November 1, 2003

PART TWO

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

FOR

REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

FOR SUBMITTAL TO AND APPROVAL OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION Post Office Box 8913 Little Rock AR 72219-8913 Phone (501) 682-0602 Fax (501) 682-0611 www.adeq.state.ar.us

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 1 November 1, 2003

Due Date November 1, 2004, Followed By Annual Updates

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 2 November 1, 2003

PART TWO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Regional Solid Waste Management Plans

Preface

Part Two – Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans, is presented pursuant to the requirements set forth by the 83rd Arkansas General Assembly in Act 1376 of 2001, codified in Statute as Arkansas Code Annotated (A.C.A.) §8-6-1901 et al. Act 1376 of 2001 specifically charges the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality with establishing minimum requirements for the development of new waste management plans by Regional Solid Waste Management Boards. The new plans will replace those previously required by Act 870 of 1989, codified as A.C.A. §8-6-701 et al.

Act 1376 of 2001 directs that the requirements include, at a minimum, requirements for:

1. STRATEGIC PLANNING 2. REPORTING 3. PUBLIC NOTICE AND PARTICIPATION 4. SERVICES 5. SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

The Department addresses this directive by requiring that each Regional Solid Waste Management Board respond to the established requirements set forth in this document, known as Part Two – Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans, which is a supplement to Part One – The Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan for Arkansas. Specifically, six major Solid Waste Management Goal areas have been established. These are:

1. COLLECTION 2. DISPOSAL 3. RECYCLING 4. WASTE REDUCTION 5. SPECIAL MATERIALS 6. EDUCATION

Act 1376 of 2001 requires that each Regional Solid Waste Management Board develop a solid waste management plan, pursuant to minimum requirements which have been established in this document. Boards shall submit their plan for Departmental approval within one year after the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan becomes effective.

It is recognized that each Regional Solid Waste Management District’s Plan shall be an ongoing project and, barring unforeseen developments, each plan shall remain in force for ten years from its approval date. Each Regional Solid Waste Management District’s Plan shall include the establishment of definitive goals, relative to the individual District, within each of the six major goals areas named above, along with an Action Plan and an implementation timetable.

As goals for the District are reached and as changes take place, updates to such achievements and amendments to the original plan will be included in the District’s Annual Solid Waste Needs Assessment and Goal Achievements Report (to be known as the Annual Report) and submitted to the Department for review and approval. The Annual Report will include progress made toward goals established by each District.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 3 November 1, 2003

PART TWO PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

I. Plan Submittal

A. Act 1376 of 2001, codified as A.C.A. §8-6-1901 et seq., requires that a Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan be developed by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. Part One contains the portion of the Plan relative to Departmental actions and activities.

B. Act 1376 further requires that minimum requirements be set forth for Regional Solid Waste Management District Plans. Part Two– Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans of the Statewide Plan is the guideline for Districts to follow in completing their individual plans.

C. The Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan will not be entirely effective until Regional Solid Waste Management Boards have developed and are implementing Regional Solid Waste Management Plans.

II. Formatting

A. To obtain the truest picture of programs, services and activities relative to integrated solid waste management across Arkansas, each Regional Solid Waste Management Plan must be consistent with and structured like the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan and other Districts’ plans.

B. However, each Regional Solid Waste Management Plan shall be different from other Districts’ plans in the sense that each plan shall be cognizant of the unique needs of the individual District.

III. Summarization

Approved Regional Solid Waste Management Plans plans will be summarized into the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan to give an overall picture of integrated solid waste management throughout Arkansas, and published at www.adeq.state.ar.us.

IV. Report Consolidation - Needs Assessments, Goal Achievements and Programs

NOTICE: Regional Solid Waste Management Plans and subsequent updating via Annual Reports shall constitute and shall satisfy, at the least, these reporting requirements:

1. Shall serve as the “Regional Needs Assessment” required under A.C.A. §8- 6-1901 et seq., as well as under A.C.A. §8-6-716, and under Regulation 22.

2. Shall serve as the annual Waste Tire Site Report required of Districts under statute and Regulation 14. (Separate reports will be required for quarterly waste

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 4 November 1, 2003 tire grant disbursements and for permitted waste tire facilities owned by Districts.) (Application forms will still be required for waste tire grants.)

3. Shall serve as the annual Recycling Program reporting required of Districts under statute and Regulations 11 and 28. (Applications will be required for recycling grants.) A. Act 1376 of 2001, codified as A.C.A. §8-6-1901 et seq., specifically includes reporting requirements. Part Two – Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans is formatted to allow Districts to provide up-to-date data on current activities as well as to evaluate needs for the future.

B. Districts are subject to reporting requirements much like the Solid Waste Management Division follows when reporting strategic planning changes or goal related progresses to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality for the Department-Wide Ten-Year Strategic Plan. The Department requires reports from the Division on both an annual basis and as requested by the Director. Subsequently, an overall review of the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan is necessitated each year, at the least.

C. For reporting consistency, accuracy, and timely information across the State, annual submittals are required from Regional Solid Waste Management Districts of strategic planning changes as well as annual updates of goal related achievements.

D. The Annual Report will be simplified by requiring updated responses only to questions or areas where data or changes have taken place during the previous year, following the format provided herein.

E. The Annual Report will consist of a copy of the most recently approved plan that the Board has updated by simply deleting old language or data with a strikethrough and by marking new language or data with an underline or highlight.

F. Information gleaned from Regional Solid Waste Management Plans and Annual Reports will be gathered by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality into a statewide-report format and published on its website at www.adeq.state.ar.us.

V. Amendments

A. Regional Solid Waste Management Districts’ Plans may be amended as changes or additions occur or as determined by the Regional Solid Waste Management Board or by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.

B. Amendments shall identify additions to an existing project, program or situation and/or changes needed to implement a new project or program.

C. Amendments or changes should be identified in numerical order as addenda to an existing plan.

D. Unless otherwise determined by the Board or by the Department, amendments shall be submitted along with the Annual Report for review and approval.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 5 November 1, 2003

VI. Effective and Due Dates

A. Regional Solid Waste Management Plans shall become an integral part of the ten-year Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan, which, in turn, is an integral part of the ten-year Agency Strategic Plan implemented by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. A copy of the Department’s plan is located at www.adeq.state.ar.us.

B. Each Regional Solid Waste Management District Plan shall be an ongoing project with Annual Reports, changes and amendments incorporated as needed or as required, and, barring unforeseen developments, each plan shall remain in force for ten (10) years from its approval date.

C. Regional Solid Waste Management Plans are required to be submitted for review and approval to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Solid Waste Management Division, within one (1) year after the effective date of the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan.

D. The Department will review the plans and respond within sixty (60) days of receipt. Districts shall submit changes required by the Department within ninety (90) days of notice.

E. The effective date of the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan shall be the approval date to be determined by letter from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.

F. During the final year of the ten-year life of each Regional Solid Waste Management District Plan, a complete review of the plan by the Board and by the Department shall be achieved. Following the review, if deemed necessary by the Board or by the Department, the plan will be rewritten in its entirety.

G. Annual Reports are due no later than March 1 of each year following the approval date of the District’s Plan. Reports will be reviewed and responded to within sixty (60) days of receipt.

VII. Plan Submittal Steps

INITIAL PLAN STEPS: 1. Complete Chapter One – Activities Analysis. Use previous year’s data. 2. Using information gathered in Chapter One, complete Chapter Two – Action Plan. 4. Attach Appendices’ documents. 5. Submit for approval. Send an original by regular mail and an electronic copy. (by e-mail, diskette or CD).

ANNUAL REPORT STEPS:

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 6 November 1, 2003

1. Year one, update originally approved Plan. Strike through old data – Underline or highlight new data. (For year two, update year one, etc.) 2. Attach changes, amendments and other updated documents. 3. Submit for approval. Send an original by regular mail and an electronic copy.

ALL SUBMITTALS SHOULD BE MADE TO THE CHIEF OF THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 7 November 1, 2003

PART TWO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE – Activities Analysis CHAPTER TWO – Action Plan

Section 2.101 Overview Section 2.201 Mission Statement A. History B. Current Section 2.202 Executive Summary A. Strategies Section 2.102 Organization and Administration B. Outlook A. District B. Board Section 2.203 Goals C. Staff A. District’s High-Level Goals B. District Plan’s Goal Areas Section 2.103 Revenues and Expenditures 1. Collection A. District 2. Disposal B. County 3. Recycling C. City 4. Waste Reduction 5. Special Materials Section 2.104 Demographics 6. Education and Public Awareness A. Planning Area 7. Other Goals B. Population C. Industry Section 2.204 Goal Areas – Objectives D. Facilities A. Collection E. Haulers B. Disposal F. Volumes C. Recycling G. Flow D. Waste Reduction H. Economic Impact E. Special Materials F. Education and Public Awareness Section 2.105 Current Services G. Other Goals A. Collection B. Disposal Section 2.205 Administrative C. Recycling A. Plan Implementation D. Waste Reduction B. Implementation Timetable E. Special Materials C. Funding and Budgeting F. Education and Public Awareness G. Other Services Section 2.206 Legislative Studies

Section 2.207 Appendices A. Administrative Procedures B. By-Laws C. Regulations and Ordinances D. Charts, Graphs and Maps E. Other Information

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 8 November 1, 2003

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS For the Regional Solid Waste Management Districts

PART TWO - CHAPTER ONE — ACTIVITIES ANALYSIS

A.C.A. §8-6-704. Boards - Powers and duties. “(a) The regional solid waste management boards shall have the following powers and duties:….(2) To evaluate on a continuous basis the solid waste needs of their districts……; (3) To formulate recommendations to all local governments within their districts on solid waste management issues, and to formulate plans for providing adequate solid waste management…..”

Section 2.101 Overview

A. History

1. Provide a history of the District relative to legislated or regulated solid waste management requirements.

The District has been the leader in progressive solid waste management in Arkansas since 1992. Our minutes show that the District has continually revised and amended their solid waste plan to adjust with the times.

2. How were the District boundaries established?

They were originally set by the State Legislature in 1991. Benton, Carroll, Madison and Washington Counties broke off from the original district in 1992. In 2000, Carroll County rejoined the Northwest District.

3. What has been the District’s greatest accomplishment in terms of solid waste management?

Establishing the first household hazardous waste collection centers in the State, developing stringent landfill siting development, and developing an administrative enforcement scheme.

B. Current

1. Describe the Board’s planning process as it relates to legislated or regulated solid waste management requirements.

The District’s Solid Waste Management Committee meets and reviews issues of current concern and will revise our Solid Waste Plan and submit the revisions to the entire Board.

2. What does the District want the Plan to do for the citizens of its area?

Provide them with a blueprint for comprehensive solid waste management for the next 10 years.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 9 November 1, 2003

3. Give a descriptive snapshot of solid waste management in the District.

Solid waste management in this District follows an integrated approach. Efforts are directed at waste reduction, reuse and recycling before disposal. Because of the fragile geologic nature of this region, the District opposes any future landfill development and will rely on waste reduction and then a series of transfer stations to transport waste requiring disposal to more appropriate landfill sites.

Section 2.102 Organization and Administration

A.C.A. §8-6-703. Creation of districts and boards - Members of boards et seq…….”

A. District

1. Provide a chart that gives the organizational hierarchy of the District and/or its affiliates, agencies and/or peripheral organizations.

See Attachment 1.

2. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of effective solid waste management programs.

The District is active in development or assisting local governments in the development of effective programs.

3. Append administrative procedures, regulations, ordinances or policies relative to the District.

See Attachment 2.

B. Board

1. Give an overview of the activities and authorities of the Regional Solid Waste Management Board.

See A.C.A. § 8-6-701 et seq.

2. Provide a list or an organizational chart of Regional Solid Waste Board Members of the following:

2. Number of members on the Board.

3. Identify of Chairperson.

4. Name, title, address, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail address for each member.

5. County or city represented.

See Attachment 3.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 10 November 1, 2003

3. Provide the schedule and the location(s) of the Board meetings? (i.e., monthly, every third Tuesday)

Third Thursday of February, May, August and November at 10:30 a.m. in Springdale.

C. Staff

1. Provide a list or an organizational chart of Regional Solid Waste Staff Members showing the name and title for each person.

See Attachment 3.

2. Provide phone and fax numbers and e-mail addresses for staff members who should be contacted for solid waste information for the District.

See Attachment 3.

Section 2.103 Revenues and Expenditures

A. District

1. Describe the revenue sources that fund solid waste management activities within the District. Include the legal authority.

Administrative Recycling Grants Local Contributions Waste Assessment Licensing Fees Service Fees A.C.A. § 8-6-702

2. List all revenue sources and/or fees, such as user fees, waste disposal fees, licensing fees, grants, loans, rental income, earned interest and sales of recovered materials. Provide an estimation of total receipts from each revenue source from the previous year for the District. Estimate the percentage of annual revenue from each source.

Revenue Source 2003 Amount % Grants $45,000 7% Local Contributions $162,682 25% Waste Assessment $457,515 70% Service Fees $13,195 2% Misc Income $12,087 2% Interest $7,976 1% Total $653,455 107%

3. List the solid waste services that are supported by these revenues.

Technical assistance, educational programs, household hazardous waste disposal, electronics recycling, bulky waste collections, rural recycling drives.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 11 November 1, 2003

4. Provide a report for the most recent fiscal year that identifies solid waste revenues and expenditures for the District. (This report should be an expansion of and be complementary to the annual audit report provided by outside independent auditors.)

See Attachment 4.

B. County

1. For each county within the District, prepare a report that lists the sources of revenue supporting the current solid waste management system for that county.

2. List the solid waste services that are supported by these revenues.

See Attachment 5.

C. City

1. For each Class 1 City within the District, prepare a report that lists the sources of revenues supporting the current solid waste management system for that city.

2. List the solid waste services supported by these revenues.

See Attachment 5

Section 2.104 Demographics

A.C.A. §8-6-704. Boards - Powers and duties. “(a) The regional solid waste management boards shall have the following powers and duties: (1) To collect data, study, and initially evaluate the solid waste management needs of all localities within their districts, as provided in § 8-6-716;…..”

A. Planning Area

1. Identify the District by its full name, and list the counties and municipalities that comprise the District.

Tri-County Solid Waste District, comprising Benton, Madison and Washington Counties and the Cities of Gentry, Siloam Springs, Bentonville, Centerton, Rogers, Little Flock, Pea Ridge, Lowell, Springdale, Fayetteville, Johnson, Lincoln, Prairie Grove, Farmington, West Fork and Huntsville.

2. Provide a map clearly showing the jurisdictional areas the District.

Go to http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/solwaste/regional_boards.asp

3. Include the area of any solid waste management authorities within the District.

Not Applicable

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 12 November 1, 2003

B. Population

1. List the most current population of the District (list by county; provide source of information and year). Current populations may be found at www.census.gov/main/cen2000.html or http://quickfacts.census.gov/fgd/states/0500.html.

2000 Census 7/1/03 Estimates* Benton County 153,406 172,003 Madison County 14,243 14,354 Washington County 157,715 169,683 District Total 325,364 356,040

*AIEA Census State Data Center

2. Describe how the population has changed over the last 10 years.

It has grown tremendously. Our 1996 population, based on special census’, was 290,527. This represents a 22.5% growth from 1996 to 2003.

3. Provide a population projection for the next 10 years.

According to the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission, our anticipated population in 2008 and 2013 are as follows:

2008 2013 428,954 484,844

4. Are there any significant demographic trends that may affect waste disposal or waste generation figures in the District?

Yes. Rapid growth is resulting in rapid increases in waste volumes and large amounts of C&D waste.

5. Are large groups of people moving into or out of the area for any special reason?

Not for any special reason.

C. Industry

1. Provide a business profile for the District.

See Attachment 6.

2. Identify and discuss regional economic factors that are expected to affect future waste generation rates and quantities over the next 10 years.

A large influx of additional people will result in additional waste generation. In addition, a large amount of C&D waste is expected to be generated due to the large number of homes and office buildings being built to accommodate the rapid growth. Large amounts of commercial office waste, heavy with OCC and office paper is expected to be generated. Industrial waste will not keep pace with the growth in household and commercial waste, as the majority of economic growth is commercial office.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 13 November 1, 2003

D. Solid Waste Management Facilities

1. List all the landfills (Class I, III, & IV), transfer stations, compost facilities, waste tire processing facilities, collection centers, and any other solid waste management facilities within the District.

a. Name of Facility

b. Owner/Operator/Contact

c. Mailing Address/Physical Location/County

d. Phone Number/Fax Number/E-Mail Address

e. Classification of Landfill or Facility Type

f. Jurisdiction/Area Served

g. Approximate Volume Managed Annually

h. Life expectancy of each facility, expressed in years

Go to http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/solwaste/branch_technical/permitted_facils/permit_list.asp.

E. Haulers

A.C.A. §8-6-721. Licensing haulers of solid waste. (a) A person who engages in the business of hauling solid waste must obtain a license from the regional solid waste management board if: (1) The person is engaged in the collection of solid waste within the district; or (2) The person is engaged in the transportation of solid waste for disposal or storage in the district.

1. Explain the process by which a person who engages in the business of hauling solid waste obtains a license from the Regional solid Waste Management Board.

Waste Haulers fill out a two page licensing form in May or June of every year. In addition, they provide proof of insurance and information on the locations within the District where they haul. The District provides the haulers with a licensing sticker good for one year from July 1 through June 30.

2. What means does the District use to oversee active licensees? Do regular inspections of the haulers for compliance take place? Are licenses revoked for non-compliance, such as hauling waste without a cover?

The District has an enforcement officer and has established an administrative enforcement structure unique in the State of Arkansas. Haulers who violate District hauling regulations can be assessed administrative penalties and have their license revoked.

3. Include here (or append) a copy of the District’s hauler’s licensing policy and procedures as well as an updated listing of licensed haulers and service areas.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 14 November 1, 2003

Policies and procedures can be found in Attachment 2. Hauler service areas and a list of haulers is found in Attachment 7.

F. Volumes

A.C.A. §8-6-716. Regional needs assessment.(a)….(2) The assessment shall include, at the minimum, the following:

(A) An evaluation of the amount of solid waste generated within the district and the amount of remaining disposal capacity, expressed in years, at the solid waste disposal facilities within the district that are permitted under the Arkansas Solid Waste Management Act, § 8-6-201 et seq.;”

1. Provide a waste stream characterization with data concerning waste types and amounts generated and disposed within the district and/or waste transported out of district for disposal.

See Answers below.

2. For the most recent calendar year, how many tons of solid waste were generated within the District and disposed in Class I Landfills or other solid waste management facilities located in or out of the District?

346,045 tons of waste was generated within the District in 2003. Of this figure, 258,778 tons were disposed of in-district and 87,267 tons were disposed of out-of-district.

3. Examine and discuss the trends regarding the sources of solid waste generated using the following categories: Answers below were calculated using the above generation figures combined with the latest information from the EPA.

a. Residential – 157,245 tons in 2003

b. Commercial – 128,655 tons in 2003

c. Industrial – 60,145 tons in 2003

4. Examine and discuss the trends regarding the types of solid waste generated using the following categories:

a. Yard waste – 34,880 tons in 2003

b. Construction/Demolition waste - unknown

c. Tires – 391,686 from Oct. 2003 – Sept. 2004.

d. Recyclables – 79,614 tons recycled from Jul. 2003 – Jun. 2004.

e. White goods – 6,113 tons recycled from Jul. 2003 – Jun. 2004

f. Municipal solid waste - 285,900 tons in 2003.

5. Has the waste stream increased or decreased over the last five years. Provide an explanation.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 15 November 1, 2003

It has increased, due mainly to massive population growth, heavy commercial development generating vast amounts of waste paper, and numerous new construction resulting in large quantities of C&D debris.

6. Project the waste stream for the next five years. Support your projections.

We anticipate approximately 5% growth in MSW over the next five years, due to the factors listed in No. 5 above.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

360,340 375,350 391,110 407,658 425,034

G. Flow

A.C.A. §8-6-716. Regional needs assessment.(a)….(2) The assessment shall include, at the minimum, the following:

An evaluation and balancing of the environmental, economic, and other relevant factors which would be implicated by acceptance of solid waste from beyond the boundaries of the district.

1. Evaluate the environmental, economic, and any other factors that are affected by the acceptance of solid waste from beyond the boundaries of the District and the transfer of solid waste outside the District.

Very little waste is brought into our District from outside the District. At present, the only significant source of out-of-District waste is from the City of Harrison and accounts for between 3-4% of our total waste stream. Approximately 25% of our waste stream is delivered to disposal sites outside the District. Because of the fragile nature of the geology in Northwest Arkansas, this has a beneficial effect on our environment by reducing the amount of material landfilled in a karst environment. The economic effect is minimal, amounting only to lost revenue to Waste Management and lost host fees to the City of Tontitown.

3. Include here (or append) the District’s policy and procedures pertaining to waste flow issues.

The District has adopted a policy opposing any further Class 1 landfill development within the District boundaries. Our planning strategy is the development of sufficient transfer station capacity to handle the region’s waste and transfer of waste to out of district disposal sites situated in more suitable geologic areas.

H. Economic Impact

1. To the best of your ability, list the costs involved for both public and private solid waste services, facilities, and programs provided by the District or by others within the District. The list should include all direct and indirect costs; it should cover collection, transportation, intermediate processing and handling, recycling, composting, problem waste handling, and disposal. Include capital cost considerations, staffing requirements, and operating expenses.

It is impossible for us to even begin to try and answer this question.

2. Is the current system satisfactory? If not, what corrective measures are being undertaken?

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 16 November 1, 2003

Yes.

3. What new expenses and/or new fees or revenues are needed or anticipated?

None at this time.

4. List any jobs created and maintained in market development.

0

5. List any jobs created and maintained in waste tire management.

4

6. List any jobs created and maintained in recycling.

108

7. List any jobs created and maintained in solid waste management.

304

8. Are any of these areas showing growth? Explain.

Recycling and solid waste management are showing growth. Other areas appear flat.

9. Are any of these areas showing decline? Explain.

No.

Section 2.105 Current Services

A.C.A. §8-6-704. Boards - Powers and duties. “(a) The regional solid waste management boards shall have the following powers and duties:

(1) To collect data, study, and initially evaluate the solid waste management needs of all localities within their districts, as provided in § 8-6-716, and to publish their findings as a regional needs assessment;

(2) To evaluate on a continuous basis the solid waste needs of their districts, and thereby update the regional needs assessments at least biennially;

(3) To formulate recommendations to all local governments within their districts on solid waste management issues, and to formulate plans for providing adequate solid waste management…..”

A.C.A. §8-6-710. Solid waste management responsibility. (a)(1) Each regional solid waste management board shall be the governmental entity primarily responsible for providing a solid waste management system for the district.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 17 November 1, 2003

A. Collection Services

1. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of collection services.

The District assists cities and counties in developing collection strategies and obtaining services on an as needed basis.

2. List all counties and/or municipalities in the District that have door-to-door/curbside collection service. Include populations.

See Attachment 8.

3. Include the funding mechanism that provides the service (county tax, water bill, etc.).

All collection services within in the District are on a billed basis.

4. What types of services do the counties or municipalities rely on for collection services?

See Attachment 8.

5. Whose responsibility is it to arrange for collection in each county?

Within the unincorporated areas of the counties, it is the residents responsibility to obtain trash service. In most of the incorporated areas, the municipality has made arrangements for trash collection.

6. Is participation mandatory or voluntary?

In most of the incorporated areas, participation is mandatory. In some incorporated areas and in all unincorporated areas, participation is voluntary.

7. What is the percentage of the District’s residents that do not participate in a collection service?

We estimate that 16% of District residents do not participate in a collection service.

8. List all counties and/or municipalities within the District that do not have access to some type of collection service or access to inadequate collection service. Include populations.

Adequate collection is available to every resident who chooses to use one.

9. Is there a system that works well within the District? Explain.

All of the systems work well for the residents they serve.

10. Describe progress and setbacks in collection service efforts within the District.

The District has worked closely with the private haulers to ensure that collection service is available to every resident. We continue to promote Pay-As-You-Throw pricing and many haulers have already implemented it.

11. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to collection services.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 18 November 1, 2003

The District runs two ads every week in the Star Shopper, a free weekly paper with District- wide coverage. Several of these ads are directly related to waste collection services. We also maintain a list of licensed haulers on our web site. Finally, we have business cards that promote waste hauling services that are available to residents.

12. Include here (or append) the District’s policy and procedures pertaining to collection issues. Provide a brief explanation of what works well and what still needs problem resolution.

The District has no specific policy or procedure pertaining to collection issues. A copy of our waste hauling regulations is attached. Mandatory collection systems work well in our incorporated, but are not currently feasible in the unincorporated areas. In those areas, voluntary collection is available to every resident.

13. Provide an Evaluation of Solid Waste Collection Needs within the District.

At present, our solid waste collection needs are being met. It is likely that at some point in the future, mandatory collection will become the norm in the unincorporated areas, but not in the foreseeable future.

B. Disposal Services

A.C.A. §8-6-704. Boards - Powers and duties. “(a) The regional solid waste management boards shall have the following powers and duties:

(4) To issue or deny certificates of need to any applicant for a solid waste disposal facility permit within their districts with the exception of permits for landfills when a private industry bears the expense of operating and maintaining the landfill solely for the disposal of waste generated by the industry or wastes of a similar kind or character;….”

1. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of disposal services.

This District’s policy is for no further development of disposal capacity within the District boundaries, due to unsuitable environmental conditions. Rather, our policy is for the development of adequate transfer capacity, with disposal at landfills in surrounding areas.

2. Does the District own and/or operate and/or partner with others on any disposal facilities?

The District is currently developing a transfer station in western Washington County.

3. What part does the District play in the disposal of wastes for its citizens?

As stated above, the District is working to ensure adequate transfer capacity within the District to handle all waste being generated.

4. What counties or municipalities own and/or operate and/or partner with others on any disposal facilities?

The City of Siloam Springs owns and operates a transfer station. The City of Fayetteville owns a transfer station and partners with Waste Management for its operation. Madison County owns and operates a transfer station.

5. What part do the counties or municipalities play in the disposal of wastes for its citizens?

None, other than as described in number 4 above.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 19 November 1, 2003

6. Describe progress and setbacks in disposal service efforts within the District.

With the completion of the West Washington County Transfer Station, our transfer station needs will be met. However our objective of no further landfill development has been hampered by ADEQ’s decision to overturn our denial of a Certificate of Need to the Waste Management Tontitown Landfill.

7. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to disposal services.

We have no specific educational services relating to disposal services. We list all transfer station and landfills on our web sites. We provide technical assistance to communities wanting assistance with the development or operation of transfer stations.

8. Include here (or append) the District’s policy and procedures pertaining to waste disposal services.

We have no specific policy or procedure pertaining to waste disposal services, other than as described above.

9. Provide an Evaluation of Solid Waste Disposal Needs within the District

Because our District is unsuitable from an environmental perspective for the further development of landfill capacity, we intend to satisfy our disposal needs through the use of a series of transfer stations utilizing disposal capacity at nearby out-of-district disposal facilities. With the completion of the West Washington County Transfer Station, our transfer capacity needs will be met for the foreseeable future.

C. Recycling Services

A.C.A. §8-6-704. Boards - Powers and duties. “(a) The regional solid waste management boards shall have the following powers and duties: …. (7) To establish programs to encourage recycling;…..”

A.C.A. §8-6-720. Opportunity to recycle - Recyclable materials collection (a)(1) Beginning July 1, 1992, each regional solid waste management board shall ensure that its residents have an opportunity to recycle. “Opportunity to recycle” means availability of curbside pickup or collection centers for recyclable materials at sites that are convenient for persons to use……et al.”

1. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of recycling services.

The District takes both a direct and indirect role in the development and implementation of recycling services. We are currently developing a MRF at the WWC facility. In addition, we provide technical assistance to anyone seeking help. We also coordinate periodic meetings of all facility operators for networking purposes.

2. Does the District (County or Municipality within) have a recycling coordinator?

Within the District, the Deputy Director for Operations has responsibility for recycling activities. While not using that title, the Cities of Fayetteville, Siloam Springs and Rogers all have people that do marketing of recyclables, as does Madison County.

3. Provide a description of each recycling project within the District.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 20 November 1, 2003

Processing facilities, capable of baling and marketing materials are located in Huntsville, Fayetteville, Prairie Grove, the University of Arkansas, Rogers (2), Siloam Springs and Bella Vista. The Huntsville and one Rogers facility have the capability of handling co-mingled recyclables. There are also numerous private recycling operations too numerous to mention, that handle commercial paper and cardboard accounts. Washington County and the District also provide rural drop-off collections of recyclable materials in five communities and at several Washington County Schools.

4. Include recycling and marketing efforts on the part of local programs, their principal end- users, and successes and failures.

See answer to No. 3 above.

5. A.C.A. §8-6-720 requires that at least one Recyclable Materials Collection Center be established in each county of a District unless the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission grants the Board an exemption. List the facilities and their locations.

Bella Vista Community Recycling 6 Joanie Lane Bella Vista, AR

Rogers Community Recycling 315 W. Olive Rogers, AR

Recycle America 3511 Arkansas Rogers, AR

City of Fayetteville 1455 S. Happy Hollow Road Fayetteville, AR

Madison County Recycling 173 Madison 6553 Huntsville, AR

Siloam Springs Recycling 745 E. Tahlequah Siloam Springs, AR

Prairie Grove Recycling 130 S. Neal Prairie Grove, AR

University Recycling 521 S. Razorback Fayetteville, AR

6. List composting facilities in the District.

Northwest Arkansas Recovery Lincoln, AR

City of Fayetteville Composting

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 21 November 1, 2003

Fayetteville, AR

City of Bentonville Composting Bentonville, AR

Waste Management Tontitown, AR

7. Provide the volume and types of materials that were recycled in the District during the previous year.

This information is not available on a calendar year basis. Please refer to the Regulation 28 reports submitted for July 2003 – June 2004.

8. Do counties and/or municipalities in the District cooperate on recycling and marketing efforts?

Yes.

9. Describe progress and setbacks in recycling and marketing efforts by the District.

Because of the long history of recycling in this area, we have a number of markets available to us. As with all recycling facilities, the vagaries of the commodities market makes it difficult to plan financially. Through a combination of permanent facilities, curbside programs and rural drop-offs, we have recycling available within 15 miles of every resident.

10. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to recycling services.

We publish a recycling guide to the District, called Northwest Arkansas Recycles. This document is now in it’s 12th edition. We also provide technical assistance to anyone who requests it.

11. Include here (or append) the District’s policy and procedures pertaining to recycling issues.

The District has no specific policy or procedure pertaining to recycling issues.

12. Provide an Evaluation of Recycling Needs within the District.

Recycling needs are being met very well within the District. As this area continues to grow at a phenomenal rate, an increased capacity to handle commingled recyclables will be necessary. Use of a regional recycling facility may take this region to the next level in recycling infrastructure.

13. Complete and append the annual reporting forms specific to the District’s Recycling Program. (Recycling Program reporting forms shall be supplied separately from the Recycling Branch of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Solid Waste Management Division).

NOTE: If any of the responses to the questions listed above are also covered in the Recycling Program’s reporting forms, please disregard the questions listed above and supply the responses on the forms themselves. This shall serve as the annual Recycling Program reporting required of Districts under statute and Regulations 11 and 28.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 22 November 1, 2003

Completed reporting forms particular to the District’s recycling program shall become an integral to the District’s originally approved plan, and shall be required to be updated and submitted along with the Annual Report. (This does not apply to forms relating to recycling grant requests and disbursements.)

D. Waste Reduction Services

A.C.A. §8-6-711. District solid waste management system. (a) A district is authorized to own, acquire, construct, reconstruct, extend, equip, improve, operate, maintain, sell, lease, contract concerning, or otherwise deal in facilities of any nature necessary or desirable for the control, collection, removal, reduction, disposal, treatment, or other handling of solid waste.

1. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of waste reduction services.

The District promotes waste reduction through free waste audits for businesses and industries. Waste reduction and reuse are also promoted as a part of our integrated waste management outreach programs.

2. List the waste reduction programs within the District. Include the following:

There are no specific waste reduction programs within the District.

a. Is the program publicly or privately sponsored.

b. Is the program open to all or to a limited group.

c. Are materials dropped off or picked up.

d. Is the program curbside.

e. Is the owner/sponsor a for-profit collector or end-user.

f. Is the program an in-house industrial, commercial, or government reduction program; etc.

3. Describe progress and setbacks in waste reduction efforts in the District.

The District has been very successful in accomplishing waste reduction at those entities that have sought our assistance. The biggest obstacle to waste reduction is the ability to reach more entities.

4. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to waste reduction activities or actions.

As stated above, the District provides free waste audits to anyone requesting them.

5. Provide an Evaluation of Waste Reduction Needs within the District.

Our waste reduction needs are currently being met.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 23 November 1, 2003

E. Special Materials Services

A.C.A. §8-6-710. Solid waste management responsibility. (a)(1) Each regional solid waste management board shall be the governmental entity primarily responsible for providing a solid waste management system for the district.

1. Illegal Disposal Services

a. Illegal Dumping Services

i. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of Illegal dump control services.

The District has an Enforcement Officer position that handles illegal dumping issues, inter alia.

ii. Does the District (or County or City within the District) have a licensed Illegal Dumps Control Officer on staff? If yes, give name and contact information.

The District recently hired a new enforcement officer, who has not completed the training required to be licensed as an Illegal Dumps Enforcement Officer.

iii. How are illegal dumps identified?

Through complaints and personal observation.

iv. Who is responsible for the closure of open dumps located within the District?

The responsible parties. The District and counties also coordinate to clean up illegal dumps on public property.

v. What means are utilized for site cleanups?

We attempt to obtain voluntary cleanup by the responsible party. If unsuccessful, we may resort to enforcement actions to force cleanup. In some instances, the District and/or county may institute cleanup of a site.

vi. What enforcement programs or policies are in place?

The District has recently established an administrative enforcement program. In addition, we may resort to civil actions to effectuate cleanup of a site. We seek to obtain voluntary cleanup in the first instance.

vii. How are illegal dump inventories, enforcement and/or site cleanups funded?

