We are a vertically integrated company providing non-hazardous solid waste collection, transfer, processing, and disposal services in the south and central regions of the United States. As of December 31, 2006, we served approximately 250,000 commercial, industrial and residential customers in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. As of December 31, 2006, we owned and/or operated 20 landfills, 24 collection operations and 24 transfer stations/materials recovery facilities (MRFs). Of these facilities, three transfer stations and two landfills are fully permitted but not yet opened, and two transfer stations are idle. Additionally, we currently operate but do not own two of the transfer stations, and we hold certain prepaid disposal rights at landfills in Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas owned and operated by other parties.
WCA Waste was incorporated as a Delaware corporation in February 2004, and our principal operating subsidiary, WCA Waste Systems, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in September 2000, which then acquired 32 separate solid waste management operations from Waste Management, Inc. From our formation through December 31, 2006, we have successfully integrated over 75 separate operating locations acquired in a total of 29 transactions. For information regarding acquisitions made in 2004, 2005 and 2006, please read “—Acquisition History After Our Initial Public Offering” below. Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “WCA Waste,” “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to WCA Waste Corporation and its direct and indirect subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.
Industry Overview
Based on third party sources, we believe the non-hazardous solid waste industry in the United States generates approximately $47 billion in annual revenue. We believe that approximately $22.5 billion or 48% of the estimated annual industry revenue is generated by the three largest public companies in the industry with other public and privately-held companies representing approximately 25% of the estimated annual industry revenue.
The solid waste industry can be divided among collection, transfer and disposal services. The collection and transfer operations of solid waste companies typically have lower margins than disposal service operations. By vertically integrating collection, transfer and disposal operations, operators seek to capture significant waste volumes and improve operating margins.
During the past three decades, our industry has experienced periods of substantial consolidation activity, though we believe it remains extremely fragmented. We believe that there are two factors that lead to consolidation:
| • | Stringent industry regulations have caused operating and capital costs to rise. Many local industry participants have found these costs difficult to bear and have decided to either close their operations or sell them to larger operators. | ||
| • | Larger operators are increasingly pursuing economies of scale by vertically integrating their operations or by utilizing their facility, asset and management infrastructure over larger volumes. Larger solid waste collection and disposal companies have become more cost-effective and competitive by controlling a larger waste stream and by gaining access to significant financial resources to make acquisitions. However, acquisitions by larger companies generally have less of an impact on their growth rates and revenues because acquisitions are small relative to the size of such companies. |
Our Acquisition Growth Strategy
Vertical Integration And Internalization
Vertical integration is a core element of our operating strategy because it allows us to manage the waste stream from the point of collection through disposal, thereby maximizing the rate of waste internalization, increasing our operating margins and improving our operating cash flows. Internalization refers to the disposal of collected waste into the landfills we own. All collected waste must ultimately be processed or disposed of, with landfills being the main depository for such waste. Generally, the most cost efficient collection services occur within a 35-mile operating radius from the disposal site (up to 100 miles if a transfer station is used). Collection companies that do not own a landfill within such range from their collection routes will usually have to dispose of the waste they collect in landfills owned by third parties. Thus, owning a landfill in a market area provides substantial leverage in the waste management business.
As of December 31, 2006, we owned 20 landfills throughout the regions we serve, two of which, though fully permitted, have not yet commenced operations. We believe that our relatively high number of landfills coupled with the geographic locations of those landfills in the regions we serve positions us to maintain relatively high levels of internalization within our existing markets. As a result of our vertical integration, for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, we internalized approximately 76% and 78% of the total waste we collected, respectively.
Acquisition Strategy
Our acquisition strategy targets operations that we believe will benefit from our core operating strategy of maximizing the internalization of waste. We intend to make acquisitions for two primary purposes: (i) to expand our operations in market areas we already service (“tuck-in” acquisitions); and (ii) to gain entry into new markets (“strategic” acquisitions). Please read "—Acquisition History After Our Initial Public Offering” below for more information. We intend to focus our strategic acquisitions in markets that are generally characterized by one or more of the following characteristics: (i) the availability of adequate disposal capacity, either through acquisitions or through agreements with third parties; (ii) the opportunity for us to acquire a significant market share; and (iii) steady projected economic or population growth rates.
Since ownership of landfills is essential for internalization of waste, we look for opportunities to enter a new market by acquiring or managing a permitted landfill operation in that market. However, while we generally prefer to use a landfill acquisition as our entry into a new market, we, nevertheless, may acquire a collection operation in a new market first if we believe we will be able to acquire a permitted landfill operation in that market within a relatively short time after acquiring the collection operation.
Once we establish a presence in a new market, we intend to expand our presence by tuck-in acquisitions; that is, by acquiring companies that also operate in that market or in adjacent markets, especially collection companies and transfer stations that allow us to increase internalization of waste into landfills that we own or operate. Effective tuck-in acquisitions allow growth in revenue and an increase in market share and enable disposal internalization and consolidation of duplicative facilities and functions to maximize cost efficiencies and economies of scale.
We have generally targeted markets in the south and central regions of the United States because we believe that they: (i) are served by a large number of independent non-hazardous solid waste operations, many of which we believe may be suitable for acquisition by us; (ii) generally experience less seasonal fluctuation in the demand for solid waste services than other regions; and (iii) are projected to have steady economic and population growth rates.
Acquisition Opportunities
Despite ongoing consolidation, the solid waste services industry remains fragmented and regional in nature. As indicated above, we believe private companies and public companies, other than the three largest public waste companies, represent approximately 25% of the estimated $47 billion in annual revenue generated by the solid waste industry. This condition contributes to the fragmented nature of the industry, with many small operations co-existing with a relatively small number of large organizations. While many of these operations may represent attractive acquisition candidates to a company of our size, many are too small to make any material impact on the revenues of the large companies in our industry and are thus less attractive to them. Accordingly, we believe that we have a greater opportunity for growth through acquisitions, when calculated as a percentage of revenue, than companies larger than us.
Management Experience
We believe that one of the important factors that will enable us to continue our acquisition-based growth strategy is the experience of our management.
Our management is extremely experienced in the waste industry and in consummating waste company acquisitions. Our co-founder and chairman of the board and chief executive officer, Tom J. Fatjo, Jr., has over 40 years of experience in the solid waste industry, beginning with Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., or BFI, which he founded in 1966. Our other co-founder, president and chief operating officer, Jerome M. Kruszka, has over 35 years of experience in the solid waste management industry, beginning with Waste Management, Inc. and its affiliates, where he held a number of managerial positions during his tenure there. Both Mr. Fatjo, Jr. and Mr. Kruszka have overseen the acquisition and integration of several hundred solid waste operations during their careers in the industry. Additionally, our other senior executive officers, Charles A. Casalinova and Tom J. Fatjo, III, and our five regional managers have an average of approximately 20 years of experience in the industry, in each case involving substantial experience acquiring and integrating waste management assets and operations.
