United States Environmental Protection Agency 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5306W)
EPA530-R-95-077
August 1996


FULL COST ACCOUNTING RESOURCE GUIDE

CONTENTS

This guide is divided into five major sections as follows:

* About This Guide
* Full Cost Accounting Articles and Reports
* Full Cost Accounting Handbooks
* Related Documents
* State and Local Contacts

   Note: The information in this resource guide was obtained
from government and association sources believed to be
reliable. Neither the analyses nor the content of the
resources necessarily reflect EPA's views.


ABOUT THIS GUIDE ABOUT THIS GUIDE

Full cost accounting (FCA) is an accounting tool that can
help decision-makers assess and manage the actual cost of
municipal solid waste (MSW) services in their communities.
As of 1996, four states (Florida, Georgia, Indiana, and
North Carolina) have passed laws requiring local governments
to determine and report on the full cost of providing solid
waste services. Some communities in other states are
implementing FCA voluntarily and are finding it an important
and useful tool to help manage their solid waste programs.

Knowing what MSW management costs enables communities to
make more informed decisions about their programs, improve
the efficiency of services, and better plan for the future.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that
understanding the full cost of solid waste services will
lead to efficient and sustainable solid waste systems.

This guide is designed to assist local elected and appointed
officials and solid waste managers in identifying resources
on FCA. It contains listings of federal, state, and local
government documents, as well as materials produced by trade
and professional groups. Most documents deal specifically
with FCA, though some of them cover related topics, such as
enterprise funds and activity-based costing (ABC). Each
section presents information on how to order documents and
their cost, when available. The guide also presents names of
individuals in communities that are in various stages of
implementing FCA.

Currently, a limited amount of information is available on
FCA. EPA produced this resource guide of selected
information sources with the intent of publishing future
iterations as more information becomes available. If you
know of additional information resources, feel free to send
a copy of the material and information regarding a contact
person to: Angie Leith U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (5306W) Washington, DC 20460. Phone: 703
308-7253, FAX: 703 308-8686.


FULL COST ACCOUNTING ARTICLES AND REPORTS   

This section presents recent journal articles and reports
related to FCA. Articles can be obtained from libraries or
by ordering back issues from the publisher listed under each
entry. Reports can be purchased from the publishing
organization, as listed.


   Accounting for the Full Cost of Garbage, Recycling, and
Yard Waste Services: Special Report No. 3 to the Indiana
General Assembly, Indiana Institute on Recycling, Indiana
State University, School of Education, Terre Haute, IN,
February 1993. (No cost in-state, $10 out-of-state; phone:
812 237-3000)

This report outlines the history and current status of
Indiana's statewide FCA law, which requires local
governments to calculate and report the full costs of
providing waste management services. The elements of an FCA
system are discussed and include direct and indirect costs,
future liabilities, opportunity costs, and potential
environmental costs. The document provides an outline of the
full cost reporting system in Indiana and provides brief
insights on the development stages, from the steering
committee to the final reporting form. Finally, it provides
the standardized worksheets that Indiana communities use to
report FCA costs, as well as directions for completing them.


   "Costing Government Services: Benchmarks for Making the
Privatization Decision," Pete Rose, Government Finance
Review, June 1994, pp. 7-11. Government Finance Officers
Association, Chicago, IL. ($5; phone: 312 977-9700)

This article describes a methodology for determining the
viability of privately contracting out yard trimmings
collection services. Upper Arlington, Ohio, evaluated the
cost-effectiveness of proposals and bids in a two-step
process. First, the municipality determined the total cost
of providing the service over a period of years. (The total
cost included direct program costs, as well as indirect
costs (overhead) such as administration and support costs at
the city, department, and division levels.) Second, the
municipality analyzed all costs to determine the
effectiveness of privatization. These steps can help local
governments make the privatization decision by outlining how
to acquire full knowledge of the cost of various service
alternatives.


   Full Cost Accounting Fact Sheet, National Recycling
Coalition, Alexandria, VA, 1996. (No cost; 703 683-9025)

This fact sheet was developed to provide general guidance to
local government officials on the principles of FCA and how
it can benefit their community's programs. Developed by the
National Recycling Coalition's Full Cost Accounting
Subcommittee, the fact sheet covers how FCA works, cost
components to include, barriers to its implementation, case
study information and resources, and how FCA can help a
community achieve increased reduction through more informed
planning and management decisions.


