commission endorsed eliminating the tax-exempt interest preference for private activity bonds under the individual and corporate minimum taxes, eliminating tax-exempt interest from adjusted current earnings, and increasing the $10 million small-issuer exemption to $25 million to ease the placement of tax-exempt debt with banks. Pending federal legislation which is of interest to those of us in the P3 community include: S700 (Senator Domenici): would create accelerated depreciation and volume cap exemptions^ HR3138 (Representative Anthony) SI036 (Senator Leahy): the Private Partnerships Act would establish a local revolving fund with grants. S1296 (Senator Burdick): the Rural Water Assistance Act. S1331 (Senator Bentsen): the Farm Rural Development Act would direct State Revolving Fund loans and grants to economically disadvantaged communities. S1514 (Senator Bradley): includes provisions pertaining to Title n construction grant-funded property and the Title VI State Revolving Fund program, as well as expansion/upgrade of Title n-funded facilities by a privatizer. S2184 (Senators Baucus, Mitchell Byrd, Bentsen, Sasser, Aschel, Cohen, Jeffords, and others): the "Super bill" with three titles: (I) establishes a State Revolving Fund for small communities; (n) establishes a U.S. Corps of Engineers grant program for economically disadvantaged small communities; and (in) includes provisions from the Bradley bill (S1514) pertaining to encumbrance and title issues. 16 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hilt, PA September 20,1990 EPA is identifying and attempting to remove impediments at the Federal level to public-private partnerships. We've focused our attention on three areas: (1) federal tax policy; (2) the cost of proposed federal environmental legislation; and (3) new federal environmental regulations. Specific activities include: holding or participating in workshops like the one here in Pennsylvania. preparing and distributing publications, such as "P3s in Wastewater Treatment," as well as guidebooks and other self-help guides. coordinating our efforts with the Environmental Financial Advisory Board, the independent board of prominent representatives charged with suggesting innovative environmental financing techniques, as well as working to identify legislative and regulatory barriers to alternative financing. establishing an Environmental Finance Information Network to promote discussion of environmental finance issues. preparing case studies (like those we'll discuss later today). funding demonstration projects. Currently, the private sector is not permitted to own a facility in a partnership arrangement if the facility was financed with EPA Construction Grant funds. With the assistance of the Rural Community Assistance Commission (RCAC), EPA is trying to document how this grant restriction has hampered the ability of communities to deliver environmental services in the most cost effective manner. We hope that a more in-depth analysis will focus attention on the problems surrounding the definition of public ownership. In conclusion, a major objective of these hands-on projects and case studies is to build a body of knowledge about partnership techniques and working experience in partnerships. As John Sandy noted earlier, we're also increasing the pool of successful partnerships that can serve as examples for other interested communities. 17 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Panel #2: Affordability Moderator: Paul Marchetti Executive Director Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) Introduction The purpose of this panel is to highlight methods used to analyze and evaluate the overall financial condition of a community, focusing on the ability to "afford" or assume additional debt for new environmental projects or services. From their unique perspectives, panelists from the U.S. EPA and the Pennsylvania DER will discuss criteria used to analyze affordability as well as programs available to provide financial assistance to small communities for new environmental projects. Before I introduce the other panelists, I'll provide a brief overview of my organization, the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority or "PENNVEST". How PENNVEST Views Affordability PENNVEST was created some two and one-half years ago to make water and sewer projects affordable. The PENNVEST board of directors approves low-interest loans (1-6 percent interest) and some grants to owners and operators of sewer and water systems for infrastructure improvements. The awards are for design and engineering, feasibility studies (water only) or construction. Ceiling interest rates, the highest rates charged by PENNVEST within each county, are set by a formula in the 1988 enabling legislation. Loan interest rates are determined by county unemployment rates and the interest rate of the most recent Commonwealth General Obligation Bond. Counties with the worst unemployment receive the lowest interest rates. Using a computer model, PENNVEST staff further refines the interest rates charged to applicants. Staff use a computer model that calls for about 15 pieces of data. The most significant are: cost of the project, number of residential connections, and 18 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 present average annual residential user rate (i.e., the system's annual billing from residential customers divided by number of residential connections). If the proposed project will raise the average annual residential user rate significantly above the affordable level for that community, interest rates are lowered from the county ceiling. If a one-percent loan still results in rates above the affordable, the project may be eligible for some grant funding. Through September, 1990, the PENNVEST board of directors had approved 454 projects for funding. They included $615 million in loans and $35 million in grants. The maximum grant that the agency awards is $250,000 for water projects and $500,000 for wastewater. Grant funding can be no more than 50 percent of total PENNVEST funding. In the course of providing assistance to Pennsylvania communities, we've discovered that there are two perspectives concerning affordability that we must address the borrower's and the lender's. The borrower's primary concerns include total project costs, increases in user rates, and ultimately whether or not the community can afford the new project Our challenge is to make community leaders understand that PENNVEST can provide capital financing assistance to make a project more affordable than it would have been with traditional municipal debt mechanisms. The other aspect of affordability comes from the people who are going to lend us money to capitalize our fund. PENNVEST is also designed to have revolving funds, not only through the Clean Water Act's State Revolving Fund (SRF), but also with State money, that we can use to borrow and issue revenue bonds. Consequently, when we were structuring our first revenue bond issue during the summer of 1990, we realized that affordability is a very big issue to the bond rating agencies. These groups want to know what PENNVEST will do to make projects affordable so they won't go into default. We explained to them how we look at affordability, how we look at project cost, how we try to tailor our interest rate so that user rates are within a community's ability to pay. One of the rating agencies even asked as us to provide a detailed description of the models and criteria we use to determine affordability. In conclusion, affordability is a very central issue to PENNVEST. Our ability to answer the questions of our distinct clients will obviously determine how we borrow money now and in the future. 19 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Panelist: Thomas O. Maher Professional Engineer Water Management Division, Region 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Philadelphia, PA Many of the lessons learned about community "affordability" in the Clean Water Act Title II Construction Grants Program are still useful for municipal and State officials today. The purpose of my presentation, therefore, is to review the benchmark "screening" criteria used in the Title n program to identify high cost projects, look at various affordability criteria, and examine the methodology used to translate construction costs to user costs. My initial experience at U.S. EPA in the mid-1970's was to perform a function that wasn't very popular ... to eliminate high cost projects in the Construction Grants Program. In the heyday of the construction grants program, many municipal officials and others deferred answering the "affordability question", choosing first to select a treatment technology/facility design and then calculate project costs. Over the past few years, the declining role of the Federal government in financing wastewater treatment facilities has altered that attitude. Most communities now begin assessing their funding sources earlier in the process, asking "what funds are available and what can we afford to build?". I put an analysis together a few weeks ago to help a planning group that was working with 60 small communities in West Virginia that were facing enforcement action for operating in violation of the Federal Clean Water Act to build a sewer project. I used this to show them the screening criteria traditionally used to define a high cost project. Over the years, getting agreement on this definition has not been easy. At U.S. EPA, we traditionally use 1.5% user charge versus median household income as a benchmark indicator. As the Construction grant program began to wind-down over the last few years, many grant projects were coming in at 3% to 4% versus median household income. Consequently, I examined a randomly selected group of projects to test our 1.5% benchmark. The exhibit (on the following page) shows the "normal curve" for about 80 projects. What it tells us is that the mean of those projects is 1.0% and the mean plus one standard deviation is 1.5%. Our benchmark was accurate. Incidentally, West Virginia also uses the 1.5% benchmark; multiplied by the state-wide median household income, the State arrived at a figure of $240 as the maximum annual cost per household. (PENNVEST uses a rate of 1.3% to 2.6%.) 