&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of The
Comptroller
(PM-225)
June 1989
Alternative Rnancing For
Solid Waste
General Proceedings
Region 4 Conference On
Public-Private Partnerships
April 19-21, 1989
Atlanta, Georgia
Prinjttl on Ricyelt4Poptr
-------
Preface Conference Proceedings and Action Agenda
These edited proceedings are from the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's first regional conference on public-private partner-
ships, "Alternative Financing for Solid Waste," which was held in
Atlanta, Georgia on April 19-21,1989. The Conference was co-spon-
sored by the States in Region IV. Also attached is an Action Agenda,
developed during the Conference, which outlines roles for key
players in this initiative. We ask that you provide us with your
views and comments on the ideas and suggestions presented during
the Conference. As you pursue the public-private partnerships
option, we hope you find the materials useful and informative.
Charles L. Grizzle
Assistant Administrator
Office of Administration and Resources Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Greer C Tidwell
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
-------
Region 4 Proceedings Table of Contents
Page Title
Conference Welcome
Greei C. Tidwell
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
3 Keynote Address: Financing Environmental Protection:
A National Challenge
Charles L. Grizzle
Assistant Administrator
Office of Administration and Resources Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
7 First Session: The Federal Perspective
11 Second Session: State and Local Perspective:
A Panel Discussion
15 Third Session: Research into Public-Private
Partnerships
21 Fourth Session: Barriers to Implementing Public-
Private Partnerships:
A Panel Discussion
25 Luncheon Speech: The Florida Solid Waste Law
Dale Twachtmann
Secretary
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
27 Fifth Session: The Waste Industry Perspective:
A Panel Discussion
-------
Page Title
29 Sixth Session: Presentation of Case Studies
29 Case Study #1
31 Case Study #2
32 Case Study #3
33 Case Study #4
35 Case Study #5
37 Case Study #6
Putnam County, Florida:
Collection, Landfilling, and Recycling
(In Progress)
Berrien County, Georgia:
Recycling Solid Waste at the Landfill
(In Progress)
Elk River Resource Recovery
Authority: A Regional Approach
(In Planning Stages)
Savannah Resource Recovery Project
(Successful)
Lee County, Alabama:
A Privately Owned Regional Landfill
(Successful)
Conway, South Carolina:
A Municipal Solid Waste System
(Successful)
39 Seventh Session: Future Public-Private Partnership
Activity
43 Luncheon Speech: Federal Directions in Public-Private
Partnerships
John Sandy
Director
Resources Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
45 Action Agenda: Key Roles
-------
Region 4 Conference Welcome
Speaker
Broad conference
representation underscores
the importance of Public-
Private Partnerships (P3)
Conference Theme: How to
Fund Solid Waste
Management and Disposal
Greer Tidwell
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Welcome to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV,
Public-Private Partnerships Conference on Alternative Financing for
Solid Waste. To begin with, I would like to thank everyone here for
taking the time to attend. I would also like to thank the Region IV
staff and those administrators in each of the eight states of the Re-
gion who all helped tremendously in organizing this conference.
Attendance at this conference reflects broad representation from
both the public and private sectors. Officials from Federal, state, city,
and county governments, regional councils, waste management
companies, academia, and other public and private groups are
present. The wide range of attendees' affiliations emphasizes the
importance and timeliness of public-private partnerships and the
promise of their extensive and successful operation in the field of
solid waste management.
Paying for appropriate environmental controls has steadily become
more difficult. At least two significant trends account for this diffi-
culty. First, public funding at all levels for environmental protection
is being constrained for a variety of reasons. Second, environmental
responsibilities are putting even more strains on traditional funding
sources.
This conference will focus on alternative ways to finance environ-
mental protection. Specifically, we will address the question of how
to fund solid waste management programs through joint public and
private sector participation.
We welcome your interest, advice, and support.
-------
Keynote Address Financing Environmental Protection:
A National Challenge
Speaker Charles L. Grizzle
Assistant Administrator
Office of Administration and Resources Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
In many areas/ the quality of the environment has improved. Com-
pared to 20 years ago, the air we breathe is cleaner, and the water we
drink is purer. However, in these and other areas, particularly solid
waste management, much work remains to be done with limited
traditional financial resources.
EPA's budget alone will
not meet growing
environmental financing
needs
P3 can help bridge the gap
The public strongly supports environmental protection goals. As a
result, the Congress has passed and reauthorized major environ-
mental legislation in the past few years. The programs created by
Congress to further improve environmental quality require adequate
funding. With recurring national budget deficits and the 1986 tax
law reform, traditional funding sources are no longer reliable.
Given this state of affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency's
budget alone will not keep pace with the growing demands for
environmental financing. The shortfall between needs and available
resources endangers the nation's environmental agenda. Local
governments, where much of the responsibility for implementing
and operating environmental programs rests, will suffer most from
the scarcity of Federal dollars.
The Public-Private Partnerships (P3) Initiative is one EPA response to
the challenge of financing environmental protection. Public-private
partnerships have the potential to bridge the gap between demands
and resources while sustaining the gains already achieved in the
environmental arena.
Partnerships can reduce
costs by speeding project
completion and employing
innovative ways to provide
services
The EPA P3 Initiative focuses on the areas of wastewater, drinking
water, and solid waste disposal. These areas have been chosen
because of their capital intensive nature and their traditional provi-
sion, maintenance, and improvement by government. Public-private
partnerships can reduce costs in these areas by speeding up comple-
tion of projects and facilities and identifying and employing innova-
tive ways to provide services.
-------
Regional conferences can
foster an exchange of ideas
onP3
EPA has taken a leading role in promoting public-private partner-
ships. A Steering Committee and Task Force on public-private
partnerships has been established, as has a public-private partner-
ship support staff within the Office of the Comptroller. Regional
coordinators have been designated. These Agency groups have been
able to:
• Focus the Public-Private Partnerships Initiative;
• Initiate and encourage dialogue concerning partnerships;
• Define barriers to successful partnerships; and
• Direct specific attention to financial issues.
Last October, EPA sponsored a National Leadership Conference on
Building Public-Private Partnerships. It successfully initiated a
dialogue between public and private groups interested in establish-
ing partnerships to provide environmental services. A major recom-
mendation of the national conference was to hold similar regional
conferences that would foster an in-depth exchange of ideas on
public-private partnerships, including assessments of their viability,
the mechanics of establishing them, barriers to their successful start-
up and operation, and creative means of promoting them. This is the
first regional conference since the initial meeting in Washington, DC
and other regional conferences will follow. We hope that these
regional efforts will inspire states to conduct workshops geared
towards building public-private partnerships.
Ways to encourage Public-
Private Initiatives
EPA has begun screening environmental regulations to define barri-
ers to successful partnerships. This summer EPA will sponsor sev-
eral demonstration projects to showcase partnerships that cleared
such barriers successfully.
In the financial area, an Environmental Financial Advisory Board
has been established. The board will provide feedback, review
Agency-wide strategy, and give counsel on legislative and regula-
tory options for financing environmental projects.
There are four ways in which the attendees of this conference can
further promote trie public-private initiative:
• Be open to new financing solutions;
• Publicize and promote partnerships by sponsoring workshops;
• Initiate specific projects such as demonstration projects; and
• Identify legislative/regulatory barriers.
-------
I urge you to take this opportunity to learn about and promote pub-
lic-private partnerships as a means of providing environmental
protection and services. Given the shortfall between demands and
resources, we must all realize the seriousness of the challenge we
face, and we must be open about how we can meet that challenge.
-------
First Session: The Federal Perspective
Moderator
Introduction
Joe Franzmathes
Assistant Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
One of the environmental challenges of the 1990's is the safe disposal
of residual wastes. Private homes and businesses produce massive
amounts of solid waste, traditionally disposed of through the use of
landfills. Urban and rural communities alike are now faced with the
dilemma of continuing to discard their wastes in ever increasing
quantities, despite the shrinking number of locations that they can
use for disposal. Sites for disposal are fast disappearing, partly
because existing and acceptable ones are filling up, and partly be-
cause communities are more conscious than ever about preserving
their local surroundings from environmental degradation. As in
many areas, this challenge is a priority throughout Region IV.
Goals
Key Points by Panelists
(In Order of
Presentation)
Solid Waste Goals
Recycling, though not a well-ingrained community ethic, is one
potential solution to solid waste management and disposal. Yet any
transition to greater recycling, or other complimentary techniques
and regulations, will be expensive. The panel sought to: 1) identify
what this transition might entail and 2) discuss several approaches
for innovative solid waste management and disposal.
EPA's Solid Waste Regulations
Bruce Weddle
Director, Municipal Solid Waste Program
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• The Federal perspective on solid waste incorporates the topics of
recycling, thermo-combustion, and landfill regulations to sup-
port local officials who implement municipal waste programs.
• EPA has three goals, as outlined in The Solid Waste Dilemma: An
Agenda for Action. (For copies of the Agenda call Craig Brown at
(404) 347-3433.)
Manage 25% of the nation's solid waste through source re-
ductions and recycling by 1992;
-------
Reverse the nation's increasing per capita garbage generation;
and
Tools for Solid Waste
Program Managers
Compliance with
Subtitle D
A more serious
consideration towards
recycling
• Reduce the risks associated with landfills and combustors.