Through general revenues.

viii. Approximately how many sites were cleaned up last year?

Unknown. Site cleanups in 2003 were conducted by Benton County and Washington County.

ix. Approximately how many current dump sites are located within the District.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 24 November 1, 2003

Unknown. The District has knowledge of seven illegal dumps at this time.

x. Provide approximate locations of the illegal dump sites known to be located within the District.

See Attachment 9.

xi. Describe progress and setbacks in illegal dumping service efforts within the District.

Benton and Washington Counties have dedicated resources to illegal dumping for several years. Both programs have been successful in obtaining cleanup of illegal dumping sites, generally through coercion. Both programs have also pursued legal action into the court system. The District hired an enforcement officer in early 2003. We have also been fairly successful in obtaining cleanup of illegal dumps by coercion. We have yet to pursue a formal enforcement action. Great strides have been made to obtain cleanup of illegal dumps in Northwest Arkansas. Our greatest setback is lack of enforcement authority. Our recourse is typically to the courts and the prosecutors and judges tend to downplay the seriousness of the offenses. Costs of private action limits us to pursuing only the most flagrant and large violators.

xii. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to illegal dump control services.

Part of the District’s routine advertising program includes ads that remind residents not to illegally dump trash with contact information for finding a local hauler. In addition, the District utilizes its bulky truck to assist county governments with the cleanup of illegal dumps.

xiii. Provide an Evaluation of illegal dump Needs within the District.

Our greatest need is time to get experience in enforcement matters and money to dedicate to illegal dump cleanups. In addition, Districts need to be given enhanced enforcement authority. At present, our authority is less than that given to counties.

b. Litter Services

i. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of litter control services.

This District makes no distinction between illegal dumping and littering.

ii. Describe how roadside litter is addressed in the District’s service area.

iii. List counties or municipalities in the District that have litter clean-up and prevention programs in place.

See Attachment 5.

iv. Describe progress and setbacks in illegal dumping service efforts within the District.

v. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to litter control services.

vi. Provide an Evaluation of litter Needs within the District.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 25 November 1, 2003

c. Open Burning Services

i. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of open burning services.

The District actively discourages open burning within the District.

ii. Identify any ordinances in the District, counties, and/or municipalities that address open burning.

See Attachment 5.

iii. Describe any enforcement programs in place.

The District’s Enforcement Officer responds to open burning complaints. We first seek to obtain voluntary compliance. Repeat offenders may be subject to enforcement actions.

iv. Describe progress and setbacks in illegal dumping service efforts within the District.

The District has made strides in moving residents away from the open burning of trash. However, old habits die hard.

v. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to open burning services

The District publishes a brochure on the hazards of open burning and also runs an open burning ad in the Star Shopper. In addition, we have recorded a PSA that warns of the hazards of open burning. The District has also developed an Open Burning Toolkit for use in schools that consists of lesson plans, posters and a video. This toolkit was developed in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Phillips Petroleum Company.

Provide an evaluation of open burning needs within the District.

We need to continue our efforts to educate residents about the dangers of open burning and the availability of alternatives.

2. Waste Tire Services

A.C.A. §8-9-405. Waste tire grants. “(a) The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality shall, by July 1, 1992, establish a program to make waste tire grants to regional solid waste management boards which desire, individually or collectively, to: (1) Construct or operate, or contract for the construction or operation of, a waste tire processing facility and equipment purchases therefor;…….et al.”

a. Waste Tire Program Services

i. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of waste tire management program services.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 26 November 1, 2003

The District has established a series of collection centers for waste tires. We also contract with a private entity for the collection, transportation and disposal of all waste tires generated within the District.

ii. Describe the District’s current waste tire collection, transportation and disposal program.

The District operates 10 collection centers. Dealers and residents bring tires to the collection centers and load them into van trailers. When full, our contractor pulls the full trailer and places an empty trailer in its place. The contractor transports the tires to their collection center where they are unloaded, sorted by size and reloaded onto trailers. The tires are then transported to disposal/recycling facilities. At present, our tires are going to a cement kiln in Oklahoma, one of two different crumb rubber facilities in Oklahoma, or Davis Rubber in Little Rock.

iii. Does the program adequately serve the needs of the District? If not, what corrective measures are being undertaken?

This program is more than adequate to meet the needs of the District.

iv. List the waste tire collection centers for each county. Include the physical location. List the days and times of operation.

See Attachment 10.

v. List the waste tire processing facility(ies) used by the District. Include the physical location.

vi. If a waste tire processing facility is not used, list the type of facility that is used. Include the physical location.

vii. Describe progress and setbacks in waste tire program service efforts within the District.

The District hired a new waste tire contractor in 2003. Our rates for disposal dropped significantly, especially with respect to large truck tires.

vi. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to waste tire management program services.

The District published a brochure on our waste tire program. In addition, we run periodic ads in the Star Shopper and maintain a page on our web site devoted to the waste tire program.

vii. Provide the process by which tires are managed within the District.

See the answer to paragraph ii, above.

viii. Append current contract(s) of waste tire management services, including sub- contracting or transporting, collection and/or processing or disposal services.

ix. Include here (or append) the District’s policy and procedures pertaining to waste tire issues.

The District has no specific policy or procedure pertaining to waste tire issues.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 27 November 1, 2003

x. Provide an evaluation of waste tire needs within the District.

The District’s waste tire needs are currently being met in outstanding fashion.

b. Waste Tire Counting Services

i. Describe the role the District plays in maintaining waste tire counts.

The District requires the use of waste tire manifests in its system.

ii. Describe the manifesting, accounting, or tire count process.

When anyone delivers tires to a collection center, they are required to fill out a waste tire manifest. The only exception is residents delivering 4 or fewer tires at no charge. These numbers are kept on a separate sheet. The collection center then delivers copies of the manifests to the District when the trailer is swapped out. The District uses these manifests to create invoices for waste tire disposal.

iii. List the number and types of tires generated during the previous calendar year.

i. List the number and types of tires processed during the previous calendar year.

ii. List the number and types of tires disposed during the previous calendar year.

iii. List the number and types of tires stored at the end of the previous calendar year.

During 2003, the District collected, processed and disposed of 291,356 passenger tires, 45,703 large truck tires and 837 off-road tires.

iv. Describe the type of disposition and give the percent of each type of disposition (i.e., 80% TDF; 20% waste tire chip aggregate).

v. Describe progress and setbacks in waste tire count efforts within the District

The District has worked diligently with the tire dealers in establishing a comprehensive tire manifest system. The biggest setback in tire counting is the structure of the state’s tire program as it relates to waste truck tires. By trying to utilize the same system as used for passenger tires, the state has created a situation that is not effective for large truck tires. This is due to the fact that tires are not sold by the retreaders, but rather by the tire manufacturers directly. Yet it is the tire retreaders and not the manufacturers who are responsible for the disposal of the scrap tires.

vi. Provide an evaluation of waste tire count needs within the District

The District’s waste tire counting needs are being adequately met.

c. Waste Tire Site Control Services

i. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of waste tire site control services.

The District investigates any illegal tire site reported to it.

ii. Describe what the District is doing to control dumping of waste tires.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 28 November 1, 2003

Upon investigation of an illegal tire site, the District first attempts to obtain voluntary cleanup of the site. If this is unsuccessful, the District evaluates the site for suitability of an abatement action. Because the District generates additional revenue under it’s waste tire program, excess funds are used to abate illegal tire sites without the need to seek additional abatement grants from the State.

iii. For each prior calendar year, provide a list of the number of waste tire sites abated, locations, number and types of tires for each site, and the cost of cleanup of each site. (This information is used for the national report to the Rubber Users Directory.)

Pendergast Location 7335 pass, 209 lg truck & 10 off-road tires $11,400.84

Smith Hwy 412 east of Siloam Springs 11,541 pass, 1189 lg truck & 14 off-road tires $17,540.76

iv. Describe how the District inventories waste tire sites.

The District responds to waste tire complaints as they are received. They are treated as any other illegal dumping complaint.

v. How many waste tire sites are currently known to exist within the District? List and give approximate locations, rank the sites in order of abatement urgency and specify potential risks to human health and the environment. Provide photos where available. Provide estimates of the number and types of tires at each site. Provide estimates of the cost to clean up each site. Identify for each site whether or not the District will need to apply for abatement funds to clean up the site. Provide a timeline to eliminate known waste tire sites.

Marsh’s Racing Tires Siloam Springs, AR Vectors and Fire Approx: 25,000 tires remain Mr. Marsh is under court order to clean up the site. This District is not involved in this cleanup action.

Graham Salvage Forum, AR Vectors Approx: 3,500 tires This site is currently undergoing cleanup.

Fisher Gentry, AR Vectors Approx: 3,000 tires This site will be cleaned up by the District during 2004.

Stival Goshen, AR Vectors Approx: 2,000 tires

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 29 November 1, 2003

This site has been referred to ADEQ for enforcement.

vi. Describe progress and setbacks in waste tire site control service efforts.

With recent changes to the waste tire program funding, the District now has a surplus of funds available to use for abatement of small waste tire sites. No uncontrolled large sites now are known to exist within the District.

vii. Provide an evaluation of waste tire site needs within the District

Waste Tire site needs are currently being met within the District.

NOTE: Responses to Waste Tire questions in the originally approved Plan and in subsequent Annual Reports shall serve as the annual Waste Tire Site Report required of Districts under statute and Regulation 14. (Separate reports will still be required for quarterly waste tire grant disbursements and for permitted waste tire facilities owned by Districts.) (Applications will still be required for waste tire grants.) 3. Batteries Services

a. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of lead-acid battery services.

See responses to HHW section.

b. Briefly describe how discarded lead-acid batteries are being managed in the District, by County.

c. Describe any programs that manage and recycle household batteries.

d. Describe progress and setbacks in battery service efforts within the District.

e. Describe educational and technical services provided that relate to lead-acid battery services.

f. Provide an evaluation of waste battery needs within the District

4. Waste Oil Services

a. Describe the role the District plays in the implementation of waste oil services.

See responses to HHW section.

b. Briefly describe how waste oil and other automotive fluids are currently managed in the District, by county.

c. Report the quantity of oil recovered during the previous calendar year.

d. Describe progress and setbacks in waste oil service efforts within the District.

e. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to waste oil services.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 30 November 1, 2003

f. Provide an evaluation of waste oil needs within the District

5. Medical Waste Services

a. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of medical waste services.

The District has no role in the management of medical waste.

b. Describe briefly how medical waste is currently managed in the District and/or county.

c. Describe progress and setbacks in medical waste service efforts within the District.

d. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to medical waste services.

e. Provide an evaluation of medical waste needs within the District

6. Hazardous Waste Services

If not related to household use, Districts do not play any role in the development or implementation of hazardous waste services. Any questions that arise should be referred to the Hazardous Waste Division of the Department of Environmental Quality.

7. Household Hazardous Waste Services

a. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of household hazardous chemical waste services.

The District has established a comprehensive HHW management program. Seven permanent collection sites are available to residents year-round at no charge.

b. Describe briefly how household chemicals are currently managed in the District and/or county.

The District operates seven HHW collection centers in cooperation with local partners. These sites are operated year-round. Residents may bring their HHW to the centers for disposal at no charge. Our contractor then services the centers and delivers the waste to their facility in Rogers, Arkansas. Wastes are compiled and sent for recycling, beneficial reuse, or, as a last resort, disposal.

c. List household hazardous waste collection activities or locations within the District.

Siloam Springs Transfer Station Haz-MERT, Rogers, AR Washington County, Fayetteville, AR Springdale Street Department Madison County Solid Waste, Huntsville, AR Madison County Solid Waste, St. Paul, AR

d. Describe progress and setbacks in household hazardous waste collection service efforts within the District.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 31 November 1, 2003

The District has the most comprehensive HHW collection program in the State of Arkansas. This program has grown nearly every year since it’s inception in 1999.

e. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to household hazardous chemical waste services.

The District publishes two brochures relating to the HHW program. In addition, we run periodic ads in the Star Shopper and other newspapers and have recorded a PSA concerning the HHW program.

8. Waste Electronics Services

a. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of waste electronics services.

The District handles waste electronics in conjunction with the HHW program.

b. Does the District have a waste electronics collection and/or recycling center? If yes, please describe.

They are located at each HHW center.

c. Describe progress and setbacks waste electronics service efforts within the District.

The District again has an extensive program for waste electronics recycling, maintaining seven different drop-off sites.

d. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to waste electronics services.

The District runs periodic ads in the Star Shopper and other newspapers. The District has recorded a PSA concerning electronics disposal.

e. Provide an evaluation of waste electronic needs within the District.

Electronic disposal needs are being met in the District.

9. Construction and Demolition Waste Services

a. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of construction and demolition waste services.

The District does not take an active role in C&D waste services.

b. Describe briefly how construction and demolition waste is currently managed in the District and/or each county.

C&D waste is either disposed of in a Class 1 or Class 4 landfill.

c. Describe progress and setbacks in construction and demolition service efforts within the District.

N/A

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 32 November 1, 2003

d. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to construction and demolition waste services.

N/A

e. Provide an evaluation of construction and demolition waste needs within the District

C&D management is an area with a tremendous potential for growth. The major hurdle in implementing a C&D management program is the availability of cheap disposal. As disposal prices rise, we can expect to see a renewed interest in C&D recycling. The District’s past efforts at promoting C&D recycling were met with skepticism and hostility by the building industry. Hopefully, private interests will arise to provide a cost effective solution to this issue.

10. Other Solid Wastes Services

a. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of services for any other solid wastes not previously covered in this document.

b. Does the District have a problem that has not been specifically address in statute, regulation, or guidelines (white goods, abandoned cars, pallets, wood waste, etc.)?

c. Is there a program in place for developing a system that could be included with the plan?

d. Describe progress and setbacks in other waste service efforts within the District.

e. Provide a description of educational and technical services provided by the District as they relate to services for other solid wastes identified herein.

f. Provide an evaluation of other solid waste needs within the District

F. Education and Public Awareness Services

1. District’s Role

Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of education and public awareness services.

The District has a long and active role in education and public awareness. We have a full time Public Education Coordinator position. In addition, we provide up to $5,000.00 in matching funds each year to each of the three counties to help support local educators. We issue mini-grants totaling $3,500 each year to schools to create or enhance recycling programs. We conduct teacher workshops to instruct teachers in teaching solid waste management. We speak to school and civic groups on a regular basis. We publish a number of brochures and newsletters on various topics of solid waste management and recycling. And we maintain a web site with up-to-date information.

2. Active Persons/Organizations

List persons or organizations active in efforts to educate the public regarding solid waste issues in the District.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 33 November 1, 2003

District Public Education Coordinator Madison County Educator Benton County Educator Washington County Education Fayetteville Waste Reduction Coordinator Rogers Environmental Educator

3. Active Programs Utilized

List active programs utilized by the District, like Keep Arkansas Beautiful, Arkansas Recycling Coalition, and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality’s Solid Waste Management Programs.

Most of the programs utilized by the District have been developed by the District.

4. Active Individuals

See Attachment 11.

5. District Programs

List in-house, industrial and other solid waste educational programs, litter programs, illegal dumping prevention programs, and any others not mentioned here. Describe the nature of each effort and level of participation. Include the following:

Unknown

a. Name of Organization/Sponsor

b. County(ies) or City(ies)

c. Addresses and Phone Numbers

d. Target Participants

e. Description of Activities

6. Communication Strategies

a. How is the District communicating with their citizens?

Through advertising, publications, public presentations, workshops, newsletters, the media and the World Wide Web.

b. How does the District identify their customers?

Our customers are the people purchasing services from the District.

7. Public Meetings/Communication

a. Are there regularly scheduled forums where the public can voice environmental concerns?

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 34 November 1, 2003

At District Board Meetings.

b. Are Board meetings regularly scheduled?

Yes, quarterly.

c. Are the meetings publicized or promoted for the public’s knowledge? How - radio, television, newspaper, other?

Yes, via the news media and direct contact.

d. Are there any opportunities for the public to receive training or current environmental information via a public forum or meeting?

Not on a regular basis.

e. Are there any public announcements, training, or education involving litter control awareness and illegal dump elimination?

We utilize PSAs, press releases, purchased advertising and printed publications.

8. Internet Access

a. Does the Regional Solid Waste Management Board have a web page?

Yes.

b. Is the web page updated regularly?

Monthly, at a minimum.

c. What solid waste projects are posted to the web page?

All permanent recycling, composting, collection and disposal facilities and services are listed, as are intermittent programs such as community cleanups.

d. Is there a contact person posted on the web page?

Yes.

9. Publications

a. What newsletters are available to the public?

The Trash Tribune, published quarterly.

b. Are there any environmental publications for the public?

We have several publications available on a variety of topics.

10. Progress/Setbacks

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 35 November 1, 2003

Describe progress and setbacks in education and public awareness efforts within the District.

This District has made great strides in public education efforts. Our biggest challenge, but also one of our benefits, is the routine turnover in the educator positions. A lack of institutional memory is a drawback but the routine infusion of new blood brings a wealth of new ideas each time.

11. Educational Needs

Provide an evaluation of education needs regarding solid waste issues within the District

We could utilize another three-five educators within the District, however funding limitations currently prevent this from occurring.

G. Other Services

1. Transportation

a. What role does the District currently play in solid waste transportation issues and needs?

b. Examine and discuss the trends, progress and setbacks regarding the transportation of solid waste over the last five years. Provide an explanation.

c. Project transportation needs and issues for the next year. Support your projections.

d. Project transportation needs and issues for the next five years. Support your projections.

e. Provide an evaluation of transportation needs within the District.

2. Miscellaneous

a. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of other services.

b. Identify any other services not previously named provided by others within the District.

c. Describe progress and setbacks in these other service efforts within the District.

d. Provide an evaluation of miscellaneous needs within the District.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 36 November 1, 2003

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS For the Regional Solid Waste Management Districts

PART TWO – CHAPTER TWO ACTION PLAN

A.C.A. §8-6-710. Solid waste management responsibility. (a)(1) Each regional solid waste management board shall be the governmental entity primarily responsible for providing a solid waste management system for the district.

Section 2.201 Mission Statement

Provide a mission statement for the Regional Solid Waste Management Board

The mission of the Tri-County Solid Waste District is to provide environmentally sound and economically feasible solid waste management to Northwest Arkansas using an integrated approach of waste reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, disposal and education.

Section 2.202 Executive Summary

A. Strategies

1. Describe the role the District plays in the development and implementation of effective solid waste management programs as they relate to the six main goal areas of the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan.

The District works to coordinate the work of local governments in implementing effective solid waste management programs. The District directly provides services for special wastes such as HHW, electronics, tires and bulky items. The District also provides weekend recycling drives in 3 locations and is in the process of building a transfer station and MRF in Western Washington County.

2. What projects or efforts does the District expect to undertake or accomplish in order to attain these goals?

The District expects to continue the efforts it currently undertakes. The WWC facility should be completed in early 2005. Enforcement and educational activities will continue to receive support and are expected to grow. The District intends to study the feasibility of a regional MRF and C&D recycling during the next three years.

B. Outlook

1. Describe the role the District hopes to play in the future development and implementation of effective solid waste management programs.

The District does not expect its role to change in the foreseeable future.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 37 November 1, 2003

2. Identify areas where solid waste management efforts could be directed for the next decade as they pertain to the six main goal areas of the as they relate to the six main goal areas identified in the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan.

Improving Recycling Infrastructure C&D Recycling and Disposal Organics Management Improvements in Collection Programs

Section 2.203 Goals

A. District’s High Level Goals

Keeping in mind the Department of Environmental Quality’s Land Objectives and the Solid Waste Management Division’s High-Level Goals (named under Section 1.203 in Part One of the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan), identify and explain at least three District- wide high-level goals for the next decade.

1. Land disposal of Class 1 wastes will cease within the District’s boundaries.

Because of the fragile nature of the environment in Northwest Arkansas, the District has determined that the continued land disposal of Class 1 solid waste is inappropriate within the District’s boundaries. Waste generated within the District will be handled by a series of public and private transfer stations, capable of delivering the waste to disposal facilities outside of the District boundaries.

2. Household collection of waste and recyclables will be provided to every resident.

Collection is the cornerstone of proper waste management. Waste that is not collected cannot be properly managed. Open burning and illegal dumping will no longer be tolerated. Self disposal of waste is inappropriate for reasons given above. Therefore, the District will ensure that all residents have household collection of waste and recyclables available to them.

3. Increased capacity for composting organic wastes and recycling of construction & demolition wastes will be encouraged.

Organic wastes and C&D materials make up a significant portion of the solid waste stream. Organic wastes are readily composted into a usable material and a significant percentage of C&D wastes can be recycled. The District will encourage the development of additional facilities to handle these materials.

B. District’s Plan’s Goal Areas

Keeping in mind the six major Goal Areas (named under Section 1.203 in Part One of the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan) should identify and explain the District’s specific goals for each of these goal areas for the next decade. The six goal areas identified are:

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 38 November 1, 2003

Collection Disposal Recycling Waste Reduction Special Materials Education and Public Awareness

Regional Plans, at a minimum, should address each of the issues listed and should provide a goal-achievement discussion or strategy and a timeline for completion of each objective.

1. Collection

Based on available information, discuss collection needs and trends within the District that are anticipated during the next ten years.

At a minimum:

Examine and evaluate each county’s collection systems and provide solutions for improvement. Examine and evaluate a District-based funding mechanism for the collection of all solid waste generated within the District.

Most of the incorporated communities in the District provide trash service to their residents, either through city owned trucks or through contracts with private haulers. A few cities and all three counties rely on private haulers to provide trash collection services to their residents. The District recently amended its waste hauling regulations in an attempt to obtain greater control over the hauling services within the District and to help ensure that all residents had collection service available. The District has adopted a policy that all waste collection services should be provided through an approved Pay-As-You-Throw pricing structure.

Collection issues that we have dealt with recently include haulers who have charged residents for trash service then failed to provide that service and residents in outlying areas having trouble getting haulers to provide service to them. It is possible that a comprehensive program involving some form of franchising may be needed within the next ten years. At the present time, a District-based funding mechanism is politically unfeasible.

2. Disposal

Based on available information, discuss disposal needs and trends within the District that are anticipated during the next ten years.

At a minimum:

Provide and improve integrated solid waste management options that include, but are not limited to, disposal facilities, transfer stations, composting facilities, recycling facilities, household hazardous waste collection facilities, special materials facilities, processing facilities and material recovery facilities.

The District has one existing Class 1 landfill within its boundaries. This landfill has less than 5 years of capacity. They are currently seeking to expand. The District is opposed to this

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 39 November 1, 2003

expansion. Because of the fragile nature of our environment in Northwest Arkansas, and particularly the karst geology underlying most of this region, the District feels that landfilling Class 1 wastes within the District’s boundaries is inappropriate. Instead, the District will rely on developing a series of transfer stations to transport Class 1 waste to disposal facilities outside the District’s boundaries. At present, five public and private transfer stations serve the District. A sixth is permitted but not built and a seventh is under development. These facilities will provide sufficient capacity to transfer the District’s waste for the next ten years. Indeed recently, the Tontitown Landfill was shut down for seven months and trash was transferred using only two or three of the existing transfer stations.

The District has four permitted composting facilities within its boundaries: two Class O and two Class Y. The District should investigate the feasibility of developing or promoting the development of additional Class O facilities to handle organic waste in the waste stream. This is a growing trend nationwide, as food waste is easily composted into a usable material and can be kept out of landfills.

The District has only two facilities capable of handling commingled recyclables. There are also several drop-off sites capable of handling source-separated materials. The District should investigate the feasibility of developing a regional recycling facility to provide the capacity to handle commingled materials. Also, by combining the marketing of the District’s recyclable materials, better pricing and more secure markets may be obtained.

The District has five HHW and electronics recycling drop-off sites at present. A sixth will be opened when the new transfer station is operational. These sites should provide adequate capacity to handle our needs for the next ten years.

3. Recycling

How will the District assure that Recycling follows the state legislated goal?

At a minimum:

Establish a realistic and achievable recycling goal for the District.

The District currently has one of the most comprehensive recycling programs in the State. Curbside collection is available in several communities and a number of drop-off sites are available to others. 90% of the residents have drop-off service available within 10 miles of their home. In spite of this, diversion rates are lower than they should be. This is particularly true in the rural areas of the District. Driving this is a lack of processing capacity capable of handling commingled materials. Having adequate capacity to handle commingled materials allows rural haulers to offer recyclables collections to their customers and also makes multi- family collection feasible. The District will actively investigate the feasibility of developing commingled recycling capacity. The District will strive to achieve a residential recycling rate of 40% by 2014, not including yard waste.

4. Waste Reduction

What will be the District’s direct efforts be with business, industry and households that will reduce the amount of waste entering the waste stream?

At a minimum:

Establish on-going public outreach programs that address waste reduction.

The District promotes reduction and reuse through a Reuse Directory published by the District, radio PSAs, advertising and its web site. In addition, the District offers free waste

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 40 November 1, 2003

reduction audits to schools, governments and businesses that request it. The District will continue to promote waste reduction and reuse as the primary tools in integrated waste management.

5. Special Materials

What role will the District take in proper management in each of the follow special materials?

a. Illegal Disposal i. Illegal Dumping ii. Litter iii. Open Burning b. Waste Tires c. Batteries d. Household Chemical Waste e. Waste Electronics f. Construction and Demolition Waste g. Other Solid Wastes

At a minimum:

Identify problems related to each special material listed and explain how they will be addressed.

The District currently has one full-time enforcement officer who, among other things, investigates complaints of illegal dumping, littering and open burning. During the next ten years, it is likely that this staff will increase. In addition, the District is involved in on-going public education on these issues through brochures, radio PSAs and the web site.

The District has a comprehensive waste tire collection program. We operate nine collection centers in the three counties and contract with a private company to collect, sort and transport the tires to processing facilities. At present, our tires are taken to facilites in Oklahoma where they are burned for fuel in a cement kiln or ground into crumb rubber. Some tires are taken to Davis Rubber in Little Rock where they are chipped and/or ground.

Batteries and household chemical waste are handled through the District’s HHW centers, where residents can bring these materials for disposal at no charge. Electronics are also taken for recycling at these facilities.

Construction and demolition waste makes up a significant portion of the District’s waste stream. At present, this material is landfilled. The District should promote the development of C&D recycling facilities sufficient to handle this growing stream of waste.

6. Education and Public Awareness

How will the District approach education and public awareness?

At a minimum:

Identify education and public awareness programs that incorporate integrated solid waste management systems.

The District has a full-time educator who works to develop educational and outreach materials to increase the public’s awareness of solid waste issues. In addition, we help support local educators through matching grants. The District tackles education and public

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 41 November 1, 2003

awareness in both school settings and through marketing. We provide printed materials to local governments for distribution to their citizens. We have recorded a series of PSAs that have been distributed to area radio stations. We run printed advertising weekly concerning proper solid waste management and services available from the District. We will continue to promote

7. Other Goals

How will the District approach other solid waste related goals?

At a minimum:

Identify other goals that incorporated into integrated solid waste management systems. Include any other goals that the Regional Solid Waste Management Board may have.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 42 November 1, 2003

Section 2.204 Goal Areas - Objectives

A.C.A. §8-6-710. Solid waste management responsibility. a)(1) Each regional solid waste management board shall be the governmental entity primarily responsible for providing a solid waste management system for the district.

Keeping in mind the information collected on the six major Goal Areas under Chapter Two – Activities Analysis, and the District’s specific goals for each named in the above section, provide information that could help the District attain its goals during the next ten years:

• List probable problems that the District might face

• List possible solutions that the District might follow

A. Collection

Problems

Potential problems in collections include a lack of knowledge of haulers, continued illegal disposal, poor roads and a reluctance to participate due to high costs.

Solutions

Solutions include continued educational and outreach efforts, increased enforcement of illegal disposal, roads will continue to improve as more and more are paved. If lack of participation does become a problem, then the District may look at more comprehensive forms of collection services.

B. Disposal

Problems

The biggest problem facing the District regarding disposal is the lack of suitable geology for landfilling. A suitable network of transfer stations is currently in place with the building of the WWC facility.

Solutions

Land disposal of Class 1 waste should cease within the District.

C. Recycling

Problems

The biggest problem facing the District regarding recycling is the lack of capacity to handle co-mingled recyclable materials. High collection costs will drive the need for this capacity in the near future.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 43 November 1, 2003

Solutions

The District should investigate the feasibility of developing a regional MRF capable of handling co-mingled recyclables. This will allow entities within the District to lower their collection costs for recyclables.

D. Waste Reduction

Problems

The biggest problem facing the District regarding waste reduction is the lack of manpower to conduct waste audits and set up waste reduction/recycling programs within area businesses.

Solutions

The District is working on implementing a web-based waste audit and an information campaign directed at area businesses.

E. Special Materials

Identify problems and solutions for each of the following special materials?

a. Illegal Disposal i. Illegal Dumping

Problems

Illegal dumping will remain an issue for the foreseeable future, due to the rural nature of the majority of the District and long-standing attitudes among the public.

Solutions

The District intends to step up enforcement in this area and continue with our educational campaigns. These efforts are needed to inform the public of waste hauling alternatives and the dangers and costs imposed by illegal dumping.

ii. Litter

Problems

The District treats illegal dumping and littering the same. See answers above.

Solutions

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 44 November 1, 2003

iii. Open Burning

Problems

Open Burning will remain a problem because of the rural nature of the District, ignorance and tradition.

Solutions

The District has developed educational materials on the dangers of open burning and intends to step up enforcement and educational efforts in this regard.

b. Waste Tires

Problems

The District is not having, nor anticipates any problems with regards to waste tires. All known large waste tire dumps have been addressed. Smaller dumps are addressed as they become known.

Solutions

No solutions are needed as no problems are evident.

c. Batteries

Problems

The District currently has five HHW centers open year round were residents can bring materials for disposal at no charge. Both lead-acid and household batteries are collected at these centers. No problems exist nor are expected.

Solutions

No solutions are needed as no problems are evident.

d. Household Chemical Waste

Problems

See Responses to c. Batteries above.

Solutions

e. Waste Electronics

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 45 November 1, 2003

Problems

The District has been taking waste electronics from residents for two years now. We currently have five centers open year round where residents can bring electronics for recycling at a minimal charge. No problems are foreseen here.

Solutions

No solutions are needed as no problems are evident.

f. Construction and Demolition Waste

Problems

Because of the tremendous growth in Northwest Arkansas, a great deal of construction & demolition debris is generated. This volume of material, as well as the costs of disposal, will continue to put pressure on our waste disposal system.

Solutions

The District has recently received an application for a Certificate of Need for a new Class 4, C&D landfill. In addition, the District intends to work with private entities to study the feasibility of C&D recycling within the District.

g. Other Solid Wastes

Problems

Solutions

F. Education and Public Awareness

Problems

Education is a key component of proper solid waste management. The District is proud to have had a full time educator for over ten years. Changes in the way we handle waste cannot take place until people change their attitudes about garbage. Education, on a continuing basis, is the key to make this happen.

Solutions

The District intends to continue its excellent educational programs into the future.

G. Other

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 46 November 1, 2003

Problems

None.

Solutions

Section 2.205 Administrative

A. Plan Implementation

Provide an administrative plan defining the implementation strategy, guidelines, policies and procedures.

See Part II of this Document.

B. Implementation Timetable

Provide a timetable outlining goal implementation schedule

Collection Education – on-going Enforcement – on-going

Disposal No further landfill development – in-place Transfer Station System – complete by June 2005

Recycling Study feasibility of regional MRF – 2006

Waste Reduction Web-based Waste Audit System – June 2005

Special Materials Enforcement – on-going Education – on-going Study C&D recycling feasibility – 2007

Education & Public Awareness Education campaign – on-going

C. Funding and Budget

1. Append the District’s financial audit from independent auditor for the previous fiscal year.

See Attachment 12.

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 47 November 1, 2003

2. Provide a budget outlining solid waste revenues and expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year for the District. The budget should provide a breakdown for different solid waste management programs and administrative accounts.

See Attachment 13.

3. Does the current staff meet the needs of the District to provide a quality system of solid waste management oversight for its citizens? If not, in what areas is there a staffing need and how does the District plan to address this shortage?

Yes.

4. List all revenue sources and/or fees, such as user fees, waste disposal fees, grants, loans, and sales of recovered materials. Provide an estimation of total receipts from each revenue source from the previous year for the District. Estimate the percentage of annual revenue from each source.

See Attachment 4.

5. List the solid waste services that are supported by these revenues.

Educational programs, technical assistance to local governments, business, industry and schools, household hazardous waste and electronics recovery, bulky waste collections, enforcement and waste hauler referrals.

6. Provide a report for the most recent fiscal year that identifies solid waste revenues and expenditures for the District. (This report should be an expansion of and be complementary to the annual audit report provided by outside independent auditors.)

See Attachment 4.

Section 2.206 Legislative Studies

Provide a list of legislative studies the District would like to see addressed.

None.

Section 2.207 Appendices

Append to the Plan, where available, the following information. (Append any changes or additions to Annual Reports.)

Financial Audit for Previous Fiscal Year Administrative Procedures, Regulations, Ordinances or Policies, By-Laws Charts (including Organizational) and Maps Recycling Program Reports Other Pertinent Information

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 48 November 1, 2003

ATTACHMENTS

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 49 November 1, 2003

Attachment 1 Organizational Chart

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 50 November 1, 2003

Director

Office Manager Deputy Director Enforcement Officer Education Coordinator for Operations

Bulky Driver Recycling Driver Transfer Station Manager Part-Time May be split

Transfer Station Worker

Minimum Requirements for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans 51

Attachment 2 District Rules

52

RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE TRI-COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT

Cite as Tri-County Reg. § xx.xx

Index

CHAPTER A: Practices and Procedures CHAPTER B: Certificates of Need CHAPTER G: Reserved CHAPTER C: Waste Tire Program CHAPTER D: Waste Hauler Program CHAPTER H: Reserved CHAPTER E: Solid Waste Facilities CHAPTER F: Solid Waste Assessment CHAPTER I: Reserved CHAPTER G: Reserved CHAPTER H: Reserved CHAPTER J: Reserve CHAPTER I: Reserved CHAPTER J: Reserved

CHAPTER A: Practices and Procedures Subchapter 1: General. Subchapter 2: Rulemaking. Subchapter 3: Administrative Orders and Hearings. Subchapter 4: Reserved. Subchapter 5: Reserved.