   "Full Cost Accounting in Texas," Dave S. Yanke, Texas
Town and City, February 1995, pp. 12-15, 24, 28. Texas
Municipal League, Austin, TX. ($2; phone: 512 719-6300)

This 6-page article describes two FCA methods: a modified
cash basis and an accrual basis. The difference between the
systems is that principal payments and cash capital outlays
are used to recover capital costs instead of depreciation
expenses. The author explains that Texas has chosen to use
the modified cash basis because it can help cities prepare
and evaluate solid waste rates by recovering the cash costs
associated with these services. Establishing the cost of
such service-based rates can help cities avoid potential
revenue shortfalls and examine different scenarios of
services, capital expenditures, and increased capital
costs. Through examples and exhibits, the author also
addresses the cost components involved when developing
cost-based rates, allocating costs among programs,
allocating program costs among customer types, and
developing user fees.


   "Full Cost Accounting: What Is It? Will It Help Or Hurt
Recycling?", Norm Crampton, Resource Recycling, September
1993, pp. 57-61. Resource Recycling, Inc., Portland, OR.
($4; phone: 503 227-1319)

This 4-page article discusses FCA legislation in three
states: Indiana, Florida, and Georgia. The states'
approaches to FCA are explained, with examples from select
cities. Many of the benefits and barriers to various
methodologies are presented. A major benefit of FCA is
providing cities, towns, and waste districts with a new
financial management tool to defend their programs on a cost
basis. In Indiana, FCA has allowed the City of Franklin to
show the cost relationships between disposal and recycling.
Subsequently, a private contractor was hired to provide
solid waste services that now include recycling at a lower
cost than before. Florida has shown little success in
implementing its FCA law due to a lack of resources and
enforcement personnel. Many communities in Georgia comply
with the law; however, it appears as though few truly
understand the methodology or have sufficient records to
complete the report adequately.


   Full Cost of Providing Garbage Collection and Disposal,
Recycling, and Yard Waste Services in Indiana Cities and
Towns During 1993: Special Report No. 5 to the Indiana
General Assembly, Indiana Institute on Recycling, Indiana
State University, School of Education, Terre Haute, IN,
1994. (No cost in-state, $10 out-of-state; phone: 812
237-3000)

This special report outlines the 1993 findings of Indiana's
statewide law requiring all cities and towns that provide
solid waste services to calculate the full cost of service
annually. The cost reports are received at the Indiana
Institute of Recycling, where the information is analyzed
and used to produce summary documents. Some of the findings
contained in this report are as follows: 211 Indiana cities
and towns indicate they avoided $3.3 million in dumping
costs through yard waste and recycling programs; yard waste
diversion programs were found to be the least costly solid
waste management program provided by cities and towns; and
the percentage of costs associated with specific services
are: 41 percent for garbage collection, 23 percent for
garbage disposal, 22 percent for recyclables collection, and
14 percent for yard waste programs. A series of 11 charts
are included for 1993 and illustrate the summary statistics
for solid waste services in Indiana.


   "How to Calculate Waste Disposal Costs," Leonard E. Joyce
Jr., Government Finance Review, August 1990, pp. 20-21, 48.
Government Finance Officers Association, Chicago, IL. ($6;
phone: 312 977-9700)

This article discusses the costs associated with setting up
a landfill facility, including development, initial
construction, operation, and closure/postclosure. A
worksheet is provided to demonstrate the components and cost
categories involved. A cost estimate for a hypothetical
landfill also is provided.


   How to Compare Costs Between In-House and Contracted
Services, Lawrence Martin: Reason Foundation, Los Angeles,
CA, March 1993. ($11; phone: 310 391-2245)

Many considerations enter into the decision to contract out
MSW services, including cost. This document provides a
step-by-step approach for local governments to assess the
full cost of these services. Because government activities
are typically funded through several departments, officials
may be unaware of the full cost of providing a given
service. For example, they may not consider indirect costs
such as pension plans and administration. This document
identifies costs that are often ignored and those that
should be considered when comparing service options.


   Issue Paper, Subcommittee on Economics/Full Cost
Accounting, NRC Policy Research Committee, National
Recycling Coalition, Inc., Alexandria, VA, September 1995.
(No cost; phone: 703 683-9025)

This paper describes the rationale for encouraging FCA, the
issues surrounding FCA, and the historical relationship that
FCA has in the National Recycling Coalition. Topics
discussed include planning issues, financing, evaluation
criteria for FCA models, implementation methodologies, and
barriers to implementation. Implementing FCA on the local
level will require that significant and diverse barriers be
overcome. NRC recommendations include identifying barriers;
developing tools, guidance documents, and a standardized
methodology; and incorporating the research currently being
done on life-cycle assessment for MSW management options
into FCA studies. An appendix provides an overview of the
existing programs in four states (Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
and North Carolina). A table comparing the cost centers
(collection, contracting, processing, etc.) in each state
also is provided.