To boost the percentage of solid waste that goes through source
reduction and recycling, the Agency has developed how-to
guidances, an information clearinghouse, a decision-maker's
guide update, and grants for direct technical assistance.
EPA has developed solid waste disposal regulations as required
by Congress in the 1984 Resources Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Amendments. These regulations, to be published in
final by the end of 1989 and effective 18 months thereafter, apply
to various aspects of permitting, operation, and closure of
landfills:
Location
Operation
Design
Monitoring
Cleanup
Closure
Financial Clearance
The Subtitle D regulations will cost, on the national level, $900
million annually.
As a result of Subtitle D, small communities will band together to
manage landfills. While EPA and the states can provide technical
and financial guidance, local communities must handle the
political ramifications.
Municipal Solid Waste in Region IV
Don Guinyard
Deputy Director, Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
• States and local governments have greater experience in solid
waste management than the Federal government.
• As a whole Region IV does not have a major landfill capacity
problem. However, new Federal regulations may force involun-
tary closures of landfills, which may cause capacity problems.
-------
Recycling will be given more serious consideration as local offi-
cials realize the costs of other solid waste disposal techniques.
Additional Comments
• The non-hazardous waste program is a state program with state
accountability and implementation. EPA is limited to approval/
denial of a state's solid waste program and holds only limited en-
forcement authority when a state plan is not approved.
• In preparation for air monitoring regulations for non-hazardous
waste, hazardous waste regulations, to be finalized at the end of
1989, can be used as a model. In addition, continuous policy
updates should be tracked.
• In an attempt to address cost avoidance methods in financing
municipal solid waste programs, EPA will publish a decision-
maker's guide for local elected officials in the Fall of 1989. It will
contain information on the costs of solid waste programs, includ-
ing curbside collection and incineration costs.
-------
Second Session:
State and Local Perspective:
A Panel Discussion
Moderator
Leonard Ledbetter
Commissioner
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Introduction
Goals
New Federal solid waste legislation will seriously affect state and
local solid waste management decisions. In a recent state association
of county commissioners' meeting, two fundamental problems were
identified: (1) The cost of carrying out new solid waste regulations
will be very expensive at the state and local level and 2) the legisla-
tion will further complicate the already difficult landfill siting deci-
sions.
The panel sought to examine the perspective of state and local offi-
cials on how best to address the financial and political considera-
tions in meeting solid waste requirements.
Key Points by Panelists
(In Order of
Presentation)
Legislative task force
important in addressing
solid waste management
options
Curb side recycling: a self-
financing project
A State Legislator's Perspective
John Garrison
Staff Counsel, Senate Research Office
South Carolina State Senate
There is much public pressure to manage solid waste responsibly in
conjunction with the general increased awareness of environmental
issues. South Carolina developed a solid waste management task
force to respond to the public demand for responsible disposal and
the financial constraints faced by the state.
Financial constraints include public aversion to increased taxes,
competition for scarce public resources, and recognition that county
government cannot handle solid waste disposal problems alone.
To address the financial concerns, the South Carolina Solid Waste
Task Force is studying the self-financing of curb side recycling.
n
-------
A State Administrator's Perspective
Restriction of interstate
disposal of solid wastes
New solid waste standards
will increase costs and
complexity of problems
P3's must hurdle legal,
liability, and profit issues
to be successful
Russell Barnett
Deputy Commissioner
Kentucky Department for Environmental Regulation
The interstate hauling and disposal of solid wastes remains a largely
unaddressed issue by EPA. As a result of citizen concern over the
dumping of out-of-state waste in Kentucky, the Kentucky General
Assembly passed a bill to restrict acceptance of out-of-state wastes
and require new landfills to meet standards more stringent than
Subtitle D.
The General Assembly has established a task force to study the
many bills proposing solid and hazardous waste regulations. The
task force investigates:
• Legislation to encourage recycling and source reduction;
• Legislation to improve waste management;
• Possibility of universal collection; and
• Possibility of reducing the number of landfills.
As a result of Kentucky's new solid waste standards, the cost of
constructing new landfills will increase, leading to increased tipping
fees. The small, rural counties in the state may not be able to operate
their landfills. A reduction in the number of landfills will lead to an
increase in the number of regional projects for landfill location and
financing.
Local officials have a number of options for meeting the financial
challenges of new solid waste requirements. They include: new
taxes, user fees (one of the more equitable options), bonds, and
public-private partnership financing.
Several considerations in employing the public-private partnership
option exist:
• State/local requirements often require a low bid award.
• Restrictions on contract negotiations often exist.
• Liability and unfavorable economics of rural areas do not attract
private industry.
• The private sector tends to emphasize short-term profit.
12
-------
A Local Government Perspective
Dilemma of Disposal
Need to generate public
awareness
Robert Ammons
Chairman, Solid Waste Committee
Sullivan County (Tennessee) Commission
A variety of alternatives to the use of landfills are being considered,
including composting, incineration, and recycling. Efforts to site new
landfills have met with extreme political opposition.
EPA should request more input from local government before draft-
ing implementing regulations.
A large market for recycled materials exists for glass, aluminum
cans, plastic bottles, and computer paper.
A Regional Perspective
Robert Shepard
Executive Director
Land-of-Sky Regional Council
Asheville, North Carolina
A Cooperative The Land-of-Sky Regional Council encompasses four counties, each
Management Effort withits own landfill, but no collection programs. Private haulers
compete for solid wastes. Recycling programs exist in each county.
Although the counties retain accountability for their solid waste
programs, the Council manages the recycling programs. The Coun-
cil:
Regional Councils have
executive authority to
creatively manage solid
waste disposal
Marketing and
accountability need to be
addressed before solutions
can work
• Obtained grants and EPA funds for feasibility studies on joint
equipment purchases;
• Established a solid waste resource center and recycling advisory
board;
• Achieved greater attention for the four counties from state offi-
cials; and
• Conducts waste stream analyses in each county to determine
cost-effective actions.
Several conclusions can be drawn:
• The recycling business is volatile and not lucrative. Federal and
state governments need to develop markets for recycled prod-
ucts.
• Ultimately, solid waste disposal responsibility belongs to the
county.
-------
State permitting and regulatory role need to encourage sharing of
facilities and regional approaches to solid waste management.
State-wide solid waste policy will be instituted by 1991.
Additional Comments
• Regionalization with all public entities is very difficult. For in-
stance, if communities have no incentives for accepting a landfill,
establishing public-private partnerships will continue to be diffi-
cult.
14
-------
Third Session: Research into Public-Private Partnerships
Moderator
Introduction
Charles Chisholm
Director, Bureau of Pollution Control
Mississippi Department of Natural Resources
Public-private partnerships are the contractual relationship between
the public and private sector that commits both parties to providing
environmental services. Many of the innovative solutions to provid-
ing environmental services to a demanding public, despite the lack
of sufficient funds from Federal and State government, come from
forward thinking communities that employ private sector resources
and ingenuity in meeting their environmental obligations.
Goals
The panel sought to identify:
1) the types of public-private partnerships that exist or could be
developed;
2) the kinds of services that partnerships can provide; and
3) the advantages of private sector involvement.
What Are Private-Public Partnerships?
Key Points by Panelists: David Osterman
(In Order of Branch Chief, Resource Planning and Analysis Branch
Presentation) «*?* ™W™* vson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A contractual partnership A public-private partnership is a contractual relationship between a
public and private party that commits both to providing an environ-
mental service.
15
Partnership Activities
The public-private partners generally share responsibility for any
one or more of the following activities:
• Decision to provide an environmental service in a commu-
nity.
• Financing the project using public and /or private financing.
• Designing and/or constructing the facility.
• Operating and maintaining the facility or service.
-------
EPA's focus is on establishing public-private partnerships at the
local level, especially in drinking water, wastewater treatment and
solid waste. Particular emphasis is placed on the needs of small
communities.
Partnership Definitions The key features of each of these types of partnerships is 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.
Found most commonly in the solid waste area, the primary advan-
tage is lower costs, although the municipality 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 as-
sumes more risk, and cost savings may result by working with only
one contractor for design, construction and operation rather than
two or three. Mostly pursued in waste-to-energy and recycling
facilities.
Developer/Municipal Financing. In this type of arrangement, the
private sector (usually private developers) finances the construc-
tion or expansion of an environmental facility in return for the right
to build houses, stores, or industrial facilities. This type of partner-
ship only works in growing communities since those responsible
for growth pay for the expansion at the facility.
Privatization. In this type of public-private partnership, the pri-
vate 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 make a profit from
the services provided. In merchant facilities not only does the
private sector own and operate the facility as in privatization deals,
but they also make the decision to provide an environmental serv-
ice to a community. Facilities are usually completely financed with
private sector funds, but it will not work for all types of environ-
mental services.
Municipalities must assess the appropriate level of private involve-
ment.
16
-------
As you move toward more private involvement, two things hap-
pen:
Privatization:
A Renewed Idea
Feasibility of Privatization
• The private sector invests more of its funds.
• The private sector assumes more of the risk for the effective
operation of the facility.
On the other hand, the greater the private involvement the less
control the municipality has over the delivery and cost of the serv-
ice. In deciding what kind of partnership is most appropriate,
communities have to make tradeoffs between these three factors:
private investment, risk, and control. Partnerships have to be tai-
lored to the needs of communities. Certain types of partnerships
will work more effectively than others, depending on the require-
ments and needs of the community.
