Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Arl Closure Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SWS: ARL fund shows strong recent returns; model change extends landfill life and yields $5.2M attributable excess
Summary
Solid Waste Services presented a five-year update to the ARL closure and postclosure investment fund: 2025 returns were strong (16.9%), the board adopted a glide-path allocation, a revised compaction assumption extended landfill life from ~2064 to ~2105, and the model identifies about $8.6M in excess funds—roughly $5.2M attributable to the compaction-rate change; any transfer requires assembly approval.
Kelly Toth, Solid Waste Services director, and Angie Astell and Jeff Sins from the ARL Closure and Postclosure Fund Board presented an update on the fund’s investment performance and the five-year update to the long-term financial planning model.
Astell reported the fund returned 16.9% in 2025 (benchmark 16.8%) and had a 5-year actual return of 6.3% versus a 5-year model assumption of 5.5%. The board adopted a glide-path investment approach (starting around 60% equities and 40% fixed income) and engaged Callan as its investment adviser; Callan’s capital market forecast projects a 5-year forward return near 6.7%.
Sins described a significant input change to the planning model: an updated landfill compaction rate that materially lengthened the landfill’s projected closing date from about 2064 to about 2105 (a 41-year extension) and extended the overall planning horizon (including the 30-year regulatory postclosure period) from roughly 2094 to 2135. Sins said the compaction-rate change is the primary driver of a recalculation of required annual deposits and current funding status.
Using the revised model, Sins reported the fund holds about $26M today and that model outputs indicate roughly $8.6M in excess funds. The board’s attribution analysis concluded approximately $5.2M of that excess is attributable to the permanent compaction-rate change rather than ordinary year-to-year variance. "There's approximately $8,600,000 in excess funds, existing as of approximately this point in time," Sins said, and clarified that the board does not have unilateral authority to transfer funds—the assembly must approve any withdrawal.
Members sought clarity on the numbers and the compaction rationale. Sins and Astell said the change reflects operational improvements at the landfill (equipment, software and practices) that increased compaction efficiency and preserved airspace. Some members urged caution about reallocating funds given past municipal experience with drawing down reserves; others expressed interest in directing excess toward a waste-to-energy initiative but emphasized that any transfer would require assembly action and additional study.
Next steps: the board will submit its report to the assembly before June 30 and staff offered to provide tours and deeper technical briefings to assembly members on compaction methodology and the attribution analysis.