   Modeling University City's Integrated Waste Management
System in WastePlan, 1994-1998, Paul Ligon, September 1995;
Modeling Park Hills' Integrated Waste Management System in
WastePlan, Paul Ligon and Robert Graff, December 1995;
Existing and Future Solid Waste Management Systems in the
Regional Plan Association Region, November 1992, Tellus
Institute, Boston, MA. (No cost; 617 266-5400)

These three documents profile three cities' waste management
systems and plans using WastePlan, a user-friendly computer
modeling tool developed by Tellus Institute. WastePlan
creates a model of current solid waste systems that is used
to investigate how changes to the system would affect system
costs and revenues. It presents outcomes in terms of waste
flows, diversion rates, collection truck and labor
requirements, processing and disposal capacity needs, total
costs, and costs per ton. In essence, WastePlan simulates a
full cost accounting approach to solid waste planning. In
University City, WastePlan projected the additional
equipment and labor costs that would be incurred from
expanding the recycling program, as well as the cost
reduction realized for each ton of recyclables handled. The
Park Hills analysis shows that changing from a flat fee
system to a pay-as-you-throw system would meet several of
the city's goals, including reducing waste generation,
increasing recycling rates and balancing waste disposal
costs and revenues. In 1992, WastePlan found that if New
York City implemented recycling, composting, and waste
prevention education programs, overall solid waste
management system costs would decline significantly in the
New York Metropolitan Area and would be no more expensive
than alternative programs that would rely exclusively on
landfilling and incineration.


   "Public/Private Competition in the City of Phoenix,
Arizona," Jim Flanagan and Susan Perkins, Government Finance
Review, June 1995, pp. 7-12. Government Finance Officers
Association, Chicago, IL. ($6; phone: 312 977-9700)

By initiating a competitive process for all city services,
Phoenix, Arizona, created a system that provides the best
service for the least cost. By involving city departments in
competition with private contractors in a public-bid
situation, and by using FCA, it has been able to compare 13
service areas and save a total of more than $27 million. The
competitive process demands that efficiency and customer
satisfaction be established as the most important values.
The attention paid to these factors also leads to creative
approaches to equipment design, staffing, and costs. Because
of this approach, solid waste programs in particular have
benefitted better equipment has been purchased, the life of
a landfill was extended by providing a contractor with
monetary incentives to compact materials, and a transfer
station was developed.


   "Solid Waste Forum--Full Cost Accounting," Abraham
Michaels, P.E., Public Works, November 1995, pp. 60, 62.
Public Works Publications, Osterville, MA. (No cost; phone:
508 428-9282)

This editorial provides an overview of FCA principles and
explains that it is a practice that has been used for many
years. Many communities may be using FCA without being aware
that the term "FCA" is applicable to their practices. The
American Public Works Association has been promoting FCA in
its documents since the 1960s. The author reviews two of
these documents. In addition, the author suggests that the
recent interest in FCA might be due to recycling. He
suggests that while in the past, the financial factors that
influenced costs and management of solid waste services were
under the control of local governments, these governments
have no control over the value of recyclables. He also
believes that the recent movement to encourage local
governments to take into consideration the closure and
postclosure costs in their budgets encouraged the use of
FCA. The author also mentions EPA's efforts to promote FCA
by working with a workgroup and preparing outreach and
technical materials, and reviews some of the communities and
states that are promoting FCA as well.


   Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management, Solid Waste
Association of North America (SWANA), 1995, Silver Spring,
MD. (For full report, $255 for SWANA members; $300 for
nonmembers. For summary report, $42.50 for SWANA members;
$50 for nonmembers; phone: 301 585-2898 ext. 239)

This 1,000-page report presents principal findings from case
studies on six integrated solid waste management systems:
Minneapolis, Minnesota; Palm Beach County, Florida;
Scottsdale, Arizona; Seattle, Washington; Sevierville,
Tennessee; and Springfield, Massachusetts. The purpose of
the case studies was to develop and present consistent cost,
resource use, and environmental regulation information on
each system. A full cost accounting approach was used for
the cost analysis in each of the six case studies. Major
findings include: (1) examining program costs on an
incremental basis proved to be extremely useful for
decision-making; (2) collection of MSW, recyclables, or yard
trimmings represents the most significant system cost; (3)
additional energy consumed to collect and process
recyclables and yard trimmings is relatively small. Detailed
descriptions are provided for all findings. A summary report
is also available.