Acquisition History After Our Initial Public Offering
In June 2004, we completed an initial public offering of our common stock. We also maintain a revolving credit facility with a banking group and publicly-traded senior notes. These financing activities enabled us to acquire the following operations from June 2004 through March 1, 2007:
| • | In July 2004, we purchased Texas Environmental Waste, a residential and roll-off collection company in Houston, Texas. | ||
| • | In August 2004, we purchased Ashley Trash Service, a residential collection operation in Seymour, Missouri, and Power Waste, a roll-off collection operation in Birmingham, Alabama. | ||
| • | In September 2004, we acquired Blount Recycling and other related companies, which included a landfill and roll-off collection operation in Trafford, Alabama, a transfer station and roll-off collection operation in Huntsville, Alabama, a transfer station in Midfield, Alabama, and a hauling operation in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. | ||
| • | In September 2004, we acquired Translift, Inc., a commercial and roll-off collection company in Little Rock, Arkansas. | ||
| • | In November 2004, we acquired Rural Disposal, Inc., a residential, commercial and roll-off collection company in Willow Springs, Missouri. |
| • | In November 2004, we purchased Trash Away, Inc., which consisted of a transfer station and MRF, commercial, residential and roll-off collection company, and a portable toilet operation in Piedmont, South Carolina. | ||
| • | In January 2005, we acquired Eagle Ridge landfill located approximately 45 miles northwest of St. Louis near Bowling Green, Missouri. | ||
| • | In April 2005, we acquired certain assets from MRR Southern consisting of two landfills, two transfer stations and two MRFs in High Point and Raleigh, North Carolina . | ||
| • | In May 2005, we completed two tuck-in acquisitions by acquiring Triad Waste and Triangle Environmental, roll-off collection companies in High Point and Raleigh, North Carolina. We also purchased Foster Ferguson, a residential and commercial collection operation in El Dorado Springs, Missouri, and Proper Disposal, a commercial and roll-off collection operation in Chanute, Kansas. | ||
| • | In October 2005, we acquired Fort Meade landfill located in Fort Meade, Florida, from Waste Corporation of Central Florida, Inc., a subsidiary of Waste Corporation of America, LLC, a company owned by management and shareholders that were shareholders of our predecessor and former parent. | ||
| • | In October 2005, we acquired certain assets from Meyer & Gabbert, which consisted of one landfill, three transfer stations and a roll-off collection operation in the Sarasota/Arcadia, Florida market area. | ||
| • | In October 2005, we purchased Andy’s Hauling, a roll-off collection operation in Sarasota, Florida, and Pendergrass, a commercial and residential collection operation in Springfield, Missouri. | ||
| • | In February 2006, we acquired the membership interests of Transit Waste, LLC, which consisted of one landfill located near Durango, Colorado and a commercial, residential and roll-off collection operation in Bloomfield, New Mexico area from Waste Corporation of America, LLC. | ||
| • | In August 2006, we completed the acquisition of Fort Myers transfer station located in Fort Myers, Florida, from Waste Corporation of Florida, Inc., a subsidiary of Waste Corporation of America, LLC. | ||
| • | In October 2006, we acquired the membership interests of WCA of St. Lucie, LLC, which consisted of one transfer station located in St. Lucie, Florida, from Waste Corporation of Florida, Inc., a subsidiary of Waste Corporation of America, LLC. | ||
| • | In December 2006, we purchased certain assets from Sunrise Disposal, LLC consisting of one commercial and residential collection operation located in Springfield, Missouri. | ||
| • | In January 2007, we acquired the stock of Southwest Dumpster, Inc., a roll-off collection operation in Fort Myers, Florida. | ||
| • | In February 2007, we purchased American Waste, Inc. and affiliated companies, which consists of three landfills and four collection operations located near Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. |
Please read “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Executive Overview—Acquisition Strategy Overview” for more information regarding each of the completed acquisitions.
We have integrated all of our completed acquisitions to date into our existing operations. However, it may take up to a year to fully realize operating synergies.
Our Operations
Our operations consist of the collection, transfer, processing and disposal of solid waste. Our revenue mix for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 is shown in the table below (dollars in thousands):
| 2006 | {2005 | 2004 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| $ | % | $ | % | $ | % | |||||||||||||||||||
Collection |
$ | 85,800 | 57.4 | % | $ | 69,786 | 61.1 | % | $ | 48,081 | 65.5 | % | ||||||||||||
Disposal |
39,066 | 26.1 | % | 30,602 | 26.8 | % | 20,747 | 28.2 | % | |||||||||||||||
Transfer and other, net |
24,631 | 16.5 | % | 13,755 | 12.1 | % | 4,633 | 6.3 | % | |||||||||||||||
Total revenue |
$ | 149,497 | 100.0 | % | $ | 114,143 | 100.0 | % | $ | 73,461 | 100.0 | % | ||||||||||||
We have a broad and diverse customer base; no single customer accounted for more than 2% of our revenues for any of the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 or 2004. Please read “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and note 12 to our consolidated financial statements for certain geographic information relating to our operations.
Collection Services
As of December 31, 2006, we provided solid waste collection services to approximately 250,000 industrial, commercial and residential customers in 11 states through 24 collection operations. In 2006, our collection revenue consisted of approximately 52% from services provided to industrial customers, 18% from services provided to commercial customers and 30% from services provided to residential customers.
In our commercial collection operations, we supply our customers with waste containers of various types and sizes. These containers are designed so that they can be lifted mechanically and emptied into a collection truck to be transported to a disposal facility. By using these containers, we can service most of our commercial customers with trucks operated by a single employee. Commercial collection services are generally performed under service agreements with a duration of one to five years with possible renewal options. Fees are generally determined by such considerations as individual market factors, collection frequency, the type of equipment we furnish, the type and volume or weight of the waste to be collected, the distance to the disposal facility and the cost of disposal.
Residential solid waste collection services often are performed under contracts with municipalities, which we generally secure by competitive bid and which give us exclusive rights to service all or a portion of the homes in these municipalities. These contracts usually range in duration from one to five years with possible renewal options. Residential solid waste collection services may also be performed on a subscription basis, in which individual households or homeowners’ or similar associations contract directly with us. The fees received for residential collection are based primarily on market factors, frequency and type of service, the distance to the disposal facility and the cost of disposal.
Additionally, we rent waste containers and provide collection services to construction, demolition and industrial sites. We load the containers onto our vehicles and transport them with the waste to either a landfill or a transfer station for disposal. We refer to this as “roll-off” collection. Roll-off collection services are generally performed on a contractual basis. Contract terms tend to be shorter in length and may vary according to the customers’ underlying projects.