20 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20,1990 E.P.A. REGION HI ANNUAL USER CHARGE PERCENTAGE VS MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME $10,000- $17,000 (16 PROJECTS) f 1" 10 «=IO%=MEAN «= Iv = 13% = MEAN = STANDARD DEVIATION 10% LS% 2.0% ANNUAL USER CHARGE PERCENTAGE OF MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME (NORMAL CURVE) 21 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Supplemental Information Sheet This Supplemental Information sheet may be used by your community as the basis for an in- depth evaluation of financial condition. It outlines a method for assessing a community's relative financial strengths and weaknesses. What Is The Community's Debt History? Bonds Rating* Community'* mo«t recent general obligation bond rating Community1* mo*t recent revenue bond rating Outstanding Debt General Obligation Bond* Rating Rating Date of rating Date of rating <500) D. Revenue Bond* Gross Direct Debt Direct Met Debt Overlapping Net Debt Overall Nat Debt Other Debt New Debt lor Other Capital Improvement* Debt Repayment Schedule Total Overall Net Debt Due Onctudng new Iwue) within next 5 yew* Debt Limits Briefly describe any limit* on debt that apply to your community. |S04) (S05) (508) (507) (508) (SIS) What % of your debt limit I* currently used?. (SIT) What Is The Community's Financial Condition? MlOKtof nuny Indicator Indicatoi1 Slmng 1. Annual rale of change In population 2. Current surplus a* a % of total current expenditures 3. Real property tax coHecdon rate 4. Property t» revenues a* a % of lull market value el reel property 5. Overall net debt as a % of full nutrket value of real property 8. Overall net debt outstanding as % of pamonal tocorm 7. Direct net debt per capita t 8. Overall net debt per capita $ 9. % direct net debt outstanding due within next 5 year* 10. Operating ratio 11. Coverage ratio % Below -1% % Below 0% % Below 96% % Above 4% % Above 5% % Above 12% Above (750 'Above $1.000 % Below 10% % Below 100% % Below 120% -1% to 1% 0%to5% 6% to 98% 2% to 4% 3%taS% 4% to 12% *250 io*750 1450 to S1.000 «0%fo30% 100% to 120% 120% to 170% Above 1% Above 5% Above 08% Below 2% Below 3% Below 4% Be)ow*2» Below $450 Above 30% Above 12O% Abov*17O% (602) <*«! (816) 1620) (621) (630) (631) L 22 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 This analysis is flexible. It's hot carved in stone. We've done other studies over the years, both in the Regional Office and at U.S. EPA Headquarters in Washington. This is not the only indicator that should be used. Other "red flags" that should pop-up when looking at project cost include: annual cost of operation and maintenance ... try not to let that exceed $100 per year per household total project cost per household ... try not to let that get above $4,000 to $9,000 per household depending on how big (you) are ana other circumstances plant size ... try not to let plant costs exceed $4.50 of MGD size try not to let the user charge per household exceed $250 to $350 per year depending on the a community's wealth, population, and other variables. With information on benchmarks and screening criteria as a backdrop, let me now talk about some issues that pertain to communities that are able to borrow funds to construct a water project. The chart (on the previous page) is page 52 from U.S. EPA's Financial Capability Guidebook. The other 75 pages of the book explain how to complete it. The top of form enables a community to look at its debt history and get a feel for whether it has the ability to take on additional debt to fund a project. Generally, communities in Pennsylvania with a population of 25,000 or greater have debt limits. Much of the information to complete this section is gathered from mandatory annual audits and financial statements submitted by communities through the Commonwealth's Department of Community Affairs (DCA). If it's smaller than 25,000, we rely on other sources, such as annual reports and audits, accounting records, and bank statements. The bottom half of the form assesses community financial condition. This portion, which the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) helped us design, represents a simplified Moody's - Standard and Poors bond rating methodology and asks a series of questions to determine the financial strength of a community. The responses to these questions are placed into one of three categories: weak, average, and strong. In summary, this form allows a community to quickly assess its financial condition, determine if it has the ability to grow, and get an indication of revenue sources available to the community. Now, a brief word about how to work backwards to project cost and calculation of annual user charge rates. If a community, for example, has a 23 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 $4 million project, and let's assume that includes engineering, and bonding, and legal costs, and overhead, and profits, I use a factor of 10% to figure put the debt service on that. With a 20 year repayment term, that's: 10% x $4 million Project Cost = $400,000 Debt Service You then take that figure, plus your operation and maintenance costs (which you may have to estimate) and divide it by your customer base (I use the number of dwelling units or homeowners) to calculate the annual user charge rate needed to generate enough revenues to retire this loan and operate the facility. ($400,000 Debt Service) + (Annual O&M Costs) "Customer Base" = User Charge Rate In conclusion, wastewater treatment facilities are a major infrastructure investment for any community. The average cost for a new or upgraded treatment plant varies markedly with community size and its financial make- up. Read the U.S. EPA brochure, Less Costly Wastewater Treatment for Your Community, which contains a lot of information about technologies available and project costs, specifically the range of project costs. Panelist: Ted Fasting Chief, Planning & Management Section Department of Environmental Resources (DER) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Harrisburg, PA The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources works closely with PENNVEST in evaluating projects and identifying projects both for State and Federal funding. The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the recent user cost affordability surveys performed by DER, as well as the affordability model employed by the Commonwealth that tells you basically what interest rate you need to charge given the cost of the project in order to make it fall within the 1.0% to 1.5% user rate ranges discussed earlier by Tom Maher. 24 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 I'd like to make a couple of general observations or statements about affordability at the outset of my presentation: what's affordable varies for each community; many of the percentages used in the Pennsylvania model are based on nation-wide statistics, as well as historical data from EPA's Title II Construction Grants Program-, and affordability issues have been addressed too late in the Title II program, usually after the project planning phase. For the past year or so, one of the DER's primary goals has been to develop and implement our State Revolving Fund Program authorized under Title VI of the Federal Clean Water Act. During this process the Department began looking for community affordability indicators to replace those used, as Tom Maher has described, in the Title n Construction Grants Program. DER hoped these new indicators could also be used to assign affordable interest rates for the new SRF Program. In 1988 and 1989, the DER conducted community affordability survey within Pennsylvania which, in the final analysis, yielded results similar to the nationally-based U.S. EPA values or "user cost indicators". Our goal was to use those indicators to assess affordability and financial capability very early in the project planning process. As a result of our survey and U.S. EPA's Financial Capability Handbook, we created a computer model which essentially looks at a municipality's financial capability and "back calculates" a project cost that would fall within normal affordability criteria. Given the