CHAPTER B: Certificates of Need Subchapter 6: Authority & Criteria. Subchapter 7: Procedures.

CHAPTER C: Waste Tire Program Subchapter 8: Reserved.

CHAPTER D: Waste Hauler Program Subchapter 9: Waste Hauler Licenses.

CHAPTER E: Solid Waste Facilities Subchapter 10: General. Subchapter 11: Location Restrictions. Subchapter 12: Operation and Maintenance. Subchapter 13: Design Standards. Subchapter 14: Financial Requirements. Subchapter 15: Compliance and Enforcement. Subchapter 16: Reserved. Subchapter 17: Reserved. Subchapter 18: Reserved. Subchapter 19: Reserved.

CHAPTER F: Solid Waste Assessment Subchapter 20: Assessment. Subchapter 21: Procedure. Subchapter 22: Compliance and Enforcement

53

CHAPTER A: PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

Subchapter 1 General. Subchapter 2 Rulemaking. Subchapter 3 Administrative Orders and Hearings. Subchapter 4 Reserved. Subchapter 5 Reserved.

Subchapter 1 General. § 1.01 Authority § 1.02 Definitions

§ 1.01 Authority

Ark. Code Ann. § 8-6-704(6) authorizes regional solid waste management boards to adopt such rules or regulations pursuant to the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, § 25-15-201 et seq., as are reasonably necessary to assure public notice and participation in any findings or rulings of the board and to administer the duties of the board.

§ 1.02 Definitions

For the purposes of these regulations, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) "Administrative Procedure Act" means the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 25-15-201 to 214, as amended from time to time.

(b) "ADEQ" or "Department" means the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.

(c) “Administrative Order” means the written finding of the District which proposes to assess a penalty, suspend, revoke or deny a license or permit, or to take other action against a person which grants that person a right to request a hearing pursuant to these Rules, other than the denial of a Certificate of Need.

(d) "Board" means the Board of Directors of the Tri-County Solid Waste District.

(e) “Class S Composting Facility” means a facility defined as requiring a Class S Composting Permit under ADEQ Regulation 22.

(f) "Commission" means the Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology Commission.

(g) "Directors" means the members of the Board of Directors of the Tri-County Solid Waste District.

(h) "District" means the Tri-County Solid Waste District, which includes the counties of: Benton; Madison; and, Washington, and the municipalities within these counties.

(i) "Director" means the Director of the Tri-County Solid Waste District.

(j) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization of any character.

2

(k) "Rule" means any District regulation or statement of general applicability and future effect that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or mandatory policy, or describes the organization, procedure or practice of the District.

(l) "Rulemaking Action" shall include any action by the District to adopt, amend or repeal and District Rule.

(m) "Solid Waste" means any garbage or refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility, and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges that are point sources subject to permit under 33 U.S.C. §1342, or source, special nuclear, or by-products material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923).

(n) "Solid Waste Disposal Facility" means any Class I or II sanitary landfill as defined by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.

(o) “Solid Waste Facility” means any facility which holds or should hold a facility permit issued by the Solid Waste Division of ADEQ.

(p) “Solid Waste Material Recovery Facility” means a facility defined as requiring a Solid Waste Material Recovery Facility permit by ADEQ Regulation 22.

(q) “Transfer Station” means a facility defined as requiring a Transfer Station permit by ADEQ Regulation 22.

Subchapter 2 Rulemaking. § 2.01 Proposed Action § 2.02 Notice of Proposed Action § 2.03 Public Comment § 2.04 Public Hearing § 2.05 Final Action § 2.06 Emergency Proceedings § 2.07 Filing § 2.08 Effective Date § 2.09 Certification of Regulations § 2.10 Official Records § 2.11 Substantial Compliance § 2.12 Preemption by State or Federal Law § 2.13 Severability

§ 2.01 Proposed Action

At any Board meeting, the Board may adopt proposed: new rules or regulations; modifications to existing rules or regulations; or, repeal of any existing rules or regulations.

§ 2.02 Notice of Proposed Action

3

(a) Notice of the proposed new rule or regulation, modification or repeal of an existing rule or regulation, shall be given to the public via publication in the following publications: The Morning News of Northwest Arkansas; The Madison County Record; and, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Northwest Edition).

(b) Notice will normally be published on Wednesdays. The notice shall state the substance of the proposed new rule, modification or rescission of an existing rule and provide information on obtaining a copy of the proposal from the District. The notice shall inform the public of the time, place and manner in which they may present their comments.

(c) Notice shall also be mailed, via first class mail, to all persons who request advance notice, in writing, of any rulemaking by the District.

(d) Notice shall also be mailed, via first class mail, to ADEQ.

§ 2.03 Public Comment

The notice in § 2.02 shall solicit written comments from the public for a period of not less than thirty (30) days. The notice shall also provide the address where all comments should be sent.

§ 2.04 Public Hearing

(a) The District may, at its sole discretion, hold a public hearing to take oral comments from the public concerning any proposed action.

(b) Should a public hearing be held, notice of the hearing shall be made in the manner provided in § 2.02 no less than 10 days in advance of the hearing.

(c) Where regulations are required by law to be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing, the provisions of that law shall apply in place of these requirements.

§ 2.05 Final Action

(a) At any Board meeting following the close of the public comment period or any public hearing, the Board may act on the proposal by: adopting it as originally written; adopting a modified version; or, denying the proposal.

(b) The Board reserves the right to re-issue any proposal for public comment following significant modifications.

§ 2.06 Emergency Proceedings

Should the District find that imminent peril to the public health, safety or welfare requires adoption of a regulation upon fewer than 30 days notice, and states in writing its reasons for that finding, it may proceed without prior notice or hearing, or upon any abbreviated notice and hearing that it may choose, to adopt an emergency regulation. Any emergency regulation so adopted may be effective for no longer than 120 days.

§ 2.07 Filing

The District shall file with the Secretary of State, the Arkansas State Library and the Bureau of Legislative Research, a certified copy of each regulation adopted by it, and a statement of financial impact for the regulation.

§ 2.08 Effective Date

4

Each regulation adopted by the District shall be effective 10 days after filing unless a later date is specified by law or in the regulation itself. However, an emergency regulation may become effective immediately upon filing, or at a stated time less than 10 days thereafter, if the District finds that this effective date is necessary because of imminent peril to the public health, safety or welfare. The District's finding and a brief statement of the reasons therefore shall be filed with the regulation. The District shall take appropriate measures to make emergency regulations known to the persons who may be affected by them.

§ 2.09 Certification of Regulations

A copy of any regulation adopted by the Board may be certified by signature of the Chairman and Secretary/Treasurer of the Board, and by affixing the official seal of the District thereon.

§ 2.10 Official Records

The District shall maintain a certified copy of every regulation or rule adopted by the District. This copy shall be kept at the principal office of the District. A copy of each notice of rulemaking shall also be kept on file at the District.

§ 2.11 Substantial Compliance

Every Rulemaking Action by the District after the effective date of this Subchapter shall be effective if the Rulemaking Action substantially complies with this Subchapter.

§ 2.12 Preemption by State or Federal Law

If any law of the State of Arkansas or the United States shall require a different method for Rulemaking Action in a particular situation, the provisions of this Subchapter shall be preempted to the extent necessary to comply with State or Federal law. Whenever possible, the provisions of this Subchapter shall be interpreted to be consistent with requirements of State and Federal law.

§ 2.13 Severability

If any provision of any District Rule or the application thereof to any Person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of District Rules, which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of all District Rules shall be considered severable.

Subchapter 3 Administrative Orders and Hearings. §3.01 Authority §3.02 Administrative Order §3.03 Right to Hearing §3.04 First Offenses §3.05 Final Agency Action §3.06 Appeals to Circuit Court §3.07 §3.08 §3.09

5

§3.10 §3.11 §3.12

§3.01 Authority

The Director shall keep a log of all complaints received and violations determined by the District. The Director is granted the discretion and authority to assess monetary penalties for violations of District Rules as well as to revoke, suspend or deny a license or permit to any person for cause. No formal action regarding a complaint or violation, outlined below, may be taken until efforts have been made to resolve the violation or complaint informally and until the expiration of a twenty four (24) hour period granted by the Director to correct or remediate the complaint or violation.

§3.02 Administrative Order

(a) When the Director determines that a person is subject to penalties, revocation or suspension of a license, or other action, pursuant to the District’s Rules, the Director shall issue a written Administrative Order setting forth the basis for such proposed penalty, revocation or suspension, or action.

(b) The Administrative Order must be signed by the Director or his authorized designee, and delivered in person or by Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to the address of record at the District of the person against whom the Administrative Order is issued;

(c) The Director has the discretion to attach a Consent Agreement to an Administrative Order and to enter into Consent Agreements to settle any Administrative Order.

§3.03 Right to Hearing

(a) Upon receipt of an Administrative Order, the person against whom the Administrative Order is issued may object and request a hearing before the District Board.

(1) The request for hearing, which must be in writing, should set forth the reasons why the person disagrees with the Administrative Order.

(2) The request for hearing may be delivered to the District in person or by Certified Mail, return receipt requested, and must be received by the District office no later than close of business thirty (30) days after the date of the Administrative Order. If the thirtieth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or District Holiday, the request is due by close of business the following business day.

(3) Persons who timely file a request for hearing shall be entitled to be heard at the first regularly scheduled Board meeting following receipt of their request for hearing unless the request for hearing is received within fourteen (14) days prior to a scheduled Board meeting. In such an event, the appeal will be heard at the following regularly scheduled Board meeting.

6

(b) The hearing shall be conducted as follows:

(1) Both sides, which may appear in person or by counsel, shall have the opportunity to present documents and oral testimony in support of its position to be considered by the Board.

(2) The District shall present their case first, followed by the person requesting the hearing. Cross-examination shall be allowed as well as questioning by the Board.

(3) Conduct of the hearing shall be informal. The Chair shall be entitled to use his or her discretion to allow, disallow or strike any evidence or testimony that is deemed to be irrelevant, unreliable or duplicative.

(4) A court reporter, paid for by the District, will be present to develop a transcript of the hearing. This transcript, along with all evidence presented to and accepted by the Chair shall make up the Administrative Record in the matter.

(5) Upon receipt and consideration of evidence and testimony at the hearing, the Board members present shall vote on the action proposed by the Administrative Order. A majority vote of the Board members present shall be final. The Chair is allowed a vote.

(6) At the close of the hearing, the Board shall enter a written order, at which time the decision of the Board shall be effective. Each party shall be responsible for drafting a proposed written order to be submitted to the Board. Alternatively, the Board may draft an order at the close of the hearing.

(7) In all other respects, the hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act.

(c) In the event no request for hearing is received by the District within the time prescribed by this Rule, the Administrative Order shall become final on the day following the date on which a request for hearing is due.

§3.04 First Offense

District Board may waive any penalty for a first offense based on the person’s prior record.

§3.05 Final Agency Action

The written order adopted by the Board shall be the final agency action for the purpose of appeal to Circuit Court.

7

§3.06 Appeals to Circuit Court

The appellant may appeal the final agency action of the Board to the Circuit Courts of Benton, Madison or Washington Counties in Arkansas.

Subchapter 4 Reserved. Subchapter 5 Reserved.

8

CHAPTER B: CERTIFICATES OF NEED

Subchapter 6 Authority and Criteria. Subchapter 7 Procedures.

Subchapter 6 Authority and Criteria. § 6.01 Authority § 6.02 Definitions § 6.03 Applicability § 6.04 Criteria for Review § 6.05 Continuing Effect

§ 6.01 Authority

Ark. Code Ann. § 8-6-704(6) authorizes regional solid waste management boards to adopt such rules or regulations pursuant to the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, § 25-15-201 et seq., as are reasonably necessary to assure public notice and participation in any findings or rulings of the board and to administer the duties of the board. Further, Ark. Code Ann. § 8-6-706(d)(7) authorizes Districts to adopt procedures for the issuance of Certificates of Need.

§ 6.02 Definitions

(a) "Certificate of Need" means a certificate issued by the Board to any person proposing to obtain a permit for a solid waste facility.

(b) "Certificate of Need Review" means review of the application for a Certificate of Need.

(c) "Interested persons" means the applicant and any persons who submit public comments during the review period either in writing or verbally at the public hearing.

(d) "Landfill" means a permitted landfill under the Arkansas Solid Waste Management Act, Arkansas Code § 8-6-201 et seq. As used herein, the term does not include, however, permitted landfills where a private industry bears the expense of operating and maintaining the landfill solely for the disposal of wastes generated by the industry or wastes of a similar kind or character.

(e) "Solid Waste" means any garbage, or refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges that are point sources subject to permit under 33 U.S.C. § 1342, or source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923).

(f) "Solid Waste Facility" means a Landfill or Transfer Station as defined in this section.

(g) "Transfer Station" means any facility used to manage the removal, compaction and transfer of solid waste from collection vehicles and containers, and from other private and commercial vehicles to greater capacity transport vehicles.

§ 6.03 Applicability

The regulations in Chapter B shall apply to every solid waste facility proposed to be located either wholly or partially within the jurisdiction of the District or the expansion of any existing landfill within

9

the jurisdiction of the District. These regulations shall apply to facilities that do not have a pre- application pending with ADEQ for a new permit or modification of an existing permit as of the effective date of these regulations. A certificate of need is not required for landfills where a private industry bears the expense of operating and maintaining the landfill solely for the disposal of wastes generated by the industry or wastes of a similar kind or character.

§ 6.04 Criteria for Review

When reviewing an application for a Certificate of Need, the District will consider the following criteria:

(a) whether the proposed facility is consistent with the regional planning strategy adopted by the board in the regional needs assessment or the regional solid waste management plan;

(b) whether the proposed facility conflicts with existing comprehensive land use plans of any local governmental entities;

(c) whether the proposed facility disturbs an archeological site as recognized by the Arkansas Archaeological Survey, or a rare and endangered species habitat as recognized by either the Arkansas State Game and Fish Commission or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;

(d) whether the proposed facility will adversely affect the public use of any local, state or federal facility, including, but not limited to, parks and wildlife management areas;

(e) whether the proposed facility conflicts with the requirements of state or federal laws and regulations on the location of disposal facilities;

(f) if the proposed facility is located within the 100-year floodplain, whether it restricts the flow of the 100-year flood, reduces the temporary water storage capacity of the floodplain, or could result in washout of solid waste so as to pose a hazard to human health or the environment;

(g) whether the proposed facility is appropriately located given the District's needs and taking into consideration its road system;

(h) for landfills, whether the proposed facility provides landfill disposal capacity needed within the District. In no event, shall the District's excess projected capacity for any class of landfill exceed thirty (30) years, including the proposed facility;

(i) for transfer stations, whether another transfer station is located within a twelve-mile radius of the proposed facility and whether sufficient transfer station capacity exists within the proposed service area;

(j) the detailed history of the applicant's record and that of the stockholders and officers with respect to violations of environmental laws and regulations of the United States or any state or political subdivision of any state;

(k) the service area to be served by the proposed facility; and,

(l) whether the applicant followed the procedures for obtaining a Certificate of Need in Subchapter 7.

§ 6.05 Continuing Effect

(a) Upon receipt of a Certificate of Need, the applicant has sixty (60) days in which to file a pre-application for a solid waste landfill permit with ADEQ. If a pre-application is not filed within 60 days, the Certificate of Need shall expire.

10

(b) Upon receipt of a Certificate of Need, the applicant has six (6) months in which to file a permit application for a solid waste landfill permit with ADEQ. If a permit application is not filed within 6 months, the Certificate of Need shall expire.

(c) Certificates of Need are issued to specific persons. Under no conditions or circumstances shall a Certificate of Need be transferred, assigned, or otherwise provided to any individual or organization other than as originally specified on the Certificate of Need.

Subchapter 7 Procedures for Obtaining a Certificate of Need. § 7.01 Notice of Intent § 7.02 Application § 7.03 Completeness Determination § 7.04 Review Period § 7.05 Public Hearing § 7.06 Determination § 7.07 Appeal of Decision

§ 7.01 Notice of Intent

At least fifteen (15) days prior to submitting an application for a Certificate of Need, the applicant must notify the District, in writing, of its intent to submit such an application. The Notice of Intent shall include the following information:

(a) the name of the applicant;

(b) the applicant's address and telephone number;

(c) whether the applicant is seeking a new or modified solid waste facility permit and the classification of the permit sought;

(d) the site of the proposed facility;

(e) a description of the geo-political area to be served by the proposed facility, including population estimates by jurisdiction;

(f) for landfills, confirmation from the ADEQ that the applicant has requested a statement concerning the current and proposed solid waste landfill disposal capacity respective to the area and landfill class being proposed.

§ 7.02 Application

Persons requesting a Certificate of Need from the District must submit an application to the District. All applications for Certificates of Need shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

(a) the applicant's name, address and telephone number;

(b) the name of the person having legal ownership of the land where the proposed facility will be located and documentation of a right to develop such property as a solid waste facility from the legal owner;

(c) the location of the proposed facility as shown on the applicable 7.5º USGS topographic map(s);

(d) the size of the proposed facility and capacity proposed;

11

(e) a description of the geo-political jurisdictions to be served, including population estimates by jurisdiction;

(f) documentation that the proposed solid waste facility or modification complies with all of the criteria for evaluation listed in Section 6.04.

(g) for landfills, the current permitted capacity for the appropriate landfill class within the district and the estimated increase in permitted capacity for the proposed facility or modification;

(h) for transfer stations, a map showing the location of the proposed facility and all existing transfer stations with a twelve-mile radius around each; and,

(i) any other information deemed necessary to make a determination of need.

§ 7.03 Completeness Determination

Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the initial application, the District will make a completeness determination of the application. Any additional information the District determines is necessary to make a decision on the need of the proposed facility will be requested within this time. If additional information is requested by the District, it will again make a completeness determination within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of the additional information.

§ 7.04 Review Period

Once the District has determined that an application for a Certificate of Need is complete, it will so notify the applicant and publish notice of the review period in papers as described in Section 2.02. The review period will begin on the date the completeness determination is made to the applicant or the date of publication of notice of the review period, whichever is later. The review period will run for thirty (30) days. During the review period, public comment will be taken.

§ 7.05 Public Hearing

During the review period, the District will conduct a public hearing within the county where the proposed facility or modification is to be located.

§ 7.06 Determination

(a) At the first scheduled Board meeting following the close of the review period, the Board will take up for consideration the application for a Certificate of Need. The Director shall present a recommendation to the Board. Those supporting the issuance of the Certificate of Need and those opposing the issuance of the Certificate of Need will be provided with a total of 10 minutes for each side to address the Director's recommendation.

(b) Unless the Board has affirmatively issued or denied a Certificate of Need within one-hundred and twenty (120) days of the beginning of the review period, the Certificate of Need will be deemed to have been denied.

(c) The Board shall issue written findings when making a determination. The findings shall state the basis for issuing or denying the Certificate of Need. The findings will be sent to the following:

(1) the applicant;

(2) ADEQ; and

(3) any interested persons who request such findings in writing from the District.

12

§ 7.07 Appeal of Decision

Any interested person to a Certificate of Need determination shall have the right to appeal the issuance or denial of a Certificate of Need to the Director of ADEQ in accordance with ADEQ regulations governing such appeals. Only interested persons shall have a right of appeal.

13

CHAPTER C: WASTE TIRE PROGRAM

Subchapter 8 Reserved

CHAPTER D: WASTE HAULER PROGRAM

Subchapter 9 Waste Hauler Licenses § 9.01 Definitions § 9.02 Hauler’s License Required § 9.03 Standards § 9.04 Licensing Procedures § 9.05 Fees § 9.06 Penalties § 9.07 Revocation and Suspension

§ 9.01 Definitions

(a) "Solid Waste" means any garbage, or refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges that are point sources subject to permit under 33 U.S.C. §1342, or source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923). Recovered materials as defined by ADEQ Regulation 22.201 are not considered solid waste.

(b) "Solid Waste Hauler" - A Solid Waste Hauler is any person engaged in the collection and/or transportation for disposal or storage of solid wastes. Solid Waste Hauler does not include a person transporting their personal household wastes to a permitted facility. Solid Waste Hauler does not include a person hauling only waste tires. Solid Waste Hauler does not include a person transporting solid waste from an industrial facility to its own Class 3 landfill. There are two types of Solid Waste Haulers:

(1) Type I Haulers are those that haul all categories of nonhazardous solid wastes as identified in ADEQ Regulation 22.203;

(2) Type II Haulers are those that haul only process wastes and special materials as identified in ADEQ Regulation 22.203.

§ 9.02 Hauler's License Required

(a) Effective February 1, 1993, no person shall engage in the business of collection and/or transportation of solid wastes in the District without first securing a Solid Waste Hauler's License from the Board. This does not apply to private individuals who transport their personal household solid waste to a permitted facility.

(b) A Solid Waste Hauler's License shall only be issued to a person, partnership, corporation, association, the State of Arkansas, a political subdivision of the state, an improvement district, a sanitation authority, or another regional solid waste management district.

(c) A Solid Waste Hauler's License is required under the following circumstances:

14

(1) by any person whose primary source of income is derived from the collection and transportation of solid or process wastes;

(2) by any person who collects, for a fee, more than ten (10) cubic yards of solid or process wastes each week on a scheduled basis; or,

(3) by any person who provides solid waste collection or transportation services, for a fee, to six (6) or more households or businesses on a regular basis.

(d) The District may engage in the hauling of solid waste within the District without a license, but shall comply with all applicable standards required in Section 2(b).

(e) All Solid Waste Hauler's Licenses shall be issued for a period not to exceed one (1) year. Licenses shall run from July 1 through June 30 of each year. Applications for a license shall be mailed out by the District to each hauler and post marked no later than May 1st. If said applications are not mailed out by May 1st then the deadline to submit such shall be extended accordingly. Application packets shall be returned to the District no later than June 15th of each year except as stated above.

(f) A solid waste hauler's license issued by the District does not supersede any local government's issuance of an exclusive franchise for hauling within its boundaries.

§ 9.03 Standards

All collection and transportation systems shall meet the conditions outlined below. Failure to comply with these conditions may result in a revocation of the hauler license.

(a) All persons driving collection and/or transportation vehicles shall hold the appropriate driver's licenses as required by state law.

(b) Solid wastes shall be collected and transported so as to prevent public health hazards, environmental hazards, safety hazards, and nuisances and shall be kept in a sanitary condition.

(c) Collection and transportation equipment shall be designed and constructed so as to be leak-proof. The waste shall be suitably enclosed or covered so as to prevent roadside littering, attraction of vectors or creation of other nuisances, in accordance with ADEQ Regulation 22. This means that vehicles must have either: enclosed waste storage areas; or for vehicles with open waste storage areas, such as caged pickups, they must be tarped when traveling in excess of 35 miles per hour. Haulers should request customers to utilize animal resistant containers and bags of suitable strength to reduce tearing and spilling of litter.

(d) Collection and transportation of chemicals, medical wastes, poisons, explosives, radiological wastes and other hazardous materials shall be in accordance with the requirements of state and federal regulatory controls.

(e) All solid wastes collected shall be transported to a permitted facility in accordance with ADEQ Regulation 22.

(f) All vehicles hauling solid waste within the District shall display the registration sticker issued by the District near the driver's side door. In addition, beginning July 1, 2003, all licensed vehicles must display both the business name and phone number in letters no less than 2 inches high on both sides of the vehicle.

(g) Beginning January 1, 2004, all waste haulers that do not have a District-approved plan for implementing Pay-As-You-Throw pricing will be ineligible to haul wastes within the District.

15

(h) Hauling services shall be provided at a minimum of one time per week. Haulers may skip hauling on major holidays, provided they provide service to those customers affected during that week. Customers should be provided a minimum of two (2) weeks notice of any change in collection schedule. Inclement weather may excuse haulers from this provision.

(i) Haulers are responsible for cleaning up any spills and/or loose trash caused by the hauler.

(j) At the time of licensing, a hauler will be required to indicate in which zones it wishes to provide service. A hauler which indicates that it will provide service in a zone must provide service to any customer within that zone that requests it, unless that hauler can show good cause to the District why it will not provide service to a customer. The Director has the discretion and authority to make a finding of good cause, which may be such things as a history of the customer failing to pay bills or some other dispute between the customer and hauler. However, the location of the customer will not be considered good cause.

§ 9.04 Licensing Procedures

(a) Any person subject to § 9.03 shall register annually with the District on a form prescribed by the District:

(b) All persons engaged in the business of collection or transportation of solid wastes within the District must register such business with the District by June 15 of each year and provide the following information:

(1) Name, address and telephone number of the business;

(2) Name of principal owners and officers;

(3) Number of residential and commercial accounts served as of June 1;

(4) Names and driver's license numbers of employees providing hauling services; and

(5) Identify the areas served on county road maps.

(c) In addition, each vehicle used in the collection and/or transportation of solid wastes must be registered and the following information supplied:

A description of each vehicle to be registered, including

(1) Make, model and year of vehicle

(2) VIN

(3) Current motor vehicle license

(4) name of vehicle owner

(5) vehicle capacity

16

(d) Any person applying for a license must establish financial responsibility to the District. Proof of liability insurance will be required and may be considered adequate financial responsibility.

(e) Licenses are non-transferable and non-returnable. If a licensed hauler replaces a registered vehicle with another vehicle during the year, the District shall be notified and the information in § 9.04(c) above shall be provided for both vehicles. A new registration sticker shall be provided for the new vehicle. The hauler shall remove the registration sticker from the disposed vehicle.

(f) Any person who begins business or any licensed person who adds additional collection vehicles during a calendar year shall have thirty (30) days to register with the District and obtain a license without a penalty.

§ 9.05 Fees

Fees shall be assessed as follows:

(a) A minimum fee of $100.00 is required and will license up to two (2) vehicles.

(b) An additional fee of $50.00 per vehicle per year, will be assessed for the third and all subsequent vehicles up to a maximum fee of $1,000.00 annually.

(c) Fees for new licenses or additional units will be pro-rated based on the number of full months remaining in the calendar year.

(d) Any hauler’s licensing application received by the District after the deadline imposed herein shall be assessed a penalty measured from fourteen (14) days after the due date as follows:

(1) One (1) to sixty (60) days late – twenty-five percent (25%) of the license fee.

(2) Sixty-one (61) to ninety (90) days late – fifty percent (50%) of the license fee.

(3) Ninety-one (91) days and later – one hundred percent (100%) of the license fee.

§ 9.06 Penalties

(a) Failure to register under these regulations constitutes a misdemeanor under Ark. Code. Ann. § 8-6-722. Upon conviction the person shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both imprisonment and fine. Additionally, failure to register may subject the hauler to administrative penalties of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) and two (2) points for the first offense, and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and four (4) points for subsequent offenses. Each day or part of any day during which a violation is continued or repeated shall constitute a separate offense.

(b) Failure to comply with any other part of this subchapter constitutes a misdemeanor under Ark. Code. Ann. § 8-6-722. Upon conviction the person shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days or a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for the first offense, five hundred dollars ($500.00) for a second offense and one thousand dollars ($1,000.00)

17

for subsequent offenses, or both imprisonment and fine. Each day or part of any day during which a violation is continued or repeated shall constitute a separate offense.

(c) Failure to collect trash in a sanitary manner, failure to provide services without good cause, failure to provide service when requested without good cause, failure to submit adequate trust fund fees under Section 9.08, or failing to properly dispose of wastes collected may subject the hauler to administrative penalties of not more than two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) and one (1) point for the first offense, and not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) and two (2) points for subsequent offenses.

(d) Failure to display the registration sticker, failure to notify the District of additional trucks, failure to display the haulers name and telephone number on the sides of vehicles, or other administrative violations may subject the hauler to administrative penalties of not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) and one (1) point for the first offense, and not more than two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) and two (2) points for subsequent offenses.

(e) To be considered a subsequent offense, the repeat offense must occur within thirty-six (36) months of the earlier offense.

(f) When the Director determines that a person is subject to administrative penalties, pursuant to the District’s Rules, the Director shall issue an Administrative Order in accordance with Subchapter 3 of the District’s Rules.

§ 9.07 Revocation and Suspension

(a) The District may revoke or suspend a hauler’s license under the following conditions.

(1) The District may suspend a hauler’s license for six (6) months if they are assessed penalties totaling five (5) points within a twelve (12) month period.

(2) The District may suspend a hauler’s license for twelve (12) months if they are assessed penalties totaling ten (10) points within a twelve (12) month period.

(3) The District may permanently revoke a hauler’s license if they are assessed penalties totaling fifteen (15) points within a twelve (12) month period.

(4) The District may permanently revoke a hauler’s license if they are suspended for more than twelve (12) months in any thirty-six (36) month period.

(b) When the Director determines that a person is subject to revocation or suspension of a license, pursuant to the District’s Rules, the Director shall issue an Administrative Order in accordance with Subchapter 3 of the District’s Rules.

§ 9.08 Waste Hauler Trust Fund

(a) There shall be established on the books of the District a fund to be known as the Waste Hauler Trust Fund. Monies deposited in this fund shall be kept in a separate depository account and shall cover the entire Tri-State area. Any hauler who chooses to post a cash bond may do so in lieu

18

of the deposits set out below.

(b) Licensed Waste Haulers shall deposit the sum of $.125 per residential customer, less any customer serviced under municipal or POA contract, on a quarterly basis into the fund.

(c) Deposits shall be made no later than January 31, April 30, July 31 and October 31 based on the number of applicable customers on the first day of these months.

(d) Deposits shall be made until the Fund reaches $10,000.00. After which, deposits shall cease until the Fund balance drops below $5,000.00, at which time, deposits will resume until the fund once again reaches $10,000.00.

(e) Money deposited into the Waste Hauler Trust Fund shall be used exclusively to provide reimbursement of unused prepaid fees to customers of a hauler which has abandoned an area of service. Customers in the abandoned area are entitled to reimbursement of any unused amounts pre-paid by the customer to said hauler, not to exceed the limits of the fund.

(f) In order to qualify for reimbursement from the Fund, the customer must demonstrate proof of payment.

(g) Any hauler who fails to provide service to a customer who then qualifies for reimbursement under these provisions, shall be permanently barred from further waste hauling within the District.

19

CHAPTER E: SOLID WASTE FACILITIES

Subchapter 10 General. Subchapter 11 Location Restrictions. Subchapter 12 Operation and Maintenance. Subchapter 13 Design Standards. Subchapter 14 Financial Requirements. Subchapter 15 Compliance and Enforcement. Subchapter 16 Reserved. Subchapter 17 Reserved. Subchapter 18 Reserved. Subchapter 19 Reserved.

Subchapter 10 General. § 10.01 Authority § 10.02 Purpose § 10.03 Applicability § 10.04 Definitions § 10.05 Effective Date

§ 10.01 Authority

Ark. Code Ann. § 8-6-704(6) authorizes regional solid waste management boards to adopt such rules or regulations pursuant to the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, § 25-15-201 et seq., as are reasonably necessary to assure public notice and participation in any findings or rulings of the board and to administer the duties of the board. Further, Act 1280 of 1993, Section 5 states that: "Regional Solid Waste Management Boards may adopt more restrictive standards for the location, design, construction, and maintenance of solid waste disposal sites and facilities than the state or federal government."

§ 10.02 Purpose

Northwest Arkansas is facing a critical shortage of solid waste disposal capacity due to the difficulties in siting landfill facilities at the local level. In order to protect the fragile environment of Northwest Arkansas, yet provide for adequate solid waste disposal capacity, the Tri-County Solid Waste District has adopted these regulations.

§ 10.03 Applicability

Unless otherwise specified, these regulations found in Chapter E, Solid Waste Facilities, shall apply to every solid waste facility; located either wholly or partially within the counties of Benton, Washington and Madison, Arkansas; which is operated after the effective date of these regulations.

§ 10.04 Definitions

For the purposes of Chapter E, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) "Administrative Procedure Act" means the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 25-15-201 to 214, as amended from time to time.

(b) "ADEQ" or "Department" means the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.

20

(c) "Board" means the Board of Directors of the Tri-County Solid Waste District.

(d) "Directors" means the members of the Board of Directors of the Tri-County Solid Waste District.

(e) "District" means the Tri-County Solid Waste District, which includes the counties of: Benton; Washington and, Madison, and the municipalities within these counties.

(f) "Director" means the Director of the Tri-County Solid Waste District.

(g) "Solid Waste" means solid waste as defined by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Regulation 22.

(h) "Solid Waste Disposal Facility" means any Class I or II sanitary landfill as defined by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.

(i) “Solid Waste Facility” means any facility which holds or should hold a facility permit issued by the Solid Waste Division of ADEQ.

§ 10.05 Effective Date

These rules are effective 20 days after their filing with the Arkansas Secretary of State.

Subchapter 11 Location Restrictions. § 11.01 Reserved § 11.02 Watershed Buffers § 11.03 Measurement of Distances

§ 11.01 Reserved

§ 11.02 Watershed Buffers

(a) No Solid Waste Disposal Facility shall be located within two (2) miles of the following surface water bodies: Beaver Lake; Lake Francis; Lake Sequoyah; Table Rock Lake; Prairie Grove Lake; Lincoln Lake; Osage Creek (Benton Co.); Illinois River; White River including the East, Middle or West Forks; Kings River; Osage Creek (Carroll Co.); and, War Eagle Creek.

(b) The water bodies listed in § 11.02(a) shall be defined as those streams as marked and shown on the latest USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps and the lake boundaries existing during normal pool elevation.

§ 11.03 Measurement of Distances

All distances as put forth in Section 11.02 shall be measured by drawing a buffer of the appropriate distance radially around the permitted boundary of the facility, on the latest USGS 7.5 minute topographic map. Should any portion of the extended perimeter contact any water body listed in Section 11.02, the facility will be in violation of these regulations.

Subchapter 12 Operation and Maintenance.

21

§ 12.01 District Inspector. § 12.02 Leachate Collection Reporting. § 12.03 Groundwater Monitoring. § 12.04 Other Reporting. § 12.05 Landfill Personnel

§ 12.01 District Inspector.