Transfer and Disposal Services
Landfills are the main depository for solid waste in the United States. Solid waste landfills are built and operated under stringent regulations. Currently, solid waste landfills in the United States must be designed, permitted, operated, closed and maintained after closure in compliance with federal, state and local regulations pursuant to Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. Operating a solid waste landfill includes excavating, constructing liners, continually spreading and compacting waste and covering waste with earth or other inert material as required, final capping, closure and post-closure. The objectives of these operations are to maintain sanitary conditions, to ensure the best possible use of the airspace and to prepare the site so that it can ultimately be used for other purposes.
Access to a disposal facility is a necessity for all solid waste management companies. While access to disposal facilities owned or operated by third parties can be obtained, we believe it is preferable to internalize the waste streams. When we internalize waste we collect, we pay ourselves instead of a third party landfill operator and generally are able to realize higher operating margins and stronger operating cash flows.
In markets where we have collection operations that may be too far from our nearest landfill to economically haul the waste we collect directly to our nearest landfill, we pursue the use of transfer stations to effectively extend the distance from our own landfills that such collection operations can economically operate without having to utilize the disposal facilities of a third party. A transfer station is a facility located near residential and commercial collection routes where collection trucks take the solid waste that has been collected. The waste is unloaded from the collection trucks and reloaded onto larger transfer trucks for transportation to a landfill for final disposal. In addition to increasing our ability to internalize the waste our collection operations collect, using transfer stations reduces the costs associated with transporting waste to final disposal sites because the trucks we use for transfer have a larger capacity than collection trucks, thus allowing more waste to be transported to the disposal facility in each trip. It also increases the efficiency of our collection personnel and equipment because it allows them to focus more on collection. The following table reflects the number of transfer stations/MRFs we owned and operated by state as of December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004.
| 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | ||||||||||
Alabama |
3 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||
Arkansas |
2 | (1) | 2 | (1) | 2 | (1) | ||||||
Florida |
5 | 3 | — | |||||||||
Missouri |
8 | (1) | 8 | (1) | 8 | (1) | ||||||
North Carolina |
3 | 3 | — | |||||||||
South Carolina |
1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
Texas |
2 | 2 | — | |||||||||
Total |
24 | 21 | 13 | |||||||||
| (1) | Includes two transfer stations we operated but did not own, one in Arkansas and one in Missouri. |
The fees charged at disposal facilities are based on market factors, as well as the type and weight or volume of solid waste deposited and the type and size of the vehicles used in the transportation of the waste. The fees charged to third parties who deposit waste at our transfer stations are generally based on the type and volume or weight of the waste transferred and the distance to the disposal site.
Landfills
As of December 31, 2006, we owned 20 non-hazardous solid waste landfills in 10 states, two of which, though fully permitted, have not yet commenced operations. Additionally, we hold certain prepaid disposal rights at landfills in Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas owned and operated by other parties. The following table sets forth certain information as of December 31, 2006 for each of our landfills. The table does not include information for the landfills acquired after December 31, 2006 as discussed in “—Acquisition History After Our Initial Public Offering” above.
| Probable | Remaining | Total | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Permitted | Expansion | Total | Permitted | Remaining | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Capacity (1) | Capacity (2) | Capacity (3) | Life (4) | Life (3)(4) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Landfill | Location | Permitted Waste | (Cu. Yds) | (Cu. Yds) | (Cu. Yds) | (Years) | (Years) | |||||||||||||||||
Oak Grove |
Arcadia, KS | MSW | 6,725,415 | 24,524,000 | 31,249,415 | 35.7 | 165.8 | |||||||||||||||||
Black Oak |
Hartville, MO | MSW | 7,417,482 | — | 7,417,482 | 15.3 | 15.3 | |||||||||||||||||
Central Missouri |
Sedalia, MO | MSW | 6,261,425 | 3,452,341 | 9,713,766 | 26.0 | 40.4 | |||||||||||||||||
Eagle Ridge |
Bowling Green, MO | MSW | 3,261,896 | 16,335,000 | 19,596,896 | 16.4 | 98.3 | |||||||||||||||||
Rolling Meadows |
Hazen, AR | MSW | 4,709,096 | 9,800,000 | 14,509,096 | 31.3 | 96.5 | |||||||||||||||||
Union County |
El Dorado, AR | MSW | 4,048,017 | 496,100 | 4,544,117 | 23.9 | 26.8 | |||||||||||||||||
Darrell Dickey(5) |
Houston, TX | MSW | 5,239,003 | — | 5,239,003 | N/A | (5) | N/A | (5) | |||||||||||||||
Bondad |
Durango, CO | MSW | 3,117,647 | — | 3,117,647 | 33.4 | 33.4 | |||||||||||||||||
Hardy Road |
Houston, TX | C&D | 6,923,312 | — | 6,923,312 | 13.7 | 13.7 | |||||||||||||||||
Greenbelt |
Houston, TX | C&D | 6,202,441 | 1,400,000 | 7,602,441 | 18.1 | 22.2 | |||||||||||||||||
Ralston Road |
Houston, TX | C&D | 1,165,462 | 1,325,087 | 2,490,549 | 3.6 | 7.7 | |||||||||||||||||
Applerock(5) |
Houston, TX | C&D | 8,750,000 | — | 8,750,000 | N/A | (5) | N/A | (5) | |||||||||||||||
Shiloh |
Travelers Rest, SC | C&D | 1,856,088 | — | 1,856,088 | 14.1 | 14.1 | |||||||||||||||||
Yarnell |
Knoxville, TN | C&D | 1,206,366 | — | 1,206,366 | 13.5 | 13.5 | |||||||||||||||||
Blount |
Trafford, AL | C&D | 4,889,681 | 38,839,568 | 43,729,249 | 21.6 | 193.5 | |||||||||||||||||
Fines |
Alpine, AL | C&D/Industrial | 1,087,233 | 6,083,484 | 7,170,717 | 13.4 | 88.5 | |||||||||||||||||
High Point |
High Point, NC | C&D | 4,213,253 | — | 4,213,253 | 27.8 | 27.8 | |||||||||||||||||
Raleigh |
Raleigh, NC | C&D | 7,607,439 | 6,612,722 | 14,220,161 | 30.8 | 57.5 | |||||||||||||||||
DeSoto |
Arcadia, FL | C&D | 6,200,606 | 14,904,750 | 21,105,356 | 7.3 | 24.8 | |||||||||||||||||
Fort Meade |
Ft Meade, FL | C&D | 4,794,406 | 3,635,910 | 8,430,316 | 19.7 | 34.6 | |||||||||||||||||
Total |
95,676,268 | 127,408,962 | 223,085,230 | 20.3 | 54.1 |
| (1) | Permitted capacity includes the total available airspace approved by local regulatory agencies for our use. Additional approvals may be required for construction and use of specific cells within the permitted area. At any given time, certain landfills may be nearing the full capacity of existing approved cells. The failure to obtain a consent or approval for construction or use of additional cells could have a material effect. If the consent or approval is not obtained, we will evaluate alternative actions, such as diverting waste streams and pursuing legal recourse to challenge rulings. See “Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—We may not be successful in expanding the permitted capacity of our current or future landfills, which could restrict our growth, increase our disposal costs, and reduce our operating margins.” | |
| (2) | Probable expansion capacity includes possible expansion capacity that we believe, based on industry practice and our experience, is likely to be permitted. The criteria we use to determine if permit expansion is probable include, but are not limited to whether: (i) we believe that the project has fatal flaws; (ii) the land is owned or controlled by us, or under option agreement; (iii) we have committed to the expansion; (iv) financial analysis has been completed, and the results indicate that the expansion has the prospect of a positive financial and operational impact; (v) personnel are actively working to obtain land use, local, and state approvals for an expansion of an existing landfill; (vi) we believe the permit is likely to be received; and (vii) we believe that the timeframe to complete the permitting is reasonable. Please read “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and notes 1 and 2 to our consolidated financial statements for information regarding our landfill accounting and use of estimates. | |