financial well being of the community and knowledge of the project scope (i.e., attain secondary treatment, collection system, etc.), a conscientious municipality can do a very thorough job through the planning process to come up with a viable project. In terms of interest rates, we are continuing to 'expand our use of the model to determine affordable interest rates for each assistance applicant, and recommend an ideal total project cost for the community. In conclusion, municipalities can take a number of actions to improve their affordability picture: address project funding at the project scoping phase; be more frugal in estimating project costs than (you) were in the construction grants program; 25 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 re-evaluate project options which call for use of innovative/ alternative technologies. (Under new Title VISRF program there is no financial incentive to use them like there was under the Construction Grants Program. Communities will save construction costs and O&M costs with a less fancy treatment technology): and look for opportunities in regionalization and cooperatives. (Look beyond project design/construction to facility management, pooling services/resources, and other cost sharing arrangements. This will be a challenge in Pennsylvania which has a very decentralized local government system.) Our evaluation of DER's affordability criteria showed that in Pennsylvania the indicators are a little bit higher than what the national numbers were. In fact, under the Grants Program, the median UCI (User Charge Indicator) number as a percentage of median household income was 1.32%, with some projects as high as 5.0%. These figures are based on survey responses from approximately 200 projects. In the non-grant cases, the average UCI was 1.1%, with some projects again as high as 4% and 5%. The most significant difference we observed as a result of our survey was that operation and maintenance costs were significantly higher for Construction Grant-funded projects. Why the difference? Some communities may not be maintaining their facilities as well as they should; conversely, Construction grant projects appear to be more expensive to operate and maintain than non-grant facilities. Results of the DER affordability survey indicated that costs for publicly- owned and operated facilities were similar to privately-owned. Our survey, however, was limited by a lack of data on "merchant" (privately-owned) facilities. Downingtown is probably the only such facility in the State. Preliminary results from a Auburn University study had similar findings. It should be released shortly. 26 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshopi: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Luncheon Speech The Honorable Stephen Reed Mayor Harrisburg, PA Welcome to the Greater Harrisburg area and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I'd like to begin my talk by highlighting some of the increasing financial pressures placed on local governments during the 1980's and their projected impact for the 1990's. In the early 1980's, Federal budget constraints forced cuts and the elimination of many programs near and dear to local governments. Deep cuts were made in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; revenue sharing was eliminated; and pressures to improve rapidly deteriorating public infrastructure continued to grow. New Federal and state mandates have increased local governmental costs. Tax increases at the local level have occurred throughout the nation. More tough times are ahead. Many experts predict the Savings and Loan scandal will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, with bailout costs coming principally from domestic programs. New Federal/State mandates in the environmental and other areas have been placed on the doorstep of local governments, particularly urban areas, along with the responsibility to find revenues to fund these efforts. The challenge for those of us at the local level is to balance the desire to improve the "quality of life" in our communities, while holding the line on the cost of public services, "the do more with less" struggle. These tough times, however, also present entrepreneurial opportunities for public managers. Now I'd like to talk about what we've been doing here in Harrisburg to address these challenges and turn them into opportunities. Eight years ago, Harrisburg, the capital city of Pennsylvania, was bankrupt. We had seriously diminished sources of funding, millions of dollars in unpaid bills, and had lost our credit rating. Federal funds were shut-off due to our poor financial management. "Out" migration of businesses and people (our population dropped from 90,000-50,000 between 1950-80) meant loss of needed tax revenues. Loss of tax-paying businesses and families was particularly devastating, as 50% of all real estate in Harrisburg is tax-exempt because of county or State-owned property. Significant declines in revenues, population and businesses, coupled with increasing legislative and regulatory burdens led the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1981 27 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 to list Harrisburg as the second most distressed city in the United States under Federal distress criteria. We rebuilt this city through public-private partnerships. We realized/ for example, that to pay the compliance costs associated with Federal and State laws, Harrisburg needed to undertake a serious economic development initiative to create business incentives, promote job growth, and rebuild our tax base. We discovered that these goals can and should be addressed simultaneously. We created a tax abatement/deferral program. A two-tiered millage rate system was implemented which taxed vacant land at a three-times higher rate than buildings as an incentive to development. Historic districts were named which allows a 20% investment tax credit for the rehabilitation of income- producing structures. A mortgage tax credit program was also instituted. Lets look at the results ... the number of businesses in the city increased from 1,905 to 3,738 between 1981 and 1990; available living units increased from 14,903 in 1981 to 20,028 in 1990; property values increased from $212 million to $758.4 million between 1982 and 1990; the number of vacant lots has dropped from 3000 to 700 over the past 8 years; the crime rate has fallen 24%; ' 6,442 new full-time jobs were created between 1985 - 1990; fti unemployment, which reached a high of 10% in 1982, currently stands at 5%; 'and the city has been able to attract over $850 million in new investments. Environmental Issues Harrisburg ho longer landfills its trash, we burn it along with the solid waste of many other communities at our resource recovery and cogeheratibh plant, the plant is currently operating at capacity. The two furnaces are surrounded by tubes of superheated water; the steam that is created is sbl'd to Bethlehem Steel> and to Harrisburg's downtown heating system. Electricity is generated from steam-driven turbines and sold to Pennsylvania Power arid 28 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Light Co. for use in homes, offices and plants. The (regeneration system creates new energy sources (steam/electric), ultimately reducing the cost of solid waste incineration, and avoiding use of foreign oil and non-renewable fuel sources. Further, methane gas from sludge processing at our wastewater plant, which used to be vented into the atmosphere, is now burned to generate electricity, also sold to PP&L. Heat from this process is recaptured and used to heat plant buildings, thus saving on fuel. have: In summary, resource recovery and cogeneration efforts in Harrisburg solved environmental problems by creating revenue sources from their by- products (trash, sludge, and wastewater effluent), created long term stability in the community energy source (steam, electricity),; and reduced our reliance on fossil fuels and foreign fuels. In conclusion, public-private partnerships are a win-win situation in Harrisburg. The public earns additional revenues for capital improvements. While Federal tax code limits don't make private ownership of this facility attractive right now, the private sector in Harrisburg gets a reliable, long-term supply of energy and solid waste and wastewater disposal. In conclusion, my key message is: "Economic development and environmental protection go hand-in-hand. Be creative!" 