(a) The District is empowered to hire an inspector, who shall have access to any open or closed solid waste facility within the District during normal operating hours.

(b) The District inspector shall be provided access to all parts of a facility and all records kept at the facility or at off-site offices. The findings of the inspector will be used for District purposes. In addition, a copy of the findings will be provided to ADEQ and to the facility.

§ 12.02 Leachate Collection Reporting.

Every Solid Waste Disposal Facility required to report the performance of its leachate collection system to the ADEQ, shall also provide a copy of reports monthly to the District. Such reports shall contain at a minimum the amount of leachate collected, any test results from testing the leachate and the final disposition of all leachate generated.

§ 12.03 Groundwater Monitoring.

(a) Every Solid Waste Disposal Facility required to sample and test groundwater monitoring wells shall test every such well at least quarterly and incorporate the results of such tests into the statistical analysis required by the ADEQ and/or the U.S. EPA.

(b) Every Solid Waste Disposal Facility shall sample and test all wells identified in the well inventory required by ADEQ Solid Waste Management Code Section XII, B, 2, before beginning construction of the Facility. Samples shall be tested for all constituents required under 40 C.F.R. Part 258, Appendix I. Copies of all test results shall be provided to the well owner and the District. The District shall maintain copies of the test results at its offices.

(c) The requirements of this Section shall not apply to landfills in operation as of the effective date of these regulations.

§ 12.04 Other Reporting.

Copies of any engineering reports or operating reports required to be submitted to the ADEQ or the U.S. EPA shall also be contemporaneously submitted to the District.

§ 12.05 Landfill Personnel

Every Solid Waste Disposal Facility operated within the District must employ the following landfill personnel:

(a) A Registered Professional Engineer must be responsible for the construction and operation of the landfill.

(b) Landfill managers/operators must hold a Class I landfill operators license issued by the ADEQ.

Subchapter 13 Design Standards.

22

§ 13.01 Pre-Construction Design. § 13.02 Landfill Design. § 13.03 Stormwater Basin Design. § 13.04 Compliance

§ 13.01 Pre-Construction Design.

All landfills, located either partially or wholly within the District shall adhere to the following site characterization and design criteria:

(a) Due to the unique land formations in Northwest Arkansas, the following information and studies are required to characterize any site proposed for a Class I or II landfill and must be submitted to the District:

(1) Fracture Trace Analysis from aerial photographs of the proposed site.

(2) Detailed surface geologic mapping of the site and the area within one mile of the boundary of the site. The following information must be obtained:

A). The stratigraphy of the study area. B). Structure of the study area. i) Location of faults including orientation, displacement length and hydraulic characteristics. ii) Fracture spacing and fracture orientation for each stratigraphic unit identified. iii) Location of karst features including, but not limited to, sinkholes, springs, losing and disappearing stream segments, caves (must be mapped within the study area) and dolens.

(3) Subsurface exploration must evaluate the following:

A). Overburden. i) Thickness and areal extent of each distinct textural horizon as defined by borings and test pits. ii) Quality of soils (physical properties) must be determined for each stratigraphic or pedologic horizon including Atterburg limits (ASTM D 4318), Sieve analysis and grain size distribution curves (ASTM D 1140 and D 422), Standard penetration tests (ASTM D 1452), Remolded hydraulic conductivity test (ASTM D 5084), In-situ hydraulic conductivity test, Proctor density curves (ASTM D 1557) and Moisture contents (ASTM D 2216). iii) Quantity of soils must be determined by borings and test pits. Borings shall be at a minimum spacing of one per 5 acres. Trackhoe pits shall be at a minimum spacing of one per acre.

B). Bedrock topography. i) Core drilling on at least one hole per 5 acres with analysis of fracture density, fracture orientation and sudden gains or losses of drilling fluid. ii) Geophysical logs of borings including resistivity, conductivity, caliper, natural gamma, acoustic logs, video logs and temperature. iii) Surface geophysical studies are required to evaluate areal changes in soil type, geologic structure, lithology, bedrock topography and prospect for large caverns. Geophysical surveys must be correlated with borings. The proposed geophysical study of the site must include two or more of the

23

following methods: Ground Penetrating Radar; surface conductivity; resistivity; shallow seismic refraction; and, shallow seismic reflection.

C). Hydrogeology. i) Potentiometric surface of the aquifer. ii) Preferred contaminant transport pathways determined by dye traces. iii) Aquifer properties using the following methods: Nested wells to determine vertical hydraulic gradients within the upper aquifer; pump tests using appropriate methodology for the aquifer and using multiple observation wells; and a single well aquifer test. iv) A recommended groundwater monitoring system consisting of wells and springs must be developed. v) Determine water chemistry variability within the uppermost aquifer for the list of Detection Monitoring parameters. At least one year of data must be collected at quarterly intervals to demonstrate seasonal ambient water quality variability.

D). All individual studies must be integrated into a comprehensive geologic and hydrogeologic model of the site which is summarized in a written report. The facility ground water monitoring points must be located based upon the hydrogeologic model developed for the site. All maps and cross sections must be of a uniform scale (the same size as used in the design blueprints - typically 1" = 50' to 1" = 400') and must include the following: Geologic map of the site; boring locations; geophysical lines or data collection points; Potentiometric maps Dye study results; Isopach maps of overburden; Bedrock topography maps (contour interval of 2 feet); Geologic cross sections; and, Percent coarse component soils map.

(b) The requirements of this Section shall not apply to Solid Waste Disposal Facilities which have submitted a final permit application to ADEQ prior to January 1, 1994.

§ 13.02 Landfill Design.

(a) Every Solid Waste Disposal Facility operated within the District shall be designed and constructed with a double composite liner system which consists of, at a minimum, the following: upper and lower composite liners separated by a leachate detection and collection system. Each composite liner shall consist of a flexible membrane liner underlain by a compacted clay liner.

(b) Every Solid Waste Disposal Facility constructed after the effective date of these regulations must employ a third party engineering firm to insure proper construction of each component of the containment structure and operation of the landfill. The permittee will pay all costs of this control.

(c) The requirements of this Section shall not apply to landfill cells constructed prior to January 1, 1994.

§ 13.03 Stormwater Basin Design.

(a) Any Solid Waste Disposal Facility, located either partially or wholly within the District, which is required to maintain a stormwater retention basin by either ADEQ or federal standards, particularly 40 C.F.R. § 258.26, shall build any such stormwater retention basin or basins to retain all stormwater generated by a 24-hour, 100-year rainfall event.

§ 13.04 Compliance.

24

Any Solid Waste Disposal Facility may demonstrate compliance with §§ 13.01 by submitting a certified statement, on a form provided by the District, signed by a professional geologist authorized to practice in the State of Arkansas. Any Solid Waste Disposal Facility may demonstrate compliance with §§ 13.02 and 13.03 by submitting a certified statement, on a form provided by the District, signed by a registered professional engineer authorized to practice in the State of Arkansas.

Subchapter 14 Financial Requirements. § 14.01 Host County compensation.

§ 14.01 Host County compensation.

Any Solid Waste Disposal Facility, located partially or wholly within the District, shall provide the host county with compensation in the amount of $1.00 per ton of waste disposed of at the facility. A facility which crosses county boundaries shall prorate the $1.00 per ton fee in proportion to the percentage of the active facility located within each county. The host counties may use the fees provided for any purpose they see fit, it being the intent of this rule, to provide funds to the counties to assist in increased road maintenance, neighbor compensation, litter control, etc. Payments shall be made quarterly for the previous quarter.

Subchapter 15 Compliance and Enforcement. § 15.01 Violations. § 15.02 Penalties. § 15.03 Enforcement. § 15.04 Inspection and Information Gathering. § 15.05 Severability.

§ 15.01 Violations.

It shall be a violation for any owner or operator of a solid waste facility to fail to comply fully with any provision of Chapter E.

§ 15.02 Penalties.

A penalty of up to $10,000.00 per violation per day of violation may be assessed against any person violating the provisions of Chapter E.

§ 15.03 Enforcement.

The Director is authorized to seek the approval of the Board to institute legal and/or equitable action in the appropriate courts to enforce any violation of Chapter E.

§ 15.04 Inspection and Information Gathering.

Any Solid Waste Facility shall, upon the request of any District designated person, furnish information relating to any activity at the facility and permit such person at all times to have access

25

to, and to copy all records relating to such activity. Any District designated person shall be allowed to enter at any time all areas of the Facility and to inspect and obtain samples from any area of the Facility.

§ 15.05 Severability.

If any provision of these regulations or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of these regulations which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of these regulations are declared to be severable.

Subchapter 16 Reserved. Subchapter 17 Reserved. Subchapter 18 Reserved. Subchapter 19 Reserved.

26

CHAPTER F: SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT. Subchapter 20 Assessment. Subchapter 21 Procedure. Subchapter 22 Compliance and Enforcement.

Subchapter 20 Assessment. §20.01 Applicable Waste §20.02 Fee Amount

§20.01 Applicable Waste

(a) Starting January 1, 2003, there shall be assessed a fee, to be paid to the District, on all solid waste generated within the District; or generated outside the District and brought to a processing or disposal facility within the District.

(b) This fee will be applicable to all solid waste that is collected and delivered to a processing, transfer or disposal facility.

(c) This fee will not be applied to permitted landfills where a private industry bears the expense of operating and maintaining the landfill solely for the disposal of solid wastes generated by the industry; to any recyclable materials which are processed and marketed for recycling; to any organic materials which are delivered to a Class Y or O composting facility; to any materials which are removed from solid waste and processed for recycling; to waste tires processed through the District’s waste tire program; or to household hazardous wastes collected through the District’s HHW program that is handled as Subtitle C waste.

§20.02 Fee Amount

(a) The amount of the fee assessed shall be $1.50 per ton.

(b) If weight tickets are not available, the fee shall be calculated on a volume basis as follows.

(1) $0.25 per uncompacted cubic yard (2) $0.45 per compacted cubic yard

Subchapter 21 Procedures §21.01 Landfills §21.02 Solid Waste Material Recovery Facility §21.03 Class S Composting Facility §21.04 Transfer Stations §21.05 Out-of-District Haulers §21.06 Schedule

§21.01 Landfills

27

Any landfill located within the District shall pay to the District an amount equal to the per ton fee amount in Section 20.02 times the number of tons of solid waste handled. Such fee will be paid according to the schedule listed in Section 21.06.

§21.02 Solid Waste Material Recovery Facility

(a) Any Solid Waste Material Recovery Facility located within the District shall pay to the District an amount equal to the per ton fee amount in Section 20.02 times the number of tons of solid waste handled. Such fee will be paid according to the schedule listed in Section 21.06.

(b) Any waste handled by a solid waste material recovery facility that is delivered to a landfill within the District shall be exempt from the fees imposed by this Section.

§21.03 Class S Composting Facilities

(a) Any class S composting facility located within the District shall pay to the District an amount equal to the per ton fee amount in Section 20.02 times the number of tons of solid waste handled. Such fee will be paid according to the schedule listed in Section 21.06.

(b) Any waste handled by a class S composting facility that is delivered to a landfill within the District shall be exempt from the fees imposed by this Section.

§21.04 Transfer Stations

(a) Any transfer station located within the District shall pay to the District an amount equal to the per ton fee amount in Section 20.02 times the number of tons of solid waste handled. Such fee will be paid according to the schedule listed in Section 21.06.

(b) Any waste handled by a transfer station that is delivered to a landfill, solid waste material recovery facility or class S composting facility within the District shall be exempt from the fees imposed by this Section.

§21.05 Out-of-District Haulers

Any hauler who collects solid waste generated within the District but transports it out of district for processing or disposal shall be required to submit the applicable fee in Section 20.02 times the number of tons of waste transported, to the District according to the schedule in §21.06.

§21.06 Schedule

Fees shall be paid to the District quarterly. For all wastes handled during the months of January – March, payment will be due by April 30th. For all wastes handled during the months of April – June, payment will be due by July 30th. For all wastes handled during the months of July – September, payment will be due by October 30th. For all wastes handled during the months of October – December, payment will be due by January 30th.

Fees must be submitted along with a form, provided by the District. A copy of ADEQ’s Solid Waste Quarterly Report Form is acceptable in lieu of the District form.

§21.07 Recycling Credits

28

(a) Any facility required to pay fees under this Chapter, may be entitled to credits for fees paid on waste handled at their facility that was later recycled or composted.

(b) Solid Waste Material Recovery Facility. A Solid Waste Material Recovery Facility may take credit for any materials they have previously paid a fee on if they can demonstrate that those materials were later shipped for recycling or converted to compost.

(c) Class S Composting Facility. A Class S Composting Facility may take credit for any materials they have previously paid a fee on if they can demonstrate that those materials were later shipped for recycling or converted to compost.

§21.08 Intent

It is the intention under these regulations for all waste that is generated or disposed of within this District to be assessed this fee one time only. Wastes which are ultimately recycled or composted should be exempt or credited.

Subchapter 22 Compliance And Enforcement § 22.01 Violations. § 22.02 Penalties. § 22.03 Enforcement. § 22.04 Inspection and Information Gathering. § 22.05 Severability.

§ 22.01 Violations.

It shall be a violation for any owner or operator of a solid waste facility or solid waste hauler to fail to comply fully with any provision of Chapter F.

§ 22.02 Penalties.

A penalty of up to $1,000.00 per violation per day of violation may be assessed against any person violating the provisions of Chapter F.

§ 22.03 Enforcement.

The Director is authorized to seek the approval of the Board to institute legal and/or equitable action in the appropriate courts to enforce any violation of Chapter F.

§ 22.04 Inspection and Information Gathering.

Any Solid Waste Facility or Solid Waste Hauler shall, upon the request of any District designated person, furnish information relating to any activity at the facility or business and permit such person at all times to have access to, and to copy all records relating to such activity. Any District designated person shall be allowed access to all requested records during normal business hours.

§ 22.05 Severability.

If any provision of these regulations or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of these regulations which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of these regulations are declared to be severable.

29

CERTIFICATION OF RULES

The preceding 36 pages, containing the complete set of regulations of the Tri-County Solid Waste District, are a certified copy of the regulations as enacted by action of the Board taken May 20, 2004 in Springdale, Arkansas

______Steven L. Parker Director

31

Attachment 3 Board & Staff

32

Tri-County Solid Waste Board of Directors 2004

Mr. Butch Bartholomew Mayor Dan Coody City of West Fork City of Fayetteville PO Box 339 113 W. Mountain West Fork AR 72774 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Office: (479) 839-2342 Office: (479) 575-8330 Fax: (479) 839-3335 Fax: (479) 575-8257 [email protected] [email protected]

Mayor Wes Hogue Mr. Jim Ecker City of Gentry County of Benton P O Box 730 215 E. Central, Ste. 8 Gentry AR 72734 Bentonville, AR 72712 Office: (479) 736-2555 Office: (479) 271-1083 Fax: (479) 736-2877 Fax: (479) 271-1036 [email protected] Judge Wes Fowler Mayor Larry Bates County of Madison City of Huntsville PO Box 37 211 Northview Avenue Huntsville AR 72740 Huntsville AR 72740 Office: (479) 738-6721 Home: (479) 738-6462 Fax: (479) 738-2735 Fax: (479) 738-6846 [email protected] [email protected]

Mr. Mark Latham Judge Jerry Hunton City of Siloam Springs County of Washington PO Box 80 280 N College Ave Suite 210 Siloam Springs AR 72761 Fayetteville AR 72701 Office: (479) 524-5136 Office: (479) 444-1700 Fax: (479) 524-3097 Fax: (479) 444-1889 [email protected] [email protected]

Mr. Larry Oelrich Ms. Belva Plumlee City of Prairie Grove City of Bentonville PO Box 255 1901 N.E. A Street Prairie Grove AR 72753 Bentonville, AR 72712

33

Office: (479) 846-2961 Office: (479) 271-3160 Fax: (479) 846-5649 Fax: (479) 271-3163 [email protected] [email protected]

Mayor Jerre Van Hoose Mayor Henry Buchanan City of Springdale City of Lincoln 201 Spring Street PO Box 967 Springdale AR 72764 Lincoln AR 72744 Office: (479) 750-8113 Office: (479) 824-3321 Fax: (479) 750-8559 Fax: (479) 824-4126 [email protected]

Mayor Steve Womack Ms.Heather Dumas City of Rogers City of Farmington 300 W Poplar P.O. Box 150 Rogers, AR 72756 Farmington, AR 72730 Office: (479) 621-1117 Office: (479) 267-3865 Fax: (479) 631-2767 Fax: (479) 267-5897 [email protected]

Mayor Phil Biggers Mayor Jackie Crabtree City of Lowell City of Pea Ridge P. O. Box 979 P.O. Box 29 Lowell, AR 72745 Pea Ridge, AR 72751 Office: (479) 659-8976 Office: (479) 451-1122 Fax: (479) 659-0894 Fax: (479) 451-1681 [email protected]

Mayor Tom Gray Mayor Richard Long City of Little Flock City of Johnson 1500 Little Flock Drive P.O. Box 563 Rogers, AR 72756 Johnson, AR 72741 Office: (479) 636-2081 Office: (479) 521-7291 Fax: (479) 636-2318 Fax: (479) 521-9157

Mayor Ken Williams City of Centerton P. O. Box 100 Centerton, AR 72719 Office: (479) 795-2750

34

Fax: (479) 795-2545 [email protected]

Staff List

Steven L. Parker L. Gail Cammllarie Director Office Manager [email protected] [email protected]

Thomas Hodges Trish Ouei Deputy Director for Operations Public Education Coordinator [email protected] [email protected]

Fritz Gisler Mike Harp Enforcement Officer Transfer Station Mgr. [email protected] [email protected]

Tom Wilson Vacant Recycling Driver Transfer Station Worker

Vacant Driver

35

Attachment 4 Financial Information

36

General Funds 2003 Jan - Dec 03 Income Interest 7,975.65 Local Contributions 162,682.20 Misc Income 61,788.96 Recycling Grants 327,822.33 Services 13,195.00 Waste Assessment 457,813.75 Total Income 1,031,277.89

Gross Profit 1,031,277.89

Expense Advertising/Publications 25,779.30 Auto Expense 17,931.12 Capital Expenditure 52,902.24 Depreciation Expense 50,000.00 Dues, Subscriptions, Membership 3,539.51 Grant Pass-Through 248,017.48 Insurance Liability Insurance 6,143.00 Work Comp 3,197.00 Total Insurance 9,340.00

Leases 1,815.69 Miscellaneous 64,717.31 Office Supplies 5,798.87 Personnel Health Insurance 21,865.64 Payroll Expenses 215,072.87 Retirement 16,483.70 Total Personnel 253,422.21

Postage and Delivery 2,266.97 Printing and Reproduction 10,496.15 Professional Fees 41,144.12 Repairs & Maintenance 9,476.89 Service Contracts 174,831.27 Travel & Entertainment 9,572.04 Utilities 10,354.48 Workshops, Seminars, Etc. 6,735.27 Total Expense 998,140.92

Net Income 33,136.97

37

Waste Tire Program 2003 Jan - Dec 03 Income Abatement Grants 3,387.00 District Fees 83,787.45 Grant Funds 319,828.00 Interest 577.61 Misc. Income 5,000.00 Support Grants 13,597.00 Truck Tires 41,089.77 Total Income 467,266.83 Gross Profit 467,266.83 Expense Administration 167.00 Capital Expenditure 38,809.92 Collection Center Expenses 20,934.40 Contractor Expenses 416,528.21 Licenses & Permits 250.00 Miscellaneous 54,408.23 Total Expense 531,097.76 Net Income -63,830.93

38

Attachment 5 City & County Information

39

Attachment 6 Business Profiles AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF BENTON COUNTY IN NORTHWEST ARKANSAS

Center for Business and Economic Research Reynolds Center Building 217 Sam M. Walton College of Business 1 University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-1201 (479) 575-4151 August 30, 2002

1 An Economic Analysis of Benton County in Northwest Arkansas

I. Geographic Description

Benton County is comprised of 846 square miles and borders Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma in the northwest corner of the state in the Springfield Plateau physiographic region. Figure 1 highlights the counties that comprise the Norwest Arkansas region, as defined by the Arkansas Department of Economic Development. Benton County is shown in red; all other counties in the region are shown in yellow.

Figure 1 – Benton County’s Location

The extreme southeastern region of the county is comprised of the Ozark National Forest. The county is also home to Beaver Lake, located in the eastern portion of the county, and Pea Ridge National Military Park, located in the northeast portion of the county.

Sources: United States Census Bureau. State and County QuickFacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/05/05005.html Chart 2-5: Physiographic Regions. Arkansas Statistical Abstract – 2000. April 2000. Census State Data Center, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Page 72. The Rand McNally Road Atlas, 2002 Edition.

II. Demographic Characteristics

Population

In 1980, the population of Benton County was 78,155 persons. The county ranked 5th in terms of population among Arkansas’ 75 counties and 3rd behind Washington and Sebastian County among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas. By 1990, the population of the county had increased 24.8 percent to 97,499 to rank 4th among Arkansas’ counties and 3rd behind Washington and Sebastian County among the counties in Northwest Arkansas. From 1980 to 1990, the population of the state of Arkansas increased 2.8 percent from 2,286,435 to 2,350,725; from 1990 to 2000, the state’s population increased 13.7 percent to 2,673,400 persons. In 2000, the population of

Center for Business and Economic Research 1 Benton County stood at 153,406, an increase of 57.3 percent from 1990. The county was the third most populous county in Arkansas behind Pulaski and Washington County and the second most populous county in Northwest Arkansas behind Washington County in 2000. The five most populous cities in Benton County and their populations in the year 2000 were Rogers (38,829), Bentonville (19,730), Bella Vista (16,582), Siloam Springs (10,843), and Lowell (5,013). Bentonville is the county seat for Benton County.

DRI-WEFA, an economic analysis consulting firm, projects the population of Benton County will increase by 26.0 percent to 193,310 people in the year 2010. If the projections are realized, Benton County will be the third most populous county in Arkansas behind Pulaski and Washington County and will be the second most populous county in Northwest Arkansas behind Washington County.

The gender makeup of Benton County is similar to that of the state on the whole. In the year 2000, the proportions of males and females in the county were 49.3 percent and 50.7 percent, respectively, compared to 48.8 percent and 51.2 percent, respectively, for the state.

In the year 2000, Benton County had the 21st youngest median age, the 16th highest proportion of residents under age 18, and the 28th lowest proportion of residents age 65 and older among all Arkansas counties. In the year 2000, the median age of residents in Benton County was 35.3 years, compared to 36.0 years for the state. From 1990 to 2000, the proportion of the county’s population that was under 18 years of age increased from 24.8 percent to 26.6 percent; for the same period, the proportion of Arkansans under 18 years of age decreased from 26.4 percent to 25.4 percent. From 1990 to 2000, the proportion of the county’s population that was 65 years of age or older decreased from 17.9 percent to 14.3 percent; for the same period, the proportion of Arkansans age 65 or older decreased from 14.9 percent in 1990 to 14.0 percent in 2000.

The racial composition of Benton County is decidedly more Caucasian than the population for the State of Arkansas. In 2000, the proportions of Benton County’s population comprised of Caucasians, African Americans, American Indians and Native Alaskans, and Asians were 90.9 percent, 0.4 percent, 1.6 percent, and 1.1 percent, respectively. For the state, in 2000, the proportions of Caucasians, African Americans, American Indians and Native Alaskans, and Asians were 80.0 percent, 15.7 percent, 0.7 percent, and 0.8 percent, respectively. In 2000, the proportion of residents in Benton County who were Hispanic was 8.8 percent, compared to the state’s proportion of 3.2 percent; 15.5 percent of the state’s Hispanic population resided in Benton County in the year 2000.

Sources: United States Census Bureau, Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990. http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/ar190090.txt United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File.

Center for Business and Economic Research 2 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_ 2000_PL_U_GCTPL_ST7&_geo_id=04000US05 The Rand McNally Road Atlas, 2002 Edition. Page 10. DRI-WEFA, U.S. Regional Analysis. Data supplied by the Institute for Economic Advancement, University of Arkansas-Little Rock. United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/04005.pdf United States Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 1990. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_ 1990_STF1_DP1&_geo_id=04000US05 United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/05005007.pdf United States Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Table DP-1. General Population and Housing Characteristics: 1990. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_ 1990_STF1_DP1&_geo_id=05000US05007

Income

Table 1 presents median household income and median family income for the year 1999 and per capita personal income for the year 2000 for Benton County. The table also ranks Benton County in terms of these income statistics among the 75 counties in Arkansas and the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas.

Table 1 – Benton County Income Statistics Arkansas Northwest Arkansas

Benton Percent Range Range Income Statistic County of State Rank Low High Rank Low High 1999 Median Household Income $40,281 125.2% 3 $20,510 $42,569 1 $21,397 $40,281 1999 Median Family Income $45,235 117.0% 5 $25,846 $48,717 1 $27,580 $45,235 2000 Per Capita Personal Income $25,316 115.1% 4 $14,303 $30,447 2 $14,303 $25,358

Table 2 presents poverty statistics for different resident groups in Benton County and for the State of Arkansas in 1999. The table ranks the county ranks among the 75 counties in Arkansas and among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas in terms of the three poverty rates presented. For example, the county ranked 74th among the counties in Arkansas and last among the counties in Northwest Arkansas in terms of the poverty rate for individuals in 1999.1

1 Note: Rankings are from highest poverty rate to lowest. Hence, a ranking of one indicates relatively high levels of poverty, and a ranking of 75 indicates relatively low levels of poverty.

Center for Business and Economic Research 3 Table 2 – Benton County Poverty Rates, 1999 Arkansas Northwest Arkansas County Arkansas Range Range Poverty Statistic Rate Rate Rank Low High Rank Low High Individuals 10.1% 15.8% 74 7.2% 32.7% 16 10.1% 23.8% Families with Related Children 11.2% 18.1% 73 7.8% 40.8% 16 11.2% 26.4% Individuals 65 and Older 8.6% 13.8% 73 7.3% 27.6% 16 8.6% 26.6%

Table 3 presents average weekly earnings for covered employment in Benton County in the year 2001. The table also displays average weekly earnings as a proportion of the state’s figure and ranks Benton County in terms of average weekly earnings relative to the counties in Arkansas and Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For example, in terms of average weekly earnings in the manufacturing sector, Benton County ranked 21st among the 71 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 2nd among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available.

Table 3 – Benton County Average Weekly Earnings, by Sector, Calendar Year 2001 Arkansas Northwest Arkansas Average Weekly Percent Range Range Sector Earnings of State Rank Low High Rank Low High Manufacturing $569.49 99.1% 21 / 71 $260.75 $894.22 2 / 15 $312.98 $587.60 Wholesale Trade $899.38 125.4% 3 / 68 $214.77 $995.14 2 / 14 $214.77 $995.14 Retail Trade $358.05 105.4% 3 / 73 $215.61 $439.32 1 / 15 $244.32 $358.05 Information $617.79 91.6% 10 /56 $306.77 $869.54 4 / 12 $348.10 $832.62 Financial Activities $587.26 92.8% 6 / 73 $282.76 $829.55 4 / 14 $282.76 $622.20 Professional and Business Services $955.05 152.7% 1 / 68 $218.14 $955.05 1 / 15 $256.91 $955.05 Education and Health Services $536.47 99.0% 9 / 74 $231.49 $668.35 4 / 16 $231.49 $649.85 All Sectors $631.34 121.8% 2 / 75 $316.63 $681.93 1 / 16 $316.63 $631.34

Table 4 presents the share of personal income in Benton County in 2000 attributable to different sectors of the economy. The table displays how this share compares to the proportion for the state in aggregate and ranks Benton County in terms of the share of personal income attributed to the sectors relative to the counties in Arkansas and Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For example, in terms of the share of personal income attributed to the manufacturing sector, Benton County ranked 32nd among the 73 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 7th among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available.

Center for Business and Economic Research 4 Table 4 – Disposition of Personal Income in Benton County, by Sector, Year 2000 Greater Arkansas Northwest Arkansas Share of or Less Range Range Personal than Sector Income State Rank Low High Rank Low High Farm Earnings 2.3% -0.3% 54 / 75 0.1% 15.9% 13 / 16 0.4% 15.9% Manufacturing 14.3% 0.0% 32 / 73 1.3% 77.9% 7 / 15 3.4% 27.1% Transportation and Utilities 5.0% -0.7% 20 / 71 1.3% 14.5% 7 / 15 1.8% 14.5% Wholesale Trade 2.9% -0.6% 21 / 67 0.2% 11.4% 5 / 15 0.4% 5.9% Retail Trade 24.4% 16.6% 1 / 75 1.4% 24.4% 1 / 16 2.4% 24.4% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 2.9% -0.5% 7 / 71 0.8% 8.0% 4 / 15 1.1% 3.5% Services 10.8% -4.1% 20 / 75 3.3% 29.0% 6 / 16 4.8% 29.0% Business Services 1.9% -0.7% 11 / 65 0.1% 10.5% 5 / 14 0.2% 5.5% Health Services 3.7% -2.5% 33 / 72 0.5% 14.4% 7 / 16 0.5% 14.4% Hotel and Lodging 0.2% -0.1% 26 / 55 0.04% 1.9% 8 / 14 0.05% 1.9% Amusement and Recreation Services 0.3% 0.0% 8 / 48 0.03% 1.0% 4 / 10 0.03% 1.0%

The sale of livestock accounted for 98.8 percent of Benton County’s cash receipts from farm marketings in the year 2000. Livestock cash receipts and total cash receipts for Benton County in the year 2000 were $357.4 million and $361.8 million, respectively; the county ranked second in terms of both livestock cash receipts and total cash receipts among Arkansas’ counties. Cash receipts for crops and government payments for Benton County in the year 2000 totaled $4.4 million and $1.7 million, respectively; the county ranked 34th in terms of the former and 35th in terms of the latter among Arkansas’ counties. The county ranked second among Arkansas’ counties in terms of total production expenses in the year 2000, $289.3 million. As of January 1, 2002, Benton County had a total of 112,000 cattle and calves and 57,000 beef cows; the county ranked 1st in terms of the former and 2nd in terms of the latter among the counties in Arkansas.

Sources: United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/04005.pdf United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/05005007.pdf U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Table CA1-3: Personal Income Summary Estimates. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/ Arkansas Employment Security Department, Covered Employment and Earnings, Annual 2001. Table 6: County Summary Employment and Earnings, by Industry, Calendar Year 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/01antb6.htm Arkansas Employment Security Department, Covered Employment and Earnings, Annual 2001. Table 1: Average Covered Employment and Average Weekly Earnings, by Industry, 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/01antb1.htm

Center for Business and Economic Research 5 U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income. Table CA05 – Personal Income by Major Source and Earnings by Industry. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/ Arkansas Agricultural Statistics Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 2001 County Profiles. http://www.nass.usda.gov/ar/benton.PDF Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., “Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. at a Glance”. http://www.walmartstores.com/wmstore/wmstores/Mainnews.jsp?BV_SessionID =@@@@1877286548.1027958574@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccgadcfjghdeemc fkfcfkjdgoodglg.0&pagetype=news&categoryOID=-8764&catID=- 8248&template=DisplayAllContents.jsp

Education

Benton County contains the following seven school districts, with October 1, 2000 enrollment found in parentheses: Bentonville (6,906), Decatur (531), Gentry (1,261), Gravette (1,445), Pea Ridge (1,120), Rogers (10,976), and Siloam Springs (2,871). Table 5 displays the average ACT composite score for high school seniors (which ranges from 1 to 36, with 36 being the best), the attendance rate, the dropout rate (percentage of students dropping out of school in Grades 7-12 from October of one school year to October of the next school year), the graduation rate (percentage of students enrolled in Grade 9 and completing Grade 12), and the college remediation rate (percentage of freshmen entering an Arkansas college or university who are required to take at least one remedial class) for the above school districts and for the state in aggregate.

Table 5 – Educational Statistics for Benton County Schools, 2000-2001 School Year School District ACT Attendance Dropout Graduation College Composite Rate Rate Rate Remediation Rate Score Bentonville 19.9 92.9% 0.0% 86.0% 43.0% Decatur 16.7 92.9% 2.8% 78.3% 40.0% Gentry 19.0 92.2% 3.7% 81.2% 45.0% Gravette 20.5 92.4% 1.8% 90.0% 26.0% Pea Ridge 20.8 91.8% 3.5% 88.5% 38.0% Rogers 21.5 93.0% 1.1% 89.6% 35.0% Siloam Springs 20.6 92.9% 0.9% 87.8% 54.0% State Average 20.1 93.2% 3.0% 84.3% 41.0%

Among the 301 school districts in Arkansas for which data were available, the ACT composite scores for the school districts in Benton County ranked as follows: Bentonville (tied for 126th), Decatur (tied for 281st), Gentry (tied 194th), Gravette (tied for 86th), Pea Ridge (tied for 67th), Rogers (tied for 27th), and Siloam Springs (tied for 79th); because of ties, the rankings ranged from 1 through 299. Among the 72 school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the ACT composite scores for the school districts in Benton County ranked as follows: Bentonville (48th), Decatur (71st), Gentry (60th), Gravette (tied for 34th), Pea Ridge (tied for 26th), Rogers (tied for 14th), and Siloam Springs (tied for 30th). District-wide average ACT composite scores for the 301 school districts in Arkansas for

Center for Business and Economic Research 6 which data were available ranged from 24.0 to 14.0; for the school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the district-wide average ACT composite scores ranged from 24.0 to 15.8.

Among the 307 school districts in Arkansas for which data were available, the dropout rates for the school districts in Benton County ranked as follows: Bentonville (tied for 285th), Decatur (tied for 98th), Gentry (66th), Gravette (tied for 171st), Pea Ridge (tied for 71st), Rogers (tied for 223rd), and Siloam Springs (tied for 240th); because of 27 districts’ being tied for last place with a 0.0 percent dropout rate, the rankings ranged from 1 through 285.2 Among the 72 school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the dropout rates for the school districts in Benton County ranked as follows: Bentonville (tied for 69th), Decatur (19th), Gentry (13th), Gravette (tied for 34th), Pea Ridge (14th), Rogers (tied for 55th), and Siloam Springs (61st); because of four districts’ being tied for last place with a 0.0 percent dropout rate, the rankings ranged from 1 through 69. For the state, dropout rates ranged from 15.4 percent to 0.0 percent; for the districts in Northwest Arkansas, dropout rates ranged from 12.5 percent to 0.0 percent.