As the Agency proceeds in the implementation of the public-pri-
vate partnerships strategy, it will investigate and encourage the
various types of partnerships as described above.
17
The Auburn University Research Project
John Heihnan, PhD
Professor, Department of Political Science
Auburn University, Alabama
Gerald Johnson, PhD
Professor, Department of Political Science
Auburn University, Alabama
The need to reduce the deficit, public reluctance to pay new taxes,
increased public environmental demands, and the emergence of a
pro-business ethic have renewed interest in privatization.
Private involvement may occur in the design, production, and
delivery of services. Capital intensive privatization involves com-
plex contractual agreements between the public, local groups, and
private entities.
A Feasibility Study of the Privatization of Public Wastewater Treatment
Works - Applications for Solid Waste Projects documents the first
efforts after the 1986 Tax Reform Act to privatize throughout the
country.
The extent to which privatization is feasible depends on a host of
issues: legal, economic, financial, contractual, political, regulatory,
-------
administrative/personnel, industrial, systems, policy, and transac-
tion cost.
Solid waste management
and disposal remains an
attractive model for
privatization
Empowerment of local
government is key to P3
success
Scope and value of
service contracts
Privatization has many
benefits, but accountability
remains a critical element in
assuring success
Solid waste management privatization may be more successful
because:
• Solid waste disposal is more attractive to private groups;
• Local governments are more willing to privatize since they
often do not have the in-house expertise to manage the nec-
essary technology;
• The public has a lower sense of expectation for governmen-
tal subsidization of solid waste services; and
• The 1986 tax law does not affect solid waste as adversely as
it does wastewater treatment.
State laws can inhibit privatization efforts by limiting the power of
local authorities to issue bonds, procure services, avoid competitive
bidding, grant loans, enter into contracts, and compel the use of
facilities.
Competent legal council should be retained in service contract
negotiations, which should address a number of essential topics:
• Allocating risk to all parties;
• Providing for the sale of facilities;
• Specifying under what conditions service charges can be in-
creased;
• Identifying which parties retain compliance responsibilities; and
• Assigning who is ultimately accountable to the public.
The investigation into the systems and processes of privatization
efforts resulted in several findings:
• Privatization establishes time savings;
• Privatization tends to reduce costs;
• Competition is the source of efficiency and leads to profit;
• The tradeoffs for efficiency are often intangible social values
such as environmental good, equity, and justice; and
• Dealing with reputable firms is necessary for accountability.
Overall conclusions are:
• Privatization is a feasible and existing means of meeting infra-
structure needs.
18
-------
The poten tial for
privatization is shaped by
laws and regulations
# .. ..
affecting it
Privatization is not feasible when there is a lack of understand-
mfr unestablished procedures, and no supportive structure.
™e ™*m? in national policy serves as an obstacle to the
development of privatization.
In establishing privatization efforts, economic factors are secon-
dary to need, accountability, and local leadership/political
considerations.
No net loss to the U.S. Treasury resulted from the change to
unfavorable tax laws from favorable laws in the early 1980's.
The removal of tax benefits has not removed interest in privati-
zation.
Privatization changes the key players in the provision of serv-
ices and the way governments do business.
19
-------
Fourth Session: Barriers to Implementing Partnerships:
A Panel Discussion
Moderator
Introduction
Goals
Key Points by Panelists:
(In Order
of Presentation)
Leigh Pegues
Director
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Solid waste is the biggest environmental issue in Alabama and
throughout the Southeast. Public-private partnerships represent an
effective way to respond to the demands of solid waste management
and disposal. States need more effective legislation than is currently
in place to manage public-private partnerships for effective results.
The session attempted to identify and address the barriers to imple-
menting public-private partnerships.
Economic consequences of
Subtitle D are widespread
The regional approach can
result in cost savings
The Ability of Local Governments to Pay
Charles Carter, Fh.D.
Chairman, Department of Economics
Atlanta University
An Atlanta University study on the economic consequences of Sub-
title D revealed that per capita cost of municipal solid waste disposal
in the Southeast will increase by 16.4 % over what costs would be in
its absence. For smaller communities, the impact will be more pro-
nounced with an expected cost increase of 33.4%.
Tipping fees will rise from an average of $12.44 per ton in 1988 to as
high as $24.92 a ton by the time Subtitle D requirements are met.
Cost savings may be achieved if a regional approach is taken to solid
waste management. Larger areas have better bonding authority and
can also assure a solid waste stream.
21
-------
The Public Financial Perspective
John Petersen, Ph.D.
Senior Director,
Government Finance Research Center
Government Finance Officers Association
Greater planning for A lack of appreciation and planning for infrastructure needs exists.
infrastructure is necessarv P**"* expectation and financial limits on traditional resources put
infrastructure is necessary ^ ^^ ^ Qf pressure on state ^ local offidals to find alterna-
tive financing in the solid waste management area.
Local authorites may wish to consider alternatives:
• Implement user and/or impact fees;
• Create special districts or authorities to manage and fund
comprehensively; and
• Look to the private sector for assistance.
Private sector assistance requires careful consideration of several
issues:
• Legal aspects - A local government must have the authority
to confer and enforce monopoly powers.
• Economic aspects - A local government must be able to
secure and ensure revenue streams.
• Technical aspects - Technical risks are involved and should
be identified.
These issues can best be examined through an independent, rigor-
ous feasibility analysis before entering into a public-private part-
nership.
Private sector support for
financing requires careful
consideration
Advice to any local government official considering a partnership
is to:
Examine the alternatives impartially;
Encourage state legislation mat will give power to local
officials to form partnerships;
Be aware of ever-changing Federal regulations;
Be familiar with the costs involved; •
Pay close attention to security; and
Capitalize as early as possible to avoid higher impact fees
later.
22
-------
The Private Financial Perspective
Walter J.Kulakowski
Second Vice President, Public Finance Division
Smith-Barney, Harris, Upham and Co., Inc.
Clear identification and sharing of the risks are key to the develop-
ment of a successful resource recovery project. The following out-
line of how risks should be shared among public and private part-
ners is used by the financial community to evaluate proposals.
An outline of risk sharing
RISK RESPONSIBILITY
1. Cost overrun
2. Facility performance
3. Environmental compliance
4. Insuring availability of waste
5. Inflation
6. Increased environmental regulation
7. Energy prices
8. Ash disposal
Vendor
Vendor
Vendor
Community
Community
Community
Community &
Vendor
Community
Community bond options Types of bond options available to a community:
• General obligation bonds quickly use a community's bond-
ing authority.
• Industrial revenue bonds depend upon a steady stream of
revenue and are the most popular means of financing.
• Double-barreled bonds issue industrial revenue bonds
backed by general obligation bonds.
The 1986 reform bill hurt the development of public-private part-
nerships. A decrease in tax benefits results in a decrease in the
equity participation of the private partner. Under the old tax bill
there was approximately 20% equity participation by most private
partners in a resource recovery project. After the 1986 Tax Reform
Act that percentage went down to 7%.
23
-------
Local government must
explore the legal questions
affecting potential
partnerships
The Legal Perspective
Ogden Stokes
Attorney
Stokes and Bartholomew, Attorneys at Law
Nashville, Tennessee
Within a state, cities, counties, and authorities can only do what is
expressly authorized by state law. Local officials need to confront
many legal questions concerning state law when considering a
public-private partnership. Such questions include:
• Does the statutory authority to contract exist?
• How long can you enter into a contract?
• What are the provisions for contractor selection (Public
bidding, acceptance of a low bid required, negotiate)?
• Does state law require open meetings and/or open records
for dealings with private firms?
• Do I have the authority to guarantee a waste stream?
• What provisions for indemnification do I desire?
• Is a take or pay contract desirable?
• Bond statutes?
Under Federal law, states and localities can do whatever is not
statutorily prohibited. However, the Federal law is constantly
changing.
The public partner should tell the lawyers, financiers, and engi-
neers what needs to be done, instead of the other way around.
The private partner and others outside the local realm should try to
understand how local officials think and how local politics work.
Additional Comments
In a private-public partnership, if the private partner files for bank-
ruptcy, liability is determined in court. Bankruptcy court deter-
mines if the contract is null and void. It is best to address this issue
in the service contract.
24
-------
Luncheon Speech: The Florida Solid Waste Law
Speaker
The philosophy of the
Florida Solid Waste Law
Dale Twachtmann
Secretary
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
The Florida Solid Waste Law employs an integrated solid waste
management approach, including provisions aimed at decreasing
the number of landfills and increasing the amount of recycling,
source reduction, and refuse to energy plants.
The philosophy underlying the law includes:
• Allowing local governments to employ their own solutions;
• Encouraging private sector involvement; and
• Making those who benefit from solid waste disposal (manufac-
turers and retailers) pay their share.
Several of Florida's Solid Waste Law's highlights include:
• Each county must have a recycling program by July 1989. The
state seeks a 30% recycling rate by 1994.
• State agencies must buy recycled products, which benefit from
sales tax exemptions.
• Solid waste management programs, public and private, must
have accounting systems.
• The fees for solid waste services will appear on the tax bill.
• Demonstration and research programs are mandated.