| (3) | Includes expansions that we classify as “probable.” Please read “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and notes 1 and 2 to our consolidated financial statements for information regarding our landfill accounting and use of estimates. | |
| (4) | Based on current and estimated future disposal volumes. | |
| (5) | Fully permitted but has not yet commenced operations, and therefore remaining permitted life and total remaining life cannot be calculated. |
As indicated in the table above, as of December 31, 2006, eight of our landfills were permitted to accept municipal solid waste. The remaining 12 landfills were permitted to accept non-hazardous dry construction and demolition debris, which generally includes bricks, boards, metal, concrete, wall board and similar materials. All of our landfills accept waste from municipalities, private sector waste collection companies and the general public.
Based on remaining permitted capacity (including probable expansions) as of December 31, 2006 and projected annual disposal volumes, the average remaining landfill life of our 18 operating landfills at December 31, 2006 was approximately 54.1 years. Some of our landfills have the potential for expanded disposal capacity beyond their currently permitted limits. We monitor the availability of permitted disposal capacity at each of our landfills on an ongoing basis and evaluate whether to pursue an expansion at a given landfill. In making this determination with respect to a particular landfill, we consider a number of factors, including the estimated future volume of waste to be disposed of at the landfill, the estimated future prices for disposal of waste at the landfill, the amount of unpermitted acreage included in the landfill, the likelihood that we will be able to obtain the required approvals and permits for expansion and the costs of developing the additional capacity. Please read notes 1 and 2 to our consolidated financial statements for information regarding our landfill accounting and use of estimates. We also regularly consider whether it is advisable, in light of changing market conditions and/or regulatory requirements, to seek to expand or change the permitted waste streams or to seek other permit modifications.
We are currently seeking to expand permitted capacity at several of our landfills for which we consider expansions to be probable. These or other future expansions may not be permitted as designed and the average remaining landfill life of our 18 operating landfills as of December 31, 2006 may not be approximately 54.1 years when considering remaining permitted capacity, probable expansion capacity and projected annual disposal volume. Please read “Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business— We may not be successful in expanding the permitted capacity of our current or future landfills, which could restrict our growth, increase our disposal costs, and reduce our operating margins.”
Available Airspace
The following table reflects airspace activity for landfills owned or operated by us for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004. The table does not include airspace activity for the landfill acquired after December 31, 2006 as discussed in “—Acquisition History After Our Initial Public Offering” above.
| Changes in | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Balance as of | New | Landfills | Engineering | Balance as of | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| December 31, | Expansions | Acquired, Net | Permits | Airspace | Estimates | December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 | Undertaken | of Divestiture | Granted | Consumed | and Design | 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Permitted airspace: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cubic yards (in
thousands) |
92,583 | — | 3,171 | 5,204 | (4,806 | ) | (476 | ) | 95,676 | |||||||||||||||||||
Number of sites |
19 | — | 1 | — | — | — | 20 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Expansion airspace: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cubic yards (in
thousands) |
86,266 | 46,262 | — | (5,204 | ) | — | 85 | 127,409 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Number of sites |
12 | 3 | — | (3 | ) | — | — | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total available
airspace: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cubic yards (in
thousands) |
178,849 | 46,262 | 3,171 | — | (4,806 | ) | (391 | ) | 223,085 | |||||||||||||||||||
Number of sites |
19 | 1 | 20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Changes in | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Balance as of | New | Landfills | Engineering | Balance as of | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| December 31, | Expansions | Acquired, Net | Permits | Airspace | Estimates | December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2004 | Undertaken | of Divestiture | Granted | Consumed | and Design | 2005 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Permitted airspace: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cubic yards (in
thousands) |
73,109 | — | 23,923 | — | (3,854 | ) | (595 | ) | 92,583 | |||||||||||||||||||
Number of sites |
14 | — | 5 | — | — | — | 19 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Expansion airspace: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cubic yards (in
thousands) |
39,986 | — | 46,138 | — | — | 142 | 86,266 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Number of sites |
8 | — | 4 | — | — | — | 12 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total available
airspace: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cubic yards (in
thousands) |
113,095 | — | 70,061 | — | (3,854 | ) | (453 | ) | 178,849 | |||||||||||||||||||
Number of sites |
14 | 5 | 19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Changes in | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Balance as of | New | Landfills | Engineering | Balance as of | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| December 31, | Expansions | Acquired, Net | Permits | Airspace | Estimates | December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 | Undertaken | of Divestiture | Granted | Consumed | and Design | 2004 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Permitted airspace: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cubic yards (in
thousands) |
56,863 | — | 5,400 | 15,075 | (2,623 | ) | (1,606 | ) | 73,109 | |||||||||||||||||||
Number of sites |
13 | — | 1 | — | — | — | 14 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Expansion airspace: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cubic yards (in
thousands) |
20,669 | 28,170 | — | (15,075 | ) | — | 6,222 | 39,986 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Number of sites |
5 | 5 | — | (2 | ) | — | — | 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total available
airspace: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cubic yards (in
thousands) |
77,532 | 28,170 | 5,400 | — | (2,623 | ) | 4,616 | 113,095 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Number of sites |
13 | 1 | 14 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Risk Management, Insurance and Financial Assurances
Our environmental risk management program includes evaluating existing facilities and potential acquisitions for environmental compliance. We do not presently expect environmental compliance costs to increase materially above current levels, but we cannot predict whether recent and future acquisitions will cause such costs to increase. We also maintain a worker safety program that encourages safe practices in the workplace. Operating practices at all of our facilities emphasize minimizing the possibility of environmental contamination and liability.