FULL COST ACCOUNTING HANDBOOKS

The following handbooks and guidance manuals are produced by
or for local communities that are implementing FCA. They can
be obtained directly from the federal, state, or local
entity, as listed.


   Component Cost Summary, Solid Waste Authority of Palm
Beach County, West Palm Beach, FL, March 1995. ($7.20;
phone: 407 640-4000, ext. 4220)

This document summarizes the cost components of the Solid
Waste Authority's integrated solid waste management system
in fiscal year 1994. The focus of the report is on the
direct costs of operating the solid waste facilities and
programs, including upfront and backend expenditures (e.g.,
acquisition of land and materials and postclosure care of
the landfill). Palm Beach County uses the FCA data to
improve decision-making. The report presents a comprehensive
flow chart of the county's waste flow and tables showing
landfill tonnage per year, recyclables revenues per ton,
cost of landfilling per ton, etc. It describes many of the
Authority's programs and its methodology for finding the
full costs.


   Full Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste: A
Handbook, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA530-R-95-041, October 1995. (RCRA
Hotline, phone: Washington Metro Area: 703 412-9810, or TDD:
703 412-3323; Long Distance: 800 424-9346, or TDD: 800
553-7672)

This handbook is a comprehensive source of information on
FCA for MSW programs. The key concepts and benefits of FCA
are explained. Some of these principles include clarifying
what and whose costs to cover, identifying activities to be
costed and resources involved, supplementing available
financial data, allocating overhead costs to solid waste
services, and reporting cost information to different
audiences. The benefits of FCA include determining the
actual MSW management costs, explaining MSW costs more
clearly to citizens, adopting a businesslike approach to
providing MSW services, and increasing cost-effectiveness
through fine-tuning MSW management. While the handbook is
not a step-by-step "how-to" document, it does describe the
steps involved with implementing FCA for solid waste
management. References and a glossary of terms are included.


   Municipal Solid Waste Services Full Cost Accounting
Workbook for Texas Local Governments, Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, Austin, TX, April 1995. (No cost;
phone: 512 239-0010)

This workbook provides Texas municipalities with a system
for collecting cost data and establishing rates that reflect
the full costs of providing solid waste services. An outline
of direct and indirect costs and other revenue is provided
along with a diagram of the steps leading from costs and
revenues to solid waste service rates. Fourteen forms and
detailed instructions (methodologies) for allocating
"part-time" costs, as well as direct costs, revenues, and
additional services, are included in this workbook.


   Solid Waste: Full Cost Accounting Manual for Georgia
Local Governments, Georgia Department of Community Affairs,
Atlanta, GA, May 1991. (No cost; phone: 404 656-3879)

This manual was designed to assist local government
officials in complying with the reporting requirements of
the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, which
became effective January 1, 1992. The manual consists of a
set of forms and procedures that are designed to provide
long-term, continuous, accurate cost data for local solid
waste operations. The accounting system outlined is designed
to capture all of the costs in providing services such as
direct costs, indirect costs, billable costs, debt
retirement, and interest expense. Ten forms, trial balance
sheets, and a list of definitions are included.


   A Solid Waste Management Full Cost Determination Guidance
Document for North Carolina Local Governments, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Solid Waste Management, Raleigh, NC,
March 1992. (No cost; phone: 919 733-0692)

In 1989, the State of North Carolina passed a bill defining
solid waste management responsibilities of local government.
This document provides a methodology for local governments
to determine the cost of solid waste services on a per-user
or contractual basis. Many definitions are cited throughout
the document to aid in identifying appropriate user
categories. Descriptions, instructions, and blank copies of
worksheets for four levels of full cost determination are
included. Numerous examples are outlined within the document
as well as the accompanying worksheets.


   The Full Cost Analysis Guide for Municipal Waste
Managers, Action on Waste, Alberta Environmental Protection,
Alberta, Canada, September 1995. ($25 Canadian; phone: 403
422-2079)

This reference document is the first comprehensive guide of
its kind to be prepared in Canada. It is designed to guide
MSW managers through an orderly analysis of the full costs
of MSW programs. "Full Cost Analysis" is an economic tool
used to compare projects for decision-making. Unlike the
definition of FCA, "Full Cost Analysis" includes
environmental, health, and social costs, as well as revenues
generated and any benefits that might come of the external
costs (e.g., pollution abatement or employment
opportunities). The document provides checklists and
worksheets for managers to use in determining the full costs
and to rank external considerations.