Each county was given a grant to start or maintain solid waste ef-
forts. Twenty-five million dollars in education, private sector, and
recycling grants have been made available.
The State of Florida intends for its comprehensive waste manage-
ment legislation to provide the basis from which the public and
private sectors can recognize their responsibility for and act crea-
tively to solve the solid waste problem. With the support of the
public, local authorities, and private enterprise, the state-wide effort
has had a good beginning.
25
-------
Fifth Session: The Waste Industry Perspective:
A Panel Discussion
Moderator
Craig Brown
Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Introduction
Goals
Among the several areas where private industry has had a key role
in the provision of environmental services is in the area of solid
waste management and disposal. The waste industry brings a great
deal of expertise to the provision of alternative forms of solid waste
management and disposal.
The session sought to identify key lessons for the private sector as it
seeks to manage solid waste through partnerships.
Key Points by Panelists: Curt Bell
(In Order of Manager, Regional Market Development
Presentation) Browning-Ferris Industries
Trust is critical to
problem solving
There must be trust between public and private partners in
solving solid waste management problems.
Municipalities need to be willing to negotiate on contractual
issues. Both sides need a good contract which dearly addresses
special or exceptional circumstances.
Recycling is a cost avoidance technique and not a money maker.
Communities should not overlook the benefits of privatization.
27
John Reineke
Regional Vice President, Marketing
Waste Management of North America, Inc.
Siting is a major obstacle While the expertise and experience exist to design, build, operate,
to establishing needed an(^ mamtain landfills efficiently and safely, the major obstacle in
landfills establishing needed landfills is siting. Americans by and large hold a
" "Not-in-My-Backyard" attitude towards landfills and hesitate to
involve the private sector for fear of lessening their power.
-------
Long-term commitment of
companies is critical
State and local governments and the general public must:
• Require the best dollar value in seeking solutions to their solid
waste problems;
• Understand the environmental consequences for failure to
address their problems; and
• Realize that private companies can be a part of the solution to
the solid waste dilemma.
Martin G. Hamberger, Esq.
Counsel, Corporate Development and Public Affairs
Chambers Development Company, Inc.
• In identifying reputable solid waste management companies,
local communities should look for companies that have a long-
term commitment to solid waste management. Communities
should recognize that businesses provide services at a profit.
The key to a good relationship between the community and the
business is communication.
• Communities should look carefully at the true cost of solid
waste disposal. National averages are not always accurate and
costs vary according to locality.
Additional Comments
• Although some areas have a desperate need for landfills, obtain-
ing permits for them is difficult. To resolve the siting problem, it
is necessary to develop good enforcement, regulation, and
public relations programs.
• Collection fees for rural and urban areas within the same service
district should be distributed by prorating shares.
28
-------
Sixth Session: Presentation of Case Studies
Introduction
Public-private partnerships are already taking place throughout the
United States as a way to creatively and efficiently provide environ-
mental services to the public. Six case histories were selected to
demonstrate how communities have attempted to deal with the
continuing demand for waste disposal services while facing greater
constraints on operating existing landfills and building new ones. A
wide range of studies was presented and some cases were more
successful than others.
Goals
Case Studies
The six case studies in this session sought to examine each partner-
ship in order to determine:
1) Needs that led to the development of the partnership;
2) Nature of the financing;
3) Benefits derived from the partnership;
4) Current status of the partnership; and
5) Lessons learned from the experience.
Putnam County, Florida:
Collection, Landfilling, and Recycling
(In progress)
Joseph Battillo
Sanitation Director
Putnam County, Florida
Charles Hunter
Director
Technical Operations
DARTEK Corporation
Putnam County and Dartek Corporation have entered into a public-
private partnership in which the County procures recycling services
from Dartek. Putnam County runs a curb side solid waste collection
program and provides Dartek with collected refuse. Dartek operates
the recycling facility on property it leases from the County.
29
-------
Need for Public-Private Two major requirements have shaped this public-private partner-
Partnership shiP:
• The Florida Solid Waste Law requires the establishment of
recycling programs in each of Florida's counties.
• Due to the temporary closing of Putnam's three landfills (for
improvements) in late 1989, the County must supplement its
solid waste management program.
Financing Sales of recycled materials finance Dartek's recycling operations.
Dartek has also requested a portion of the tipping fee the county
charges for its solid waste collection services.
Benefits • The partnership extends the life of the landfill by reducing the
flow of waste into the site. There are also ecological benefits,
which are difficult to measure.
• Putnam receives credit (under the Florida Solid Waste Law) for
all of Dartek's recycling, and
• Dartek's recycling operations provide employment for unskilled
laborers.
Public-Private Partnership Dartek currently loses money on its recycling efforts with Putnam
Status County. Despite this, Dartek seeks to expand its business with the
County. It has proposed a balefill and densification operation to
replace the old landfills, and has also proposed to get a portion of
the tipping fee.
Lessons Learned
Revenues from sales of recycled materials do not entirely pay
for the operating costs of a recycling facility. These operating
costs include sorting, shipping, and marketing recycled materi-
als.
Local officials often underestimate these operating costs and
other costs, such as capital investment, associated with recycling
and solid waste management. Local officials need to understand
the benefits of extending the life of a landfill.
Until markets for recycled material are expanded, recycling
operations will require supplementation through tipping fees.
30
-------
Berrien County, Georgia:
Recycling Solid Waste at the Landfill
(In Progress)
Joe B. Stallings
Consultant
Deerwood Enterprises
(former Berrien County Official)
Nature of Public-Private Berrien County's attempts to finance, build, and operate a landfill
Partnership were thwarted by contractors who did not provide the needed solid
waste management services. Upon the advice of these contractors
the County purchased a landfill site. However, the County chose
alternatively to build a recycling facility on the site after the Geor-
gia Department of Natural Resources denied Berrien's application
for a permit. Berrien owns and operates the facility.
Need for Public-Private Berrien County wanted to form a public-private partnership for
Partnership several reasons:
• Businesses and citizens of the County, accustomed to govern-
ment provision of solid waste disposal services at low costs,
continued to demand ongoing, inexpensive solid waste manage-
ment services.
• Berrien County lacked the expertise, funding, and equipment tc
finance, build, and operate a landfill.
Financing To finance the recycling facility, the County issued a $2 million
revenue bond to be repaid by the revenue stream from recycled
materials and by a tipping fee of $7 per ton.
Benefits The partnership has not been a financial success due to the
County's inability to sell compost or refuse-derived fuel. The
County recognizes the advantages of a public-private partnership
to be:
• The need for technical assistance and solid waste education, as
local governments in rural areas usually do not have in-house
experts; and
• The need for an unbiased technical assistance resource from the
public sector to advise on options in lieu of a contractor who has
one option.
• The need for identified markets for recycled wasteuals.
-------
Public-Private Partnership The recycling facility is not paying for itself. The county pays the
Status difference between operating and debt service costs and income
generated by the tipping fee and sale of recycled materials.
Lessons Learned
Reliable sources of information on financing and operations
regarding solid waste disposal and recycling must be made
available, especially to small communities.
State laws need to be revamped so that communities can more
easily contract for disposal services.
Recycling costs money. Without the development of markets for
recycled materials and products, recycling will not become a
profitable or break-even solid waste management option.
The public perception that solid waste collection and disposal
are free must be altered. Government and the public must pay
for these solid waste services in accordance with their true costs.
The Elk River Resource Recovery Authority:
A Regional Approach
(In Planning Stages)
Ogden Stokes
Attorney
Stokes and Bartholomew, Attorneys At Law
Nashville, Tennessee
Nature of Public-Private The Tennessee Elk River Resource Recovery Authority (TERRA)
Partnership was created to develop a waste to energy plant and accompanying
landfill. As planned TERRA will retain ownership of the plant and
will contract with private firms to design, build, and operate the
plant through a turnkey arrangement.
Need for Public-Private
Partnership
TERRA desired an efficient means of disposal for the refuse
from the five counties and twelve cities mat comprise the au-
thority.
The regional approach enables TERRA to secure the economies
of scale necessary to gain financial backing for the project's
costs.
32
-------
Financing TERRA secured $3 million from the state Exxon fund that was
created by the 1973 Oil Overcharge Settlement Agreement. In
addition, approximately $15 million will be raised from the sale
of tax-exempt revenue bonds. The bonds will be repaid through
the sale of steam to the United States Air Force and through
user fees.
Public-Private Partnership Political and economic problems in the public sector have hindered
Status the progress of this project:
• Construction on the waste to energy plant has not begun be-
cause the five counties have not been able to resolve the politics
of siting.
• As a result of the Air Force significantly reducing the price of
steam, subsidies which TERRA must provide in order to fund
the project increased.
• Because of the project's delay, some of the member counties
have begun looking elsewhere for solid waste services, which
will financially jeopardize the project.
Lessons Learned
Creating a non-profit authority enables local governments to
initiate actions without having to wait for the state legislature to
assemble and approve proposals.
Regional projects involve intensified politics. In this case, siting
a landfill can be very contentious.
In regional projects, it is very difficult to focus and maintain all
of the involved parties' interests and efforts, especially over
long periods of time.