The nature of our business exposes us to the risk of liabilities arising out of our operations, including possible damages to the environment. Such potential liabilities could involve, for example: (i) claims for remediation costs, personal injury, property damage and damage to the environment in cases where we may be held responsible for the escape of harmful materials; (ii) claims of employees, customers or third parties for personal injury or property damage occurring in the course of our operations; or (iii) claims alleging negligence in the planning or performance of work. We could also be subject to fines and civil and criminal penalties in connection with alleged violations of regulatory requirements. Because of the nature and scope of the possible environmental damages, liabilities imposed in environmental litigation can be significant. Our solid waste operations have third party environmental liability insurance with limits in excess of those required by permit regulations, subject to certain limitations and exclusions, which we believe are customary in the industry. However, the limits of such environmental liability insurance may be inadequate in the event of a major loss. Further, we may be unable to continue to carry excess environmental liability insurance should market conditions in the insurance industry make such coverage prohibitively expensive.
We have property insurance, general liability, automobile physical damage and liability, employment practices liability, pollution liability, directors and officers liability, fiduciary liability, workers’ compensation and employer’s liability coverage, as well as umbrella liability policies to provide excess coverage over the underlying limits contained in our primary general liability, automobile liability and employer’s liability policies. Each of our insurance policies contains a per occurrence or per loss deductible for which we are responsible. Our deductibles range from $5,000 per loss under our property insurance coverage to $100,000 for general liability and $250,000 per occurrence or loss under our automobile liability and workers’ compensation and employer’s liability coverages. In addition, we have a $500,000 per loss deductible under our pollution liability coverage. Accordingly, we are effectively self-insured for these amounts with respect to claims covered by our insurance policies, as well as with respect to amounts that exceed our policy limits (including our umbrella policy limits, where applicable). In the future, we may be exposed to uninsured liabilities which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Please read note 13(e) to our consolidated financial statements.
In the normal course of business, we are required to post performance bonds, insurance policies, letters of credit and/or cash deposits in connection with the performance of municipal residential collection contracts, the operation, closure or post-closure of landfills, certain environmental permits and certain business licenses and permits. Bonds issued by surety companies operate as a financial guarantee of our performance. We have satisfied financial responsibility requirements by obtaining bank letters of credit, insurance policies, performance bonds or making cash deposits.
As of December 31, 2006, we obtained performance bonds in an aggregate amount of approximately $39.5 million and letters of credit in an aggregate amount of approximately $9.9 million, supporting performance of landfill closure and post-closure requirements, insurance contracts, municipal contracts and other financial assurance obligations. If in the future we are unable to obtain such instruments in sufficient amounts or at acceptable rates, we could be precluded from entering into additional municipal solid waste collection contracts or obtaining or retaining landfill or transfer station operating permits. Please read “—Risk Factors—Risks Relating To Our Business—We may be unable to obtain financial assurances necessary for our operations, which could result in the closure of landfills or the termination of collection contracts.”
Competition
The solid waste collection and disposal industry is highly competitive and fragmented and requires substantial labor and capital resources. The industry presently includes three large, publicly-held, national waste companies, Waste Management, Inc., Allied Waste Industries, Inc., and Republic Services, Inc., as well as other public and privately-held waste companies. As indicated above in “Business—Industry Overview,” we believe that these three companies account for approximately 48% of the estimated $47 billion of annual revenue generated by the industry. Certain of the markets in which we compete or will likely compete are served by one or more of these companies, as well as by numerous privately-held regional and local solid waste companies of varying sizes and resources, some of which have accumulated substantial goodwill in their markets. We also compete with operators of alternative disposal facilities and with counties, municipalities and solid waste districts that maintain their own waste collection and disposal operations. Public sector operations may have financial advantages over us because of their access to user fees and similar charges, tax revenues and tax-exempt financing.
We compete for collection, transfer and disposal volume based primarily on geographic location and the price and quality of our services. From time to time, our competitors may reduce the price of their services in an effort to expand their market shares or service areas or to win competitively bid municipal contracts. These practices may cause us to reduce the price of our services or, if we elect not to do so, to lose business.
The solid waste collection and disposal industry has undergone significant consolidation, and we encounter competition in our efforts to acquire landfills, transfer stations and collection operations. Intense competition exists not only for collection, transfer and disposal volume but also for acquisition candidates. We generally compete for acquisition candidates with publicly-owned waste management companies, as well as numerous privately-held regional and local solid waste companies of varying sizes and resources. Competition in the disposal industry may
also be affected by the increasing national emphasis on recycling and other waste reduction programs, which may reduce the volume of waste deposited in landfills. Accordingly, it may become uneconomical for us to make further acquisitions or we may be unable to locate or acquire suitable acquisition candidates at price levels and on terms and conditions that we consider appropriate, particularly in markets we do not already serve.
Non-Competition Agreements
We were a party to a mutual non-competition agreement with Waste Corporation of America, LLC, a company owned by management and shareholders that were shareholders of our predecessor and former parent. In 2005 and 2006, we acquired Waste Corporation of Central Florida, Inc., Transit Waste, LLC, Fort Myers transfer station and WCA of St. Lucie, LLC from Waste Corporation of America, LLC and, in connection with such acquisitions, we were released from the non-competition agreement in favor of Waste Corporation of America, LLC. However, Waste Corporation of America, LLC (which does not currently have any significant operations), remains subject to a non-competition agreement in favor of us, which precludes it and its subsidiaries from acquiring or operating any waste operations within 50 miles of any of our or our subsidiaries’ operations in Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee or Texas through June 2009.
Sales and Marketing
We focus our marketing efforts on continuing and expanding business with existing customers, as well as attracting new customers. Our sales and marketing strategy is to provide prompt, high quality, comprehensive solid waste collection, transfer and disposal services to our customers at competitive prices. We target potential customers of all sizes, from small quantity generators to large companies and municipalities. Because the waste collection and disposal business is a very localized business, most of our marketing activity is local in nature. However, we do have a vice president of sales who is responsible for overseeing our sales and marketing efforts, including assisting in hiring and setting compensation programs.
Government Contracts
We are parties to contracts with municipalities and other associations and agencies. Many of these contracts are or will be subject to competitive bidding. We may not be the successful bidder, or we may have to substantially lower prices in order to be the successful bidder. In addition, some of our customers may terminate their contracts with us before the end of the contract term.