29 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Panel: Case Studies Moderator: Cathy Mastropieri P3 Coordinator Chief, Grants and Audit Management Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Philadelphia, PA Each of the following public-private partnership case studies seeks to identify how the partnership was implemented, why the private partner was chosen, what the financing and procurement arrangements were, and what advantages and disadvantages were associated with the partnership. As was noted this morning, we have much to gain from these experiences by seeking to: first, understand what makes them successful; second, determine the advantage gained by involving the private sector (e.g., reduced costs, speedier project completion, access to specialized expertise); and third, identify the barriers that had to be overcome in implementing the projects. The five case studies are: Case Study #1: Case Study #2: Case Study #3: Case Study #4: Case Study #5: Supporting the Operation and Maintenance of Drinking Water Systems at Mobile Home Parks in Berks County, Pennsylvania Dale Long, U.S. EPA, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA Michael Barsotti, PA Department of Environmental Regulation, (city) Dale Kratzer, PSC Engineers, (city) Wastewater Collection System Turnkey Project to Tie-in with the local Wastewater Treatment Merchant Facility in Welch, West Virginia Martha Moore, Mayor, Welch, W Formation of a Public-Private Partnership to Upgrade a Wastewater Treatment System in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania Judith Chambers, Borough Manager, Mercersburg, PA Partial Privatization of Wastewater Treatment in Downington, Pennsylvania Edward G. Conroy, Solicitor, Downingtown, PA Privatization of Residential Recycling in Conemaugh Township of Cambria County, Pennsylvania Rudy Galyda, Township Supervisor, Conemaugh Township, PA 30 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill. PA September 20, 1990 Case Study #1: Supporting the Operation and Maintenance of prinking Water Systems at Mobile Home Parks in Berks County/ Pennsylvania Co-presenter: Dale Long, U.S. EPA,Water Management Division, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA Region 3 of U.S. EPA became involved with the Public-Private Partnerships Program, particularly the Berks County mobile home parks project, due to our interest in small drinking water systems. Because many are in violation of drinking water standards, we wanted to see if the P3 approach would generate interest in finding solutions to their problems. The project was designed as a model for water systems to combine their resources in order to overcome the barrier of economies of scale. By sharing the costs of goods and services, including a trained system operator as a "circuit rider", the mobile home parks were able to improve their systems and return to full compliance with drinking water standards. Eleven mobile home parks were selected for this pilot program. At the end of the six-month program, all of the participating parks were in compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards. They worked together to achieve compliance with drinking water standards, learn more about current and future SDWA regulations, and provided a model for other groups of small systems. The U.S. EPA and American Water Works Association (AWWA) funded this public-private partnership to provide a training program and a circuit rider to a cooperative of mobile home park owners in Berks County. Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Resources (DER), along with the Pennsylvania Manufactured Housing Association (PMHA) led the effort by meeting with the participating system operators and obtaining their cooperation. PSC provided the technical expertise and the licensed circuit rider to carry-out the program. This type of cooperative program could be transferred to other small drinking water systems in the state and nation. It must be cautioned, however, that it is important to assess the needs of each prospective community, taking into account their willingness to cooperate, and the economic and legal incentives to do so. Involving all of the participants in the planning or feasibility study is critical to the success of the project. 31 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Co-Presenter: Michael Barsotti, PA Department of Environmental Regulation, Harrisburg, PA I'm glad to be here to talk about the lessons learned, from the DER perspective, in the Berks County mobile home park cooperative. All parties involved in the project face the same dilemma: how to achieve compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) with limited funds. Let's look at how the lessons learned in the Berks County project can help meet this challenge. The project setting is as follows: 2,500 community water systems in Pennsylvania, 54% are small (serving less than 3,000 people), 32% are mobile home parks, and all mobile home parks serve less than 3,300 people; 95% of the parks serve less than 500 people. Conditions at the small systems (particularly those serving less than 500 people), include: break even rates, limited reserves, diseconomies of scale, marginal operation and maintenance, and limited training time. Consequently, mobile home parks experience one or more of the following deficiencies: source problems (contamination or inadequate yield), inadequate treatment and disinfection, insufficient storage for emergencies, aging and leaking distribution systems, and/or poor operation and maintenance practices. These conditions and deficiencies lead small systems and mobile home parks to violation of SDWA regulations. For example, 1 of 10 small systems (and 1 of 5 mobile home parks) violate the bacteriological regulations. For these reasons, mobile home parks warrant a significant portion of the State's program effort. We at the State level face several administrative barriers to helping the small systems achieve compliance. Limited Federal and State budgets continue to be stretched by additional Federal regulations, and drinking water programs are in direct competition with other priorities, such as transportation. In addition, there are thousands of small water systems in the Commonwealth (85% serve less than 3,300 people). 32 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 To return to the Berks County cooperative, there are several lessons we learned that I'd like to briefly present. Owner's Attitude Initially, the owners adopted an "ostrich attitude" to the SDWA regulations, thinking of themselves as providers of rental home spaces, not as water suppliers. They are reluctant to incur new costs mandated by the regulations, and are especially wary of pending Public Utility Commission (PUC) rate control. Cooperative forum The cooperative provides a supportive forum for presenting and discussing drinking water issues and regulations, and for changing mobile home park owner attitudes. A monthly meeting was a vehicle for sharing information. Meeting locally at night increased the likelihood of attendance as it provided time outside their busy schedules to learn about the SDWA regulations. Owners learned from their peers, who have more credibility than a government official. This setting also gave State regulators the opportunity to collectively address drinking water issues and educate the owners reducing travel costs. Compliance Costs Operational compliance costs at mobile home parks centered around: source improvements; monitoring and treating for contaminants; providing certified system operators; updating operation and maintenance plans; and updating emergency response plans. Demonstrate Benefits In order to be successful, cooperative members must see the problem, the worth of solving it, and the dollars saved. Formal extension of the Berks County cooperative did not occur at the completion of the six month study for several reasons: the owner's immediate problems were solved; and the owners had sufficient resources and didn't need joint lab contracts, shared operators, or collective purchase agreements. We believe that mobile home parks in other areas of the State may be less financially secure and better motivated to continue such a cooperative. Cooperative Size Eleven members is probably too small for a successful cooperative. There is greater likelihood of continued benefits if the cooperative concept is moved to a larger group, regional area, or higher level organization. 33 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Involve Other Groups An entrepreneur could also be valuable in facilitating development of a larger group. An organization such as the PMHA or an entrepreneur could provide support functions such as: newsletters; regional meetings; water system needs assessment; interface with regulatory agencies; and contracts with laboratories, operators, and engineering firms. The key is to find and involve these groups and individuals. Ownership Characteristics The Berks County cooperative also taught us about the needs and capabilities of mobile home park systems. Before the project, we believed many owners were in marginal financial condition. Over the course of the study, we learned that the owner's mortgages are paid off, the average lot rent was $175/month; a 100 lot park generates approximately $200,000 annually. Consequently, these owners should be able to comply with current SDWA requirements, but other areas of the State may be different. Coordinate Enforcement and Support There is also a need to balance enforcement actions with technical assistance and support. Systems under compliance orders were motivated to participate in the cooperative. The provision of technical assistance and education as part of the enforcement process increased owner acceptance of the regulations. In summary, the Berks County project demonstrated that Pennsylvania will need a wide array of approaches to bring about small system compliance with SDWA regulations. An entity such as the Small System