RELATED DOCUMENTS

   These documents relate closely to FCA and discuss the
concepts of activity-based costing and enterprise funds.
Activity-based costing (ABC) uses many of the same concepts
as FCA but concentrates on the activities that consume
resources (e.g., training employees, processing orders),
rather than on how resources are spent (e.g., supplies,
equipment). It is a tool that identifies and computes costs
for activities, processes, and outputs of activities, such
as products or services. Enterprise funds help local
governments run their accounting systems like businesses,
accounting for all of the costs associated with a program
and keeping the budget separate from all other municipal
functions. These documents can be ordered directly from the
organizations listed.


   An ABC Manager's Primer, Gary Cokins, Alan Stratton, and
Jack Helbling, Institute of Management Accountants,
Montvale, NJ, 1993. ($15; phone: 800 638-4427)

The authors explain that computers have allowed rapid
reorganization of data, which has given birth to a new
concept of management, organization, planning, and cost
analysis: ABC. While general ledger reports describe only
what is spent and items that are purchased (supplies,
equipment), ABC reports describe activities and therefore
how money is spent (training employees, processing orders).
The primer explains how ABC can be coupled with
activity-based management (ABM) to empower employees to seek
creative methods to become more efficient and reduce waste.
It explains the importance of understanding how ABC systems
are designed and uses simple charts and diagrams to
illustrate the difference between ABC and other accounting
and management techniques.


   Enterprise Funds for Solid Waste Management, Dolores M.
Eggers, Department of Environmental Sciences & Engineering,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Spring 1994.
($10; phone: 919 966-7301 or 919 932-5168)

This document outlines the fundamental aspects of enterprise
funds for integrated solid waste management. These
independent, self-sustaining funds are supported primarily
by user fees charged for solid waste services. Some of the
advantages of enterprise funds are outlined and include
accounting for system costs individually, providing better
financial and information tracking, using designated user
fees to finance activities and reduce the burden on the
general tax fund, and allowing profits that remain in the
fund to secure debt for capital investment. The document
provides general guidance on user fees, rate systems and
rate setting, solid waste flow control, and privatization.
In addition, case studies are presented to illustrate the
various sources of revenues, system costs, cost allocation
alternatives, and budget options currently in use. The
document also discusses the steps required to establish an
enterprise fund: determining local government authority,
gaining support, establishing a system of user fees,
accounting for the full costs, choosing a budget planning
period, educating the public, and recognizing that
enterprise funds are part of entrepreneurial government. The
case studies included are Seattle, Washington; Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina; Cape May County, New Jersey; Prince
William County, Virginia; Sacramento, California; and Burke
County, North Carolina.


   "Government Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Full Cost
Accounting in Prince William County, Virginia," Thomas J.
Smith and Kenneth W. Shafer, Prince William, Virginia, Solid
Waste Division. Presented at the ASTSWMO 1993 National Solid
Waste Forum, July 1993. ($10; phone: 703 792-6254)

This presentation paper outlines the establishment of an
enterprise fund and FCA practices in Prince William County,
Virginia. The specific steps followed to establish this
local enterprise fund are discussed. Legislative impetus,
cost/revenue projections, and financial management/assurance
are covered, as well as Government Accounting Standards
Board requirements for state and local governments.
Accounting for capital assets and liabilities through
detailed measurement and recording also is outlined. The
report recommends that a community compile an accurate
history of all operating costs and future expenses prior to
establishing an enterprise fund. It also suggests that
communities perform a cash flow analysis periodically to
protect against cash shortfalls, consider the potential
liabilities associated with contaminant release and
remediation, and track all revenues and expenses to provide
benchmarks and operations analyses


   Implementing Activity-Based Cost Management, Robin
Cooper, Robert S. Kaplan, Lawrence S. Maisel, Eileen
Morrissey, and Ronald M. Oehm, Institute of Management
Accountants, Montvale, NJ, 1992. ($35; phone: 800 638-4427)

This book presents the results of a research study on ABC
systems. It examines the actual experiences of eight
manufacturing, financial services, and distribution
companies that implemented ABC. The study found that ABC
information enables managers to make more informed decisions
with an integrated view of their organizations. ABC was used
to make major decisions about products and services as well
as process improvements and activity management. The ABC
model can coexist with traditional financial systems. The
case studies examine the implementation experiences, as well
as specific actions taken and organizational barriers.