Municipalities may annex unincorporated areas within counties where we provide collection services, and as a result, our customers in annexed areas may be required to obtain service from competitors who have been franchised or contracted by the annexing municipalities to provide those services. Some of the local jurisdictions in which we currently operate grant exclusive franchises to collection and disposal companies, others may do so in the future, and we may enter markets where franchises are granted by certain municipalities.
Regulation
Our business is subject to extensive and evolving federal, state and local environmental, health, safety and transportation laws and regulations. These laws and regulations are administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, and various other federal, state and local environmental, zoning, air, water, transportation, land use, health and safety agencies. Many of these agencies regularly inspect our operations to monitor compliance with these laws and regulations. Governmental agencies have the authority to enforce compliance with these laws and regulations and to obtain injunctions or impose civil or criminal penalties in cases of violations. We believe that regulation of the waste industry will continue to evolve, and we will adapt to future legal and regulatory requirements to ensure compliance.
Our operation of landfills subjects us to certain operational, monitoring, site maintenance, closure, post-closure and other obligations which could give rise to increased costs for compliance and corrective measures. In connection with our acquisition of landfills and continued operation or expansion of our landfills, we must often
spend considerable time to increase the capacity of these landfills. We may be unable to obtain or maintain necessary governmental approvals. Once obtained, operating permits are subject to modification and revocation by the issuing agency. Compliance with these and any future regulatory requirements could require us to make significant capital and operating expenditures. However, most of these expenditures are made in the normal course of business and do not place us at any competitive disadvantage.
Our operations are subject to extensive regulation, principally under the federal statutes described below.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, or RCRA. RCRA regulates the handling, transportation and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes and delegates authority to states to develop programs to ensure the safe disposal of solid wastes. On October 9, 1991, the EPA promulgated Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria for non-hazardous solid waste landfills under Subtitle D of RCRA. Subtitle D includes location standards, facility design and operating criteria, closure and post-closure requirements, financial assurance standards and groundwater monitoring, as well as corrective action standards, many of which had not commonly been in place or enforced at landfills. Subtitle D applies to all solid waste landfill cells that received waste after October 9, 1991, and, with limited exceptions, required all landfills to meet these requirements by October 9, 1993. All states in which we operate have EPA-approved programs which implemented at least the minimum requirements of Subtitle D.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, or CERCLA. CERCLA, which is also known as Superfund, addresses problems created by the release or threatened release of hazardous substances (as defined in CERCLA) into the environment. CERCLA’s primary mechanism for achieving remediation of such problems is to impose strict, joint and several liability for cleanup of disposal sites on current owners and operators of the site, former site owners and operators at the time of disposal and parties who arranged for disposal at the facility ( i.e. , generators of the waste and transporters who select the disposal site). The costs of a CERCLA cleanup can be substantial. Liability under CERCLA is not dependent on the existence or intentional disposal of “hazardous wastes” (as defined under RCRA), but can also be based upon the release or threatened release, even as a result of lawful, unintentional and non-negligent action, of any one of the more than 700 “hazardous substances” listed by the EPA, even in minute amounts.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, or the Clean Water Act. This act establishes rules regulating the discharge of pollutants into streams and other waters of the United States (as defined in the Clean Water Act) from a variety of sources, including solid waste disposal sites. If runoff from our landfills or transfer stations may be discharged into surface waters, the Clean Water Act requires us to apply for and obtain discharge permits, conduct sampling and monitoring and, under certain circumstances, reduce the quantity of pollutants in those discharges. In 1990, the EPA issued additional rules under the Clean Water Act, which establish standards for management of storm water runoff from landfills and which require landfills that receive, or in the past received, industrial waste to obtain storm water discharge permits. In addition, if a landfill or transfer station discharges wastewater through a sewage system to a publicly-owned treatment works, the facility must comply with discharge limits imposed by the treatment works. Also, if development of a landfill may alter or affect “wetlands,” the owner may have to obtain a permit and undertake certain mitigation measures before development may begin. This requirement is likely to affect the construction or expansion of many solid waste disposal sites.
The Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, or the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act provides for increased federal, state and local regulation of the emission of air pollutants. The EPA has applied the Clean Air Act to solid waste landfills and vehicles with heavy duty engines, such as waste collection vehicles. Additionally, in March 1996, the EPA adopted New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines (the “Emission Guidelines”) for municipal solid waste landfills to control emissions of landfill gases. These regulations impose limits on air emissions from solid waste landfills. The Emission Guidelines impose two sets of emissions standards, one of which is applicable to all solid waste landfills for which construction, reconstruction or modification was commenced before May 30, 1991. The other applies to all municipal solid waste landfills for which construction, reconstruction or modification was commenced on or after May 30, 1991. The Emission Guidelines are being implemented by the states after the EPA approves the individual state’s program. These guidelines, combined with the new permitting programs established under the Clean Air Act, subject solid waste landfills to significant
permitting requirements and, in some instances, require installation of gas recovery systems to reduce emissions to allowable limits. The EPA also regulates the emission of hazardous air pollutants from municipal landfills and has promulgated regulations that require measures to monitor and reduce such emissions.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended, or OSHA. OSHA establishes certain employer responsibilities, including maintenance of a workplace free of recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious injury, compliance with standards promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and various record keeping, disclosure and procedural requirements. Various standards, including standards for notices of hazards, safety in excavation and demolition work and the handling of asbestos, may apply to our operations.
Flow Control/Interstate Waste Restrictions. Certain permits and approvals, as well as certain state and local regulations, may limit a landfill or transfer station to accepting waste that originates from specified geographic areas, restrict the importation of out-of-state waste or wastes originating outside the local jurisdiction or otherwise discriminate against non-local waste. These restrictions, generally known as flow control restrictions, are controversial, and some courts have held that some flow control schemes violate constitutional limits on state or local regulation of interstate commerce. From time to time, federal legislation is proposed that would allow some local flow control restrictions. Although no such federal legislation has been enacted to date, if such federal legislation should be enacted in the future, states in which we own landfills could limit or prohibit the importation of out-of-state waste or direct that wastes be handled at specified facilities. Such state actions could adversely affect our landfills. These restrictions could also result in higher disposal costs for our collection operations. If we were unable to pass such higher costs through to our customers, our business, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.
Certain state and local jurisdictions may also seek to enforce flow control restrictions through local legislation or contractually. In certain cases, we may elect not to challenge such restrictions. These restrictions could reduce the volume of waste going to landfills in certain areas, which may adversely affect our ability to operate our landfills at their full capacity and/or reduce the prices that we can charge for landfill disposal services. These restrictions may also result in higher disposal costs for our collection operations. If we were unable to pass such higher costs through to our customers, our business, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.