Coordinating Committee established by DER's Division of Water Supplies and the Pennsylvania Section of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) can be used to coordinate and manage these approaches. The final product of this cooperative project is a "How To" guidebook which will summarize the findings and provide steps for others to follow in forming a cooperative. It is available through the AWWA. The Bottom Line Improvement in compliance is the bottom line measure of success for the Berks County Mobile Home Cooperative Project. By the end of the six month pilot program, there were no remaining violations of the SDWA and operational requirements. Without the project many notices of violations, consultations, and follow-up actions would have been needed to provide the same level of compliance. In addition the mobile home park owners increased their understanding of the regulations and the need for them. 34 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 In conclusion, Pennsylvania DER's Division of Water Supplies view of this project is that a cooperative can provide many valuable functions that all contribute to improved SDWA compliance. These include: owners learn of SDWA requirements; owners help each other understand and accept the new regulations; owners can share their experience; and costs can be reduced for, operators and key laboratory monitoring. Administrative lessons for future cooperatives include: use localized activities; identify cost savings for participants; keep the group large enough to be self-maintaining; link the effort with a large facilitating support organization or entrepreneur; keep a balance between enforcement and assistance; and have someone coordinate the efforts. In another setting, this form of cooperative has the potential to work. Regulators and the water supply industry should consider providing services through cooperatives because various techniques must be applied to meet the challenges of the 1990's. Using public-private partnerships such as this one between DER, U.S. EPA, AWWA, and the water supply industry is an efficient use of limited funds to provide safe drinking water to the public. 35 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Co-Presenter: Dale Kratzer, PSC Engineers, Limerick, PA The purpose of my talk this afternoon is to provide additional background information and discuss some of the project highlights from the private perspective. When James Moore, Executive Director of Pennsylvania Manufactured Housing Association (PMHA), began looking at small system drinking water compliance, he took up the cause on behalf of his constituents because of the concern about stepped-up enforcement efforts by the DER. While enforcement activity has picked up quite a bit recently, mobile home park owners still haven't gotten the word. Their attitudes haven't changed. A couple of findings: All conversations with the mobile home park owners had to be kept simple. Most of the systems we worked with were small, with lot sizes ranging from 20 to 150 lots per park. They typically consisted of wells, some sort of disinfection unit, and a couple thousand feet of distribution piping. Yet when the DER and U.S. EPA talked with them in simple terms about industry- standard technologies, they seemed totally lost. As we explained and re- explained ourselves, one of the more pleasant things we found was that the owners really wanted to comply with the applicable SDWA regulations. The problem is that they have quite a bit to comply with today. Earlier, Mike Barsotti pointed out that the mobile home park owners don't think of themselves as community water suppliers. They need to face the facts ... if they don't have a water system, they don't have a mobile home park. Tie this together with a strong sense of independence and self-sufficiency, one can see that we had a lot of barriers to overcome to get the cooperative to work properly. Once we accepted these barriers and started looking at ways to overcome them, things became a lot easier. Over the course of the project, we identified two types of needs that have to be satisfied: one-time activities which related primarily to administrative compliance with SDWA requirements, things like permitting, operation and maintenance programs, and emergency response plans, and routine operation and maintenance of a very small drinking water system. Relating to an earlier observation, almost every one of the owners was a very astute businessman, but they really didn't understand small water systems or what was expected of them as operators. They were also very handy mechanically or electrically, and took care of many problems themselves, or 36 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill. PA September 20, 1990 had access to someone who could. Most had a very close relationship with their tenants and wanted to see them satisfied. Services Provided by PSC Some of the services we anticipated doing in this project included: helping the owners obtain the necessary training to become certified water system operators. Five of the six owners obtained this certification. another activity related to DER reporting requirements; we helped them create reports to keep track of what they were doing with their drinking water systems. This proved to be a difficult task, as most of the systems had one master meter for the entire park. In terms of the circuit rider services, we found that that tied-in very well with another service we anticipated we would provide: training the operators on the SDWA and compliance with it. A large portion of the circuit rider's time was spent educating the owners, for example, on why it is necessary to disinfect their water supply with chlorine. The consensus on the Berks County project is that there is much greater State agency awareness of the mobile home park situation. There are lots of nice people out there who want to do the right thing, but need guidance on how to do it. There were a number lessons learned. One of the key ones was the importance of having a facilitating organization, the PMHA. This group helped the owners determine exactly what they needed to do to comply with SDWA regulations. Another important lesson learned was that the technical and programmatic conversations among U.S. EPA, the DER, and AWWA were "Greek" to the mobile home park owners. We needed to continually simplify our discussions and educate the owners about what they needed to do. Finally, the end results of the project were that none of the systems were out of compliance, 5 or 6 of the owners became certified drinking water system operators, they all had operation and maintenance plans, and they all had a greater understanding of the SDWA requirements. All of this was accomplished in the context of a cooperative approach between regulators, private industry, and owners wanting to tackle their own problems. 37 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Case Study #2: Wastewater Collection System Turnkey Project to Tie-in with the local Wastewater Treatment Merchant Facility in Welch, West Virginia Presenter: Martha Moore, Mayor, Welch, VW Good afternoon. For those of you in the audience that were able to hear the Mayor of Harrisburg speak at lunch, and were possibly touched by the remarks he made about the plight of the city, you might want to get your handkerchief out for my story. I need to thank the EPA for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you today to tell you about what I think is a very unique and compatible partnership which the City of Welch has with Capels Resources. Historically, the City of Welch has tried to install a wastewater treatment system. For one reason or another that project has simply not become a reality. I could probably bore you today with a lot of excuses. However, there are a few points that should be established for you to better understand the situation that we face in our city. As we understand the situation, Welch is the largest city in the State of West Virginia without sewage treatment. We're not proud of the claim, and we're most anxious to give this title to another deserving community so that we can get on with a more positive claim. For those of you who are not familiar with Welch, I'd like to tell you a little about our town. Welch is a small town with beautiful people located in the mountains of southern West Virginia. Our topography is rather severe, with high steep mountains and low narrow valleys, with rivers at the base of every mountain. Many, many stone walls built with natural stone by Italian immigrants who came to work in the coal fields in the early 1900's, literally hold up almost every street, highway, home, or building in town. This sounds like a very attractive, picturesque setting until you try to design and organize a collection system. Then you better be prepared to pay for that lovely setting. As of this date, we have spent over $1 million dollars and presently owe our local bank $600,000. We're not even off the drawing board yet. This is due to "what looks good on paper, does not necessarily materialize into a feasible construction project". Our facilities plan indicated the vacuum system to be the most cost effective, thereby allowing us the opportunity