33
Savannah Resource Recovery Project
(Successful)
Gene Prevatt
Refuse Disposal Director
City of Savannah, Georgia
Nature of Public-Private The partnership of the City of Savannah and Katy-Seghers Indus-
Partnership t™68 provi^68 the city with solid waste disposal services through a
turnkey resource recovery plant. Katy-Seghers, a private waste
services company, designed, constructed, and operates the plant.
Selection of the contractor did not hinge upon the lowest bid. The
city retains ownership of the plant.
-------
Need for Public-Private The City of Savannah wanted to build a resource recovery plant
Partnership through a contractor for several reasons:
• The sanitary landfill which the City had been using as its pri-
mary means of solid waste disposal was very expensive, incur-
ring $2 million for purchase of the site and $700,000 in annual
operating costs. Furthermore, Subtitle D requirements would
substantially increase operating costs. It was felt that a turnkey
arrangement with the private sector would minimize or reduce
these costs.
• The existing landfill occupies the last suitable landfill site within
the county. A partnership may be the most viable means of
obtaining a landfill site elsewhere or using alternate technology
to dispose of waste.
Financing The City financed the resource recovery plant by issuing a $55
million revenue bond. The bonds are backed by a $12 per ton tip-
ping fee and a $7.7 million reserve. Katy-Seghers invested $9 mil-
lion in equity in the project. Another private firm purchases the
steam generated by the resource recovery plant on a take or pay
basis.
Benefits • The service contract with Katy-Seghers includes a fixed price
agreement for facility design, construction, and operation.
Incentives (e.g., tax credits, depreciation) for finishing construc-
tion on time, meeting capacity, steaming rate, and performance
goals were included in the contract. The contract also requires
Katy-Seghers to pay damages (e.g., debt service on the bonds
issued) if the plant was finished late or if operating goals were
not met. As a result, construction of the resource recovery plant
was completed on time and within budget.
• As required in the service contract, Savannah must supply Katy-
Seghers with sufficient waste to operate the facility. If the City
fails to do so, Katy-Seghers purchases supplemental woodchips
at the City's expense.
Public-Private Partnership The resource recovery plant has been in operation since May, 1987.
Status
Lessons Learned Several actions a communiy should take to contribute to the success
of public-private partnerships are:
34
-------
35
Conduct a feasibility study before committing to a waste service
project.
Conduct a competitive assessment of prospective private part-
ners.
Employ criteria based on the quality of work, personnel, experi-
ence, contacts, and reputation of the firm(s), not on the lowest
bid, to select the private partner(s).
Provide incentives for meeting performance goals and damages
for failure to meet those goals.
Define clearly the public and private partners' respective re-
sponsibilities.
Establish a citizen advisory board to help address community
concerns and public communication issues.
Lee County, Alabama:
A Privately Owned Regional Landfill
(Successful)
Hal Smith
Chairman
Lee County Commission
Opelika, AL
Rock Payne
Director
Landfill Operations
Waste Away Group, Inc.
Nature of Public-Private Waste Away, Inc. sited, constructed, owns, and operates a landfill
Partnership m ^ County, Alabama, which accepts wastes from five counties
in Alabama and three counties in Georgia.
The firm's contract with Lee County requires the County to collect
and transport the waste, while Waste Away disposes of the waste
at its landfill.
Need for Public-Private The County turned to a public-private partnership in response to
Partnership several conditions:
• The County's landfill was reaching its capacity;
-------
Disposal costs were increasing;
The County lacked the expertise needed to build a landfill; and
Citizens opposed constructing another municipal landfill, as
well as an incinerator.
Financing Based on its own credit, Waste Away financed the landfill through
a $4 million loan from a state bank. Waste Away charges Lee an $11
per ton tipping fee.
Benefits • The large volume of waste which the landfill accommodates
results in lower per unit disposal costs. Lower tipping fees
reflect these lower costs.
• Utilizing a strong public relations program Waste Away has
been able to allay siting and safety concerns while completing
construction and operating successfully.
Public-Private Partnership The landfill became operational in November, 1985, with a life
Status expectancy of 62 years. Under its Lee County contract, Waste Away
must secure and comply with state Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) permits.
The Lee County - Waste Away contract applies to a three-year
period. At the end of the three years, Lee County has the option to
renegotiate a new agreement with Waste Away.
Lessons Learned
Due to operational economies of scale, large service areas can
equate to lower per unit disposal costs.
Private entities can often "take the hear" of citizen opposition
(i.e., allay concerns and continue to work on controversial
projects) more successfully than local governments can.
36
-------
Conway, South Carolina:
A Municipal Solid Waste System
(Successful)
John Patterson
City Administrator
Smyrna, Georgia
(formerly City Administrator, Conway, South Carolina)
Stuart Beall
Southern Region Marketing Director
Chambers Development Company, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia
Nature of Public-Private Chambers Development Company provides garbage and leaf
collection and street sweeping services for the City of Conway.
Chambers hauls wastes to the City-owned, County-operated
landfill. The City had previously provided these services for its
residents.
The City issued a Request for Proposals (KFP), with a copy of the
proposed contract attached. The contract requires the winner to
establish a local office, buy the City's equipment, and hire as many
of the City's sanitation workers as possible. The contract also has an
escalator clause that prohibits rates from exceeding a five percent
annual increase.
Need for Public-Private
Partnership
The City lacked the funds to continue providing the services.
The City lacked the expertise to schedule, route, and buy and
maintain equipment efficiently.
The City did not have an adequate accounting system to ad-
minister these services.
Financing A $6 per month sanitation fee charged to residential customers and
a volume-based fee charged to commercial customers pays for
Chamber's services.
Benefits • The City has been able to achieve cost savings and streamline its
operations.
• The City has also been able to set aside funds in case it needs to
reenter the collection and sweeping business.
37
-------
Public-Private Partnership The City addressed the financial and personnel concerns involved
Status m t111™1^ traditional public services over to the private sector in
the service contract. As a result, the Conway-Chambers partnership
operates successfully.
Lessons Learned This case study suggests several issues that, when addressed in the
RFP process and/or the service contract, can result in a successful
public-private partnership. Local authorities should:
• Require a long-term contract of at least five years in length;
• Set specific rate escalation provisions based on disposal costs;
• Assure the continued employment of government employees,
where possible, with the private contractor;
• Choose a financially-sound, reputable private partner; and
• Require the establishment of a local office of the private partner.
38
-------
Seventh Session: Future Public/Private Partnership Activity
Moderator
Introduction
Goals
Key Points by Panelists:
(In Order of Presentation)
MTAS - a consolidated
source of information
39
Thomas L. Nessmith
Chief, Policy and Planning and Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
With much in the way of public private partnerships already taking
place in the area of solid waste management and disposal, it is criti-
cal that the nature and direction of future partnership initiatives
capitalize on the successes of existing partnerships and the lessons
learned from these experiences. Among the key areas for future
efforts are: the development and dissemination of technical assis-
tance to support communities and their attempts to manage and
dispose of solid wastes; the development of recycling strategies and
markets to absorb the increased quantities of recycled materials that
are generated; and the establishment of state-wide strategies to
guide and support local efforts to deal with solid waste.
The session sought to identify key considerations to support future
private-public partnership efforts. In particular, it sought to identify
the potential for providing technical assistance and direction to
communities as they seek to respond to the demands for solid waste
services with assistance from the private sector.
Tennessee Technical Assistance Program
Andy Jordan
Senior Public Works Consultant
Municipal Technical Advisory Service
• There are many resources - tapped and untapped - available
to local communities as they seek to provide solid waste man-
agement and disposal services to the public.
• Tennessee's Municipal Advisory Service has been created to
provide practical, individual solutions to communities
through a series of services.
• Legal, financial, personnel, public works, and environmental
practitioners can provide local municipalities with neutral
third party assistance to solve a variety of municipal problems
in the areas of:
-------
Markets for recycling exist
Many solutions to solid
waste management are
available
State and county
government alike must plan
ahead
Local management of the
entire waste stream is
40 critide for sucess
• Waste water treatment;
• Highways/roads;
• General management assistance; and
• Solid waste disposal.
Technical assistance programs provide a continuing education
mechanism for newly elected or appointed officials.
Local governments view solid waste as a nuisance and a threat.
However, technical assistance programs can present portions of
solid waste as a resource and offer alternatives to disposal.
Finding Markets for Recydables
Steven L. Levetan
Legislative Affairs Director, Southeast Chapter
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.
Legislation needs to mandate manufactures to use recycled prod-
ucts.
Most Southern states have significant markets for non-ferrous and
ferrous materials.
The market must become bigger to encourage more recycling.
Supply and demand are critical factors.
State Solid Waste Directions
William L. Meyer
Chief, Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
• A state-wide plan to implement solid waste management must
take an integrated approach and include approaches for recy-
cling, landfills, and incineration.
• By seeking policy support from the public and private sectors,
state governments can develop a long-term approach to ensure
an effective transition from the traditional, but limited solution
of landfills to more innovative approaches.
• Counties must establish a committee or task force to examine
long-term solutions to their local landfill problem.
• Among the considerations for local governments is their need
for ownership and overall management of the wastestream.
-------
• There is a need for a single source of technical and other as-
sistance for communities, which can be tapped when neces-
sary.
• State governments should provide leadership and a revolv-
ing loan fund to support the development of solid waste
disposal systems.
Additional Comments
• Tax credits received by the paper industry for its investment
in renewable resources (trees) have an adverse effect on
recycling. The tax structure encourages the use of virgin
resources over recyclables.