   Solid Waste Enterprise Funds A Review of Four Case Study
Communities, Solid Waste Association of North America
(SWANA), Silver Spring, MD, November 1993. ($35 for SWANA
members; $55 for nonmembers; phone: 301 585-2898 ext. 239)

This document reviews the enterprise funds of four case
study communities: Cape May County, New Jersey; Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina; Sacramento County, California; and
Seattle, Washington. The document shows that by implementing
solid waste enterprise funds communities are able to plan,
budget, and monitor costs more effectively. They are able to
set rates that accurately reflect the full costs of
providing services, improve their level of reporting to
management through the use of enterprise funds, and operate
these funds on a self-sustaining basis. The typical
enterprise fund develops varied revenue sources to support
the services it provides rather than being totally supported
by user fees. The full cost of providing services is
sometimes underestimated due to indirect costs; therefore,
full cost recovery is a goal rather than a reality in most
of these communities. Communities found that access to
capital markets is not guaranteed by the use of an
enterprise fund. Communities must first establish a sound
system of fees, provide a sound financial plan, offer the
necessary level of service without significant waste, and
demonstrate the ability to manage the fund through accurate
accounting, auditing, and reporting.

   "Using Activity-Based Costing for Efficiency and
Quality," Bridget M. Anderson, Government Finance Review,
June 1993, pp. 7-9. Government Finance Officers Association,
Chicago, IL. ($6; phone: 312 977-9700)

ABC is an accounting system that determines exactly what
services are provided to citizens and the true costs of
providing these services. ABC can be used for comparing
costs and efficiency by identifying component cost details,
cost impacts, and savings from alternative courses of
action. Key components of an ABC system include the
activities and tasks performed by personnel and equipment,
the costs and resources that are allocated to activities,
and the outputs or results.


STATE AND LOCAL CONTACTS

   The following state government offices and organizations
are tasked with developing and implementing FCA in local
communities or with providing policy advice to state and
local governments.


Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
Solid Waste Division, 2600 Blairstone Road, Tallahassee, FL
32399-2400. Contact Person: Fred Wick or Erika Frederick
Phone: 904 488-0300 or 904 921-9975.

   Florida mandates FCA for all of its local governments.
The Florida DEP can provide information about the
development of its program, lessons learned, obstacles
overcome, and plans for the future. The DEP plans to publish
a short booklet for local governments to explain what FCA is
and how it can be practiced successfully. The publication
should be available in 1996.


Georgia Department of Community Affairs, 100 Peachtree
Street, Suite 1200, Atlanta, GA 30303. Contact Person: Ruben
Burney, Analyst Phone: 404 656-3879.

   Georgia mandates FCA for all of its local governments.
Mr. Burney was involved in developing a guidance manual that
is distributed to all communities to assist with FCA
implementation. He continues to provide support for the
program.


Indiana Institute on Recycling, 921 School of Education,
Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809. Contact
Person: Norm Crampton, Executive Director Phone: 812
237-3000.

   Indiana has a mandatory FCA reporting law. The institute
collects FCA data from communities throughout the state and
compiles this information into summary reports. Mr. Crampton
oversees the implementation of FCA in the state and has
provided guidance from the beginning of the initiative in
Indiana.


Maryland Department of the Environment, Waste Management
Administration 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, MD 21224.
Contact Person: Regina Rochez Phone: 410 631-3314.

   Maryland is in the beginning stages of developing an FCA
program. The state has held several workshops to elicit the
interest of elected officials, solid waste and planning
personnel, and citizens and to provide information about
FCA. Information regarding the results and feedback from
these workshops is available. In addition, Ms. Rochez serves
on EPA's FCA Workgroup, which is developing several outreach
and technical assistance materials.


North Carolina Department of Environmental Protection,
Office of Waste Reduction, 3825 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC.
Contact Person (1): Scott Mouw, Manager Phone: 919 715-6512.
Contact Person (2): Michael Shore Phone: 919 715-6521.

   North Carolina mandates FCA and is in the beginning
stages of developing training for local governments and
enforcement procedures. The towns of Cary and Apex, as well
as Chatham County, have well-developed FCA programs.


Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC)
P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087. Contact Person:
Robert Schultz, Solid Waste Department Phone: 512 239-0010.