to receive 75% funding. The system was designed, approved, and put to bed. To make a long story short, our project was a proposed $9.3 million doliar project, and the bids came in at $22.3 million. Needless to say, this was not an affordable project, and it meant back to the drawing board. Many changes were made, lines and 38 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 pump stations deleted, entire sections of town were cut out, and the project was again put to bid. This time the bids came in at $16.7 million. We were getting nowhere fast. Reality told us it was time to abandon the vacuum system and evaluate alternative means to develop an affordable wastewater system. And keep in mind we're talking about McDowell County, West Virginia, where the only industry as of this date is coal mining. Now if all of this isn't bad enough, and I think we were also one of the first cities in the entire country to be put under Federal court action to install a wastewater treatment facility, around 1985 the largest coal company in McDowell County pulled out, leaving thousands unemployed. Revenue sharing monies were halted, and the City of Welch had hit rock bottom. We led the nation for several years in unemployment, with rates in the 30's and 40's. There was nowhere to go but up, and the city had to make some very tough decisions. In order to keep the doors open at City Hail, truly innovative thinking . was put into action. We laid-off the entire 14 member paid civil service fire department, while being reminded that our homes would burn, our babies would be in them, and the fire truck would go into a ditch on the way to the fire. Metermaids were laid-off; street department personnel were laid-off; police officers were laid-off; and spending and hiring freezes were placed into effect. Simply speaking, every money-saving method known to mankind was utilized for some time. During this period, most of our energies went into getting back on our feet financially. A model volunteer fire department was formed which put our paid fire department to shame. Monies were raised at Saturday night bingo . games. We now own two new fire trucks, completely paid for, and all equipment is up to date. Our fire readiness has been reduced to a 6, and our response time, out of the State, is 3 to 4 minutes. Keep in mind also that these volunteer firemen have to come from their jobs to the station in order to get to the trucks. Our paid firemen received $350,000 per year to sit around the station just in case there was a fire, and their response time was not as fast as the volunteer department's is now. The message to this story is: they said it couldn't be done, it is being done, and has been for the last 5 years. It's a real success story. Of course our laid-off fireman filed suit against the city, as did the metermaids, but the city prevailed. Once the city's financial status began to stabilize, we continued our ongoing efforts on the sewer system, only to have the Federal Government realize that they too had to cut back some money. The newer concept, without vacuums, went from 75% to 55% Federal funding. This only added to our design limits. Our partnership began to develop at this point. Capels Resources, Inc., a West Virginia corporation, had already entered into an agreement with McDowell County communities for the construction 39 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 and operation of a solid waste facility. As part of that agreement, Capels will be required to treat its leachate, a liquid produced by landfills, by diluting it with a county community's wastewater stream. With these thoughts in mind, I approached Capels Resources about handling the wastewater from the Welch. Capels was receptive to our thinking, and a real partnership was formed. The entire project was based upon need; we need Capels, and Capels need us. Environmentally speaking, we are very grateful to each other. Capels will build a treatment plant which we could not afford, and treat our wastewater at no cost to us. We will also benefit Capels in several ways. First, the cost for treating their leachate will be reduced when it is diluted with our wastewater. In addition, we will continue to provide Capels with good will, support, legitimacy, and respect. The benefit to us will not only be having a new plant built, but we would also be relieved of the annual financial burden of operating such a plant. We believe it will be a state of the art project, and feel that it will also be something that will lead to economic development in McDowell County. The plant will also be capable of treating all wastewater in the county. Even after we developed this concept, we still did not have the funds to continue our design. This is when Cindy Kelly and the International City Managers Association came on the scene. Through their efforts we were able to receive funding to proceed with the new engineering study. This is the first step in developing a gravel-type wastewater collection system. This plan has not transpired over night, nor has it come about by sitting behind a desk. It has taken a very sincere effort on all partners. I've spent many days in Charleston lobbying our cause. We believe this plan is beneficial for all parties concerned, and will serve the environmental needs of our community. Quite frankly, for a partnership to work, it has to foster mutual trust, mutual dependence, and mutual need. We, the City of Welch, need this plant in order to grow economically and gain that more positive claim which we feel we so richly deserve. 40 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Case Study #3: Formation of a Public-Private Partnership to Upgrade a Wastewater Treatment System in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania Judith Chambers, Borough Manager, Mercersburg, PA This afternoon I'd like to give you a brief description of Mercersburg, talk about the history of our wastewater project, tell you where we are today, and identify some of the biggest barriers we encounter today. Mercersburg is in Franklin County in south-central Pennsylvania, about an hour and a half from Harrisburg. Our population is about 1,700. Our community is stable and very self-contained. We have industry, a good retail trade, and although the county seat is nearby, we seem to have enough of our own banking and downtown institutions to keep us going. We're also one of the most polluted sites along the Texas-eastern gas transmission pipeline project. We are home to Mercersburg Academy which is a very prestigious prep school, as well as the lovely Mercersburg Inn. We are the boyhood home of President James Buchanan. Mercersburg is also under a schedule for compliance in both water and wastewater. We're looking at, by the time we get done, over $3 to $4 million of construction. This may not seem like a lot, but when you're looking at a town of 1,700 people, with a significant number of fixed income elderly, it starts to hit pocketbooks pretty quickly. We are also a council-manager form of government. This is significant for two reasons as it relates to this project: it got us to International City Managers Association (ICMA) very quickly; and we had some of the resources in place to try to move ahead with the project. Our community originally had a .22 MGD trickling filter plant which we were going to upgrade to a .30 MGD activated sludge plant to accommodate a minimal projected increase in our population over the next 20 years. Just as we were about to award a contract for the design of our activated sludge plant, the Borough Council was visited at a public meeting by a scientist who designs land treatment spray irrigation wastewater systems. He was accompanied by citizens of the community who claimed the Borough hadn't given adequate consideration to other more cost-effective treatment systems, such as land treatment. The Borough had not heard of land treatment spray irrigation before, and consequently was led to believe it was cutting edge technology (which it is not). The Borough Council then decided that land treatment spray irrigations was a viable treatment technology after reviewing a feasibility study. This study was financed by a $2,500 anonymous donation through the Mercersburg 41 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Academy. We also had both our sewer engineers (who developed the original activated sludge plant design) and the hydrologists from our well drilling program take a look at the study. Since Mercersburg is located in the middle of limestone territory, both groups opposed the spray irrigation system because of the potential for ground water contamination. At this point, Mercersburg turned to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) to review the land treatment spray irrigation plan for feasibility. The DER sent out people to review the proposed project and after a long delay told us that a spray irrigation indeed could work in Mercersburg, and that limestone was not a problem. At that point we decided to break out the two issues that were before us: choice of technologies, and the concept of privatization. Our next step in this long journey was to get involved with ICMA and U.S. EPA Region 3, where we received a lot of hands-on technical assistance