• Biodegradable plastic presents a problem since the starch de-
grades into an acid in the landfill. It is necessary to design
products with recycling in mind. (Life cycle product design).
• Incinerator ash should be disposed in a separate section of a
landfill.
41
-------
Luncheon Speech: Federal Directions in Public-Private
Partnerships
Speaker
Increasing private sector
involovement in advancing
environmental protection
Input on the P3 Initiatives
is critical to the
development of P3's
John Sandy
Director, Resource Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA's goal in its Public-Private Partnerships Initiative is a
simple one: to increase private sector involvement and participation
in advancing environmental protection to the level that citizens are
demanding.
The Public-Private Partnerships Initiative is designed to expand state
and local government's capacity to attract new resources by support-
ing efforts to identify potential options and improve the legislative
climate affecting partnerships.
As the Agency's program to encourage and support public-private
partnerships evolves, experiences and observations on public-pri-
vate partnerships is important The Agency is particularly interested
in the following areas:
• Encouraging innovative financing;
• Considering the need for new laws and regulations (e.g. Federal
Standards Accounting Board, 1986 Tax Reform Act, OMB circular
A-102 — all discourage private investment );
• Creating public-private partnerships to serve as demonstration
projects for solid waste, waste water treatment and drinking
water; and
• Developing guidance documents and a clearinghouse.
43
With these documented experiences, the Agency will be able to
proceed in its efforts to carry out its national strategy — a blueprint
to identify the key roles and working arrangements between EPA
and its state, local, and private partners, the products that the efforts
should yield, and a timetable for action.
Among the important activities for the Agency will be: the identifica-
tion of new and innovative financing approaches; legislative and
regulatory options to promote partnerships; enhancement of govern-
ment principles of accounting and disclosure that impact environ-
mental programs; development of a record of case histories that
identify successes and failures in efforts to undertake partnerships;
sponsorship of a series of demonstration projects to build a body of
working experience and increase the pool of successful partnerships;
-------
implementation of a strategy addressing legislative barriers to part-
nerships; and development and dissemination of self-help guides
and videos reviewing the basics of establishing partnerships.
These initiatives at the Federal level, in conjunction with state and
local experiences and like-minded efforts, are key to the successful
application of greater numbers of public-private partnerships, the
essence of which is the creative, efficient environmental services that
the public and private sectors can provide when they put their
energies to it.
44
-------
Action Agenda Key Roles
This section highlights important points brought out during the
Conference proceedings. It identifies key roles for EPA, state govern-
ment, local government, and the private sector to assist in the suc-
cessful development of public-private partnerships.
Federal-EPA
Use successful case studies as models to provide technical and
financial assistance to communities, so they may, in turn, concen-
trate on the political ramifications resulting from solid waste
management policies.
Provide technical assistance to state and local governments in
financial and legal matters.
Gradually phase in the stringent requirements of Subtitle D to
allow compliance costs to be spread over several years.
Develop and introduce legislation mandating federal procure-
ment of recydables in order to create market.
Clarify national policies at the state and local levels to promote
the development of public-private partnerships.
Offer assistance in areas that will open up new options for solid
waste management, i.e. research to reduce toxic emissions from
combustors, technical assistance grants, etc.
Increase public awareness of the availability of recycled materials
in order to develop the market for recycled products.
Use public relations to increase public cooperation concerning
the potential role of the private sector in solving the waste man-
agement problem.
Communicate with local governments, who may have a clearer
understanding of their own communities' needs, before imple-
menting regulations.
State • Develop a solid waste management task force to respond to
public demands and to address financial issues faced by the state.
45
-------
Remove barriers to privatization by allowing local authorities to
issue bonds, procure services, avoid competitive bidding, grant
loans, and enter into contracts.
Introduce legislation that encourages recycling and source re-
duction.
Increase public awareness of the availability of recycled materi-
als in order to develop the market for recycled products.
Use public relations to increase public cooperation concerning
the potential role of the private sector in solving the waste
management problem.
Encourage the sharing of facilities for solid waste management
only where viable and practical.
Institute a consistent state-wide solid waste management policy.
Take a long-term approach to the waste problem to ensure an
effective transition from the traditional forms of disposal to
more innovative methods.
Local • Review all financial options and their implications and feasibil-
ity, such as new taxes, user fees, bonds, and public-private
partnerships.
• Actively campaign for state legislation that will give local gov-
ernment the authority to form partnerships.
• Select the type of partnership that caters to the particular needs
of the community.
• Retain competent legal counsel during service contract negotia-
tions to clearly define the responsibilities of the private and
public partner.
• Keep up to date on changing Federal regulations that may have
profound effects on public-private partnership development.
• Capitalize early on to avoid higher impact fees in the future.
• Cooperate and work with the private sector and draw from its
expertise on solid waste management.
• Increase public awareness of the availability of recycled materi-
als in order to develop the market for recycled products.
46
-------
Use public relations to increase public cooperation concerning
the potential role of the private sector in solving the waste
management problem.
Work with reputable solid waste management companies with
an understanding that businesses provide services primarily for
profit.
Explore the many resources available concerning solid waste
management and disposal, such as technical advisory services
and how-to guidances.
Private Sector • Explore potential undertakings where partnerships would serve
in the best interest of the community.
• Market available expertise and ability to help solve the solid
waste management problem.
• Work closely with local communities and examine how best the
private sector can meet their needs.
• Through sharing success stories, promote peer relationships
among communities.
47
-------
Alternative Financing for Solid Waste
General Proceedings
Region 4 Conference On
Public-Private Partnerships
Official Conference Attendance List
April 19-21,1989
James B. Abbott
Assistant Public Works Director for Solid Waste
Alachu
P. O. Box FF
Gainesville, FL 32602-3031
Arthur G. Allen
Eastern Alabama Regional Planning &
Development Commission
P. O. Box 2186
Anniston, AL 36202
Robert Ammons
Commissioner
Sullivan County
County Courthouse
Blountville,TN 37617
6
Charlotte Baldwin
Vice President
First Kentucky Trust Company
Louisville, KY 40601
Russell Barnett
Deputy Commissioner
Department for Environmental Regulation
18 Reilly Rd.
Frankfort, KY 40601
Bill Barnett
Bureau of Pollution Control
P. O. Box 10385
Frankfort, MS 39209
Phillip Bamhill
Horry County Waste Management Director
Route 6, Box 216
Conway,SC 29526
Joseph V. Battillo
Putnam County
Sanitation Department
P.O. Box 477
Palatka, FL 32078-0477
Sam L. Beach
Taylor County Commission
P. O. Box 620
Perry, FL 32347
Leonard Bechtel
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public-Private Partnerships Staff
401MSt,S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Jimmy Beck
President
Board of Supervisors
Grenada County
Grenada, MS
49
-------
Helen Beggun
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region n
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Curt Bell
Manager
Regional Marketing Development
Browning-Ferris Industries
2221 Democrat Rd.
Memphis, TN 38132
M. W. Belue
P. O. Box 327
Rocky Face, GA 30740
Nancy Bickley
Executive Director
Cobb Clean Commission
224 Lawrence St.
Marietta, GA 30060
Randall L. Billings
Deputy Director
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
2216 W. Meadowview Rd., Suite 201
Greensboro, NC 27407-3480
John Bittle, Jr.
Operations and Maintenance Supervisor
Cumberland County Solid Waste
698 Ann St.
Fayetteville,NC 28301
Larder F. Boatwright
Executive Director
Macintosh Trail Area Planning/Development
Division
P. O. Box Drawer A
Barnesville, GA 30204
Donald W. Brady
Assistant Director
Southern Alabama Regional Planning
Commission
P. O. Box 1665
Mobile, AL 36633
Jim Brashear
Kentucky River Area Development District
381 Perry Co. Park Dr.
Hazard, KY 41701
Craig Brown
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waste Management Division
Region IV
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Terri Brown
Environmental Management Coordinator
First Tennessee Development District
207 N. Boone St., Suite 800
Johnson City, TN 37604-5699
Mark P. Bryant
Solid Waste Administrator
Jefferson County Commissioners
218 Courthouse
Birmingham, AL 35263
{Catherine Bullock
State of Georgia
Office of Planning & Budget
270 Washington St., S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30334
50
-------
Jack J. Camarada
Financial Marketing Services
3079 Crossing Park, Suite 4
Atlanta, GA
Joanne Cannafax
City Administrator
109 Forsyth St.
Bamesville, GA 30204
Angel Cardec
Apalachee Regional Planning Council
314 East Central Ave.
Blountstown, FL 32424
DonCargill
Ginn, Eddington, Moore & Wade
1360 CNN
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dr. Charles Carter
Professor of Economics
Atlanta University
360 Westview Dr., S. W.
Atlanta, GA
Lynn Cartlidge
President
Forrest County Board of Supervisors
P. O. Box 1310
Hattiesurg, MS 39403
Eric W. Cash
Vice President
Southern States Landfill, Inc.
46%OakdaleRd.
Smyrna, GA 30080
Lee Chadick
Director of Solid Waste
Mobile County
1150 Government St., Suite 114
Mobile, AL
Larry Chapman
President
Larry Chapman & Associates, Inc.