   TNRCC has embarked on a comprehensive statewide effort to
encourage local governments to implement FCA on a voluntary
basis. The commission researched programs nationwide to
learn about the many different ways of implementing FCA and
now advocates an FCA program on a modified cash basis. TNRCC
conducts training programs statewide and has developed a
workbook to help communities develop an FCA system.


LOCAL GOVERNMENT

   The following local governments are at various stages of
developing and implementing FCA. Many of these governments
have enterprise funds, which can serve as a basis for FCA.


Mesa, Arizona, Department of Public Works 20 East Main
Street, P.O. Box 1466, Mesa, AZ 85211. Contact Person: Jack
Friedline Phone: 602 644-4567.

   Mesa has been operating its solid waste program like a
business, using FCA and an enterprise fund, for the past
five or six years. It uses FCA to help determine its solid
waste rates and compete in the open market. By sharing full
cost information with trash haulers, the city has been able
to increase its efficiency and keep services public. 


Los Angeles, California Sanitation Department, 419 S. Spring
Street, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90013. Contact Person:
(1) Jorge Santiesteban, Engineer Phone: 213 893-8254. 
200 Main Street, Suite 1400, City Hall East, Los Angeles, CA
90012. Contact Person: (2) Drew Sones, Manager Phone: 213
485-5112.

   Los Angeles first became involved with FCA because of the
mayor's interest in privatizing solid waste services. The
city used FCA to determine its full costs. Now, FCA is used
primarily as a measure of performance for each of the five
district managers. FCA is helping district managers cost out
each program's components, compare budgets with each other
and other agencies, and bring down costs.


Sacramento, California, Department of Public Works 9850
Goethe Road, Sacramento, CA 95827-3500 Contact Person: John
Abernethy Phone: 916 366-2625

   Sacramento operates an enterprise fund and has been using
FCA since 1968. The city keeps track of the costs of each
solid waste program and uses FCA information to improve
service and monitor trends in collection efficiency and
management. FCA has helped the city streamline its
day-to-day operations as well as facilitate larger changes
such as switching from manual to automated refuse collection
trucks. FCA also has helped the city in bidding with the
private sector.


Laramer County, Colorado, P.O. Box 1190, Fort Collins, CO
80522. Contact Person: Janelle Henderson, Director of
Natural Resources Phone: 303 498-7000.

   Since 1983, Laramer County has been operating an
enterprise fund and practicing FCA as part of that fund for
internal management purposes.


Dade Metro Area, Florida, Solid Waste Division, Dade Metro
Area 4200 NW 36th Street, Suite 300, Building 5A, Miami, FL
33122. Contact Person: Diane Kamacho, Financial Director
Phone: 305 592-1776.

   Dade Metro Area developed and implemented an FCA program
after the state law was passed. Not only did the
municipality follow the state requirements, it began
developing a computer program for FCA as well. It uses FCA
for internal decision-making and evaluation of the solid
waste program.


Broward County, Florida, Office of Integrated Waste
Management 201 South Andrews Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
33301. Contact Person: Tom Henderson, Director Phone: 954
765-4202, ext. 269. Email: thenderson@co.broward.FL.US.

   Broward County provides a wide variety of solid waste
management services and operates its system under four
separate enterprise funds. The county implemented FCA by
modifying existing accounting software to accommodate FCA
data and used these data to help the county obtain the cost
data necessary to manage its systems more efficiently. The
county has been using FCA since 1991.


Jacksonville, Florida, Solid Waste Division 515 North Laura
Street, 6th Floor, Jacksonville, FL 32202-3156. Contact
Person: Fred Forbes Phone: 904 387-8922.

   Jacksonville has used FCA to learn the costs of each
component of its solid waste program. It tracks equipment
usage and employee time as a way to measure and increase
efficiency. It also uses FCA to help with privatization
decisions.


Palm Beach, Florida, Solid Waste Authority 7501 North Jog
Road, West Palm Beach, FL 33412. Contact Person: Daniel
Pellowitz, Financial and Operations Analyst Phone: 407
640-4000, ext. 4609.

   Palm Beach County uses FCA to cost out special projects,
make long-term projections, and evaluate trends in the
county's activities. The county also uses FCA to evaluate
privatization decisions. The county operates its solid waste
program under an enterprise fund.