Among the 307 school districts in Arkansas for which data were available, the graduation rates for the school districts in Benton County ranked as follows: Bentonville (160th), Decatur (250th), Gentry (tied for 225th), Gravette (102nd), Pea Ridge (124th), Rogers (tied for 107th), and Siloam Springs (tied for 140th). Among the 72 school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the graduation rates for the school districts in Benton County ranked as follows: Bentonville (44th), Decatur (63rd), Gentry (57th), Gravette (26th), Pea Ridge (39th), Rogers (tied for 29th), and Siloam Springs (42nd). For the state, graduation rates ranged from 100.0 percent to 23.6 percent; for the districts in Northwest Arkansas, graduation rates ranged from 100.0 percent to 63.2 percent.

Among the 307 school districts in Arkansas for which there were data available, the college remediation rates for the school districts in Benton County ranked as follows: Bentonville (tied for 179th), Decatur (tied for 195th), Gentry (tied for 162nd), Gravette (tied for 262nd), Pea Ridge (tied for 207th), Rogers (tied for 223rd), and Siloam Springs (tied for 109th); because of 31 districts’ being tied for last place with a 0.0 percent college remediation rate, the rankings ranged from 1 through 281.3 Among the 72 school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the college remediation rate for the school districts in Benton County ranked as follows: Bentonville (tied for 38th), Decatur (46th), Gentry (tied for 31st), Gravette (tied for 64th), Pea Ridge (tied for 48th), Rogers (tied for 52nd), and Siloam Springs (15th); because of three districts’ being tied for last place with a 0.0 percent college remediation rate, the rankings ranged from 1 through 70. For the state, college remediation rates ranged from 100.0 percent to 0.0 percent; for the districts in Northwest Arkansas, college remediation rates ranged from 80.0 percent to 0.0 percent.

In the Bentonville School District, all ten of the district’s schools are accredited by the North Central Association of Secondary Schools and Colleges (NCASSC). In the

2 Note: Rankings are from highest dropout rate to lowest. Hence, a ranking of one indicates a relatively high dropout rate, and a ranking of 285 indicates a relatively low dropout rate. 3 Note: Rankings are from highest remediation rate to lowest. Hence, a ranking of one indicates a relatively high dropout rate, and a ranking of 281 indicates a relatively low remediation rate.

Center for Business and Economic Research 7 Decatur School District, both Decatur Elementary School and Decatur High School are accredited by the NCASSC. In the Gentry School District, all four schools are accredited by the NCASSC. In the Gravette School District, all three schools are accredited by the NCASSC. In the Pea Ridge School District, all three schools are accredited by the NCASSC. In the Rogers School District, all 18 schools are accredited by the NCASSC. In the Siloam Springs School District, all five schools are accredited by the NCASSC.

Table 6 displays the proportion of persons 25 years of age or older in Benton County with various levels of education in the year 2000. The table also presents the proportions for the state in aggregate and ranks the county among the 75 counties in Arkansas and among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas in terms of the 4 levels of education presented. For example, Benton County ranked 4th among Arkansas’ counties and 2nd among the counties in Northwest Arkansas in terms of the proportion of the persons 25 years of age or older with a bachelor’s degree in 2000.

Table 6 – Educational Attainment in Benton County, 2000 Arkansas Northwest Arkansas Range Range Level of Education County Arkansas Rank Low High Rank Low High Bachelor's Degree 14.5% 11.0% 4 4.2% 18.0% 2 5.4% 14.8% Graduate or Professional Degree 5.8% 5.7% 8 1.8% 10.1% 3 2.8% 9.8% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 20.3% 16.7% 5 6.3% 28.1% 2 8.4% 24.5% High School Diploma or Higher 80.4% 75.3% 4 56.2% 84.4% 1 65.4% 80.4%

There are five Arkansas colleges and universities within 100 miles of Bentonville, Arkansas. The institutions, the number and type of degree programs offered at the institutions, and their enrollment statistics are presented below.

The University of Arkansas (UA), located in Fayetteville, Arkansas in Washington County, is the flagship institution of the University of Arkansas system. The AHECB has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at the UA: associate degrees in 2 program areas, baccalaureate degrees in 123 program areas, post-baccalaureate certificates in 2 program areas, master’s degrees in 101 program areas, specialist degrees in 8 program areas, doctoral degrees in 42 program areas, and a professional degree in law. Opening fall enrollment for the UA was 15,752 in 2001, 2.6 percent greater than fall 2000. Opening fall enrollment for the four-year public universities in Arkansas stood at 65,704 in 2001, 2.4 percent greater than fall 2000. The school ranked first among the ten four-year public institutions in Arkansas in terms of fall enrollment in 2001. Since 1997, fall enrollment at the UA has increased 7.5 percent, compared to a 4.8 percent increase for four-year public universities in Arkansas.

John Brown University (JBU), located in Siloam Springs, Arkansas in Benton County, is a private, four-year Christian college (interdenominational) that offers associate degrees in 6 program areas, baccalaureate degrees in 50 program areas, and master’s degrees in 6

Center for Business and Economic Research 8 program areas. Opening fall enrollment for JBU was 1,684 persons in 2001, 9.0 percent greater than fall 2000. Since 1997, fall enrollment has increased 27.1 percent.

Northwest Arkansas Community College (NWACC), located in Bentonville, Arkansas in Benton County, is a two-year public college. The AHECB has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at the NWACC: certificates of proficiency in 4 program areas, technical certificates in 3 program areas, associate degrees in 26 program areas, and an advanced certificate in medical dosimetry. Opening fall enrollment for NWACC was 4,292 persons in 2001, 5.8 percent greater than fall 2000. The school ranked third among the 23 two-year public institutions in Arkansas in terms of fall enrollment in 2001. Since 1997, fall enrollment at NWACC has increased 32.5 percent.

North Arkansas College (NAC), located in Harrison, Arkansas in Boone County, is a two-year public college. The Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board (AHECB) of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at the NAC: certificates of proficiency in 5 program areas, technical certificates in 25 program areas, an advanced certificate in electronics, and associate degrees in 26 program areas. Opening fall enrollment for NAC was 1,889 persons in 2001, 4.0 percent greater than fall 2000. Opening fall enrollment for the two-year public institutions in Arkansas stood at 43,387 in 2001, 6.3 percent greater than fall 2000. The school ranked eighth among the 23 two- year public institutions in Arkansas in terms of fall enrollment in 2001. Since 1997, fall enrollment at NAC has decreased 14.6 percent, compared to a 16.6 percent increase for two-year public institutions in Arkansas.

In January 2002, Westark College, located in Fort Smith, Arkansas in Sebastian County, joined the University of Arkansas system, changed its name to the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith (UAFS), and became a four-year institution. The AHECB has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at UAFS: certificates of proficiency in 28 program areas, technical certificates in 17 program areas, associate degrees in 34 program areas, an advanced certificate in industrial automation, and baccalaureate degrees in 8 program areas. Opening fall enrollment at UAFS was 5,673 in 2001, 8.3 percent greater than fall 2000. Since 1997, fall enrollment at UAFS has increased 0.7 percent.

Sources: Arkansas Department of Education, Arkansas School Information Site, Performance Report, 2001. http://www.as-is.org/reportcard/rc2001/ North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement. http://www.ncacasi.org/ United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/05005007.pdf United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/04005.pdf

Center for Business and Economic Research 9 Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Arkansas State Colleges and Universities. http://www.arkansashighered.com/colleges.html Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Approved Academic Degree and Certificate Programs. http://www.arkansashighered.com/pdfs/RP/degrees_2003.pdf Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Opening Fall Enrollment at Public Colleges and Universities. October 29,2001. http://www.arkansashighered.com/Research/Enrollment/Actual%20Enroll%20Fal l%202001.xls John Brown University, “Catalog for 2001-2003.” http://www.jbu.edu/academics/catalog/03catalog.pdf

III. Infrastructure

Ports

There are no navigable waterways in Benton County.

Source: Arkansas Waterways Commission. http://www.waterways.dina.org/waterways.html

Highways

Figure 2 displays the major cities, highways, lakes, and rivers found in Benton County. Widening of 3.34 miles of Arkansas State Highway 94 in Rogers is scheduled for 2003. 2.5 miles of U.S. Highway 71 at U.S. Interstate 540 are scheduled to be widened in 2003. Widening of 1.47 miles of Arkansas State Highway 112 in Bentonville is scheduled for 2004. Four miles of Arkansas State Highway 12 are scheduled to be widened in 2004. Widening of 3 miles of Arkansas State Highway 59 at U.S. Highway 412 is scheduled for 2005. 2.5 miles of Arkansas State Highway 43 in Siloam Springs are scheduled to be widened in 2005.

Center for Business and Economic Research 10 Figure 2 – Benton County Cities, Highways, Lakes, and Rivers

Sources: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 2003-2005 Preliminary. http://www.ahtd.state.ar.us/contract/progcon/stip/stip%20by%20ffy%202003%2D 2005%20prelim.xls MapQuest.com, Inc. http://www.mapquest.com

Utilities

Table 7 displays the surplus water capacity, the surplus wastewater capacity, the electricity provider, and the natural gas provider for the five most populous cities in Benton County.4

4 GPD = Gallons Per Day

Center for Business and Economic Research 11 Table 7 – Utilities for the Five Most Populous Cities in Benton County Water Surplus Waste Water Electricity Natural Gas City Capacity Surplus Capacity Provider Provider Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) / Carroll County Arkansas Western Rogers 2 million GPD N/A Electric Cooperative Gas Bentonville 3 million GPD N/A N/A N/A Bella Vista N/A N/A N/A N/A City of Siloam Arkansas Western Siloam Springs 2 million GPD 1.6 million GPD Springs Gas SWEPCO / Carroll County Electric Arkansas Western Lowell N/A N/A Cooperative Gas

The cities of Rogers, Bentonville, Bella Vista, and Lowell receive their water from the Beaver Lake Water District. The City of Siloam Springs has entered into a contract to increase the city’s water storage capacity from 2.5 million gallons to 4.5 million gallons. Construction is scheduled to be completed by December 2002.

Sources: Alan Fortenberry, Beaver Water District. David Cameron, Water/Wastewater Director, City of Siloam Springs. Rogers, Arkansas – Lowell, Arkansas Chamber of Commerce http://www.rogerslowell.com/relocation/utilities.asp

Railroads

The Arkansas & Missouri Railroad has its headquarters in Springdale; passes through Rogers, Bentonville, and Lowell; and junctions with the Kansas City Southern Railroad in Fort Smith, with the Union Pacific Railroad in Van Buren, Arkansas, and with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad in Monette, Missouri.

Source: Arkansas & Missouri Railroad. http://www.arkansasmissouri-rr.com/map.html

Airports

There are six airports serving Benton County: Northwest Arkansas Regional Airporty, Bentonville Muncipal/Louise M. Thaden Field Airport, Crystal Lake Airport, Lost Bridge Village Airport, Rogers Municipal/Carter Field Airport, and Smith Field Airport.

The Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, located outside Highfill in Bentonville, has two grooved concrete runways, each 8,800 feet in length, that can accommodate a 75,000-pound single-wheel aircraft, a 150,000-pound double-wheel aircraft, and a 350,000-pound double tandem-wheel aircraft. There is a control tower at this airport.

Center for Business and Economic Research 12 Services offered at the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport include: aviation fuel, aircraft parking (hangars and tiedowns), air freight, and charter flights. Commercial airline service is provided by American Airlines, American Eagle, Delta ASA Airlines, Northwest/Mesaba, and U.S. Airways Express. Rental car services are provided by Avis, Budget, Hertz, National, and Thrifty.

The Bentonville Municipal/Louise M. Thaden Field Airport, located two miles south of Bentonville, has two asphalt runways, each 4,082 feet in length, that can accommodate a 12,500-pound single-wheel aircraft or a 21,500-pound double-wheel aircraft. There is no control tower at this airport. Services offered at the Bentonville Municipal Airport include: aviation fuel, aircraft parking (hangars and tie-downs), air freight, air cargo, charter flights, flight instruction, aircraft rental, and aircraft sales.

The Crystal Lake Airport, located two miles northeast of Decatur, has two asphalt runways, each 3,865 feet in length, that can accommodate a 10,000-pound single-wheel aircraft. There is no control tower at this airport. Services offered at the Crystal Lake Airport include aviation fuel and aircraft parking (tie-downs).

The Lost Bridge Village Airport, located seven miles northwest of Garfield, has two asphalt runways, each 3,150 feet in length, with loose gravel and potholes. There is no control tower at this airport.

The Rogers Municipal/Carter Field Airport, located two miles north of Rogers, has two asphalt runways, each 6,011 feet in length, that can accommodate a 42,000-pound single- wheel aircraft and a 73,000-poun double-wheel aircraft. There is no control tower at this airport. Services offered at Rogers Municipal Airport include: aviation fuel, aircraft parking (hangars and tiedowns), air freight, air ambulance, charter flights, flight instruction, aircraft rental, aircraft sales, and aerial surveying.

The Smith Field Airport, located three miles northeast of Siloam Springs, has two asphalt runways, each 4,999 feet in length, that can accommodate a 24,000-pound single-wheel aircraft. There is no control tower at this airport. Services offered at Smith Field Airport include: aviation fuel, aircraft parking (hangars and tiedowns), air freight, charter flights, flight instruction, aircraft rental, and aircraft sales.

The four major airports closest to Benton County, not including Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, are Springfield-Branson Regional Airport in Springfield, Missouri (roughly 120 miles northeast of Bentonville), Tulsa International Airport in Tulsa, Oklahoma (roughly 120 miles west of Bentonville), Adams Field Airport in Little Rock, Arkansas (roughly 210 miles southeast of Bentonville), and Kansas City International Airport in Kansas City, Missouri (roughly 220 miles north of Bentonville).

Sources: AirNav, LLC. Bentonville Municipal/Louise M. Thaden Field Airport: Bentonville, Arkansas. http://www.airnav.com/airport/KVBT

Center for Business and Economic Research 13 AirNav, LLC. Crystal Lake Airport: Decatur, Arkansas. http://www.airnav.com/airport/5M5 AirNav, LLC. Lost Bridge Village Airport: Garfield, Arkansas. http://www.airnav.com/airport/4A8 AirNav, LLC. Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport: Bentonville, Arkansas. http://www.airnav.com/airport/KXNA Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, Airport Facts. http://www.nwara.com/airportfacts.htm AirNAv, LLC. Rogers Municipal/Carter Field Airport: Rogers Arkansas. http://www.airnav.com/airport/KROG AirNav, LLC. Smith Field Airport: Siloam Springs, Arkansas. http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSLG

IV. Labor Force

A breakdown of covered employment for Benton County in 2001 is provided in Table 8 below.

Table 8 – Covered Employment for Benton County, 2001 Annual Averages

Average Average North American Industry Classification System Employing Covered Industry Group Units Employment Natural Resources & Mining 39 760 Construction 462 3,143 Manufacturing 229 15,523 Trade, Transportation & Utilities 928 16,186 Wholesale Trade 301 2,091 Retail Trade 485 6,374 Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities 142 7,720 Information 55 842 Financial Activities 342 3,078 Professional & Business Services 511 17,210 Education & Health Services 304 5,004 Leisure & Hospitality 286 4,899 Other Services 241 1,411 Local Government 68 5,233 State Government 19 627 Benton County - Total 3,484 73,915

The manufacturing sector accounted for 21.0 percent of total covered employment in Benton County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 20.5 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the manufacturing sector, the county

Center for Business and Economic Research 14 ranked 41st among the 71 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 10th among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 62.4 percent (Calhoun County) to 5.1 percent (Perry County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Marion County’s 48.2 percent to Newton County’s 8.3 percent.

The wholesale trade sector accounted for 2.8 percent of total covered employment in Benton County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 4.1 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the wholesale trade sector, the county ranked 38th among the 68 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 6th among the 14 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 23.0 percent (Woodruff County) to 0.3 percent (Marion County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Boone County’s 7.5 percent to Marion County’s 0.3 percent.

The retail trade sector accounted for 8.6 percent of total covered employment in Benton County in 2001, compared to the state’s figures of 11.9 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the retail trade sector, the county ranked 67th among the 74 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and last among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 18.9 percent (Saline County) to 2.7 percent (Calhoun County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Baxter County’s 14.5 percent to Benton County’s 8.6 percent.

The transportation, warehousing, and utilities sectors accounted for 10.4 percent of total covered employment in Benton County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 5.5 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the transportation, warehousing, and utilities sectors, the county ranked 6th among the 69 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 3rd behind Crawford County and Pope County among the 14 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 18.4 percent (Little River County) to 0.8 percent (Marion County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Crawford County’s 17.7 percent to Marion County’s 0.8 percent.

The information sector accounted for 1.1 percent of total covered employment in Benton County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 1.9 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the information sector, the county ranked 19th among the 56 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 8th among the 12 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 3.6 percent (Pulaski County) to 0.3 percent (Little River County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Boone County’s 3.2 percent to Johnson County’s 0.4 percent.

The financial activities sector accounted for 4.2 percent of total covered employment in Benton County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 4.3 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the financial activities sector, the county

Center for Business and Economic Research 15 ranked 23rd among the 73 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 5th among the 14 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 7.5 percent (Pike County) to 1.9 percent (Nevada County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Marion County’s 5.0 percent to Scott County’s 2.3 percent.

The professional and business services sector accounted for 23.3 percent of total covered employment in Benton County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 9.2 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the professional and business services sector, the county ranked 1st among the 68 counties in Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 23.3 percent (Benton County) to 0.5 percent (Woodruff County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Benton County’s 23.3 percent to Scott County’s 0.6 percent.

The education and health services sector accounted for 6.8 percent of total covered employment in Benton County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 11.3 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the education and health services sector, the county ranked 65th among the 74 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 15th ahead of Crawford County among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas. For the state, the proportions ranged from 19.9 percent (Baxter County) to 2.2 percent (Little River County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Baxter County’s 19.9 percent to Crawford County’s 6.6 percent.

The leisure and hospitality sector accounted for 6.6 percent of total covered employment in Benton County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 7.8 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the leisure and hospitality sector, the county ranked 39th among the 73 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 11th among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas. For the state, the proportions ranged from 16.7 percent (Carroll County) to 1.9 percent (Woodruff County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Carroll County’s 16.7 percent to Madison County’s 4.3 percent.

Center for Business and Economic Research 16 A summary of Benton County’s largest employers is presented in Table 9 below.

Table 9 – Benton County’s Largest Employers Company Name City Product Employees Wal-Mart Bentonville Retail/Headquarters/Distribution I J.B. Hunt Transport Services Lowell Transportation G Tyson Foods Rogers Poultry F Peterson Farms/Rogers Decatur Poultry E Arvest Bank Group Lowell Banking E Simmons Foods Siloam Springs Poultry E McKee Foods Corporation Gentry Snack Cakes E Superior Industries Rogers Automotive Parts D Ozark Aircraft Systems Bentonville Custom Aircraft D St. Mary's Hospital Rogers Hospital D Quality Health Care of Springdale Springdale/Bentonville Hospital D Franklin Electric Company Siloam Springs Electric Motors D First Brands Corporation Rogers Plastic Bags D Gates Rubber Company Siloam Springs Rubber and Plastic Products D Day Spring Cards Siloam Springs Greeting Cards D Rogers Tool Works Rogers Machine Tools D Rockline Industries Springdale Baby Wipes D La-Z-Boy Siloam Springs Furniture C Employee Codes – C: 251-500; D: 501-1,000; E: 1,001-1,500; F: 1,501-2,500; G: 2,501-5,000; I: More than 10,000

Figure 3 displays the annual unemployment rates for Benton County, the State of Arkansas, and the United States for the period 1995 through 2001. For the period, Benton County experienced unemployment rates well below the state and national averages; the annual unemployment rate in Benton County was at least 2.3 percent below the annual unemployment rate for the state and at least 1.5 percent below the annual unemployment rate for the U.S. for the period. In 2001, the unemployment rate in Benton County was 2.2 percent, compared to the state and national figures of 5.1 percent and 4.8 percent, respectively. Benton County had the lowest unemployment rate among Arkansas’ 75 counties in 2001. Unemployment rates in Arkansas ranged from 2.2 percent in Benton County to 13.9 percent in Mississippi County; unemployment rates in Northwest Arkansas ranged from Benton County’s 2.2 percent to Newton County’s 6.7 percent.

Center for Business and Economic Research 17 Figure 3 – Historical Unemployment Rate Comparisons: 1995-2001

6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Annual Average Benton County Arkansas United States

Figure 4 displays the monthly unemployment rates for Benton County, Arkansas, and the United States from June 2000 to June 2002.5

Figure 4 – Unemployment Rates, June 2000 – June 2002

6.5%

6.0%

5.5%

5.0%

4.5%

4.0%

3.5%

3.0%

2.5%

2.0%

1.5% Jun-00 Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02

Benton County Arkansas United States

Sources: Arkansas Employment Security Department, Covered Employment and Earnings, Annual 2001. Table 6: County Summary Employment and Earnings, by Industry, Calendar Year 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/01antb6.htm

5 Note: Data are not seasonally adjusted.

Center for Business and Economic Research 18 Arkansas Employment Security Department, Covered Employment and Earnings, Annual 2001. Table 1: Average Covered Employment and Weekly Earnings, by Industry, 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/01antb1.htm Largest Employers by County data from Arkansas Department of Economic Development. Arkansas Economic Security Department, Arkansas Revised Labor Force Statistics, Annual Average, 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/lmiaa01.htm Arkansas Employment Security Department, Arkansas Labor Force Statistics. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/lmilaborforcestats.htm

V. Available Industrial Sites and Buildings

There are currently six available industrial sites in Benton County. The first property is located outside the city limits of Siloam Springs and is privately owned. There are 160 acres of available land within the property priced between $12,000 and $15,000 per acre. The site is cleared and has a slope of one percent. There are no major structures in the area. Arkansas Highway 204 directly services the property to the north, and US Highway 412 is two miles south of the site. The Kansas City Southern Railroad has a line 2.5 miles west of the site. The Port of Fort Smith is 90 miles south of the site. Water services are provided by the City of Siloam Springs through a 12-inch main with a normal line pressure of 55 pounds per square inch (psi). The City of Siloam Springs also serves the site with a forced sewer main. A gravity sewer main is currently being engineered. Natural gas service is provided by the Arkansas Western Gas Company (AWG) through a six-inch main with a normal line pressure of 415 psi. The City of Siloam Springs provides electricity to the site with a voltage of 12.4 kilovolts.

The second property is located within the city limits of Rogers and is owned by the Rogers Industrial Development Corporation. There are 128 acres of available land within the property priced at $43,560 per acre. The site is cleared with a slope of less than two percent. The site is naturally drained to the east, and ten percent of the site is in the 100- year flood plain. Three firms have a presence on the site: Bekaert Corporation, Stribling Packaging, and RoArk Printing. Arkansas Highway 102 and US Highway 62 directly service the property, and Interstate 540 is adjacent the site. The Arkansas-Missouri railroad has a line on the northern boundary of the site. Passenger air service is provided by five airlines with daily flights from Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, 12 miles west of the site. There are also port facilities with barge-rail terminal available at the Port of Van Buren, 75 miles to the south of the site. Water service is provided by the City of Rogers through a 24-inch main with a normal line pressure of 65 psi. The City of Rogers also provides a ten-inch sewer main to the site. Natural gas service is provided by AWG through an eight-inch main with a normal line pressure of 100 psi. Carroll Electric Cooperative provides electricity to the site with a voltage of 13.2 kilovolts.

The third property is located within the city limits of Bentonville and is owned by the City of Bentonville and the Bentonville Industrial Development Corporation. There are 95 acres of available land within the property priced at $30,000 per acre (negotiable). The site contains pasture with a slope of two to eight percent. The site is naturally

Center for Business and Economic Research 19 drained to the east and has 13.7 acres on the east side in the 100-year flood plain. IBM is the only firm with a presence on the site. Arkansas Highway 112 directly services the site, and Interstate 44 is 60 miles north of the site. The Arkansas-Missouri railroad has a line 1.5 miles north of the site. Passenger air service is provided by five airlines with daily flights from the Northwest Arkansas regional Airport, five miles to the south of the site. There are also port facilities with barge-rail terminal available at the Port of Van Buren, 85 miles south of the site. The City of Bentonville provides water service through a 12-inch main and a 24-inch main with normal line pressure of 80 psi. The City of Bentonville also provides an eight-inch sewer main to the site. AWG provides natural gas service to the site through a six-inch main with a normal line pressure of 250 psi. The City of Bentonville provides electricity to the site with a voltage of 12.4 kilovolts.

The fourth property is located within the city limits of Siloam Springs and is privately owned. There are 35 acres of available land within the property priced at $16,000 per acre. The site is cleared and has a slope of one percent. Three firms have a presence on the site: La-Z-Boy, Gates Rubber, and Webb Wheel. US Highway 412 is three miles south of the site. The Kansas City Southern Railroad has a line one mile east of the site. Passenger air service is provided by five airlines with daily flights from Fayetteville, 35 miles east of the site. There are also port facilities at the Port of Fort Smith 90 miles south of the site. The City of Siloam Springs provides water service to the site through a 12-inch main with a normal line pressure of 55 psi. The City of Siloam Springs also provides an 18-inch sewer main to the site. AWG provides natural gas service through an eight-inch main with a normal line pressure of 400 psi. The City of Siloam Springs provides electricity to the site with a voltage of 12.4 kilovolts.

The fifth property is located within the city limits of Bentonville and is owned by the City of Bentonville and the Bentonville Industrial Foundation. There are 17 acres of available land within the property priced at $21,000 per acre. The site is cleared with a slope of one to three percent. Two firms have a presence on the site: Alumax and Northwest Arkansas Community College. US Highway 71 directly services the site, and Interstates 40 and 44 are 68 miles south of the site and 60 miles north of the site, respectively. The Arkansas-Missouri Railroad has a line on the south boundary of the site. Passenger air service is provided by five airlines with daily flights from Fayetteville, 27 miles to the south of the site. There are also port facilities with barge-rail terminal available at the Port of Van Buren, 85 miles south of the site. The City of Bentonville provides water service to the site through a 24-inch main with a normal line pressure of 80 psi. The City of Bentonville also provides a six-inch sewer main 600 feet to the west of the site; an extension will be required. The AWG provides natural gas service to the site through a six-inch main with normal line pressure of 250 psi. The City of Bentonville provides electricity to the site with a voltage of 12.4 kilovolts.

The final property is located within the city limits of Decatur and is owned by the City of Decatur. There are 14 acres of available land within the property priced at $1,500 per acre. The site is cleared with a slope of one percent. There are no major structures in the area. Arkansas Highway 102 directly services the site, and Interstate 40 is 90 miles south of the site. The Kansas City Southern railway has a line one mile to the east of the site

Center for Business and Economic Research 20 and passenger air service is provided by five airlines with daily flights from Fayetteville, 40 miles to the southeast of the site. There are also port facilities located in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 100 miles to the west of the site. Decatur Water Utilities provides water service to the site through a six-inch main with a normal line pressure of 50 psi. The Decatur Water Utilities also provides an eight-inch sewer main to the site. The AWG provides natural gas service to the site through a three-inch main with a normal line pressure of 30 psi. The Carroll Electric Cooperative provides electricity to the site with a voltage of 13.8 kilovolts.

There are six available industrial buildings in Benton County. The first building, constructed in 1957, is located in Rogers at 2111 South 8th and was previously occupied by Daisy BB Guns. The metal facility has 287,662 square-feet of space (261,400 square- feet of manufacturing space and 16,200 square-feet of office space) on eight-inch concrete floors and is accompanied by 34.8 acres of land. Clearance under the beams ranges from 14 feet, 7 inches to 24 feet, 11 inches; the span between the beams ranges from 17 feet, 0 inches to 24 feet, 11 inches. The facility is directly serviced by the Arkansas-Missouri railroad and has 6 floor-level doors, 6 dock-high doors, 300 paved parking spaces, and 50 gravel parking spaces. The rail spur has been removed, but the building is set up for six rail doors. The City of Rogers provides the facility with water service through a seven-inch main with normal line pressure of 80 psi. The City of Rogers also provides sewer services through a ten-inch sewer main. The Arkla Gas Company provides natural gas service to the site through a four-inch main; Southwestern Electric Power Company provides the facility with electricity. The facility is for sale, price negotiable. A small portion of the facility may need to be leased back to the current operation.

The second building, constructed in 1965, is located in Rogers at 1315 N. 13th Street and was previously occupied by Emerson Electric. The metal facility has 217,000 square-feet of space (20,500 square-feet of office space) on six-inch concrete floors and is accompanied by 22.12 acres of land. Clearance under the beams is 18 feet, zero inches; the span between the beams is 18 feet, ten inches. The facility has two floor-level doors, nine dock-high doors, and 500 paved parking spaces. The rail loading area has a clearance height of 31 feet to 35 feet. The City of Rogers provides the facility with water services through a 24-inch main with normal line pressure of 60 psi. The City of Rogers also provides sewer services though a 15-inch sewer main. Northwest Arkansas Gas Company provides natural gas service to the site through a four-inch main with normal line pressure of 35 psi; Southwestern Electric Power Company provides the facility with electricity. The facility is for sale with a price of $4,500,000.

The third building is located in Rogers at 1211 South 8th Street and was previously occupied by Daisy BB Guns. The exterior walls are constructed with bricks and blocks, and the roof is metal with skylights. The facility has 200,000 square-feet of space and is for sale with 16 additional acres, price negotiable.

The fourth building, constructed in 1991, is located in Maysville at 26188 Timlake Road and was previously occupied by CDR Environmental, maker of N-Vitro Soil. The steel

Center for Business and Economic Research 21 facility has 130,304 square-feet of space (128,800 square-feet of manufacturing space and 225 square feet of office space) on 24-inch clay floors and is accompanied by 38.5 acres of land. Clearance under the beams ranges from 21 feet, 6 inches to 26 feet, 5 inches; the span between the beams ranges from 21 feet, 6 inches to 26 feet, 5 inches. The facility has 4 floor-level doors, 1 dock-high door, 4 truck wells, and 50 gravel parking spaces. The Union Pacific Railroad has a line 12 miles from the facility. A well supplies the facility with water service, and a septic system provides the facility with sewer services. Carroll Electric Cooperative provides the facility with electricity. The facility is for sale with a price of $950,000.

The fifth building, constructed in 1960, is located in Siloam Springs at 1111 Lake Francis Drive and was previously occupied by Webb Wheel, manufacturer of truck wheels. The metal facility has 55,866 square-feet of space (71,877 square-feet of manufacturing space and 15,720 square-feet of office space) on ten-inch concrete floors and is accompanied by 5.15 acres of land. Clearance under the beams ranges from 12 feet, 2 inches to 22 feet, 3 inches; the span between the beams ranges from 14 feet, 0 inches to 23 feet, 3 inches. The facility has 3 floor-level doors, 1 dock-high door, 5 truck wells, 1 rail door, 4 rail cars, and 65 paved parking spaces. The Kansas City Southern Railroad directly services the facility. The City of Siloam Springs supplies the facility with water services through a six-inch main, with a normal line pressure of 65 psi. The City of Siloam Springs also provides the facility with a ten-inch sewer main. The AWG provides the facility with natural gas through a two-inch main with a normal line pressure of 35 psi. The City of Siloam Springs provides the facility with electricity. The facility is for lease with a price of $8,845 per month or $1.9 per square-foot per year.

The final building, constructed in 2000, is located in Bentonville at 28 7th Street and was previously a spec building. The exterior of the 40,000 square-feet facility is concrete, the roof is metal, and the floors are six-inch concrete. The facility is accompanied by seven acres of land, with an additional two acres available for purchase. Clearance under the beams ranges from 27 feet, 0 inches to 28 feet, 6 inches; the span between the beams ranges from 28 feet, 0 inches to 32 feet, 0 inches. The facility has 15 dock-high doors and 69 paved parking spaces. The Arkansas-Missouri Railroad has a line three miles from the facility. The City of Bentonville supplies the facility with water services through a 12-inch main, with a normal line pressure of 88 psi. The City of Bentonville also provides the facility with an eight-inch sewer main. The AWG provides the facility with natural gas through a 4-inch main with a normal line pressure of 35 psi. The City of Bentonville provides the facility with electricity. The facility is for lease with a price of $24,750 per month or $3.5 per square-foot per year.

Sources: Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Site.asp?SiteNumber=SILO002 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Site.asp?SiteNumber=ROG001

Center for Business and Economic Research 22 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Site.asp?SiteNumber=BENV002 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Site.asp?SiteNumber=SILO001 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Site.asp?SiteNumber=BENV001 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Site.asp?SiteNumber=DEC001 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Building.asp?BldNumber=690 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Building.asp?BldNumber=826 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Building.asp?BldNumber=100526 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Building.asp?BldNumber=746 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Building.asp?BldNumber=753 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Building.asp?BldNumber=796

VI. Economic Goals

Benton County has had phenomenal economic development success in recent years. This success has lead to high per capita personal income, high average weekly wages in all sectors, and an enviable mix of high quality companies located in the county. The driver of most of this economic activity is the Wal-Mart corporate headquarters, located in Bentonville. A large number of Wal-Mart vendors have located offices in Benton County in order to be closer to their huge client. These management level jobs require relatively high education and compensate at high levels. Benton County also is home to the corporate headquarters for J.B. Hunt and Arvest. Further, the proximity of Benton County to the University of Arkansas ensures the availability of workers with a university education.

To ensure continued success, Benton County must invest in infrastructure so that growth can be coupled with high quality of life. While much of the basic framework is in place

Center for Business and Economic Research 23 for continued growth, foresight is necessary to avoid issues of congestion and urban sprawl that often accompany high growth rates. Partnership among the leadership of the communities of Benton and Washington Counties allows a consistent, strategic plan to be put into place that will address many of the issues that might arise to inhibit economic success.