2900 Greenwillow Dr.
Atlanta, GA 30345
Charles H. Chisolm
Division of Pollution Control
State of Mississippi
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
Eddie Coker
Executive Director
Solid Waste Disposal Authority
P. O. Box 308
Huntsville, AL 35804
Lakin Collins
Mayor
City of Athens
P. O. Box 1089
Athens, AL 35611
Joseph P. Constanzo
417 North Central Ave.
Atlanta, GA 30354
Lewis Cooper
Speedway Waste Disposal
535 Broad St.
Statham,GA 30666
Lynn B. Cooper
Environmental Engineering Manager
Michelin Tire Company
P. O. Box 2846
Greenville, SC 291602
Richard Courtney
Atlanta Regional Commission
100 Edgewood Ave., Suite 1801
Atlanta, GA 30335
51
-------
David Ross Craig
President
Panola County Board of Supervisors
P. O. Box 807
Batesville, MS 38606
Jon Creighton
Director of Planning
Buncombe County
46 Valley St.
Asheville,NC 28801
Alice Crosby
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Office of Policy & Management
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
John Cumming
Briley, Wild & Associates, Inc.
P. O. Box 607
1042 N. U.S. Highway 1
Ormond Beach, FL 32074
D
Steve Dale
Division of Waste Management
Kentucky Department of Natural Resources &
Environmental Protection
18 Reilly Rd.
Frankfort, KY 40601
Green Davis
Solid Waste Superintendent
City of Troy
P.O. Box549
Troy, AL 36081
Mike Davis
Pee Dee Regional Council of Government
P.O. Box5719
Florence, SC 29502
Dr. Sam F. Dayton
Executive Director
Georgia Mountains APDC
P. O. Box 1720
Gainesville, GA 30503
Lisa B. Detherage
Division of Solid Waste Management
Kentucky Department of Natural Resources &
Environmental Protection
18 Reilly Rd.
Frankfort, KY 40601
Bernard Dew
County Administrator
Sumter County
222 East McCullum
Bushnell, FL
Ed R. Driver
Vice President
Gwinnett Sanitation, Inc.
P. O. Box 1186
Lilburn, GA 30226
Ralph Duncan
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Office of Policy & Management
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Larry Elkins
City of Athens
Street & Sanitation Department
P. O. Box 1081
Athens, AL 35611
52
-------
SamErwin
Environmental Development Coordinator
Western Piedmont Council
3171stAve.,N.W.
Hickory, NC 28601
Larry D. Evans
Nuclear Production Department
Duke Power Company
P. O. Box 33189
Charlotte, NC 28242
Robert E. Fahey
Solid Waste Management Director
Collier County
3301 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, FL 33962
Ronald W. Farley
Associate General Counsel
Alabama Department of Environmental
Protection
1752 Congressman Dickinson Dr.
Montgomery, AL 36130
James H. Finger
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region TV
Environmental Services Division
College Station Rd.
Athens, GA 30613
Joseph Fransmathes
Assistant Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region TV
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
John Garrison
Staff Counsel
South Carolina State Senate
Columbia, SC
53
Breeden Garry
Director of Public Works
Sumter County
222 East McCullum Ave.
Bushnell,FL 33513
Dave Goetz
Director of Government Affairs
Tennessee Association of Businesses
226 Capitol Boulevard, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37219
James O. (Pete) Gordon
President
Site Consultants, Inc.
P. O. Box 5020
West Columbia, SC 29171
Cheryl Green
Public Relations Coordinator
Waste Away Group, Inc.
671 S. Perry, Suite 400
Montgomery, AL 36104
Charles Grizzle
Assistant Administrator
Office of Administration and Resources
Management
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401MSt.,S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Edward A Grove
President
Gwinnett Sanitation, Inc.
P. O. Box 1186
Lilburn,GA 30226
Don Guinyard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Deputy Director, Waste Management Division
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
-------
H
Donald F. Harker
Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
Division of Solid Waste
18 Reilly Rd.
Frankfort KY 40601
Mac Harrison
Vice President
B & H Environmental Consultants
P. O. Box 145
Hermitage, TN 37076
Gordon W. Hartwid
County Administrator
Lexington County
212 South Lake Dr.
Lexington, SC 29072
Don R Hassall
Bluegrass Area Development District
3220 NicholasviUe Rd.
Lexington, KY 40503
Robert M. (Bob) Haynie
Manager
Greenwood County
County Courthouse, Room 203
Greenwood, SC 29646
John Hedquist
FMS
P. O. Box 88659
Atlanta, GA 30338
Dr. John G. Heilman
Department of Political Science
Auburn University
7080 Haley Center
Auburn University, AL 36849-5208
Connie Heitz
Kentuckiana Regional Planning &
Development Agency
914 East Broadway
Louisville, KY 40204
John W. Henderson
Wakulla County Board of Commissioners
P. O. Box 428
Crawfordville, FL 32327
Dr. Melvin Henley
Purchase Area Development District
P. O. Box 588
Mayfield, KY 42066
Mary Hilton
Special Projects Coordinator
Manatee County
Box 1000
Bradenton,FL 33506
Keith Hinds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Resource Management Division
401MSt.,S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
ChadHobbs
Fivco Area Development District
P. O. Box 636
Catlettsburg, KY 41129
Sid Holcomb
President
Dekalb County Commission
Courthouse, Room 304
Fort Payne, AL 35967
Lisa Hollingsworth
Chattahoochee/Flint Planning Commission
Franklin, GA
54
-------
Dewey J. (Jack) Honeycutt
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management
1751 Congressman Dickinson Dr.
Montgomery AL 36130
Thomas W. Hoog
President
Hoog and Associates
1877 Broadway, Suite 405
Boulder, CO 80302
Jack Horton
County Manager, Macon County
5 West Main St.
Franklin, NC 28734
Jim Huff
Vice Mayor
City Hall
Bristol, TN
Patricia D. Holl
Deputy Director, Grants
Administration Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401MSt.,S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Charles E. Hunter
Cartek Corporation
Tech Services
977 Hillsboro Mile
Hillsboro Beach, FL 33062
I
Gilbert L. Ivie
Director of Solid Waste
Greenville County
98 Fowler Rd.
Piedmont, SC 29673-9688
J
Marvin N. Jarrett
Waste Technology Program, Tennessee Valley
Authority
298 Haney Building
Chattanooga, TN 37401
W. M. Jenkins
Director/ Government Services
Barren River Area Development District
P. O. Box 90005
Bowling Green, KY 42101-9005
Dr. Gerald W. Johnson
Department of Political Science
Auburn University
7080 Haley Center
Auburn University, AL 36849-5208
Andy Jordan
UT/MTAS
Suite 402/Capitol Boulevard Building
Nashville, TN 37219
Joseph F. Judkins
WRRI, Auburn University
202 Hargis Hall
Auburn University, AL 36849
K
R. W. Kearns
Manager
Marketing & Development, Westinghouse
RE.S.D.
2400 Ardmore Boulevard
Pittsburgh, PA 15221
55
-------
Dave Keene
Farmer Automatic of America
P. O. Box 39
Register, GA 30452
Thomas R. Keith
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
5114 Okeechobee Boulevard, Suite 2-C
West Palm Beach, FL 33417
Thomas E. Kern
American Management Systems, Inc.
1777 North Kent St.
Arlington, VA 22209
Lloyd Key
Purchase Area Development District
P. O. Box 588
Mayfield, KY 42066
Robert W.King
Assistant Deputy Commissioner
South Carolina Department of Health &
Environment
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201
W. Ross King
Director Policy and Development
Assoc. County Commissioners of Georgia
127 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 404
Atlanta, GA 30303
Russell P. Klier
Environmental Services Division of Sarasota
County
1301 Cattlemen Rd.
Sarasota, FL 34232
Steve Knight
South Carolina Department of Health &
Environmental Control
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201
Chuck Knowles
Barnsville/Lemar County Clean Community
109 Forsyth St.
Barnesville, GA 30204
Mike J. Lane
Environmental Chemist
Caldwell County
P. O. Box 2200
Lenoir,NC 28645
Janet Lanier
Executive Director
Central Alabama Regional Planning Commission
529 S. Perry St., Suite 16-b
Montgomery, AL 36104
Tina Layno
American Management Systems, Inc.
1777 North Kent St.
Arlington, VA 22209
Leonard Ledbetter
Commissioner
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
205 Butler St., S.E., Suite 1252
Atlanta, GA 30334
Steven L. Levetan
Legislation Affairs Director, Southeast Chapter
Institute of Scrap Recycling
3340 Peachtree Rd., N.E., Suite 1700 Tower
Atlanta, GA 30026
William R. Lewis
Director of Public Works
City of Jackson
P. O. Box 17
Jackson, MS 39205
56
-------
Ron Littlefield
Commissioner of Public Works
City of Chattanooga
Room 210, City Hall
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Richard J. Lorge
Director of Energy Reclamation & Recycling
North American Rayon
West Elk Ave.