Indianapolis, Indiana, Solid Waste Division 2700 S. Belmont
Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46221. Contact Person: Mike Carter,
Chief Financial Officer Phone: 317 327-5680

   Indianapolis established an ABC system for each activity
within each department in the city. ABC uses many of the
same concepts as FCA but concentrates on the activities that
consume resources (e.g., training employees, processing
orders), rather than on how resources are spent (e.g.,
supplies, equipment). It identifies costs for activities,
processes, and outputs of activities. Using ABC has helped
the city reduce its budget by $16 million because of
initiatives to increase efficiency and streamline services.


Montgomery County, Maryland, Recycling and Collection.
Contact Person: Allison Clark, Business Manager Phone: 301
217-2373.

   The county's collection operations are managed under one
enterprise fund and disposal operations are managed under
another enterprise fund. FCA has been used to assist with
the internal management of different aspects of the MSW
program as well as to report cost data to the public.


Seekonk, Massachusetts, Board of Selectmen 100 Peck Street,
Seekonk, MA 02771. Contact Person: Pat Vieira, Board Member
Phone: 508 336-7400.

   Seekonk used FCA to develop its unit-based pricing
(pay-as-you-throw) program. By determining its full costs,
it was able to set a flat and a variable rate to ensure that
sufficient funding would be generated to cover the costs of
MSW services. FCA also enabled the town to explain to
citizens exactly how the new fee system worked and how rates
were determined.


Burke County, North Carolina, Department of Public Works
P.O. Box 1486, Morganton, NC 28680. Contact Person: Dale
Meyer, Director Phone: 704 439-4391.

   Burke County operates an enterprise fund and has
implemented an FCA program.



Raleigh, North Carolina, Department of Public Works 222 W.
Hargett Street, Raleigh, NC 27602. Contact Person: John
Cummings Phone: 919 890-3475.

   Raleigh set up an FCA system as the basis for
establishing an enterprise fund. The department has
developed user-friendly spreadsheets for implementing FCA.


Austin, Texas, 206 East Ninth Street, 17th Floor, Austin, TX
78701. Contact Person: Catherine Gambrell, Financial Analyst
Phone: 512 499-3544.

   Austin has been using an enterprise fund and FCA for
almost a decade for its solid waste program. It uses FCA as
a means to justify rates and provide an incentive for
managers to be as efficient as possible.


Houston, Texas, Department of Solid Waste Management 601
Sawyer, Suite 500, Houston, TX 77007. Contact Person: Daniel
M. Gutierrez, Assistant Director of Administration Phone:
713 865-4114.

   Houston has been using FCA for more than a decade for
making privatization decisions, ensuring optimal efficiency,
and initiating new programs. It has implemented a
comprehensive education and outreach program for citizens
about the costs and issues surrounding solid waste. 


Chesapeake, Virginia, Southeastern Public Service Authority
P.O. Box 1346, Chesapeake, VA 23327-1346. Contact Person:
John Hatfield Phone: 757 420-4700.

   The Authority uses an enterprise fund and FCA to manage
the solid waste services for the six cities and two counties
under its jurisdiction. The Authority uses a cash basis
accounting system for budgeting purposes and an accrual
system for auditing. All services are funded through user
fees.


Williston, Vermont, Chittenden Solid Waste District 209
Redmond Road, Williston, VT 05495-9133. Contact Person: Tom
Moreau, General Manager Phone: 802 872-8100.

   Chittenden has used FCA to provide financial
accountability for funds spent on solid waste activities and
to keep track of all costs. Because Chittenden is an
Authority not a municipality, there are few indirect costs
that must be accounted for under its system. All collection
activities have been privatized. A combination of tipping
fees and tax revenues are used to fund all activities under
the MSW program. The district began using FCA in 1995 and
expects to have a comprehensive FCA program by 1997.


Seattle, Washington, Solid Waste Utility 710 Second Avenue,
Room 505, Seattle, WA 98104. Contact Person: Nick Pealy
Phone: 206 684-7646.

   Seattle has utilized FCA for every aspect of its solid
waste program. FCA is used to justify costs, ensure
accountability to its residents, set appropriate rates, and
provide the most efficient service possible. Seattle also
operates its solid waste program as an enterprise fund.


Casper, Wyoming, 200 North David Street, Casper, WY 82609.
Contact: Linda Witko, Assistant City Manager Phone: 307
235-8296.

   The city has been using a cash basis enterprise fund for
its solid waste management activities and is in the process
of developing an FCA system. Casper has not yet implemented
FCA, but it has completed a comprehensive study and is
investing substantial effort into the development of an FCA
system.