VII. Opportunities for Future Business Development

Retail

Retailing is a mature business, and growth opportunities are limited, given the large number of retail outlets spread across the country. Demographic trends primarily affect retail sales. As demographic trends influence consumers' preferences and shopping patterns, they are important to retailers' understanding of target markets. For example, the Baby Boom Generation, comprising individuals born between 1946 and 1964, constitutes some 78 million Americans - about 30 percent of the U.S. population. As the Baby Boomers entered adulthood and formed households, they fueled much of the boom in retail sales in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, having swollen the ranks of Americans in their 40s and 50s, their priorities have shifted from youthful spending to tuition payments for children and to saving for retirement.

Shopping trends also affect all aspects of retailing, from store layout to merchandise assortment. Current shopping trends in the U.S retail market can be summarized as Price + Quality = Value, “cross shopping,” “precision shopping,” and “going casual.”

Although the American retail landscape is saturated with stores, sales can be increased by developing new markets overseas. Discount stores, like Wal-Mart, are expanding overseas more rapidly than other types of retailers, such as department stores. This is because discount stores offer low prices to attract customers; merchandising and cultural differences have made it unattractive for department stores, whose mainstay is apparel, to allocate the capital for overseas expansion.

Transportation

The evolution of electronic commerce has changed the way companies sell and ship their goods. The e-commerce segment that is radically altering the transportation industry is business-to-consumer. Traditionally, goods travel in a chain, from raw materials producer to manufacturer, distributor, retailer, and finally to consumer. But the Internet has shortened this process, essentially eliminating the middleman. This changing pattern will hurt full truckload carriers as shipments between manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are eliminated and as smaller lots prevail. On the other hand, package delivery, airfreight express, and less-than-truckload carriers will become beneficiaries of e-commerce. Currently, the first choice of Internet carriers is United Parcel Service (UPS) with a 55 percent share of all e-commerce transactions, according to Zona Research, a consulting firm based in Redwood City, California.

Center for Business and Economic Research 24 A shortage of qualified drivers has plagued the trucking industry’s long-haul truckload segment since the early 1990s. As recently as 2001, an estimated 80,000 driver slots remained unfilled. Among many factors contributing to the shortage include low pay, long absences of truck drivers from their families, and disrespectful treatment by shippers and carriers. The high turnover rates and driver shortages in the truckload industry can push up carriers’ costs. With industry turnover rates of about 100 percent, recruitment and training expenditures can cost some $3 billion annually. Further, the hiring of inexperienced drivers leads to an increase in accident rates, insurance costs, and claims paid out for damaged cargo, as the less experienced drivers tend to have more accidents than drivers with more tenure.

Trucking companies are coping with the driver shortage by avoiding long-haul freight or by routing such freight through intermodal rail service. Additionally, by harnessing sophisticated computer software, carriers can match drivers with loads moving in the direction of their domiciles. Many companies have installed on-board computers that link drivers to dispatchers and their families via satellite. Such devices steer drivers around congested roads, help them obtain faster road service, and let them communicate with their families and dispatchers without leaving the highway. These devices may become mandatory equipment for all vehicles if the Department of Transportation implements its proposed hours of service regulations.

Intermodal traffic is the movement of general freight, such as consumer goods and light industrial products, in trailers or containers by means of two or more transport modes. Though intermodal rail service fell out of favor with shippers in 2000 and likely in 2001, Standard and Poor’s believes this is temporary and that it will eventually become the preferred transport mode in certain markets. Some 35 percent of the intermodal market goes to truckload carriers, such as J.B. Hunt Transport and Schneider National (which together claim about 10 percent of the market), and to intermodal marketing companies, which are third-party intermediaries.

The future of the intermodal segment — the railroad industry’s fastest-growing business — is tied directly to the level of world economic activity, not to heavy industry or mining. Between 1980 and 1999, intermodal railroad traffic soared 196 percent — a compound annual rate of 5.9 percent. In April 2000, the Association of American Railroads, a Washington, D.C.–based trade organization, projected that 3.08 million trailers and 7.80 million containers would be moved by intermodal rail in 2004. This total of 10.88 million units would be up 33.8 percent from the 8.13 million units moved in 1994 (4.38 million containers and 3.75 million trailers). In the longer term, intermodal’s prospects are bright, as import/export business between the United States and the rest of the world grows and fuel prices and driver shortages push up truckload rates and force business onto the rails. Standard and Poor’s projects that once intermodal’s operations are smoothed out, with frequent departures and high on-time reliability, a large portion of e- commerce will be sent via intermodal transportation, since surveys demonstrate online purchasers’ willingness to sacrifice time for low costs.

Center for Business and Economic Research 25 Poultry

The domestic market for the U.S. agribusiness industry is relatively mature, with consistent but modest growth likely in the future. Demand for protein-rich foods is growing more rapidly in developing countries than in the United States, because of their higher population growth, rapid industrialization, and rising disposable income. Furthermore, agricultural output in such countries is growing less rapidly than consumption. Consequently, the U.S. agribusiness industry is strongly positioned to take advantage of future increases in worldwide food demand.

With the world’s gross domestic product expected to rise to nearly $10.1 trillion in 2009 (a 34 percent increase over the preceding 10 years), there is ample reason to expect ever- growing demands on the world’s agriculture. Whenever incomes begin to rise, one of the first things people do is to upgrade their diets. With increasing prosperity, people consume more food grains, meat, sweeteners, and vegetable oils. Since 1990, worldwide consumption of beef, pork, and poultry has surged approximately 29 percent.

Another trend in the U.S agribusiness industry is the number of market participants, ranging from farmers to processors, has steadily declined, as agriculture has moved toward vertical integration and consolidation. According to the Center for Rural Affairs, a private nonprofit group focused on rural development and agricultural policy, as of 2000, an estimated 80 percent of the U.S. beef market was controlled by 4 firms: Tyson Foods, ConAgra, Excel Corp., and Farmland National Beef Inc. These same firms, plus Smithfield Foods, controlled approximately 58 percent of the U.S. pork market. In 1999- 2000, 24 percent of pork producers went out of business. Today, 35 producers account for 95 percent of the pork slaughter capacity, although they operate only about 5 percent of the estimated 800 pork slaughterhouses in the United States. According to the National Chicken Council, during 2000, the top 8 chicken producers raised 64 percent of the broilers sold in the United States. Further consolidation in the poultry industry is expected to cut the number of broiler suppliers almost in half by 2010.

For the past three decades, much of the consolidation among meat processors occurred at the slaughter capacity level. Today, however, more and more companies are focusing on acquisitions that will expand their final offerings to include higher-margin processed and prepackaged meat that is ready for the consumer to heat and eat. These can include freshly cooked and frozen meats that have been marinated or seasoned. Advocates of consolidation believe that the process will lead agricultural producers toward more efficiency, less dependence on government assistance, and greater global competitiveness. Furthermore, as larger and more specialized producers realize lower production costs through economies of scale, these savings can be passed through to consumers in the form of lower commodity and processed food prices.

In the mean time, agribusiness is being transformed by modern technology. Technological developments have changed the way things are done on the farm, in assembly, in processing, and in distribution. An increasing number of farmers and ranchers are doing business over the Internet. According to the U.S. Department of

Center for Business and Economic Research 26 Agriculture, 55 percent of all farms were using computers in 2001, up from 38 percent in 1997. In 2000, 24 percent of farms used the Internet as a management tool in their farming operations, including $665 million in online buying and selling. Use of this technology allows farmers to receive and manage timely information in rural locations. In addition, nearly all farms that used the Internet in 2000 to purchase inputs indicated that they are likely to maintain or increase purchases in the future. Thus, with decreasing costs of computers and Internet access, growth in Internet use is likely to continue.

In April 2000, the world’s leading meat and poultry processors took the next step toward realizing “seamless” trade — the transacting of wholesale business without intermediaries, and the streamlining of the purchase and sales process to facilitate higher volumes. Tyson Foods Inc., Cargill, Smithfield Foods, Gold Kist Inc., and Farmland Industries Inc. launched an online marketplace, or portal, for meat and poultry products called Provision X; the venture is headquartered in Chicago. Provision X agreed to be acquired by iTradeNetwork (ITN) in February 2002. ITN provides online e-business solutions for 38 percent of the U.S. retail grocery and food service industries, including seven of the top fifteen food retailers in the nation.

Banking

Consolidation remains one of the banking industry’s most noteworthy trends. Standard and Poor’s believes that the banking world will consolidate further to improve efficiency, boost sustainable profits, and withstand heated competition from other financial services providers, both domestic and international. Over the next few years, Standard and Poor’s expects that many more medium-size regional banks (those with assets of $1 billion to $15 billion) will be absorbed by the super-regionals (assets of $25 billion or more). Companies and customers alike will benefit from the scale advantages that have resulted from this concentration, as long as substantial market share does not wind up in the hands of only one or two players, which would overly limit competition.

In the long term, it will be the lowest-cost banking providers that not only survive, but that thrive. To satisfy both fiscal and quality requirements, technological improvements have helped banks control expenses while providing better service. Electronic banking through telephones, automated teller machines, and personal computers improve customer service by offering 24-hour banking capabilities at convenient locations. Meanwhile, the costs of completing such transactions remain well below the more labor- intensive operations at bank branches.

Although the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in November 1999 is viewed as a legislation landmark in the banking industry, reform has not led to a rash of mergers between the three major businesses concerned: commercial banks, insurance companies, and investment banks. Standard and Poor’s believes that this is because banks had already gained the right to engage in limited securities underwriting as restrictions were eased over the last two decades, and because banks do not regard the insurance business as particularly enticing. Banks may be tempted to purchase an insurance operation to become more vertically integrated, or to add an insurance company’s sizable investment

Center for Business and Economic Research 27 portfolio to its own. However, many insurance lines, such as property-casualty, are actually quite volatile and potentially high in risk, and their investment returns can be lower than those of traditional banking businesses. The underwriting of annuities or life insurance products, where banks can get a better assessment of risk than in property/casualty lines, would seem to fit banks’ appetite for risk and return better. Banks do have something to offer insurance companies — notably, large distribution networks and broad customer lists, where cross-selling could create opportunities.

Food Production

Demographic changes in the U.S. are reshaping the American food industry. To achieve success in the highly competitive U.S. food industry, companies need a keen understanding of these trends.

The Baby Boom generation- now between the ages of 37 and 55 and accounts for 30 percent of the current U.S. population- creates significant new consumer needs. This generation is at a stage of life in which people usually focus more on nutrition and weight maintenance. Yet in many instances, Baby Boomers’ increased work and family responsibilities reduce their time available for exercise. New products seeking to satisfy these needs are “better-for-you” foods that are low-fat, low-sodium, and convenient to prepare. Studies show that average caloric needs for people aged 50 and older decline by about 10 percent every 10 years. At the same time, older adults tend to have a reduced ability to digest food and absorb nutrients. This factor has led to an expanded market for nutrient-enriched drinks in recent years.

In the over-65 group, nutrition and digestibility remain key dietary concerns. Packaging is also important for this group. Studies show that older consumers prefer packaged food products that are easy to open and have legible labels. Older consumers’ demands for nutritionally enriched items may create a new era in processed food industry. Today’s food makers say their next step may be to compete with the pharmaceutical industry by offering “nutraceuticals” — processed food products that would replace vitamin supplements and other dietary aids, and eventually release products that will help prevent or even reverse some diseases. Currently under investigation is the role that soy proteins play in inhibiting cancer and heart disease. Also of interest is the potential link between antioxidant compounds — vitamin C, vitamin E, and beta-carotene — and the prevention of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and cataracts.

The population of American children aged five to 17 is projected to total approximately 52.4 million by 2005, according to Census Bureau estimates. This group has significant clout in influencing their parents’ purchases. Food manufacturers view these youngsters as important, and they hope to gain lifelong brand-loyal customers.

The increasing diversity of the minority segments of the U.S. population has and will continue to allow U.S. food companies to introduce ethnic cuisines more aggressively. Companies are now trying to make these products “more ethnic” by stressing traditional or “old country” recipes. Beside the established “big three” ethnic cuisines including

Center for Business and Economic Research 28 Mexican, Italian, and Chinese, increasingly popular ethnic food groups will include Indian cuisine and various East Asian cuisines, such as Japanese, Thai, and Vietnamese.

Consumer lifestyles also impact the food industry. Modern consumers face considerable time constraints, raising the demand for foods that are easy to prepare and serve. Food marketers estimate that the average American is willing to spend no more than 15 minutes preparing an ordinary meal. In addition, today’s shoppers increasingly want to purchase whole meals. Traditional categories such as frozen dinners have been expanded to include frozen breakfasts and lunches. Products specifically designed for microwave cooking have also proliferated.

As consumers’ expenditures on eating out have increased year to year (45.2 percent of total consumer spending on food products in 2001, compared with 44.9 percent in 2000, 42.2 percent in 1990 and 36.5 percent in 1980), food companies have taken advantage of this trend by establishing food service divisions that cater to what were once nontraditional markets — restaurants, schools, airports, corporate cafeterias, and so on. As food companies more frequently distribute their packaged food products through the service outlets, the business lines between food companies and food service outlets are becoming less distinct.

Automotive Parts Manufacturing

The aging of the U.S. automobile population, along with its growing size, should benefit firms producing replacement auto parts. The median age of U.S. passenger cars increased to 8.1 years as of June 30, 2001, up from 6.5 years as of June, 30, 1990, according to R.L. Polk & Co., a research firm based in Southfield, Michigan. All vehicles need maintenance. As they get older and out of warranty, they need general repairs. Typically, during the first three to five years of a vehicle's life, brake pads and batteries need to be replaced. At around seven years, spending rises as belts, hoses, alternators, and starters begin to need replacement. The value of repair spending peaks at around 11 years of age, as parts wear out, but even at that age a fixed-up vehicle could last long enough to make repairs financially worthwhile, versus buying a new vehicle. Given such favorable automobile demographics, demand for repairs and replacement parts is expected to continue to trend upward, which will benefit manufactures of auto accessories and components.

Aircraft

The long-term prospects of the maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) industry are driven primarily by the expansion of the global commercial aircraft fleet. Standard & Poor’s calculates that the global commercial aircraft fleet will expand at a 4.1 percent compound average growth rate (CAGR) over the next 20 years.

However, growth in the MRO industry is also driven by the age of the global fleet; the older the planes, the more repair and overhaul work they need. Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, Avitas now forecasts that an average of 295 jets will be retired

Center for Business and Economic Research 29 annually between 2001 to 2005, a total that will rise to 315 jets annually between 2017 and 2021. As such, the average age of the global airline fleet should trend downward. Standard & Poor’s projects that the MRO market should grow to $50.1 billion in 2012, a very modest 10-year CAGR of 2.3 percent.

Despite the less-than-stellar forecasts, aviation companies are clamoring to boost their presence in the MRO business. The industry has a reputation for generating strong profit margins and return on equity (ROE), as well as steady earnings streams from long-term contract arrangements. For example, General Electric’s Aircraft Engine MRO business generates operating profit margins in excess of 20 percent from its long-term service contracts with major airlines. Several of the small pure-play MRO outfits, such as Triumph Group and HEICO Corp., post ROE in the 15 to 20 percent range. However, Standard & Poor’s believes that as more aviation companies, such as Boeing, expand their presence in the MRO business, industry profit margins and ROE could decline to 10 percent.

Hospitals

One of the persistent trends in the hospital industry is the steady decline in the number of hospitals in the United States. According to data published by the American Hospital Association (AHA), the number of U.S. hospitals declined 1.4 percent to 5,810, and the number of licensed beds declined 1.0 percent to 984,000 in 2000. Although the number of hospitals fell, admissions are rising. According to the same AHA survey, admissions rose 2.1 percent to 34.9 million in 2000. These statistics indicate that as the total number of hospitals has declined, capacity utilization — the percentage of occupied beds to total beds — has risen.

While inpatient admissions moderated, the number of patients treated in outpatient settings, whether hospital-based or freestanding outpatient clinics, surgery centers, or physicians’ offices, has grown dramatically due to the cost advantages of outpatient treatment. According to the most recent data available from the AHA, industry-wide outpatient visits reached 593 million in 2000, up more than 3.0 percent from 1999.

The growing role of information technology has become part of the marketing strategy utilized by hospitals. In general, hospitals are viewed as being in the early stages of general Internet use, with most of the sites currently providing basic information about a hospital and its services. It is less common for hospitals to utilize the Internet to provide information about disease management or doctor referrals, communicate with patients, or publish an online newsletter. Hospitals have also been increasing their use of information technology for administration and the storage of patient records, including images, such as those from x-rays, ultrasound, computed tomography (CAT), and positron emission tomography (PET). An area of increasing importance is the use of computer systems to make hospitals safer, particularly regarding medication errors.

With the restrictive pricing environment imposed by the realities of managed care organizations, hospitals’ cost-cutting measures are expected to focus on reducing staffing

Center for Business and Economic Research 30 levels and re-engineering to improve worker efficiency. The equipment categories that are likely to suffer the most include automated laboratory testing, cardiac catheterization, computed tomography, critical care, magnetic resonance imaging, nuclear medicine, radiation therapy, ultrasound, and x-rays. There are, however, some areas in which hospitals are expected to invest growing amounts in coming years. These include data processing equipment, telecommunications, energy-saving equipment (such as ventilation systems), and construction of new medical office buildings.

Capital Goods

The capital goods industry has a number of trends and themes: consolidation; customers' ever-growing demands for improved value and service; e-commerce initiatives; and the cyclical nature of the overall capital goods industry.

Consolidation remains a long-term trend in many capital goods sectors. Service companies, such as those in engineering and construction, can expand their geographic range or acquire specialty firms that extend their capabilities. Acquisitions are considered by these companies as a mean to add to a business’ portfolio. Through acquisition, the operating subsidiaries may optimize the use of the parent company's capital and to provide the most favorable returns to investors.

To meet customers’ demand, capital goods makers have applied sophisticated electronics to mechanical systems in order to enhance productivity, increase precision, facilitate maintenance, and provide operators with more complete information on the equipment's operating status. Reducing the complexity of the capital equipment is another tactic used by manufactures to improve the equipment's quality and reliability, while cutting the cost to buy and operate it.

The Internet is revolutionizing the way many capital goods manufacturers conduct business. The Internet will affect capital goods manufacturers positively or negatively, and to different degrees, based largely on whether a manufacturer produces price- sensitive, commodity-like products, or proprietary, hard-to-duplicate products. Makers of commodity products, such as nuts and bolts for the auto- and aircraft-manufacturing industries, are probably most vulnerable to the profit-squeezing potential of the Internet. While companies that make sophisticated, hard-to-duplicate industrial goods probably will not be affected much by the Internet.

The cyclical pattern for industrial machinery and equipment demand generally follows the strength of the economy. Growth in industrial equipment sales cooled dramatically over the past few years. Based on U.S. Census statistics, non-military, nonaircraft industrial equipment sales grew at only a 0.25 percent annual rate from 1999 through 2001. The slowing global economy, as well as global industrial overcapacity, forced many manufacturing businesses to reduce production rates dramatically.

Center for Business and Economic Research 31 Household Nondurable Goods Manufacturing

In the currently tough economic environment, household and personal care product companies are facing persistent pressure on revenues and earnings. In seeking to rejuvenate growth, one way to boost overall sales and profits is for a company to acquire faster growing businesses. At the other extreme, value might be better provided to shareholders by selling certain operations - or the entire company. At the same time, companies continue to be attracted to higher-growth opportunities in product lines that are new to them.

The slow growth trend of the U.S. population is likely to cause stagnation in consumer demand in coming years. Along with slow population growth, a long-term trend affecting the U.S. market is the aging of the population. The Baby Boom generation is nearing retirement. This is a time when consumption patterns are likely to shift radically, from a focus on material goods to an emphasis on healthcare, financial, and leisure services. Another consequence is a slowdown in the rate of household formations. This means reduced demand for items needed to set up and maintain a household, such as household cleaning and disposable products.

On the other hand, the aging U.S. population has been a driving force behind manufacturers' creation of new products. For example, many new products are clearly targeted at Baby Boomers. According to marketers, these individuals are keenly sensitive about their looks. Thus, women's eye creams and hair coloring are two categories that have shown strong sales increases over the past several years. Meanwhile, companies are also beginning to cater to the younger population. According to government statistics, the female teen market (aged 12 to 19) in the U.S. is expected to number 15.2 million by 2001, a 6.3 percent increase from 14.3 million in 1995. As dual-income and single-parent families have become more common, household nondurables companies have developed products to address consumers' lack of free time. These include "multipurpose" cleaning products that can be used for a variety of cleaning jobs, from cutting grease to cleaning glass, and detergents that contain bleach (or bleach substitutes) as well as softeners.

As product lines mature, companies often reinvent an older product by enhancing it. The result is generally an improved product for which the company can charge a higher price, thereby increasing margins. While this practice is not new, it appears that companies are using it more frequently as a way of driving profitability in markets where it is difficult to develop new product categories. A healthy domestic economy with low unemployment levels, coupled with Baby Boomers who want to take good care of themselves, has helped to create a market for higher-end household and personal care products.

Over the past several years, private-label goods - products sold under specific retailers' brand names - have constituted a growing threat to U.S. makers of brand-name household and personal products. Consumers have become more accepting of these items as their quality and packaging have improved. Price has provided an even more compelling motivation; private-label goods typically cost consumers 30 percent to 40 percent less than their branded counterparts. Although shoppers are less willing to entrust certain

Center for Business and Economic Research 32 personal care products, such as skin care and feminine hygiene needs, to store brands, they are more willing to experiment with paper products and cleaning supplies. Markets in which private-label products enjoy a share greater than 10 percent include disposable diapers, fabric softener sheets, garden and trash bags, liquid bleach, moist towelettes, mouthwash, plastic wrap, food storage bags, sanitary pads, and toilet tissue.

Faced with uninspiring growth prospects and ever-increasing competition domestically, the major U.S. household and personal care companies have aggressively built operations in faster-growing markets overseas. Developing nations in Latin America and Southeast Asia have become primary avenue of growth for household nondurables companies. Youthful populations, growing labor forces, rising purchasing power, and rapid urbanization are among factors that will contribute to an explosion in demand for consumer nondurables in these countries. There are both negative and positive sides to expansions to the developing nations. On the negative side, the distribution can be substantially more difficult, as roads are often in disrepair or even nonexistent. On the plus side, advertising and promotional costs are likely to be lower than in industrialized nations because there is less competition. In addition, manufacturing costs can be kept under control by using local labor, which is typically less expensive.

Furniture

Two reasons for optimism in the appliances and furniture industries are the current U.S demographics and housing trends. The main population group targeted by the industry is 35-to-64 year-olds, which is the fastest-growing segment in the United States. This group comprises individuals who have reached their peak spending years and who are likely to trade up in the housing market and to replace earlier purchases of major durables, such as furniture and appliances. As consumers enter their prime income-earning years (between 35 and 55 years of age), they are more likely to replace old, inexpensive furniture with new, higher-quality brands and to renovate their kitchens with state-of-the-art appliances. The most popular remodeling projects are those with the biggest payoffs in terms of home values. Topping the list are minor kitchen improvements, followed by major kitchen improvements (both of which foster demand for new appliances) and the addition of a master suite (which spurs demand for bedding and other furnishings).

In the meantime, houses in U.S. are getting larger. More total floor space and a greater number of rooms per house translate into more furniture and appliance sales. In 2000, new homes averaged 2,273 square feet, versus 1,645 square feet in 1975, according to the Census Bureau. Home ownership is also growing. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of householders owning houses rose to 68 percent during the fourth quarter of 2001, up from 67.4 percent for all of 2000 and 63.8 percent in 1988. This bodes well for furniture manufacturers, as homeowners generally buy more furniture and spend more dollars per item than do renters.

Demographics also suggest that the housing market for consumers who can afford new homes is fairly saturated. Standard & Poor's forecasts that housing starts will rise only about one percent from 1.61 million (revised) in 2000 to 1.63 million units in 2005. This

Center for Business and Economic Research 33 suggests that during the next five years, furniture and appliance manufacturers will depend more on replacement demand, including remodeling purchases, than in the prior decade. In that environment, companies will need innovative, stylish, and attractively priced products to stimulate sales.

On the distribution side, strategies and channels for both furniture and appliance sales are changing. The number of single-vendor furniture stores - retail outlets that sell just one brand of furniture - has been rising in recent years. The single-vendor retail stores benefit both manufacturers and retailers. For manufactures, the benefits include attracting a dedicated customer and enjoying more floor space and a higher brand profile than in a multivendor format. By building a network of retail locations, manufacturers create a customer base for their products and enhance their brands. For retailers, the benefits include exclusive distribution territories, the efficiency of working closely with just one vendor, and brand-name recognition. While single-vendor stores may be smaller than multivendor units, their sites are usually highly trafficked by consumers. The single- vender stores are usually highly trafficked by consumers, typically resulting in higher sales and profits per square foot than in traditional stores.

A continuing challenge for U.S. manufacturers is to compete for domestic market share with the ever-growing number of foreign producers. Although it is beneficial to U.S. consumers in the form of lower furniture prices, the outsourcing trend means a continued reduction in domestic manufacturing and manufacturing jobs.

Source: Standard and Poor’s NetAdvantage. http://0-www.netadvantage.standardpoor.com.library.uark.edu/

Center for Business and Economic Research 34 AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF MADISON COUNTY IN NORTHWEST ARKANSAS

Center for Business and Economic Research Reynolds Center Building 217 Sam M. Walton College of Business 1 University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-1201 (479) 575-4151 August 30, 2002

An Economic Analysis of Madison County in Northwest Arkansas

I. Geographic Description

Madison County is comprised of 837 square miles and is located in the central portion of Northwest Arkansas in the two physiographic regions of the Boston Mountains in the southern portion of the county and the Springfield Plateau in the northern portion of the county. Figure 1 highlights the counties that comprise the Northwest Arkansas region, as defined by the Arkansas Department of Economic Development. Madison County is shown in red; all other counties in the region are shown in yellow.

Figure 1 – Madison County’s Location

The headwaters of the Kings River are found in the southeastern portion of Madison County; the river flows north through Carroll County into Table Rock Lake in Barry County, Missouri. The headwaters of the White River are found in Madison County; the river flows northwest into Washington County, into Beaver Lake, and eventually into the Mississippi River in Desha County in southeastern Arkansas. The Ozark National Forest and White Rock Wildlife Management Area are found in the extreme southern portion of the county.

Sources: United States Census Bureau. State and County QuickFacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/05/05087.html Chart 2-5: Physiographic Regions. Arkansas Statistical Abstract – 2000. April 2000. Census State Data Center, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Page 72. The Rand McNally Road Atlas, 2002 Edition. Page 10.

II. Demographic Characteristics

Population

In 1980, the population of Madison County was 11,373 persons. The county ranked 58th in terms of population among Arkansas’ 75 counties and 12th among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas. By 1990, the population of the county had increased 2.2 percent to 11,618 to rank 58th among Arkansas’ counties and 13th among the counties in Northwest

Center for Business and Economic Research 1

Arkansas. From 1980 to 1990, the population of the state of Arkansas increased 2.8 percent from 2,286,435 to 2,350,725; from 1990 to 2000, the state’s population increased 13.7 percent to 2,673,400 persons. In 2000, the population of Madison County stood at 14,243, an increase of 22.6 percent from 1990. The county was the 54th most populous county in Arkansas and the 13th most populous county in Northwest Arkansas in 2000. The three most populous cities in Madison County and their populations in the year 2000 were Huntsville (1,931), St. Paul (163), and Hindsville (75). Huntsville is the county seat for Madison County.

DRI-WEFA, an economic analysis consulting firm, projects the population of Madison County will increase by 6.0 percent to 15,100 people in the year 2010. If the projections are realized, Madison County will be the 51st most populous county in Arkansas and the 13th most populous county in Northwest Arkansas.

The gender makeup of Madison County is similar to that of the state on the whole. In the year 2000, the proportions of males and females in the county were 49.9 percent and 50.1 percent, respectively, compared to 48.8 percent and 51.2 percent, respectively, for the state.

In the year 2000, Madison County had the 35th oldest median age, the 14th highest proportion of residents under age 18, and the 30th lowest proportion of residents age 65 and older among all Arkansas counties. In the year 2000, the median age of residents in Madison County was 37.7 years, compared to 36.0 years for the state. In 1990 and 2000, the proportion of the county’s population under 18 years of age was 26.8 percent; for the same period, the proportion of Arkansans under 18 years of age decreased from 26.4 percent to 25.4 percent. From 1990 to 2000, the proportion of the county’s population that was 65 years of age or older decreased from 16.4 percent to 14.4 percent; for the same period, the proportion of Arkansans age 65 or older decreased from 14.9 percent in 1990 to 14.0 percent in 2000.

The racial composition of Madison County is decidedly more Caucasian than the population for the state on the whole. In 2000, the proportions of Madison County’s population comprised of Caucasians, African Americans, American Indians and Native Alaskans, and Asians were 95.9 percent, 0.1 percent, 1.2 percent, and 0.1 percent, respectively. For the state, in 2000, the proportions of Caucasians, African Americans, American Indians and Native Alaskans, and Asians were 80.0 percent, 15.7 percent, 0.7 percent, and 0.8 percent, respectively. In 2000, the proportion of residents in Madison County who were Hispanic was 3.1 percent, compared to the state’s proportion of 3.2 percent.

Sources: United States Census Bureau, Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990. http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/ar190090.txt United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File.

Center for Business and Economic Research 2

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_ 2000_PL_U_GCTPL_ST7&_geo_id=04000US05 The Rand McNally Road Atlas, 2002 Edition. Page 10. DRI-WEFA, U.S. Regional Analysis. Data supplied by the Institute for Economic Advancement, University of Arkansas-Little Rock. United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/04005.pdf United States Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 1990. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_ 1990_STF1_DP1&_geo_id=04000US05 United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/05005087.pdf United States Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Table DP-1. General Population and Housing Characteristics: 1990. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_ 1990_STF1_DP1&_geo_id=05000US05087

Income

Table 1 presents median household income and median family income for the year 1999 and per capita personal income for the year 2000 for Madison County. The table also ranks Madison County in terms of these income statistics among the 75 counties in Arkansas and the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas.

Table 1 – Madison County Income Statistics Arkansas Northwest Arkansas

Madison Percent Range Range Income Statistic County of State Rank Low High Rank Low High 1999 Median Household Income $27,895 86.7% 46 $20,510 $42,569 12 $21,397 $40,281 1999 Median Family Income $32,910 85.1% 48 $25,846 $48,717 12 $27,580 $45,235 2000 Per Capita Personal Income $17,901 81.4% 53 $14,303 $30,447 11 $14,303 $25,358

Table 2 presents poverty statistics for different resident groups in Madison County and for the State of Arkansas in 1999. The table ranks the county among the 75 counties in Arkansas and among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas in terms of the three poverty rates presented. For example, the county ranked 28th among the counties in Arkansas and 3rd among the counties in Northwest Arkansas in terms of the poverty rate for individuals in 1999.1

1 Note: Rankings are from highest poverty rate to lowest. Hence, a ranking of one indicates relatively high levels of poverty, and a ranking of 75 indicates relatively low levels of poverty.

Center for Business and Economic Research 3

Table 2 – Madison County Poverty Rates, 1999 Arkansas Northwest Arkansas County Arkansas Range Range Poverty Statistic Rate Rate Rank Low High Rank Low High Individuals 18.6% 15.8% 28 7.2% 32.7% 3 10.1% 23.8% Families with Related Children 21.1% 18.1% 27 7.8% 40.8% 3 11.2% 26.4% Individuals 65 and Older 18.0% 13.8% 25 7.3% 27.6% 3 8.6% 26.6%

Table 3 presents average weekly earnings for covered employment in Madison County in the year 2001. The table also displays average weekly earnings as a proportion of the state’s figure and ranks Madison County in terms of average weekly earnings relative to the counties in Arkansas and Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For example, in terms of average weekly earnings in the manufacturing sector, Madison County ranked 47th among the 71 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 9th among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available.

Table 3 – Madison County Average Weekly Earnings, by Sector, Calendar Year 2001 Arkansas Northwest Arkansas Average Weekly Percent Range Range Sector Earnings of State Rank Low High Rank Low High Manufacturing $456.57 79.5% 47 / 71 $260.75 $894.22 9 / 15 $312.98 $587.60 Wholesale Trade $995.14 138.8% 1 / 68 $214.77 $995.14 1 / 14 $214.77 $995.14 Retail Trade $286.41 84.3% 45 / 73 $215.61 $439.32 9 / 15 $244.32 $358.05 Information $794.33 117.7% 6 / 56 $306.77 $869.54 2 / 12 $348.10 $832.62 Financial Activities $465.79 73.6% 37 / 73 $282.76 $829.55 10 / 14 $282.76 $622.20 Professional and Business Services $396.39 63.4% 45 / 68 $218.14 $955.05 10 / 15 $256.91 $955.05 Education and Health Services $333.58 61.5% 60 / 74 $231.49 $668.35 14 / 16 $231.49 $649.85 All Sectors $413.62 79.8% 48 / 75 $316.63 $681.93 9 / 16 $316.63 $631.34

Table 4 presents the share of personal income in Madison County in 2000 attributable to different sectors of the economy. The table displays how this share compares to the proportion for the state in aggregate and ranks Madison County in terms of the share of personal income attributed to the sectors relative to the counties in Arkansas and Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For example, in terms of the share of personal income attributed to the manufacturing sector, Madison County ranked 46th among the 73 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 12th among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available.