Elizabethtown, TN 37643
Rick Losa
Regional Landfill Operations
Browning Ferris Industries
500 Northridge Rd., Suite 825
Atlanta, GA 30350
M. L. Love, Jr.
County Administration
Horry County
P. O. Box 1236
Conway,SC 29526
Joanne Lynch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401MSt,S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
M
Eugene Maples
Joint Legislative Committee on Energy
Room 104, Blatt Building, P. O. Box 11867
Columbia, SC 29211
Alphonse Marks
Pike County Board of Supervisors
P. O. Box 431
Magnolia, MS 39652
Gary Martin
City Engineer
City of Dothan
P. O. Box 2128
Dothan, AL 36302
Catherine Mastropieri
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public-Private Partnerships Coordinator
Region m
841 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Don McCain
Landfill Services Director
County of Florence
Drawer G/City-County Complex
Florence, SC 29501
Jane McConathy
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
OCEA, Region IV
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Ezra McConnell
City Hall
Bristol, TN.
Jamie McGowin
Washington County, Board of Supervisors
P. O. Box 309
Greenville, MS 38702
J. R. Mclntyre
Harstfield International Airport
P.O. Box45171
Atlanta, GA 30320
Guy A. McMahan
Arc-American Refuse Control, Inc.
P. O. Box 3909, Route 3, Box 215-AA
Jackson, GA 30233
Al Medoli
Vice President Public Finance
Moody's Investment Services
99 Church St.
New York, NY 10007
57
-------
William L. Meyer
Chief, Solid & Hazardous Waste
Management Section
North Carolina Department of Health
P. O. Box 2091
Raleigh, NC 27602-2091
Michael A. Mills
Mayor, City of Frankfort
P. O. Box 697
Frankfort, KY 40602
Dr. Tola B. Moffett
Institute for Waste Management
University of Alabama
P. O. Box 2310
Tuscaloosa, AL 35403
Hon. Thomas Moore
Senator, South Carolina State Senate
State House Box 142
Columbia, SC 29202
Frank B. Moore
Vice President of Government Affairs
Waste Management, Inc.
3003 Butterfield
Oakbrook, IL 60521
Thomas Moore
Room Plan Group, Inc.
2505 Hillboro Rd., Suite 102
Nashville, TN 37212
Albert E. Myles
Mississippi State University
P. O. Box 5446
Mississippi St., MS 39762
N
Stan Nelson
Nelson & Company
Civil & Environmental Engineers
Suite 218-1957 Hoover Ct.
Birmingham, AL 35226
Thomas L. Nessmith
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtiand St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Eddie Newman
Public Works Department
County of Sumter
Route 8, Box 24
Sumter, SC 29150
Walter P. Nichols
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management
1751 Congressman Dickinson Dr.
Montgomery, AL 36130
Peggy A. Niemeyer
President
Alabama Chapter
P. O. Drawer 2067
Daphne, AL 36526
Ralph Nix
Middle Georgia APDC
600 Grand Building
Macon, GA 31201
O
David Osterman
Chief Resource Management Division Office of
the Comptroller
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401MSt,S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Rock Payne
Director, Landfill Operations
Waste Away Group, Inc.
P.O. Box308
Montgomery, AL 36101-0308
-------
Leigh Pegures
Director
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management
1751 Congressman Dickinson Dr.
Montgomery, AL 36130
John D. Petersen
Center for Government Finance Officers
1750 K St., N.W., Suite 200
Washington, DC
Howard Pollard
Director of Environmental Planning Services
GA Mountains Association
P. O. Box 1720
Gainesville, GA 30503
Gene Prevatt
Reference Dispatch Director
City of Savannah
P. O. Box 1027
Savannah, GA 31402
C. Gray Price
City of Prattville
101 West Main St., P. O. Drawer 20
Prattville, AL 36067-0020
Joel N. Pugh
City Engineer
City of Decatur
P. O. Box 2419
Decatur, AL 35602
R
Nancy M. Redgate, P.E.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
John Reineke
Regional Vice President for Marketing
Waste Management, Inc.
2600 Delk Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30067
David L. Roberson
Environmental Affairs Department
Alabama Power Company
P. O. Box 2641
Birmingham, AL 35291
Susan Roberts
Executive Director
First Tennessee Development District
207 N. Boone St., Suite 800
Johnson City, TN 37604-5699
Sue R. Robertson
Chief, Land Division
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management
1751 Congressman Dickinson Dr.
Montgomery, AL 36130
DonPugh
OMPC
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Richard W. Radacky
Utilities Manager
Hernando County
202 E. Jefferson St.
Brooksville, FL 34601
-------
John Sandy
Director
Resource Management Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Wayne Scharber
Assistant Commissioner
Tennessee Department of Health & Environment
344 Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, TN 37219-5402
Tim Schwendeman
Cumberland Valley Area Development District
100 State Police Rd.
London, KY 40741
Leroy F. Scott
Associate Director Public Works for Sanitation
Dekalb County
4400 Memorial Drive Complex
Decatur,GA 30032
Frank Self
Washington County Board of Supervisors
P. O. Box 309
Greenville, MS 38702
Jiten Shah
Executive Director
Green River Addition
3860 US Highway 60W
Owensboro, KY 42301
Robert Shepard
Executive Director
Land-of-Sky Regional Council
25 Heritage Drive
Asheville,NC 28806
Ronald E. Sigmon
St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Ave.
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
60
Jerry D. Sims
Mayors Assistant
CityofPrattville
101 W. Main St., P. O. Drawer 20
Prattville, AL 36067-0020
Basil A. Skelton
General Manager Oak Ridge Office
ERC Environment & Energy
800 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Suite 103-A
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Hal Smith
Chairman
Lee County Commission
County Courthouse
Opelika,AL
Amos Southerland
Covington/Newton County Clean & Beautiful
Commission
1113 Usher St., N.E.
Covington,GA 30209
Joe B. Stallings
Deerwood Enterprises
P. O. Box 942
Nashville, GA 31639
George J. Stasen
Consultant
845 Milmar Rd.
Newton Square, PA 19073
Pamela Staten
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
3454 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Joyce Carter Stevens
Regional Government Affairs Manager
Browning Ferris Industries
500 Northridge Rd., #825
Atlanta, GA 30350
-------
James L. Stewart
Assistant Director
City of Birmingham
Streets and Sanitation
501 6th Ave., South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Ogden Stokes
Stokes & Bartholomew, Attorneys at Law
424 Church St., Suite 2800
Nashville, TN 37219
Henry Strickland
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Frank Suozzi
The Savoy Group
2000 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 8200
Washington, DC 20006
Paschal W. (Pat) Swann
Assistant City Manager
City of Winston-Salem
P. O. Box 2511
Winston-Salem, NC 27102
Jackie Swigart
President
Jackie Swigart, Inc.
14% Starks Building, 455 Fourth Ave.
Louisville, KY 40202
Barry A. Swihart
Chief
Bureau of Waste Planning
2600 Blair Stone Rd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Quilla Swint
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region W
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
J. Eugene Taylor
Executive Director
Northeast Mississippi Planning & Development
P. O. Box 600
Booneville, MS 38829
Carl Terry
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, G A 30365
Dr. Claude E. Terry
CTA Environmental, Inc.
6189 Atlantic Boulevard, Suite A
Norcross, GA 30071
Ricky Terry
Landfill Supervisor
City of Decatur
1802 Central Parkway SW
Decatur, AL 35601
Charles H. Thompson
Chairman
Colbert County Commission
201 N. Main, Courthouse
Tuscumbia,AL 35674
James L. Thompson
Georgia House of Representatives
Natural Resources Committee
Room 220, State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334
Bill Thorton
Director of Resources & Information
Georgia Municipal Association
201PryorSt.,S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
61
-------
Greer C. Tidwell
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dale Twachtmann
Secretary
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Rd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
V
Ron Vinson
Central Midlands Regional Planning
800 Dutch Square Boulevard, Suite 155
Columbia, SC 29210
William T. Vogel
Environmental Affairs Supervisor
Bowater Inc., Carolina
P. O. Box 7
Catawba,SC 29704
w
Diane A. Waddle
South Carolina Parks, Recreation & Tourism
1205 Pendleton St., Room 203
Columbia, SC 29201
Diane Wagner
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Richard Walker
Public-Private Partnerships Coordinator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
Billy Warden
Bureau of Pollution Control
P. O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39209
Bruce Weddle
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401MSt.,S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Mack Wilbourn
1100 Spring St., Suite 450
Atlanta, GA 30367
Arthur L .Williams
Kentucky Department for Environmental
Protection
18 Reilly Rd.
Frankfort, KY 40601
Jack T. Willis, Sr.
President
Willis Engineering, Inc.
P. O. Drawer 160
Grenada, MS 38901
Carl D. Wills
Director of Public Works
City of High Point
P. O. Box 230
High Point, NC 27261
Frank Wilson
Polk County Environmental Services
P.O. Box39
Bartow,FL 33830
Leesa Woodall
Coordinator, Barnsville
Lemar Company, Clean Communities
109 Forsyth St.
Barnesville, GA 30204
62
-------
Larry E. Woodall
Business Manager
Southern Sates Landfill, Inc.
4696 Oakdale Rd.
Smyrna, GA 30080
Douglas Woodson
Environmental Engineering
South Carolina Department of Health &
Environmental Control
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201
Jonathan Wooten
Managing Director
Smith, Barney, Harris, Upham & Company
1345 Ave. of the Americas
New York, NY 10105
Christine Zawlocki
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401MSt.,S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Bob Zellner
County Administrator
Lemar County
Lemar County Courthouse
Barnesville, GA 30204
63
------- |