State and Local Regulation. Each state in which we now operate or may operate in the future has laws and regulations governing the generation, storage, treatment, handling, transportation and disposal of solid waste, occupational safety and health, water and air pollution and, in most cases, the siting, design, operation, maintenance, closure and post-closure maintenance of landfills and transfer stations. State and local permits and approval for these operations may be required and may be subject to periodic renewal, modification or revocation by the issuing agencies. In addition, many states have adopted statutes comparable to, and in some cases more stringent than, CERCLA. These statutes impose requirements for investigation and cleanup of contaminated sites and liability for costs and damages associated with such sites, and some provide for the imposition of liens on property owned by responsible parties. Furthermore, many municipalities also have ordinances, local laws and regulations affecting our operations. These include zoning and health measures that limit solid waste management activities to specified sites or activities, flow control provisions that direct or restrict the delivery of solid wastes to specific facilities, laws that grant the right to establish franchises for collection services and then put such franchises out for bid and bans or other restrictions on the movement of solid wastes into a municipality.
Permits or other land use approvals with respect to a landfill, as well as state or local laws and regulations, may specify the quantity of waste that may be accepted at the landfill during a given time period and/or specify the types of waste that may be accepted at the landfill. Once an operating permit for a landfill is obtained, it must generally be renewed periodically.
There has been an increasing trend at the state and local level to mandate and encourage waste reduction and recycling and to prohibit or restrict the disposal in landfills of certain types of solid wastes, such as yard wastes, beverage containers, unshredded tires, lead-acid batteries, paper, cardboard and household appliances. The
enactment of regulations reducing the volume and types of wastes available for transport to and disposal in landfills could prevent us from operating our facilities at their full capacity.
Many states and local jurisdictions have enacted “bad boy” laws that allow the agencies that have jurisdiction over waste services contracts or permits to deny or revoke these contracts or permits based on the applicant’s or permit holder’s compliance history. Some states and local jurisdictions go further and consider the compliance history of the parent, subsidiaries or affiliated companies, in addition to that of the applicant or permit holder. These laws authorize the agencies to make determinations of an applicant’s or permit holder’s fitness to be awarded a contract to operate and to deny or revoke a contract or permit because of unfitness unless there is a showing that the applicant or permit holder has been rehabilitated through the adoption of various operating policies and procedures put in place to assure future compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Some state and local authorities enforce certain federal laws in addition to state and local laws and regulations. For example, in some states, RCRA, OSHA, parts of the Clean Air Act and parts of the Clean Water Act are enforced by local or state authorities instead of the EPA, and in some states those laws are enforced jointly by state or local and federal authorities.
Public Utility Regulation. In many states, public authorities regulate the rates that landfill operators may charge. The adoption of rate regulation or the reduction of current rates in states in which we own landfills could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.
Seasonality
Based on our industry and our historic trends, we expect our operations to vary seasonally. Typically, revenue will be highest in the second and third calendar quarters and lowest in the first and fourth calendar quarters. The fluctuation is primarily due to lower volumes of waste. We also expect that our operating expenses may be higher during the winter months due to periodic adverse weather conditions that can slow the collection of waste, resulting in higher labor and operational costs. Please read “—Risk Factors—Risks Relating To Our Operations and Corporate Organization—Seasonal fluctuations will cause our business and results of operations to vary among quarters, which could adversely affect our stock price.”
Employees
As of December 31, 2006, we had approximately 850 full-time employees. A group of 18 employees at one of our locations is represented by a union. In 2006, we negotiated with the union for a new collective bargaining agreement which has a term extending until March 2011. We have not experienced a significant work stoppage, and we believe our relations with our employees are good.
Available Information
As an accelerated filer, we electronically file certain documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). We file annual reports on Form 10-K; quarterly reports on Form 10-Q; and current reports on Form 8-K (as appropriate); along with any related amendments and supplements thereto. From time-to-time, we may also file registration statements and related documents in connection with equity or debt offerings. You may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. You may obtain information regarding the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. In addition, the SEC maintains an internet website at www.sec.gov that contains reports and other information regarding registrants that file electronically with the SEC.
Our Internet website is www.wcawaste.com . We make available through the “Investor Relations-SEC Filings” section of our internet website our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Risks Relating to Our Acquisition Program
We may be unable to identify, complete or integrate future acquisitions, which may harm our prospects.
We may be unable to identify appropriate acquisition candidates. If we do identify an appropriate acquisition candidate, we may not be able to negotiate acceptable terms or finance the acquisition or, if the acquisition occurs, effectively integrate the acquired business into our existing business. Negotiations of potential acquisitions and the integration of acquired business operations require a disproportionate amount of management’s attention and our resources. Even if we complete additional acquisitions, continued financing may not be available or available on reasonable terms, any new businesses may not generate revenues comparable to our existing businesses, the anticipated cost efficiencies or synergies may not be realized and these businesses may not be integrated successfully or operated profitably or accretive to our earnings.
We compete for acquisition candidates with other purchasers, some of which have greater financial resources and may be able to offer more favorable terms, thus limiting our ability to grow through acquisitions.
Other companies in the solid waste services industry also have a strategy of acquiring and consolidating regional and local businesses. We expect that as the consolidation trend in our industry continues, the competition for acquisitions will increase. Competition for acquisition candidates may make fewer acquisition opportunities available to us or make those opportunities more expensive.
In connection with financing acquisitions, we may incur additional indebtedness, or may issue additional equity including common stock or preferred stock which would dilute the ownership percentage of existing stockholders.
We intend to finance acquisitions with available cash, borrowings under our credit facility, our equity including common stock or preferred stock, or a combination of these means. As a result, we may incur additional indebtedness or issue additional equity which would dilute the ownership percentage of existing stockholders. Our credit facility contains covenants restricting, among other things, the amount of additional indebtedness. We may offer equity as some or all of the consideration for certain acquisitions. Our ability to do so will depend in part on the attractiveness of our equity. This attractiveness may depend largely on the capital appreciation prospects of our equity compared to the equity of our competitors.
Businesses that we acquire may have unknown liabilities and require unforeseen capital expenditures, which would adversely affect our financial results.
We may acquire businesses with liabilities that we fail to discover, including liabilities arising from non-compliance with environmental laws by prior owners for which we may be responsible as the successor owner. Moreover, as we integrate a new business, we may discover that required expenses and capital expenditures are greater than anticipated, which would adversely affect our financial results.
Rapid growth may strain our management, operational, financial and other resources, which would adversely affect our financial results.
Executing our acquisition strategy will require significant time from our senior management. We may also be required to expand our operational and financial systems and controls and our management information systems capabilities. We may also need to attract and train additional senior managers, technical professionals and other employees. Failure to do any of these could restrict our ability to maintain and improve our profitability while continuing to grow.
Our acquisition strategy has resulted and is expected to continue to result in significant goodwill and other intangible assets, which may need to be written down if performance is not as expected.
