Solid waste rate study shows small FY26 deficit; consultant outlines three rate scenarios and transfer-station options

Keith Stewart, Director of Public Works, and Bobby Masterson, Assistant Director of Public Works, presented a solid-waste budget update and introduced a rate study by Raptalus Financial Consultants that shows a modest FY26 operating deficit and recommends building reserves to cover storm-debris, fleet lease and operating contingencies.

The consultant, Terry Bovary of Raptalus, told the council the FY26 projection shows roughly $12.5 million in solid waste revenues versus about $12.569 million in expenses — a current-year deficit on the order of $19,000. Raptalus recommended reserve targets and presented three rate options to close the funding gap and build reserves: an immediate front-loaded increase, a three-year phased increase, or a five-year phased plan. Consultants also presented an initial, high-level analysis of alternatives regarding the privately operated Edmond Transfer Station and potential cost savings from shifting disposal pathways.

Mr. Bovary summarized operations and current service levels: one automated weekly garbage pickup with unlimited bulky collection, every-other-week recycling (contracted with Republic), and a mix of commercial services. He said the utility serves about 53,750 residential accounts and 1,580 commercial accounts and processes roughly 68,500 tons annually. Raptalus used FY25 budget figures escalated at roughly 3.5% annually in its baseline forecast and recommended conservative reserve targets including 120 days of operating expense, one year of fleet lease coverage and a storm-debris reserve sized to the 2019 ice-storm experience.

On reserves and rate options, the study showed that without action the fund balance would decline; the three scenarios would restore reserve targets on different timelines (front-loaded would meet targets fastest; five-year phase would meet them at the end of the forecast window). Mr. Bovary said the city’s existing reserve balance is about $11 million and a target benchmark computed in the study is roughly $16–17 million depending on selected reserve components.

The transfer-station analysis presented two broad alternatives and one variant: (1) sending collected material directly to the landfill (bypassing the transfer station) with estimated annual savings in Raptalus’s low‑end scenario of about $500,000 and a high-end scenario approaching $917,000, depending on utilization and per-trip assumptions; (2) the city acquiring or operating the transfer station, which would require a sizable payout (the consultant cited an approximate $8,000,000 payment figure depending on contract terms) and would need a multi‑year payback analysis. Raptalus estimated residential trip cost assumptions of about $157 per trip and commercial at about $147 per trip in its high-level modeling; it also noted additional factors — routing, equipment wear, insurance and liability exposure — that need more detailed study.

Council members requested more supporting backup for the numbers, specifically the assumptions about incremental maintenance, insurance, travel time, and any routing changes that would be required to send vehicles to the landfill. Mr. Bovary and staff said the presentation was a high-level summary and that a formal report with detailed backup will be provided; the transfer-station contract does not expire until 2027, giving time for further study and stakeholder discussions. The council did not take formal action; staff and the consultant said they will return with the full report and proposed FY26 budget recommendations.

The study next steps include delivering the full written report, finalizing FY26 budget recommendations for council consideration and continuing stakeholder discussions about the transfer station well before the contract renewal period begins.