Center for Business and Economic Research 4

Table 4 – Disposition of Personal Income in Madison County, by Sector, Year 2000 Greater Arkansas Northwest Arkansas Share of or Less Range Range Personal than Sector Income State Rank Low High Rank Low High Farm Earnings 14.8% 12.2% 2 / 75 0.1% 15.9% 2 / 16 0.4% 15.9% Manufacturing 10.4% -3.9% 46 / 73 1.3% 77.9% 12 / 15 3.4% 27.1% Transportation and Utilities 3.0% -2.7% 51 / 71 1.3% 14.5% 9 / 15 1.8% 14.5% Wholesale Trade 0.7% -2.8% 57 / 67 0.2% 11.4% 11 / 15 0.4% 5.9% Retail Trade 3.1% -4.7% 67 / 75 1.4% 24.4% 15 / 16 2.4% 24.4% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 1.4% -2.0% 63 / 71 0.8% 8.0% 14 / 15 1.1% 3.5% Services 6.4% -8.5% 55 / 75 3.3% 29.0% 12 / 16 4.8% 29.0% Business Services 1.3% -1.3% 21 / 65 0.1% 10.5% 7 / 14 0.2% 5.5% Health Services 1.6% -4.6% 65 / 72 0.5% 14.4% 15 / 16 0.5% 14.4% Hotel and Lodging 0.1% -0.2% 46 / 55 0.04% 1.9% 13 / 14 0.05% 1.9% Amusement and Recreation Services N/A N/A N/A 0.03% 1.0% N/A 0.03% 1.0%

The sale of livestock accounted for 99.4 percent of Madison County’s cash receipts from farm marketings in the year 2000. Livestock cash receipts and total cash receipts for Madison County in the year 2000 were $110.8 million and $111.5 million, respectively; the county ranked eighth in terms of the former and 11th in terms of the latter among Arkansas’ counties. Cash receipts for crops and government payments for Madison County in the year 2000 totaled $718,000 and $878,000, respectively; the county ranked 51st in terms of the former and 42nd in terms of the latter among Arkansas’ counties. The county ranked 27th among Arkansas’ counties in terms of total production expenses in the year 2000, $83.4 million. As of January 1, 2002, Madison County had a total of 66,000 cattle and calves and 35,000 beef cows; the county ranked 4th in terms of the number of cattle and calves and in terms of the number of beef cows among the counties in Arkansas.

Sources: United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/04005.pdf United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/05005087.pdf U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Table CA1-3: Personal Income Summary Estimates. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/ Arkansas Employment Security Department, Covered Employment and Earnings, Annual 2001. Table 6: County Summary Employment and Earnings, by Industry, Calendar Year 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/01antb6.htm Arkansas Employment Security Department, Covered Employment and Earnings, Annual 2001. Table 1: Average Covered Employment and Average Weekly Earnings, by Industry, 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/01antb1.htm

Center for Business and Economic Research 5

U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income. Table CA05 – Personal Income by Major Source and Earnings by Industry. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/ Arkansas Agricultural Statistics Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 2001 County Profiles. http://www.nass.usda.gov/ar/madison.PDF

Education

Madison County contains the following three school districts, with October 1, 2000 enrollment found in parentheses: Huntsville (2,045), Kingston (271), and St. Paul (347). Table 5 displays the average ACT composite score for high school seniors (which ranges from 1 to 36, with 36 being the best), the attendance rate, the dropout rate (percentage of students dropping out of school in Grades 7-12 from October of one school year to October of the next school year), the graduation rate (percentage of students enrolled in Grade 9 and completing Grade 12), and the college remediation rate (percentage of freshmen entering an Arkansas college or university who are required to take at least one remedial class) for the above school districts and for the state in aggregate.

Table 5 – Educational Statistics for Madison County Schools, 2000-2001 School Year School District ACT Attendance Dropout Graduation College Composite Rate Rate Rate Remediation Rate Score Huntsville 19.3 91.9% 4.0% 80.3% 26.0% Kingston 20.3 96.1% 0.8% 95.0% 67.0% Saint Paul 19.4 90.5% 0.6% 96.4% 80.0% State Average 20.1 93.2% 3.0% 84.3% 41.0%

Among the 301 school districts in Arkansas for which data were available, the ACT composite scores for the school districts in Madison County ranked as follows: Huntsville (tied for 175th), Kingston (tied for 101st), and St. Paul (tied for 166th); because of ties, the rankings ranged from 1 through 299. Among the 72 school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the ACT composite scores for the school districts in Madison County ranked as follows: Huntsville (57th), Kingston (tied for 41st), and St. Paul (tied for 55th). District- wide average ACT composite scores for the 301 school districts in Arkansas for which data were available ranged from 24.0 to 14.0; for the school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the district-wide average ACT composite scores ranged from 24.0 to 15.8.

Among the 307 school districts in Arkansas for which data were available, the dropout rates for the school districts in Madison County ranked as follows: Huntsville (tied for 56th), Kingston (tied for 250th), and St. Paul (tied for 264th); because of 27 districts’ being tied for last place with a 0.0 percent dropout rate, the rankings ranged from 1 through 285.2 Among the 72 school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the dropout rates for the school districts in Madison County ranked as follows: Huntsville (tied for 9th), Kingston

2 Note: Rankings are from highest dropout rate to lowest. Hence, a ranking of one indicates a relatively high dropout rate, and a ranking of 285 indicates a relatively low dropout rate.

Center for Business and Economic Research 6

(62nd), and St. Paul (tied for 64th); because of four districts’ being tied for 0.0 place with a zero percent dropout rate, the rankings ranged from 1 through 69. For the state, dropout rates ranged from 15.4 percent to 0.0 percent; for the districts in Northwest Arkansas, dropout rates ranged from 12.5 percent to 0.0 percent.

Among the 307 school districts in Arkansas for which data were available, the graduation rates for the school districts in Madison County ranked as follows: Huntsville (tied for 236th), Kingston (tied for 36th), and St. Paul (28th). Among the 72 school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the graduation rates for the school districts in Madison County ranked as follows: Huntsville (59th), Kingston (tied for 7th), and St. Paul (4th). For the state, graduation rates ranged from 100.0 percent to 23.6 percent; for the districts in Northwest Arkansas, graduation rates ranged from 100.0 percent to 63.2 percent.

Among the 307 school districts in Arkansas for which there were data available, the college remediation rates for the school districts in Madison County ranked as follows: Huntsville (tied for 262nd), Kingston (tied for 45th), and St. Paul (tied for 17th); because of 31 districts’ being tied for last place with a 0.0 percent college remediation rate, the rankings ranged from 1 through 281.3 Among the 72 school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the college remediation rate for the school districts in Madison County ranked as follows: Huntsville (tied for 64th), Kingston (tied for 6th), and St. Paul (1st); because of three districts’ being tied for last place with a 0.0 percent college remediation rate, the rankings ranged from 1 through 70. For the state, college remediation rates ranged from 100.0 percent to 0.0 percent; for the districts in Northwest Arkansas, college remediation rates ranged from 80.0 percent to 0.0 percent.

In the Huntsville School District, all three of the district’s schools are accredited by the North Central Association of Secondary Schools and Colleges (NCASSC). In the Kingston School District, neither of the district’s schools is accredited by the NCASSC. In the St. Paul School District, neither of the district’s schools is accredited by the NCASSC.

Table 6 displays the proportion of persons 25 years of age or older in Madison County with various levels of education in the year 2000. The table also presents the proportions for the state in aggregate and ranks the county among the 75 counties in Arkansas and among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas in terms of the four levels of education presented. For example, Madison County ranked 50th among Arkansas’ counties and 12th among the counties in Northwest Arkansas in terms of the proportion of the persons 25 years of age or older with a bachelor’s degree in 2000.

3 Note: Rankings are from highest remediation rate to lowest. Hence, a ranking of one indicates a relatively high dropout rate, and a ranking of 281 indicates a relatively low remediation rate.

Center for Business and Economic Research 7

Table 6 – Educational Attainment in Madison County, 2000 Arkansas Northwest Arkansas Range Range Level of Education County Arkansas Rank Low High Rank Low High Bachelor's Degree 7.0% 11.0% 50 4.2% 18.0% 12 5.4% 14.8% Graduate or Professional Degree 3.1% 5.7% 56 1.8% 10.1% 13 2.8% 9.8% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 10.1% 16.7% 51 6.3% 28.1% 12 8.4% 24.5% High School Diploma or Higher 67.8% 75.3% 55 56.2% 84.4% 14 65.4% 80.4%

There are eight Arkansas colleges and universities within 100 miles of Huntsville, Arkansas. The institutions, the number and type of degree programs offered at the institutions, and their enrollment statistics are presented below.

Arkansas State University – Mountain Home (ASUMH) is a two-year public college; the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board (AHECB) of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at ASUMH: certificates of proficiency in 5 program areas, technical certificates in 9 program areas, and associate degrees in 14 program areas. Opening fall enrollment for ASUMH was 1,238 persons in 2001, 8.5 percent greater than fall 2000. Opening fall enrollment for the two-year public institutions in Arkansas stood at 43,387 in 2001, 6.3 percent greater than fall 2000. ASUMH ranked 13th among the 23 two-year public institutions in Arkansas in terms of fall enrollment in 2001. Since 1997, fall enrollment at ASUMH has increased 45.3 percent, compared to a 16.6 increase percent for two-year public institutions in Arkansas.

Arkansas Tech University (ATU), located in Russellville, Arkansas in Pope County, is a four-year public university. The AHECB has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at ATU: technical certificates in 3 program areas, associate degrees in 10 program areas, baccalaureate degrees in 54 program areas, master’s degrees in 20 program areas, and a specialist degree in educational leadership. Opening fall enrollment for ATU was 5,576 in 2001, 7.8 percent greater than fall 2000. Opening fall enrollment for the four-year public universities in Arkansas stood at 65,704 in 2001, 2.4 percent greater than fall 2000. The school ranked fifth among the ten four-year public universities in terms of fall enrollment in 2001. Since 1997, fall enrollment at ATU has increased 31.6 percent, compared to a 4.8 percent increase for four-year public universities in Arkansas.

John Brown University (JBU), located in Siloam Springs, Arkansas in Benton County, is a private, four-year Christian college (interdenominational) that offers associate degrees in 6 program areas, baccalaureate degrees in 50 program areas, and master’s degrees in 6 program areas. Opening fall enrollment for JBU was 1,684 persons in 2001, 9.0 percent greater than fall 2000. Since 1997, fall enrollment has increased 27.1 percent.

Center for Business and Economic Research 8

North Arkansas College (NAC), located in Harrison, Arkansas in Boone County, is a two-year public college. The AHECB has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at the NAC: certificates of proficiency in 5 program areas, technical certificates in 25 program areas, an advanced certificate in electronics, and associate degrees in 26 program areas. Opening fall enrollment for NAC was 1,889 persons in 2001, 4.0 percent greater than fall 2000. The school ranked eighth among the 23 two-year public institutions in Arkansas in terms of fall enrollment in 2001. Since 1997, fall enrollment at NAC has decreased 14.6 percent.

Northwest Arkansas Community College (NWACC), located in Bentonville, Arkansas in Benton County, is a two-year public college. The AHECB has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at the NWACC: certificates of proficiency in 4 program areas, technical certificates in 3 program areas, associate degrees in 26 program areas, and an advanced certificate in medical dosimetry. Opening fall enrollment for NWACC was 4,292 persons in 2001, 5.8 percent greater than fall 2000. The school ranked third among the 23 two-year public institutions in Arkansas in terms of fall enrollment in 2001. Since 1997, fall enrollment at NWACC has increased 32.5 percent.

The University of Arkansas (UA), located in Fayetteville, Arkansas in Washington County, is the flagship institution of the University of Arkansas system. The AHECB has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at the UA: associate degrees in 2 program areas, baccalaureate degrees in 123 program areas, post-baccalaureate certificates in 2 program areas, master’s degrees in 101 program areas, specialist degrees in 8 program areas, doctoral degrees in 42 program areas, and a professional degree in law. Opening fall enrollment for the UA was 15,752 in 2001, 2.6 percent greater than fall 2000. The school ranked first among the ten four-year public institutions in Arkansas in terms of fall enrollment in 2001. Since 1997, fall enrollment at the UA has increased 7.5 percent.

In January 2002, Westark College, located in Fort Smith, Arkansas in Sebastian County, joined the University of Arkansas system, changed its name to the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith (UAFS), and became a four-year institution. The AHECB has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at UAFS: certificates of proficiency in 28 program areas, technical certificates in 17 program areas, associate degrees in 34 program areas, an advanced certificate in industrial automation, and baccalaureate degrees in 8 program areas. Opening fall enrollment at UAFS was 5,673 in 2001, 8.3 percent greater than fall 2000. Since 1997, fall enrollment at UAFS has increased 0.7 percent.

The University of the Ozarks, located in Clarksville, Arkansas in Johnson County, is a four-year private liberal arts university and offers baccalaureate degrees in 25 program areas. Opening fall enrollment for the University of the Ozarks was 654 persons in 2001, 5.1 percent greater than fall 2000. Since 1997, fall enrollment at the University of the Ozarks has increased 22.5 percent.

Center for Business and Economic Research 9

Sources: Arkansas Department of Education, Arkansas School Information Site, Performance Report, 2001. http://www.as-is.org/reportcard/rc2001/ North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement. http://www.ncacasi.org/ United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/05005087.pdf United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/04005.pdf Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Arkansas State Colleges and Universities. http://www.arkansashighered.com/colleges.html Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Approved Academic Degree and Certificate Programs. http://www.arkansashighered.com/pdfs/RP/degrees_2003.pdf Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Opening Fall Enrollment at Public Colleges and Universities. October 29,2001. http://www.arkansashighered.com/Research/Enrollment/Actual%20Enroll%20Fal l%202001.xls John Brown University, “Catalog for 2001-2003.” http://www.jbu.edu/academics/catalog/03catalog.pdf University of the Ozarks. http://www.ozarks.edu/academics/programs.html

III. Infrastructure

Ports

There are no navigable waterways in Madison County.

Source: Arkansas Waterways Commission. http://www.waterways.dina.org/waterways.html

Highways

Figure 2 displays the major cities, highways, lakes, and rivers found in Madison County. In 2004, a major widening of 4.89 miles of U.S. Highway 412 near the junction of Arkansas State Highway 45 is planned. Also in 2004, one mile of passing lanes will be added to Arkansas State Highway 23 at the border of Madison County and Carroll County.

Center for Business and Economic Research 10

Figure 2 – Madison County Cities, Highways, Lakes, and Rivers

Sources: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 2003-2005 Preliminary. http://www.ahtd.state.ar.us/contract/progcon/stip/stip%20by%20ffy%202003%2D 2005%20prelim.xls MapQuest.com, Inc. http://www.mapquest.com

Utilities

Table 7 displays the surplus water capacity, the surplus wastewater capacity, the electricity provider, and the natural gas provider for the City of Huntsville in Madison County.4

4 GPD = Gallons Per Day

Center for Business and Economic Research 11

Table 7 – Utilities for the City of Huntsville, Arkansas

Water Surplus Waste Water Electricity Natural Gas City Capacity Surplus Capacity Provider Provider Carroll Electric Arkansas Western Huntsville 0.2 million GPD At Capacity Cooperative Gas

The city is in the preliminary stages of planning to double their wastewater capacity from 2.0 million gallons per day to 4.0 million gallons per day.

Sources: Larry Garrett, City of Huntsville Water Department. Paul Richmond, Madison County Regional Water.

Railroads

The Arkansas & Missouri Railroad passes through Fayetteville, Greenland, Springdale, West Fork, and Winslow in Washington County west of Madison County and junctions with the Kansas City Southern Railroad in Fort Smith, with the Union Pacific Railroad in Van Buren, Arkansas, and with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad in Monette, Missouri.

The Missouri and Northern Arkansas Railroad passes through Bergman in Boone County northeast of Madison County in its 527-mile route from Kansas City, Missouri to Newport, Arkansas. The railroad has interchanges with the Union Pacific Railroad in Kansas City, Missouri and Newport, Arkansas; with the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad in Lamar, Aurora, and Springfield, Missouri; and with the Kansas City Southern Railroad in Joplin, Missouri.

The Union Pacific Railroad has a line running from its hub in Little Rock along the Arkansas River south of Madison County through Russellville, Clarksville, Ozark, Van Buren, and Fort Smith to a mainline junction in Muskogee, Oklahoma.

Sources: Arkansas & Missouri Railroad. http://www.arkansasmissouri-rr.com/map.html RailAmerica, Inc., North American Rail Group. http://www.railamerica.com/html/missouri___northern_arkansas_r.html RailAmerica, Inc. North American Rail Group. http://www.railamerica.com/railmaps/MNA.htm Union Pacific Railroad. http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/usguide/usa-ar.shtml

Airports

The Huntsville Municipal Airport is the only airport serving Madison County. The airport, located two miles southwest of Huntsville, has two turf runways, each 1,250 feet in length, and two asphalt runways, each 3,600 feet in length, that can accommodate a

Center for Business and Economic Research 12

12,500-pound single-wheel aircraft. There is no control tower at this airport. Services offered at the Huntsville Municipal Airport include aircraft parking (tie-downs) and flight instruction.

The four major airports closest to Madison County are the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport in Bentonville, Arkansas (roughly 40 miles northwest of Huntsville), Springfield- Branson Regional Airport in Springfield, Missouri (roughly 110 miles northeast of Huntsville), Tulsa International Airport in Tulsa, Oklahoma (roughly 130 miles west of Huntsville), and Adams Field Airport in Little Rock, Arkansas (roughly 170 miles southeast of Huntsville).

Sources: AirNav, LLC. Huntsville Municipal Airport: Huntsville, Arkansas. http://www.airnav.com/airport/H34

IV. Labor Force

A breakdown of covered employment for Madison County in 2001 is provided in Table 8 below.

Table 8 – Covered Employment for Madison County, 2001 Annual Averages

Average Average North American Industry Classification System Employing Covered Industry Group Units Employment Natural Resources & Mining 16 61 Construction 26 73 Manufacturing 22 951 Trade, Transportation & Utilities 64 522 Wholesale Trade 13 36 Retail Trade 38 373 Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities 13 113 Information 5 36 Financial Activities 11 98 Professional & Business Services 24 132 Education & Health Services 21 199 Leisure & Hospitality 10 118 Other Services 12 29 Local Government 8 470 State Government 9 60 Madison County - Total 226 2,749

Center for Business and Economic Research 13

The manufacturing sector accounted for 34.6 percent of total covered employment in Madison County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 20.5 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the manufacturing sector, the county ranked 14th among the 71 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 5th among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 62.4 percent (Calhoun County) to 5.1 percent (Perry County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Marion County’s 48.2 percent to Newton County’s 8.3 percent.

The wholesale trade sector accounted for 1.3 percent of total covered employment in Madison County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 4.1 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the wholesale trade sector, the county ranked 58th among the 68 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 12th ahead of Marion County and Carroll County among the 14 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 23.0 percent (Woodruff County) to 0.3 percent (Marion County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Boone County’s 7.5 percent to Marion County’s 0.3 percent.

The retail trade sector accounted for 13.6 percent of total covered employment in Madison County in 2001, compared to the state’s figures of 11.9 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the retail trade sector, the county ranked 20th among the 74 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 5th among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 18.9 percent (Saline County) to 2.7 percent (Calhoun County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Baxter County’s 14.5 percent to Benton County’s 8.6 percent.

The transportation, warehousing, and utilities sectors accounted for 4.1 percent of total covered employment in Madison County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 5.5 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the transportation, warehousing, and utilities sectors, the county ranked 27th among the 69 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 7th among the 14 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 18.4 percent (Little River County) to 0.8 percent (Marion County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Crawford County’s 17.7 percent to Marion County’s 0.8 percent.

The information sector accounted for 1.3 percent of total covered employment in Madison County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 1.9 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the information sector, the county ranked 13th among the 56 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 6th among the 12 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 3.6 percent (Pulaski County) to 0.3 percent (Little River County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Boone County’s 3.2 percent to Johnson County’s 0.4 percent.

Center for Business and Economic Research 14

The financial activities sector accounted for 3.6 percent of total covered employment in Madison County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 4.3 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the financial activities sector, the county ranked 37th among the 73 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 9th among the 14 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 7.5 percent (Pike County) to 1.9 percent (Nevada County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Marion County’s 5.0 percent to Scott County’s 2.3 percent.

The professional and business services sector accounted for 4.8 percent of total covered employment in Madison County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 9.2 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the professional and business services sector, the county ranked 18th among the 68 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 6th among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 23.3 percent (Benton County) to 0.5 percent (Woodruff County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Benton County’s 23.3 percent to Scott County’s 0.6 percent.

The education and health services sector accounted for 7.2 percent of total covered employment in Madison County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 11.3 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the education and health services sector, the county ranked 61st among the 74 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 12th among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas. For the state, the proportions ranged from 19.9 percent (Baxter County) to 2.2 percent (Little River County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Baxter County’s 19.9 percent to Crawford County’s 6.6 percent.

The leisure and hospitality sector accounted for 4.3 percent of total covered employment in Madison County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 7.8 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the leisure and hospitality sector, the county ranked 65th among the 73 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and last among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas. For the state, the proportions ranged from 16.7 percent (Carroll County) to 1.9 percent (Woodruff County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Carroll County’s 16.7 percent to Madison County’s 4.3 percent.

A summary of Madison County’s largest employers is presented in Table 9 below.

Table 9 – Madison County’s Largest Employers Company Name City Product Employees Butterball Turkey Huntsville Poultry D LaBarge Electronics Huntsville Electronic Assemblies B Meadowview Health & Rehabilitation Huntsville Skilled Care A Wal-Mart Huntsville Retail A Employee Codes – A: Less than 100; B: 100-250; D: 501-1,000

Center for Business and Economic Research 15

Figure 3 displays the annual unemployment rates for Madison County, the State of Arkansas, and the United States for the period 1995 through 2001. For the period, Madison County experienced unemployment rates well below the state and national averages; the annual unemployment rate in Madison County was between 1.0 percent below and 2.1 percent below the annual unemployment rate for the state and between 0.2 percent below to 2.6 percent below the annual unemployment rate for the U.S. for the period. In 2001, the unemployment rate in Madison County was 3.0 percent, compared to the state and national figures of 5.1 percent and 4.8 percent, respectively. Madison County had the 3rd lowest unemployment rate among Arkansas’ 75 counties and the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas in 2001 behind Benton County and Washington County. Unemployment rates in Arkansas ranged from 2.2 percent in Benton County to 13.9 percent in Mississippi County; unemployment rates in Northwest Arkansas ranged from Benton County’s 2.2 percent to Newton County’s 6.7 percent.

Figure 3 – Historical Unemployment Rate Comparisons: 1995-2001

6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Annual Averages Madison County Arkansas United States

Center for Business and Economic Research 16

Figure 4 displays the monthly unemployment rates for Madison County, the State of Arkansas, and the United States from June 2000 to June 2002.5

Figure 4 – Unemployment Rates, June 2000 – June 2002

6.5%

6.0%

5.5% 5.0%

4.5%

4.0%

3.5%

3.0% 2.5%

2.0%

1.5% Jun-00 Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02

Madison County Arkansas United States

Sources: Arkansas Employment Security Department, Covered Employment and Earnings, Annual 2001. Table 6: County Summary Employment and Earnings, by Industry, Calendar Year 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/01antb6.htm Arkansas Employment Security Department, Covered Employment and Earnings, Annual 2001. Table 1: Average Covered Employment and Weekly Earnings, by Industry, 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/01antb1.htm Largest Employers by County data from Arkansas Department of Economic Development. Arkansas Economic Security Department, Arkansas Revised Labor Force Statistics, Annual Average, 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/lmiaa01.htm Arkansas Employment Security Department, Arkansas Labor Force Statistics. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/lmilaborforcestats.htm

V. Available Industrial Sites and Buildings

There are no available industrial sites or industrial buildings in Madison County.

Source: Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/

5 Note: Data are not seasonally adjusted.

Center for Business and Economic Research 17

VI. Economic Goals

Madison County is home to an economy primarily composed of agriculture and manufacturing. The area also serves as home to a skilled nursing facility and has rural characteristics that are appealing to a retiree population. Madison County faces challenges if it is to take advantage of opportunities in the new economy. Low per capita personal income and high poverty rates are characteristics of the county. The population is relatively less educated at all levels than state averages.

Madison County is relatively isolated from major transportation corridors. Although U.S. Highway 412 runs east-west through the county, there is no major north-south highway to connect with larger routes. Therefore, Madison County needs to focus on home-grown industry to support rural development. Investing in education and skills training will make the available labor pool more able to adapt to changing economic conditions. There are eight postsecondary institutions within a hundred mile radius of Madison County, including the University of Arkansas. Madison County should encourage its population to seek out the skills that are necessary to compete in the knowledge-based jobs of the future.

VII. Opportunities for Future Business Development

Poultry

The domestic market for the U.S. agribusiness industry is relatively mature, with consistent but modest growth likely in the future. Demand for protein-rich foods is growing more rapidly in developing countries than in the United States, because of their higher population growth, rapid industrialization, and rising disposable income. Furthermore, agricultural output in such countries is growing less rapidly than consumption. Consequently, the U.S. agribusiness industry is strongly positioned to take advantage of future increases in worldwide food demand.

With the world’s gross domestic product expected to rise to nearly $10.1 trillion in 2009 (a 34 percent increase over the preceding 10 years), there is ample reason to expect ever- growing demands on the world’s agriculture. Whenever incomes begin to rise, one of the first things people do is to upgrade their diets. With increasing prosperity, people consume more food grains, meat, sweeteners, and vegetable oils. Since 1990, worldwide consumption of beef, pork, and poultry has surged approximately 29 percent.

Another trend in the U.S agribusiness industry is the number of market participants, ranging from farmers to processors, has steadily declined, as agriculture has moved toward vertical integration and consolidation. According to the Center for Rural Affairs, a private nonprofit group focused on rural development and agricultural policy, as of 2000, an estimated 80 percent of the U.S. beef market was controlled by 4 firms: Tyson Foods, ConAgra, Excel Corp., and Farmland National Beef Inc. These same firms, plus Smithfield Foods, controlled approximately 58 percent of the U.S. pork market. In 1999- 2000, 24 percent of pork producers went out of business. Today, 35 producers account

Center for Business and Economic Research 18 for 95 percent of the pork slaughter capacity, although they operate only about 5 percent of the estimated 800 pork slaughterhouses in the United States. According to the National Chicken Council, during 2000, the top 8 chicken producers raised 64 percent of the broilers sold in the United States. Further consolidation in the poultry industry is expected to cut the number of broiler suppliers almost in half by 2010.

For the past three decades, much of the consolidation among meat processors occurred at the slaughter capacity level. Today, however, more and more companies are focusing on acquisitions that will expand their final offerings to include higher-margin processed and prepackaged meat that is ready for the consumer to heat and eat. These can include freshly cooked and frozen meats that have been marinated or seasoned. Advocates of consolidation believe that the process will lead agricultural producers toward more efficiency, less dependence on government assistance, and greater global competitiveness. Furthermore, as larger and more specialized producers realize lower production costs through economies of scale, these savings can be passed through to consumers in the form of lower commodity and processed food prices.

In the mean time, agribusiness is being transformed by modern technology. Technological developments have changed the way things are done on the farm, in assembly, in processing, and in distribution. An increasing number of farmers and ranchers are doing business over the Internet. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 55 percent of all farms were using computers in 2001, up from 38 percent in 1997. In 2000, 24 percent of farms used the Internet as a management tool in their farming operations, including $665 million in online buying and selling. Use of this technology allows farmers to receive and manage timely information in rural locations. In addition, nearly all farms that used the Internet in 2000 to purchase inputs indicated that they are likely to maintain or increase purchases in the future. Thus, with decreasing costs of computers and Internet access, growth in Internet use is likely to continue.

In April 2000, the world’s leading meat and poultry processors took the next step toward realizing “seamless” trade — the transacting of wholesale business without intermediaries, and the streamlining of the purchase and sales process to facilitate higher volumes. Tyson Foods Inc., Cargill, Smithfield Foods, Gold Kist Inc., and Farmland Industries Inc. launched an online marketplace, or portal, for meat and poultry products called Provision X; the venture is headquartered in Chicago. Provision X agreed to be acquired by iTradeNetwork (ITN) in February 2002. ITN provides online e-business solutions for 38 percent of the U.S. retail grocery and food service industries, including seven of the top fifteen food retailers in the nation.

Skilled Care

As cost pressures throughout the healthcare industry have grown, nursing homes have converted segments of their facilities to provide sub-acute care, rehabilitation, or other higher-margin business lines. Many nursing home chains have developed expertise in skilled rehabilitation therapies, e.g., occupational, physical, speech, and respiratory. In addition, many now offer complex and intensive medical services to patients whose

Center for Business and Economic Research 19 health problems are more serious than those of the typical nursing home resident. This sub-acute care market niche provides a cost-efficient alternative to general acute-care hospitals.

The growth of assisted-living facilities will be driven by change in U.S. demographics. Individuals aged 85 and older — a group representing the largest number of users of long-term healthcare services — is currently the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population. At present, 3.6 million people are over the age of 85, and that number is expected to reach 5.7 million by 2010. Industry sources project that expenditures for senior living approximated $18 billion in 2000 and could reach $30 billion by 2005. Assisted-living services are provided largely to private-pay, long-term clients, but many states are developing regulatory structures to provide some reimbursement under Medicaid.

Beginning in the 1980s, the assisted-living industry emerged as an attractive housing alternative for frail and elderly persons who do not require intensive medical care. However, financial struggles have reduced the projected growth rate of this housing model over the past few years. Standard & Poor’s believes that assisted living remains desirable for individuals able to pay for the bulk of their housing needs. However, the industry will continue to struggle unless additional state and/or federal payment reimbursements are instituted.

Retail

Retailing is a mature business, and growth opportunities are limited, given the large number of retail outlets spread across the country. Demographic trends primarily affect retail sales. As demographic trends influence consumers' preferences and shopping patterns, they are important to retailers' understanding of target markets. For example, the Baby Boom Generation, comprising individuals born between 1946 and 1964, constitutes some 78 million Americans - about 30 percent of the U.S. population. As the Baby Boomers entered adulthood and formed households, they fueled much of the boom in retail sales in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, having swollen the ranks of Americans in their 40s and 50s, their priorities have shifted from youthful spending to tuition payments for children and to saving for retirement.

Shopping trends also affect all aspects of retailing, from store layout to merchandise assortment. Current shopping trends in the U.S retail market can be summarized as Price + Quality = Value, “cross shopping,” “precision shopping,” and “going casual.”

Although the American retail landscape is saturated with stores, sales can be increased by developing new markets overseas. Discount stores, like Wal-Mart, are expanding overseas more rapidly than other types of retailers, such as department stores. This is because discount stores offer low prices to attract customers; merchandising and cultural differences have made it unattractive for department stores, whose mainstay is apparel, to allocate the capital for overseas expansion.

Source: Standard and Poor’s NetAdvantage.

Center for Business and Economic Research 20

http://0-www.netadvantage.standardpoor.com.library.uark.edu/

Center for Business and Economic Research 21

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY IN NORTHWEST ARKANSAS

Center for Business and Economic Research Reynolds Center Building 217 Sam M. Walton College of Business 1 University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-1201 (479) 575-4151 August 30, 2002

An Economic Analysis of Washington County in Northwest Arkansas

I. Geographic Description

Washington County is comprised of 950 square miles and is located along the Oklahoma- Arkansas border in the physiographic regions of the Springfield Plateau in the northern portion of the county and the Boston Mountains in the southern portion of the county. Figure 1 highlights the counties that comprise the Northwest Arkansas region, as defined by the Arkansas Department of Economic Development. Washington County is shown in red; all other counties in the region are shown in yellow.

Figure 1 – Washington County’s Location

A small portion of the Ozark National forest is located in extreme northern and southern Washington County. The White River flows north from Madison County through Washington County into Beaver Lake.

Sources: United States Census Bureau. State and County QuickFacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/05/05143.html Chart 2-5: Physiographic Regions. Arkansas Statistical Abstract – 2000. April 2000. Census State Data Center, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Page 72. The Rand McNally Road Atlas, 2002 Edition. Page 10.

II. Demographic Characteristics

Population

In 1980, the population of Washington County was 100,494 persons. The county ranked second in terms of population among Arkansas’ 75 counties behind Pulaski County and first among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas. By 1990, the population of the county had increased 12.9 percent to 113,409 to rank second among Arkansas’ counties behind Pulaski County and first among the counties in Northwest Arkansas. From 1980 to 1990, the population of the state of Arkansas increased 2.8 percent from 2,286,435 to 2,350,725; from 1990 to 2000, the state’s population increased 13.7 percent to 2,673,400

Center for Business and Economic Research 1 persons. In 2000, the population of Washington County stood at 157,715, an increase of 39.1 percent from 1990. The county was the second most populous county in Arkansas behind Pulaski County and the most populous county in Northwest Arkansas in 2000. The five most populous cities in Washington County in 2000 were Fayetteville (58,047), Springdale (43,787 of the 45,798 residents of Springdale lived in Washington County), Farmington (3,605), Prairie Grove (2,540), and Johnson (2,319). Fayetteville is the county seat for Washington County.

DRI-WEFA, an economic analysis consulting firm, projects the population of Washington County will increase by 23.0 percent to 193,990 people in the year 2010. If the projections are realized, Washington County will be the second most populous county in Arkansas behind Pulaski County and the most populous county in Northwest Arkansas.

The gender makeup of Washington County is relatively more male than for the state as a whole. In the year 2000, the proportions of males and females in the county were 50.1 percent and 49.9 percent, respectively, compared to 48.8 percent and 51.2 percent, respectively, for the state.

In the year 2000, Washington County had the youngest median age (due in large part to the student population of the University of Arkansas, located in Fayetteville), the 29th lowest proportion of residents under age 18, and the second lowest proportion of residents age 65 and older among all Arkansas counties behind Faulkner County’s 9.5 percent. In the year 2000, the median age of residents in Washington County was 30.8 years, compared to 36.0 years for the state. From 1990 to 2000, the proportion of the county’s population that was under 18 years of age increased from 24.7 percent to 25.0 percent; for the same period, the proportion of Arkansans under 18 years of age decreased from 26.4 percent to 25.4 percent. From 1990 to 2000, the proportion of the county’s population that was 65 years of age or older decreased from 11.3 percent to 9.9 percent; for the same period, the proportion of Arkansans age 65 or older decreased from 14.9 percent in 1990 to 14.0 percent in 2000.

The racial composition of Washington County is more mixed in terms of minorities than for the state as a whole. In 2000, the proportions of Washington County’s population comprised of Caucasians, African Americans, American Indians and Native Alaskans, and Asians were 88.0 percent, 2.2 percent, 1.3 percent, and 1.5 percent, respectively. For the state, in 2000, the proportions of Caucasians, African Americans, American Indians and Native Alaskans, and Asians were 80.0 percent, 15.7 percent, 0.7 percent, and 0.8 percent, respectively. In 2000, the proportion of residents in Washington County who were Hispanic was 8.2 percent, compared to the state’s proportion of 3.2 percent; 14.9 percent of the state’s Hispanic population resided in Washington County in the year 2000.