to look at the spray irrigation wastewater system technology. We eventually decided to go ahead with it, and chose to pursue privatization as well. The private partners consisted of the scientist based in Chicago (who had initially proposed the land treatment option to the Council), as well as a team of local construction contractors and land developers in Mercersburg. While the local parties were familiar to the Board, they were just as inexperienced as the Council was in entering into a public-private partnership. This led to a bit of confusion at the negotiating table about how to structure the deal. Ultimately, Mercersburg basically did what we should have done earlier. We hired some financial and legal consultants to help structure the partnership. Consequently, we have moved from a completely privatized facility (which would be built, operated, and owned by the privatizer), to a partnership which has a mix of public and private involvement (such as a turnkey facility, and lease-purchase arrangement, etc.). We haven't selected the specific partnership format yet. In terms of what we've learned form this process so far, we found that while both partners appeared to be committed to the project, it was a different story when it became time to "put money on the table". Consequently, our first lesson learned is that you need to find some way to gauge the level of commitment on both sides of the table. 42 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill. PA September 20, 1990 In summary, our critical keys to success: getting a level of commitment from all the parties involved, having Borough Council consider a broader range of technologies, including spray irrigation, separating the technological issues from the financial/privatization issues allowed us to build momentum as we entered into the partnership discussions, involving local companies (Because we were familiar with them we had a greater level of comfort about the entire project), and working to find the most cost effective options (Although the route we pursued might not have been the easiest, we are secure that it will be the best choice in the long run). 43 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Case Study #4: Partial Privatization of Wastewater Treatment in Downing town, Pennsylvania Edward G. Conroy, Solicitor, Downingtown, PA Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about our experiences in the Downingtown area. In the early 1980's, the existing wastewater treatment facility servicing the Borough of Downingtown and the surrounding cities of Cain, East Cain, Uwchland, and West Whiteland was near capacity. Located in southeastern Pennsylvania, the five communities range in population from 8,530 (Downingtown) to 12,101 (Uwchland). Median household income falls between $20,963 (Downingtown) and East Cain ($30,778). A task force of representatives from the five communities worked together to explore alternatives for meeting the area's increased water demand. We eventually joined together in 1985 to form the Downingtown Area Regional Authority (DARA), to arrange for the financing, construction, and operation of an expanded and upgraded wastewater treatment plant. Downingtown considered undertaking the facility's expansion and upgrade itself. Obtaining the financing needed for a project this size, however, was difficult given the small size of the municipality. As a result, we determined that there was a definite advantage to partially privatizing the wastewater treatment plant. Such an approach would not only help finance the project, it was thought that it would also result in improved operation and maintenance of the facility. Consequently, in a competitively negotiated procurement process, DARA issued a Request for Proposals (RFP). After reviewing the ten bids that were submitted, DARA selected and entered into a limited partnership (Parsons Downingtown Associates) with Parsons Municipal Services to design, construct, and operate the wastewater treatment facility. The responsibilities of Parsons Municipal Services were itemized in a twenty-year service agreement. Parsons later subcontracted the operation and maintenance of the facility to Engineering-Science, Inc., one of their affiliates. The capital costs associated with the expansion and upgrade of the wastewater treatment plant were financed by issuance of $10.4 million dollars of tax-exempt industrial revenue bonds. The limited partnership of Parsons Downingtown Associates was able to issue the bonds because they pledged anticipated user charge revenues from the system as collateral. Several financial advantages were obtained by using the limited partnership to issue 44 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 the bonds, including accelerated depreciation, tax-free borrowing privileges, and tax credits. In summary, then: DARA retains ownership of the existing wastewater facility and is responsible for compliance with environmental permits; the limited partnership of Parsons Downingtown Associates owns the expanded part of the facility, issues industrial revenue bonds to finance the project, and is also responsible for compliance with environmental permits; Parsons Municipal Services designed and constructed the facility's expansion and upgrade; and Engineering-Science, Inc. operates and maintains the facility Before any construction could begin, however, DARA had to assure the U.S. EPA that the new operating arrangement with Parsons Downingtown Associates would not violate any of the terms of Construction Grants (issued under Title II of the Federal Clean Water 'Act) that were used to build Downingtown's existing wastewater treatment facility. Favorable Federal tax laws contributed to this project's success because they affected construction bids. Because Parsons Municipal Services entered into a limited partnership they were able to lower their "bottom-line" costs, as this arrangement offered them cost savings derived from accelerated depreciation, tax-free borrowing, and tax credits. In conclusion, the biggest lesson we learned from this project is that combining the responsibility for facility construction with facility operation helps to lower the project's overall costs, and increases the quality of the services delivered. I believe that because DARA was able to contract with one firm that possessed extensive expertise, they were able to provide a public service at a more reasonable cost than if they had undertaken the project themselves. 45 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20. 1990 Case Study #5: Privatization of Residential Recycling in Conemaugh Township, Cambria County, Pennsylvania Rudy Galyda, Township Supervisor, Conemaugh Township, PA Thank-you and good afternoon. I guess I'm the last one up here so I'll try to be brief. I appreciate being given the opportunity to again talk about the residential curb-side recycling program we began in Conemaugh Township back in 1988 as a public-private partnership with Total Recycling, Inc. Our community is located in Cambria County which is in south-central Pennsylvania. Our latest population figures tell us we have approximately 5,220 residents, with an annual household income of $24,000. Escalating landfill fees forced us to look for ways to decrease the volume of waste we send to our landfills. In order to direct the Township in its waste reduction efforts, a recycling task force comprised of Township Supervisors was formed. The task force worked to pass an ordinance that empowers the Township to enforce compliance with the residential recycling program. Two obvious options were then considered for providing this environmental service: provide the service ourselves, and contract for the service Conemaugh Township decided that we would not operate the residential recycling program because the private sector would probably be better at marketing the recycled materials and had more experience in this particular industry. The initial capital costs associated with the curb-side recycling program were covered by Total Recycling and a grant we received from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER). The company estimates it spent approximately $8,400 to develop and implement the program. The Township received nearly $6,900 from the DER to purchase the residential recyclable containers. Ordinarily, Total Recycling would charge a community a weekly operations fee for collecting waste. Because the company considers this partnership to be a pilot program (the first they've implemented), no fee is levied against the Township. Revenues that the firm receives from the sale of collected recyclable materials are used to cover operating expenses. Total Recycling also receives a small amount of money from Conemaugh's State , 46 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 grant. The amount of money received is a function of or is based on the volume of waste that is diverted from the landfills. The Township signed a contract with Total Recycling stating that as long as residential recydables were collected on a weekly basis, they are entitled to any profits generated from the sale of the collected materials. In addition, the contract remains valid as long as both parties wish to participate. Either