As of December 31, 2006, we had approximately $78.4 million of goodwill and other intangible assets, representing approximately 21.1% of our total assets. If we complete acquisitions at prices greater than the fair value of the assets acquired, we would generate additional goodwill. We are required to test our goodwill at least annually for impairment, which would require us to incur a charge if we determine there is a reduction in value. Any such charge would reduce our assets and earnings.
We may incur charges related to acquisitions, which could lower our earnings.
We capitalize some expenditures and advances relating to acquisitions and pending acquisitions, but expense indirect acquisition costs, including general corporate overhead, as they are incurred. We charge against earnings any unamortized capitalized expenditures and advances (net of any amount that we estimate we will recover, through sale or otherwise) that relate to any pending acquisition that is not consummated. We, therefore, may incur charges in future periods, which could lower our earnings.
Risks Relating To Our Business
Changes in interest rates may affect our profitability.
Our acquisition strategy could require us to incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future, which will increase our interest expense. Further, to the extent that these borrowings are subject to variable rates of interest, increases in interest rates will increase our interest expense, which will affect our profitability. In connection with the restructuring of our long-term debt in July 2006, we entered into a new swap agreement effective July 11, 2006, where we agreed to pay a fixed-rate of 5.64% in exchange for three-month floating rate LIBOR which was 5.51% at the time the swap was entered. With the placement of this swap agreement, we bear exposure to, and are primarily affected by, changes in LIBOR rates on $150 million. A 100 basis point increase in LIBOR interest rates would result in interest income on the swap agreement of approximately $1.5 million annually while a 100 basis point decrease in interest rates would result in $1.5 million in swap expense, in addition to any mark to market effect on the fair value of the swap.
We may not be successful in expanding the permitted capacity of our current or future landfills, which could restrict our growth, increase our disposal costs, and reduce our operating margins.
Our ability to meet our growth objectives depends in part on our ability to expand landfill capacity, whether by acquisition or expansion. Exhausting permitted capacity at a landfill would restrict our growth, and reduce our financial performance in the market served by the landfill since we would be forced to dispose of collected waste at more distant landfills or at landfills operated by our competitors, thereby increasing our waste disposal expenses. Although we have received final permits on expansions at our existing landfills, there may be challenges, comments, or delays regarding the construction of specific cells that could have an adverse effect on our operations in these markets. Obtaining required permits and approvals to expand landfills has become increasingly difficult and expensive, requiring numerous hearings and compliance with various zoning, environmental and regulatory laws and drawing resistance from citizens, environmental or other groups. Even if permits are granted, they may contain burdensome terms and conditions or the timing required may be extensive and could affect the remaining capacity at the landfill. We may choose to delay or forego tuck-in acquisitions in markets where the remaining lives of our landfills are relatively short because increased volumes would further shorten the lives of these landfills.
We are subject to environmental and safety laws, which restrict our operations and increase our costs.
We are subject to extensive federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to environmental protection and occupational safety and health. These include, among other things, laws and regulations governing the use, treatment, storage and disposal of wastes and materials, air quality, water quality and the remediation of
contamination associated with the release of hazardous substances. Our compliance with existing regulatory requirements is costly, and continued changes in these regulations could increase our compliance costs. Government laws and regulations often require us to enhance or replace our equipment and to modify landfill operations and may, in the future, require us to initiate final closure of a landfill. We are required to obtain and maintain permits that are subject to strict regulatory requirements and are difficult and costly to obtain and maintain. We may be unable to implement price increases sufficient to offset the cost of complying with these laws and regulations. In addition, regulatory changes could accelerate or increase expenditures for closure and post-closure monitoring at solid waste facilities and obligate us to spend sums over the amounts that we have accrued.
We may become subject to environmental clean-up costs or litigation that could curtail our business operations and materially decrease our earnings.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, or CERCLA, and analogous state laws provide for the remediation of contaminated facilities and impose strict joint and several liability for remediation costs on current and former owners or operators of a facility at which there has been a release or a threatened release of a hazardous substance. This liability is also imposed on persons who arrange for the disposal of and who transport such substances to the facility. Hundreds of substances are defined as hazardous under CERCLA and their presence, even in small amounts, can result in substantial liability. The expense of conducting a cleanup can be significant. Notwithstanding our efforts to comply with applicable regulations and to avoid transporting and receiving hazardous substances, we may have liability because these substances may be present in waste collected by us or disposed of in our landfills, or in waste collected, transported or disposed of in the past by companies that we acquire even if we did not collect or dispose of the waste while we owned the landfill. The actual costs for these liabilities could be significantly greater than the amounts that we might be required to accrue on our financial statements from time to time.
In addition to the costs of complying with environmental regulations, we may incur costs to defend against litigation brought by government agencies and private parties. As a result, we may be required to pay fines or our permits and licenses may be modified or revoked. We may in the future be a defendant in lawsuits brought by governmental agencies and private parties who assert claims alleging environmental damage, personal injury, property damage and/or violations of permits and licenses by us. A significant judgment against us, the loss of a significant permit or license or the imposition of a significant fine could curtail our business operations and may decrease our earnings.
Our accruals for landfill closure and post-closure costs may be inadequate, and our earnings would be lower if we are required to pay or accrue additional amounts.
We are required to pay closure and post-closure costs of any disposal facilities that we own or operate. We accrue for future closure and post-closure costs of our owned landfills, generally for a term of up to 30 years, based on engineering estimates of future requirements associated with the final landfill design and closure and post-closure process. Please read “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Estimates and Assumptions.” Our obligations to pay closure and post-closure costs, including for monitoring, may exceed the amount we accrued, which would adversely affect our earnings. Expenditures for these costs may increase as a result of any federal, state or local government regulatory action, including changes in closing or monitoring activities, types and quantities of materials used or the period of required post-closure monitoring. These factors could substantially increase our operating costs and therefore impair our ability to invest in our existing facilities or new facilities. The amount of our accruals is based upon estimates by management and engineers and accountants. We review at least annually our estimates for closure and post-closure costs, and any change in our estimates could require us to accrue additional amounts.
A general downturn in U.S. economic conditions may reduce our business prospects and decrease our revenue and cash flows.
Our business is affected by general economic conditions. Any extended weakness in the U.S. economy could reduce our business prospects and could cause decreases in our revenue and operating cash flows. In addition, in a down-cycle economic environment, we would likely experience the negative effects of increased competitive pricing pressure and customer turnover.
We may be unable to obtain financial assurances necessary for our operations, which could result in the closure of landfills or the termination of collection contracts.
We are required to provide financial assurances to governmental agencies under applicable environmental regulations relating to landfill closure and post-closure obligations, our landfill operations, and other collection and dispos