party can unilaterally break the contract by giving 90 days notice to the other party. We work with Total Recycling, Inc in a number of ways to build public support. The Township's Board of Supervisors holds open meetings to encourage public participation. Educational outreach programs which demonstrates the benefits of recycling are held in our schools. In summary, the division of responsibilities is depicted below: Total Recycling, Inc. owns the recycling facility and the land on which it is located, arranged for facility financing prior to this contract, * operates and maintains the recycling facility, assisted in preparing the Township's DER grant application, and * assisted in promoting residential recycling by providing public, educational materials and presentations. Conemaugh Township assists in promoting residential recycling, entered into a contract to provide residential recycling services, and * assisted in preparing the DER grant application. By contracting with Total Recycling for curb-side collection of residential recyclables, the township has been able to reduce the the total volume of waste they send to landfills by approximately 50 percent, and reduced our landfill tipping fees by approximately $24,000 per year. The decline in the volume of waste that the township needs to transport to landfills has been so significant that we now collect trash for an adjacent community. Collecting trash for the other community yields Conemaugh Township approximately $60,000 per year. Since this additional trash collection effort does not require staff increases, the revenue Conemaugh Township receives can be directly added to the township's budget. In conclusion, this project was successful because of the high participation rate of Township residents. A survey conducted by Total 47 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 Recycling, Inc., revealed that nearly 96% of all residents participated in the program. Without the support of the public, the volume of waste reduced and the associated reduction in landfill tipping fees would not have been as dramatic. 48 ------- List of Workshop Attendees A-B Steven Allbee (*) U.S.EPA . Office .of Water 401 M Street, SW (WH-546) Washington, DC 20460 Kim D. Barnes Northern Tier RPDC 507 Main Street Towanda,PA 18848 Michael Barsotti (*) PA Dept. of Environmental Resources 101 S. 2nd Street P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg,PA 17105 Leonard Bechtel (*) U.S. EPA, Ofice of Administration and Resources Management 401 M Street, SW (H3304) Washington, D.C. 20460 Dennis E. Black Dennis E. Black Engineering, Inc. 2400 Philadelphia, Avenue Chambersburg, PA 17201 Michael Burda Blythe Township Water Authority 375 Valley Street New Philadelphia, PA 17959 Ms. Judith K. Chambers (*) Borough Manager 113 South Main Street Mercersburg, PA 17236 Charles L. Clark Borough of Boyertown 100 S. Washington Street Boyertown, PA 19512 Mr. Edward Gerard Conroy (*) 999 West Chester Pike P.O. Box 885 West Chester, PA 19381-8865 C (cont.) Edward Corriveau PA Dept. of Environmental Resources One Ararat Boulevard Harrisburg,PA 17110 Robert Crum Center Regional Planning Commission 131 South Fraser Street State College, PA 16801 D-E Paul Direnzo, Jr. R.D.#4Box4060 Pottsville, PA 17901 Mr, Fred E. Esmond New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233-3750 Ellen Fahey U.S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources Management 401 M. Street, SW (H-3304) Washington, D.C. 20460 Tom Fairchild, Manager Towanda Municipal Authority 724 Main Street Towanda, PA 18848 Ted Fasting (*) PA Dept. of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 2063 15th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg. Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 Paul Fosko PA Dept. of Environmental Resources 90 East Union Street, 2nd Floor Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 49 ------- K Mr. Rudy Galayda, Jr. (*) R.D. #2 Box 183 Kimberly Drive Johnstown, PA 15904 Vincent G. Gallo U.S. EPA-Reg. Ill (3WM26) 841 Chestnut Bldg. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Christopher Gibbons Public Financial Management, Inc. 2101 North Front Street Suite 200 Harrisburg,PA 17110 H Roger K. Hepner, P.E. Mid-Penn Engineering Corp. P.O. Box 51 2033 West Market Street Lewisburg,PA 17837 James T. Hockensmith L. Robert Kimball & Associates 615 West Highland Avenue Ebensburg,PA 15931 Ellen Hoffa U.S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources Management 401 M Street, SW (PM-216F) Washington, D.C. 20460 James P. Hopkins (*) PSC Engineer & Consultants, Inc. 649 North Lewis Road Limerick, PA 19468 Ralph M. Hutchinson Millersville Boroughs 10 Colonial Avenue Millersville, PA 17551 J Kathleen Jerioski National Solid Waste Management Association 340 N. 3rd Street, Suite 208 Harrisburg,PA 17101 Rick Kainry PA Dept of Environmental Resources 1012 Water Street Meadville,PA 16335 Cynthia C. Kelly (*) Director of Environmental Programs, International City Managers Association 777 North Capitol Street, NE " Washington, DC 20002-4201 Arthur Kiholski Lake Engineering 140 Meadville Street Edinboro,PA 16412 Dale Kratzer (*) PSC Engineer & Consultants, Inc. 649 North Lewis Road Limerick, PA 19468 L-M Dale E. Long (*) U.S. EPA, Reg. Ill (3WM41) 841 Chestnut Bldg. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Albert Lubinsky Blythe Township Water Authority 375 Valley Street New Philadelphia, PA 17959 Tom Lyglio EG & G - Dynatrend 312 Highland Lane BrynMaus,PA 19010 Roxann N. MacAvoy Prince & Rhoads Twenty North Market Square Harrisburg,PA 17101 Thomas O. Maher (*) U.S. EPA, Reg. HI (3WM23) 841 Chestnut Bldg. Philadelphia, PA 19107 William Malinich 200 Pine Street Williamsport, PA 17701 50 ------- M (cont.) R Paul Marchetti, Executive Director (*) PA Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) 22 S. 3rd Street Harrisburg,PA 17101 James McSweeny PSC Water Service 190 S. Warner Road Wayne, PA 19087 Dale Mills PA Dept. of Environmental Resources Highland Building, 6th Floor 121 S. Highland Mall Philadelphia, PA 15206 Ms. Martha Moore, Mayor (*) City of Welch Welch Municipal Building 88 Howard Street Welch, WV 24801 N-O Don Niehus U.S. EPA (WH-546) Office of Water 401 M Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20460 Bill Niess American Mangement Systems, Inc. 1777 North Kent Street Arlington, VA 22209 Margaret P. O'Malley Winsor Associates Box 432 Ardmore,PA 19003 David Osterman (*) U.S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources Management 401 M. Street, SW (H-3304) Washington, D.C. 20460 Jacqueline Pine U.S. EPA (3WM23) 841 Chestnut Bldg. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Stephen R. Reed, Mayor (*) City of Harrisburg 10 N. Market Square, Suite 202 Harrisburg, PA 17101-1678 Charles Rehm 1875 New Hope Street Norristown, PA 19401 Joseph Rontty Blythe Township Water Authority 375 Valley Street New Philadelphia, PA 17959 Edward Ruch PA Dept. of Environmental Resources One Ararat Boulevard Harrisburg, PA 17110 Donald Rugh {*) U.S. EPA, Office of Water 401 M Street, SW (WH-546) Washington, DC 20460 Mr. John J. Sandy (*), Director Resource Management Division, Office of Administration and Resources Management, U.S. EPA. 401 M Street, SW (H-3304) Washington, DC 20460 J. Erick Schaeffer Attwoods Env. of Penna. 1851 McGuckian Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Frank Schutz West Virginia University National Small Flows Clearinghouse P.O.Box 1071 Morgantown, WV 26507-1071 William Seigel Dan Helwig SEDA - Council of Governments R.D. #1, Timberhaven Lewisburg,PA 17837 Gerald C. Smith Vice-President American Water Works Service Company 800 West Hersheypark Drive Hershey, PA 17033 51 ------- S (cont.) Marie Sotak Charles Kuder PA Dept. of Environmental Resources 15th Floor, Fulton Building Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 Tina L. Spangler City of York 50 West King Street Box 509 York, PA 17405 George Steese, Manager Borough of Miffinburg 333 Chestnut Street Miffinburg,PA 17844 Ralph Sullivan 1004 Loxford Terrace Silver Spring, MD 20901 w William T. Wisnieuski U.S. EPA-Reg. Ill (3WMOO) 841 Chestnut Bldg. Philadelphia, PA 19107 52 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 EPA Office of The Comptroller Public-Private Partnerships Initiative Staff John J. Sandy Director Resource Management Division (202)382-4425 David Osterman Chief Resource Planning and Analysis Branch (202) 382-8227 Staff: George Ames Leonard Bechtel Margaret Binney Alicia Crichlow Ellen Fahey Kim Lewis Joanne Lynch Timothy McProuty LaShon Pierce Eugene Pontillo Ann Watt EPA Regional Offices P3 Coordinators Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 8 Region 9 Region 10 Boston New York Philadelphia Atlanta Chicago Dallas Kansas City Denver San Francisco Seattle George Mollineux Alice Jenik Cathy Mastropieri Tom Nessmith Rosalie Day Bob Carson Gene Ramsey Kathleen Anderson Marsha Harris Matt Coco (617) 565-9442 (212) 264-9860 (215) 597-4149 (404) 347-4728 (312) 353-6324 (214) 655-6530 (913) 551-7365 (303) 293-1454 (415)454-1635 (206) 442-0705 53 ------- Public-Private Partnerships Workshop: Camp Hill, PA September 20, 1990 For More Information: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 597-4149 54 ------- |