Sources: United States Census Bureau, Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990. http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/ar190090.txt

Center for Business and Economic Research 2

United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_ 2000_PL_U_GCTPL_ST7&_geo_id=04000US05 The Rand McNally Road Atlas, 2002 Edition. Page 10. DRI-WEFA, U.S. Regional Analysis. Data supplied by the Institute for Economic Advancement, University of Arkansas-Little Rock. United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/04005.pdf United States Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 1990. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_ 1990_STF1_DP1&_geo_id=04000US05 United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/05005143.pdf United States Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Table DP-1. General Population and Housing Characteristics: 1990. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_ 1990_STF1_DP1&_geo_id=05000US05143

Income

Table 1 presents median household income and median family income for the year 1999 and per capita personal income for the year 2000 for Washington County. The table also ranks Washington County in terms of these income statistics among the 75 counties in Arkansas and the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas.

Table 1 – Washington County Income Statistics Arkansas Northwest Arkansas

Washington Percent Range Range Income Statistic County of State Rank Low High Rank Low High 1999 Median Household Income $34,691 107.8% 7 $20,510 $42,569 2 $21,397 $40,281 1999 Median Family Income $42,795 110.7% 7 $25,846 $48,717 2 $27,580 $45,235 2000 Per Capita Personal Income $21,363 97.1% 15 $14,303 $30,447 4 $14,303 $25,358

Table 2 presents poverty statistics for different resident groups in Washington County and for the State of Arkansas in 1999. The table ranks Washington County among the 75 counties in Arkansas and among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas in terms of the three poverty rates presented. For example, the county ranked 59th among the counties in Arkansas and 12th among the counties in Northwest Arkansas in terms of the poverty rate for individuals in 1999.1

1 Note: Rankings are from highest poverty rate to lowest. Hence, a ranking of one indicates relatively high levels of poverty, and a ranking of 75 indicates relatively low levels of poverty.

Center for Business and Economic Research 3

Table 2 – Washington County Poverty Rates, 1999 Arkansas Northwest Arkansas County Arkansa Ran Range Ran Range Poverty Statistic Rate s Rate k Low High k Low High 7.2 32.7 10.1 23.8 Individuals 14.6% 15.8% 59 % % 12 % % Families with Related 7.8 40.8 11.2 26.4 Children 14.2% 18.1% 67 % % 13 % % 7.3 27.6 26.6 Individuals 65 and Older 10.2% 13.8% 69 % % 13 8.6% %

Table 3 presents average weekly earnings for covered employment in Washington County in the year 2001. The table also displays average weekly earnings as a proportion of the state’s figure and ranks Washington County in terms of average weekly earnings relative to the counties in Arkansas and Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For example, in terms of average weekly earnings in the manufacturing sector, Washington County ranked 25th among the 71 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 3rd among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available.

Table 3 – Washington County Average Weekly Earnings, by Sector, Calendar Year 2001 Arkansas Northwest Arkansas Average Weekly Percent Range Range Sector Earnings of State Rank Low High Rank Low High Manufacturing $556.00 96.8% 25 / 71 $260.75 $894.22 3 / 15 $312.98 $587.60 Wholesale Trade $668.69 93.2% 8 / 68 $214.77 $995.14 3 / 14 $214.77 $995.14 Retail Trade $346.85 102.1% 6 / 73 $215.61 $439.32 3 / 15 $244.32 $358.05 Information $580.57 86.0% 18 / 56 $306.77 $869.54 5 / 12 $348.10 $832.62 Financial Activities $616.43 97.4% 3 / 73 $282.76 $829.55 2 / 14 $282.76 $622.20 Professional and Business Services $590.23 94.4% 10 / 68 $218.14 $955.05 2 / 15 $256.91 $955.05 Education and Health Services $609.77 112.5% 4 / 74 $231.49 $668.35 1 / 16 $231.49 $649.85 All Sectors $516.85 99.7% 10 / 75 $316.63 $681.93 3 / 16 $316.63 $631.34

Table 4 presents the share of personal income in Washington County in 2000 attributable to different sectors of the economy. The table displays how this share compares to the proportion for the state in aggregate and ranks Washington County in terms of the share of personal income attributed to the sectors relative to the counties in Arkansas and Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For example, in terms of the share of personal income attributed to the manufacturing sector, Washington County ranked 20th among the 73 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 4th among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available.

Center for Business and Economic Research 4

Table 4 – Disposition of Personal Income in Washington County, by Sector, Year 2000 Greater Arkansas Northwest Arkansas Share of or Less Range Range Personal than Sector Income State Rank Low High Rank Low High Farm Earnings 2.4% -0.2% 53 / 75 0.1% 15.9% 12 / 16 0.4% 15.9% Manufacturing 18.5% 4.2% 20 / 73 1.3% 77.9% 4 / 15 3.4% 27.1% Transportation and Utilities 6.8% 1.1% 9 / 71 1.3% 14.5% 4 / 15 1.8% 14.5% Wholesale Trade 5.6% 2.1% 5 / 67 0.2% 11.4% 2 / 15 0.4% 5.9% Retail Trade 8.5% 0.7% 5 / 75 1.4% 24.4% 4 / 16 2.4% 24.4% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 3.4% 0.0% 4 / 71 0.8% 8.0% 2 / 15 1.1% 3.5% Services 17.9% 3.0% 6 / 75 3.3% 29.0% 3 / 16 4.8% 29.0% Business Services 3.4% 0.8% 4 / 65 0.1% 10.5% 2 / 14 0.2% 5.5% Health Services 7.5% 1.3% 9 / 72 0.5% 14.4% 3 / 16 0.5% 14.4% Hotel and Lodging 0.4% 0.1% 12 / 55 0.04% 1.9% 4 / 14 0.05% 1.9% Amusement and Recreation Services 0.4% 0.1% 7 / 48 0.03% 1.0% 3 / 10 0.03% 1.0%

The sale of livestock accounted for 99.0 percent of Washington County’s cash receipts from farm marketings in the year 2000. Livestock cash receipts and total cash receipts for Washington County in the year 2000 were $377.7 million and $381.6 million, respectively; the county ranked first both in terms of livestock cash receipts and total cash receipts among Arkansas’ counties. Cash receipts for crops and government payments for Washington County in the year 2000 totaled $3.9 million and $801,000, respectively; the county ranked 35th in terms of the former and 43rd in terms of the latter among Arkansas’ counties. The county ranked first among Arkansas’ counties in terms of total production expenses in the year 2000, $309.5 million. As of January 1, 2002, Washington County had a total of 111,000 cattle and calves and 58,000 beef cows; the county ranked second in terms of the former and first in terms of the latter among the counties in Arkansas.

Sources: United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/04005.pdf United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/05005143.pdf U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Table CA1-3: Personal Income Summary Estimates. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/ Arkansas Employment Security Department, Covered Employment and Earnings, Annual 2001. Table 6: County Summary Employment and Earnings, by Industry, Calendar Year 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/01antb6.htm Arkansas Employment Security Department, Covered Employment and Earnings, Annual 2001. Table 1: Average Covered Employment and Average Weekly Earnings, by Industry, 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/01antb1.htm

Center for Business and Economic Research 5

U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income. Table CA05 – Personal Income by Major Source and Earnings by Industry. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/ Arkansas Agricultural Statistics Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 2001 County Profiles. http://www.nass.usda.gov/ar/washing.PDF

Education

Washington County contains the following nine school districts, with October 1, 2000 enrollment found in parentheses: Elkins (953), Farmington (1,617), Fayetteville (7,957), Greenland (886), Lincoln (1,012), Prairie Grove (1,308), Springdale (11,422), West Fork (1,055), and Winslow (318). Table 5 displays the average ACT composite score for high school seniors (which ranges from 1 to 36, with 36 being the best), the attendance rate, the dropout rate (percentage of students dropping out of school in Grades 7-12 from October of one school year to October of the next school year), the graduation rate (percentage of students enrolled in Grade 9 and completing Grade 12), and the college remediation rate (percentage of freshmen entering an Arkansas college or university who are required to take at least one remedial class) for the above school districts and for the state in aggregate.

Table 5 – Educational Statistics for Washington County Schools, 2000-2001 School Year School District ACT Attendance Dropout Graduation College Composite Rate Rate Rate Remediation Rate Score Elkins 21.0 95.5% 1.9% 84.6% 50.0% Farmington 19.8 92.8% 1.4% 91.2% 71.0% Fayetteville 23.2 92.5% 1.8% 85.6% 22.0% Greenland 21.3 94.1% 0.2% 92.7% 41.0% Lincoln 19.6 92.2% 0.2% 93.3% 43.0% Prairie Grove 20.6 95.0% 1.8% 84.0% 50.0% Springdale 21.5 93.8% 3.8% 78.7% 35.0% West Fork 20.8 94.2% 1.2% 85.8% 46.0% Winslow 21.4 93.6% 3.4% 71.8% 0.0% State Average 20.1 93.2% 3.0% 84.3% 41.0%

Among the 301 school districts in Arkansas for which data were available, the ACT composite scores for the school districts in Washington County ranked as follows: Elkins (tied for 50th), Farmington (tied for 131st), Fayetteville (3rd), Greenland (tied for 34th), Lincoln (tied for 147th), Prairie Grove (tied for 79th), Springdale (tied for 27th), West Fork (tied for 67th), and Winslow (tied for 29th); because of ties, the rankings ranged from 1 through 299. Among the 72 school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the ACT composite scores for the school districts in Washington County ranked as follows: Elkins (22nd), Farmington (tied for 49th), Fayetteville (2nd), Greenland (tied for 17th), Lincoln (tied for 52nd), Prairie Grove (tied for 30th), Springdale (tied for 14th), West Fork (tied for 26th), and Winslow (16th). District-wide average ACT composite scores for the 301 school districts in Arkansas for which data were available ranged from 24.0 to 14.0; for the

Center for Business and Economic Research 6 school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the district-wide average ACT composite scores ranged from 24.0 to 15.8.

Among the 307 school districts in Arkansas for which data were available, the dropout rates for the school districts in Washington County ranked as follows: Elkins (tied for 165th), Farmington (tied for 201st), Fayetteville (tied for 171st), Greenland (tied for 283rd), Lincoln (tied for 283rd), Prairie Grove (tied for 171st), Springdale (tied for 64th), West Fork (tied for 218th), and Winslow (tied for 74th); because of 27 districts’ being tied for last place with a 0.0 percent dropout rate, the rankings ranged from 1 through 285.2 Among the 72 school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the dropout rates for the school districts in Washington County ranked as follows: Elkins (tied for 32nd), Farmington (tied for 48th), Fayetteville (tied for 34th), Greenland (tied for 67th), Lincoln (tied for 67th), Prairie Grove (tied for 34th), Springdale (12th), West Fork (tied for 53rd), and Winslow (tied for 15th); because of four districts’ being tied for last place with a 0.0 percent dropout rate, the rankings ranged from 1 through 69. For the state, dropout rates ranged from 15.4 percent to 0.0 percent; for the districts in Northwest Arkansas, dropout rates ranged from 12.5 percent to 0.0 percent.

Among the 307 school districts in Arkansas for which data were available, the graduation rates for the school districts in Washington County ranked as follows: Elkins (tied for 173rd), Farmington (tied for 93rd), Fayetteville (165th), Greenland (tied for 72nd), Lincoln (tied for 58th), Prairie Grove (tied for 182nd), Springdale (249th), West Fork (tied for 162nd), and Winslow (281st). Among the 72 school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the graduation rates for the school districts in Washington County ranked as follows: Elkins (tied for 48th), Farmington (25th), Fayetteville (46th), Greenland (17th), Lincoln (tied for 12th), Prairie Grove (51st), Springdale (62nd), West Fork (45th), and Winslow (67th). For the state, graduation rates ranged from 100.0 percent to 23.6 percent; for the districts in Northwest Arkansas, graduation rates ranged from 100.0 percent to 63.2 percent.

Among the 307 school districts in Arkansas for which there were data available, the college remediation rates for the school districts in Washington County ranked as follows: Elkins (tied for 124th), Farmington (tied for 36th), Fayetteville (tied for 269th), Greenland (tied for 192nd), Lincoln (tied for 179th), Prairie Grove (tied for 124th), Springdale (tied for 223rd), West Fork (tied for 151st), and Winslow (tied for 281st); because of 31 districts’ being tied for last place with a 0.0 percent college remediation rate, the rankings ranged from 1 through 281.3 Among the 72 school districts in Northwest Arkansas, the college remediation rate for the school districts in Washington County ranked as follows: Elkins (tied for 20th), Farmington (tied for 3rd), Fayetteville (68th), Greenland (tied for 44th), Lincoln (tied for 38th), Prairie Grove (tied for 20th), Springdale (tied for 52nd), West Fork (tied for 28th), and Winslow (tied for 70th); because of three districts’ being tied for last place with a 0.0 percent college remediation rate, the rankings ranged from 1 through 70. For the state, college remediation rates ranged from

2 Note: Rankings are from highest dropout rate to lowest. Hence, a ranking of one indicates a relatively high dropout rate, and a ranking of 285 indicates a relatively low dropout rate. 3 Note: Rankings are from highest remediation rate to lowest. Hence, a ranking of one indicates a relatively high dropout rate, and a ranking of 281 indicates a relatively low remediation rate.

Center for Business and Economic Research 7

100.0 percent to 0.0 percent; for the districts in Northwest Arkansas, college remediation rates ranged from 80.0 percent to 0.0 percent.

In the Elkins School District, all three of the district’s schools are accredited by the North Central Association of Secondary Schools and Colleges (NCASSC). In the Farmington School District, all three of the district’s schools are accredited by the NCASSC. In the Fayetteville School District, all 15 of the district’s schools are accredited by the NCASSC. In the Greenland School District, both of the district’s schools are accredited by the NCASSC. In the Lincoln School District, all three of the district’s schools are accredited by the NCASSC. In the Prairie Grove School District, all four of the district’s schools are accredited by the NCASSC. In the Springdale School District, all 15 of the district’s schools are accredited by the NCASSC. In the West Fork School District, all three of the district’s schools are accredited by the NCASSC. In the Winslow School District, neither of the district’s schools is accredited by the NCASSC.

Table 6 displays the proportion of persons 25 years of age or older in Washington County with various levels of education in the year 2000. The table also presents the proportions for the state in aggregate and ranks Washington County ranks among the 75 counties in Arkansas and among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas in terms of the four levels of education presented. For example, Washington County ranked third among Arkansas’ counties and first among the counties in Northwest Arkansas in terms of the proportion of the persons 25 years of age or older with a bachelor’s degree in 2000.

Table 6 – Educational Attainment in Washington County, 2000 Arkansas Northwest Arkansas Range Range Level of Education County Arkansas Rank Low High Rank Low High Bachelor's Degree 14.8% 11.0% 3 4.2% 18.0% 1 5.4% 14.8% Graduate or Professional Degree 9.8% 5.7% 2 1.8% 10.1% 1 2.8% 9.8% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 24.5% 16.7% 3 6.3% 28.1% 1 8.4% 24.5% High School Diploma or Higher 79.5% 75.3% 5 56.2% 84.4% 2 65.4% 80.4%

There are seven Arkansas colleges and universities within 100 miles of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The institutions, the number and type of degree programs offered at the institutions, and their enrollment statistics are presented below.

John Brown University (JBU), located in Siloam Springs, Arkansas in Benton County, is a private, four-year Christian college (interdenominational) that offers associate degrees in six program areas, baccalaureate degrees in 50 program areas, and master’s degrees in 6 program areas. Opening fall enrollment for JBU was 1,684 persons in 2001, 9.0 percent greater than fall 2000. Since 1997, fall enrollment has increased 27.1 percent.

North Arkansas College (NAC), located in Harrison, Arkansas in Boone County, is a two-year public college. The Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board (AHECB)

Center for Business and Economic Research 8 of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at NAC: certificates of proficiency in 5 program areas, technical certificates in 25 program areas, an advanced certificate in electronics, and associate degrees in 26 program areas. Opening fall enrollment for NAC was 1,889 persons in 2001, 4.0 percent greater than fall 2000. Opening fall enrollment for the two-year public institutions in Arkansas stood at 43,387 in 2001, 6.3 percent greater than fall 2000. The school ranked eighth among the 23 two-year public institutions in Arkansas in terms of fall enrollment in 2001. Since 1997, fall enrollment at NAC has decreased 14.6 percent, compared to a 16.6 percent increase for two-year public institutions in Arkansas.

Northwest Arkansas Community College (NWACC), located in Bentonville, Arkansas in Benton County, is a two-year public college. The AHECB has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at the NWACC: certificates of proficiency in 4 program areas, technical certificates in 3 program areas, associate degrees in 26 program areas, and an advanced certificate in medical dosimetry. Opening fall enrollment for NWACC was 4,292 persons in 2001, 5.8 percent greater than fall 2000. The school ranked third among the 23 two-year public institutions in Arkansas in terms of fall enrollment in 2001. Since 1997, fall enrollment at NWACC has increased 32.5 percent.

The University of Arkansas (UA), located in Fayetteville, Arkansas in Washington County, is the flagship institution of the University of Arkansas system. The AHECB has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at the UA: associate degrees in 2 program areas, baccalaureate degrees in 123 program areas, post-baccalaureate certificates in 2 program areas, master’s degrees in 101 program areas, specialist degrees in 8 program areas, doctoral degrees in 42 program areas, and a professional degree in law. Opening fall enrollment for the UA was 15,752 in 2001, 2.6 percent greater than fall 2000. Opening fall enrollment for the four-year public universities in Arkansas stood at 65,704 in 2001, 2.4 percent greater than fall 2000. The school ranked first among the ten four-year public institutions in Arkansas in terms of fall enrollment in 2001. Since 1997, fall enrollment at the UA has increased 7.5 percent, compared to a 4.8 percent increase for four-year public universities in Arkansas.

In January 2002, Westark College, located in Fort Smith, Arkansas in Sebastian County, joined the University of Arkansas system, changed its name to the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith (UAFS), and became a four-year institution. The AHECB has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at UAFS: certificates of proficiency in 28 program areas, technical certificates in 17 program areas, associate degrees in 34 program areas, an advanced certificate in industrial automation, and baccalaureate degrees in 8 program areas. Opening fall enrollment at UAFS was 5,673 in 2001, 8.3 percent greater than fall 2000. Since 1997, fall enrollment at UAFS has increased 0.7 percent.

The University of Arkansas Community College at Morrilton (UACCM), located in Morrilton, Arkansas in Conway County, is a two-year public college in the University of

Center for Business and Economic Research 9

Arkansas system; the AHECB has approved the dissemination of the following academic degrees and certificate programs at the UACCM: certificates of proficiency in 3 program areas, technical certificates in 17 program areas, and associate degrees in 17 program areas. Opening fall enrollment for UACCM was 1,290 in 2001, 10.1 percent greater than fall 2000. The school ranked 12th among the 23 two-year public colleges in Arkansas in terms of fall enrollment in 2001. Since 1997, fall enrollment at UACCM has increased 43.8 percent.

The University of the Ozarks, located in Clarksville, Arkansas in Johnson County, is a four-year private liberal arts university and offers baccalaureate degrees in 25 program areas. Opening fall enrollment for the University of the Ozarks was 654 persons in 2001, 5.1 percent greater than fall 2000. Since 1997, fall enrollment at the University of the Ozarks has increased 22.5 percent.

Sources: Arkansas Department of Education, Arkansas School Information Site, Performance Report, 2001. http://www.as-is.org/reportcard/rc2001/ North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement. http://www.ncacasi.org/ United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/05005143.pdf United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/04005.pdf Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Arkansas State Colleges and Universities. http://www.arkansashighered.com/colleges.html Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Approved Academic Degree and Certificate Programs. http://www.arkansashighered.com/pdfs/RP/degrees_2003.pdf Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Opening Fall Enrollment at Public Colleges and Universities. October 29,2001. http://www.arkansashighered.com/Research/Enrollment/Actual%20Enroll%20Fal l%202001.xls John Brown University, “Catalog for 2001-2003.” http://www.jbu.edu/academics/catalog/03catalog.pdf University of the Ozarks. http://www.ozarks.edu/academics/programs.html

III. Infrastructure

Ports

There are no navigable waterways in Washington County.

Source: Arkansas Waterways Commission. http://www.waterways.dina.org/waterways.html

Highways

Center for Business and Economic Research 10

Figure 2 displays the major cities, highways, lakes, and rivers found in Washington County. In 2003, 4.01 miles of U.S. Highway 412 is to go under construction for major widening in Nob Hill at the Madison County line. Also scheduled for 2003 is rehabilitation of U.S. Interstate 540. Major widening of 6.1 miles of U.S. Highway 62 between Prairie Grove and Farmington is scheduled to commence in 2004.

Figure 2 – Washington County Cities, Highways, Lakes, and Rivers

Sources: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 2003-2005 Preliminary. http://www.ahtd.state.ar.us/contract/progcon/stip/stip%20by%20ffy%202003%2D 2005%20prelim.xls MapQuest.com, Inc. http://www.mapquest.com

Center for Business and Economic Research 11

Utilities

Table 7 displays the surplus water capacity, the surplus wastewater capacity, the electricity provider, and the natural gas provider for the four most populous cities in Washington County.4

Table 7 – Utilities for the Four Most Populous Cities in Washington County

Water Surplus Waste Water Natural Gas City Capacity Surplus Capacity Electricity Provider Provider

Arkansas Electric Power / Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) Arkansas and Ozarks Electric Western Gas Fayetteville 5 million GPD 5 million GPD Cooperative (OEC) (AWG) Springdale 6 million GPD 3.6 million GPD AEP / SWEPCO / OEC AWG Farmington N/A N/A AEP / SWEPCO / OEC AWG Prairie Grove 0.8 million GPD 0.24 million GPD AEP / SWEPCO / OEC AWG

The cities of Fayetteville and Springdale are increasing their wastewater treatment capacities from 12.6 million gallons per day to 21 million gallons per day and from 15.6 million gallons per day to 23 million gallons per day, respectively. Both projects are scheduled to be completed in 2005.

Sources: Alan Fortenberry, Beaver Water District. City of Springdale Water Treatment. City of Farmington, Arkansas. Larry Allredge, Prairie Grove Water Department. Operations Management International, Inc.

Railroads

The Arkansas & Missouri Railroad has its headquarters in Springdale; passes through Fayetteville, Greenland, West Fork, and Winslow; and junctions with the Kansas City Southern Railroad in Fort Smith, with the Union Pacific Railroad in Van Buren, Arkansas, and with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad in Monette, Missouri.

Source: Arkansas & Missouri Railroad. http://www.arkansasmissouri-rr.com/map.html

4 GPD = Gallons Per Day

Center for Business and Economic Research 12

Airports

There are two airports serving Washington County, Drake Field Airport and Springdale Municipal Airport.

Drake Field Airport, located three miles south of Fayetteville, has two grooved asphalt runways, each 6,006 feet in length, which can accommodate a 90,000-pound single- wheel aircraft, a 150,000-pound double-wheel aircraft, and a 175,000-pound tandem- wheel aircraft. There is a control tower at this airport. Services offered at Drake Field Airport include: aviation fuel, aircraft parking (hangars and tiedowns), air freight, avionics service, air cargo, charter flights, flight instruction, aircraft rental, and aircraft sales.

The Springdale Municipal Airport, located one mile southeast of Springdale, has two grooved asphalt runways, each 5,302 feet in length, which can accommodate a 35,000- pound single-wheel aircraft, a 50,000-pound double-wheel aircraft, and a 90,000-pound tandem-wheel aircraft. There is a control tower at this airport. Services offered at Springdale Municipal Airport include: aviation fuel, aircraft parking (hangars and tiedowns), air freight, air ambulance, avionics service, charter flights, flight instruction, and aircraft rental.

The four major airports closest to Washington County are the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport in Bentonville, Arkansas (roughly 30 miles north of Fayetteville), Springfield-Branson Regional Airport in Springfield, Missouri (roughly 150 miles northeast of Fayetteville), Tulsa International Airport in Tulsa, Oklahoma (roughly 120 miles west of Fayetteville), and Adams Field Airport in Little Rock, Arkansas (roughly 190 miles southeast of Fayetteville).

Sources: AirNav, LLC. Drake Field Airport: Fayetteville, Arkansas. http://www.airnav.com/airport/KFYV AirNav, LLC. Springdale Municipal Airport: Springdale, Arkansas. http://www.airnav.com/airport/KASG

Center for Business and Economic Research 13

IV. Labor Force

A breakdown of covered employment for Washington County in 2001 is provided in Table 8 below.

Table 8 – Covered Employment for Washington County, 2001 Annual Averages

Average Average North American Industry Classification System Employing Covered Industry Group Units Employment Natural Resources & Mining 42 676 Construction 435 4,095 Manufacturing 235 16,234 Trade, Transportation & Utilities 1,238 19,230 Wholesale Trade 292 3,195 Retail Trade 753 10,626 Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities 193 5,409 Information 77 1,477 Financial Activities 463 2,993 Professional & Business Services 690 7,840 Education & Health Services 460 8,259 Leisure & Hospitality 409 7,691 Other Services 333 1,756 Local & State Government 83 10,543 Washington County - Total 4,464 80,795

The manufacturing sector accounted for 20.1 percent of total covered employment in Washington County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 20.5 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the manufacturing sector, the county ranked 45th among the 71 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 11th among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 62.4 percent (Calhoun County) to 5.1 percent (Perry County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Marion County’s 48.2 percent to Newton County’s 8.3 percent.

The wholesale trade sector accounted for 4.0 percent of total covered employment in Washington County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 4.1 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the wholesale trade sector, the county ranked 19th among the 68 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 2nd behind Boone County among the 14 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 23.0 percent (Woodruff County) to

Center for Business and Economic Research 14

0.3 percent (Marion County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Boone County’s 7.5 percent to Marion County’s 0.3 percent.

The retail trade sector accounted for 13.2 percent of total covered employment in Washington County in 2001, compared to the state’s figures of 11.9 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the retail trade sector, the county ranked 25th among the 74 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 7th among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 18.9 percent (Saline County) to 2.7 percent (Calhoun County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Baxter County’s 14.5 percent to Benton County’s 8.6 percent.

The transportation, warehousing, and utilities sectors accounted for 6.7 percent of total covered employment in Washington County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 5.5 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the transportation, warehousing, and utilities sectors, the county ranked 12th among the 69 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 6th among the 14 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 18.4 percent (Little River County) to 0.8 percent (Marion County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Crawford County’s 17.7 percent to Marion County’s 0.8 percent.

The information sector accounted for 1.8 percent of total covered employment in Washington County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 1.9 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the information sector, the county ranked 8th among the 56 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 4th among the 12 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 3.6 percent (Pulaski County) to 0.3 percent (Little River County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Boone County’s 3.2 percent to Johnson County’s 0.4 percent.

The financial activities sector accounted for 3.7 percent of total covered employment in Washington County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 4.3 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the financial activities sector, the county ranked 32nd among the 73 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 7th among the 14 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the proportions ranged from 7.5 percent (Pike County) to 1.9 percent (Nevada County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Marion County’s 5.0 percent to Scott County’s 2.3 percent.

The professional and business services sector accounted for 9.7 percent of total covered employment in Washington County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 9.2 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the professional and business services sector, the county ranked 5th among the 68 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 3rd behind Benton County and Sebastian County among the 15 counties in Northwest Arkansas for which data were available. For the state, the

Center for Business and Economic Research 15 proportions ranged from 23.3 percent (Benton County) to 0.5 percent (Woodruff County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Benton County’s 23.3 percent to Scott County’s 0.6 percent.

The education and health services sector accounted for 10.2 percent of total covered employment in Washington County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 11.3 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the education and health services sector, the county ranked 42nd among the 74 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 8th among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas. For the state, the proportions ranged from 19.9 percent (Baxter County) to 2.2 percent (Little River County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Baxter County’s 19.9 percent to Crawford County’s 6.6 percent.

The leisure and hospitality sector accounted for 9.5 percent of total covered employment in Washington County in 2001, compared to the state’s figure of 7.8 percent. In terms of the proportion of covered employment attributed to the leisure and hospitality sector, the county ranked 15th among the 73 counties in Arkansas for which data were available and 3rd behind Carroll County and Baxter County among the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas. For the state, the proportions ranged from 16.7 percent (Carroll County) to 1.9 percent (Woodruff County); for Northwest Arkansas, the proportions ranged from Carroll County’s 16.7 percent to Madison County’s 4.3 percent.

A summary of Washington County’s largest employers is presented in Table 9 below.

Table 9 – Washington County’s Largest Employers Company Name City Product Employees Tyson Foods Springdale Poultry G University of Arkansas Fayetteville University G Wal-Mart Fayetteville/Springdale Retail/Distribution F George's Processing Springdale Poultry F Washington Regional Medical Center Fayetteville Hospital E PAM Transport Tontitown Transportation E Cargill, Inc. Springdale Poultry E Superior Industries International Fayetteville Automobile Parts E Northwest Health Systems Springdale Hospital E Kawneer Company Springdale Aluminum Fabricators D Easco Hand Tools Springdale Tools D Cannon Express Springdale Transportation D Pinnacle Foods Fayetteville Frozen Foods D Employee Codes – D: 501-1,000; E: 1,001-1,500; F: 1,501-2,500; G: 2,501-5,000

Figure 3 displays the annual unemployment rates for Washington County, the State of Arkansas, and the United States for the period 1995 through 2001. For the period, Washington County experienced unemployment rates below the state average and national average; the annual unemployment rate in Washington County was between 2.0 percent below and 2.8 percent below the annual unemployment rate for the state and between 1.1 percent below and 3.1 percent below the annual unemployment rate for the

Center for Business and Economic Research 16

U.S. for the period. In 2001, the unemployment rate in Washington County was 2.3 percent, compared to the state and national figures of 5.1 percent and 4.8 percent, respectively. Washington County had the 2nd lowest unemployment rate behind Benton County among Arkansas’ 75 counties in 2001 and the 16 counties in Northwest Arkansas. Unemployment rates in Arkansas ranged from 2.2 percent in Benton County to 13.9 percent in Mississippi County; unemployment rates in Northwest Arkansas ranged from Benton County’s 2.2 percent to Newton County’s 6.7 percent.

Figure 3 – Historical Unemployment Rate Comparisons: 1995-2001

6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Annual Averages Washington County Arkansas United States

Figure 4 displays the monthly unemployment rates for Washington County, the State of Arkansas, and the United States from June 2000 to June 2002.5

Figure 4 – Unemployment Rates, June 2000 – June 2002

6.5%

6.0%

5.5%

5.0%

4.5%

4.0%

3.5%

3.0%

2.5%

2.0%

1.5% Jun-00 Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Washington County Arkansas United States

5 Note: Data are not seasonally adjusted.

Center for Business and Economic Research 17

Sources: Arkansas Employment Security Department, Covered Employment and Earnings, Annual 2001. Table 6: County Summary Employment and Earnings, by Industry, Calendar Year 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/01antb6.htm Arkansas Employment Security Department, Covered Employment and Earnings, Annual 2001. Table 1: Average Covered Employment and Weekly Earnings, by Industry, 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/01antb1.htm Largest Employers by County data from Arkansas Department of Economic Development. Arkansas Economic Security Department, Arkansas Revised Labor Force Statistics, Annual Average, 2001. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/lmiaa01.htm Arkansas Employment Security Department, Arkansas Labor Force Statistics. http://www.accessarkansas.org/esd/lmilaborforcestats.htm

V. Available Industrial Sites and Buildings

There are currently five available industrial sites in Washington County. The first property is located inside the city limits of Fayetteville. There are 290 acres of land available within the property priced at $100,000 per acre. Five percent of the site is cleared, and a portion of the site is in a flood plain. The Landers Auto Plaza is in the immediate area. The site is directly serviced by Interstate 540. The Arkansas Missouri Railroad has a line west of the property. Commercial air service is available at Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport 33 miles northwest of the site. There are also port facilities with a barge-rail terminal on the Arkansas River at the Port of Fort Smith 70 miles south of the site by way of Interstates 540 and 40. The City of Fayetteville provides water service to the site through a 36-inch main with a normal line pressure of 150 pounds per square inch (psi). The City of Fayetteville also provides sewer service to the site through an eight-inch main. The Arkansas Western Gas Company (AWG) provides natural gas service to the site through a 1-inch main with a normal line pressure of 150 psi. The Ozark Electric Cooperative (OEC) provides electricity to the site with a voltage of 12.7 kilovolts.

The second property is an industrial park located inside the city limits of Fayetteville and is owned by the City of Fayetteville. There are 280 acres of land available within the property priced at $30,000 per acre, price negotiable. The property is cleared and has a slope of between two and three percent. American Air Filter, Armstrong Tool, Warren Tool, Marshalltown Tool, and Superior Industries have plant facilities within the park. The park is directly serviced by Arkansas Highway 16 with access to U.S. Highway 71 less than one mile away. The Arkansas Missouri Railroad has a line three miles west of the property. Commercial air service is available at Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport 40 miles northwest of the site. There are also port facilities with a barge-rail terminal on the Arkansas River at the Port of Fort Smith 63 miles south of the site by way of Interstates 540 and 40. The City of Fayetteville provides water service to the site through a 12-inch main. The City of Fayetteville also provides sewer service to the site through an 18-inch main and a 24-inch main. AWG provides natural gas service to the

Center for Business and Economic Research 19 site through a six-inch, high pressure main. The Southwest Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) provides electricity to the site with a voltage of 12.5 kilovolts.

The third property is an industrial park located inside the city limits of Springdale and is owned by the Springdale Industrial Commission. There are 145 acres of land available within the property priced at $40,000 per acre. The property is cleared and has a slope of between 1 and 2 percent. Cintas, Kawneer, Rockline, and Northwest Paper have facilities in the area. Interstate 40 is 40 miles south of the site by way of Interstate 540. The Arkansas Missouri Railroad has a spur in the park. Commercial air service is available at Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport five miles west of the site. There are also port facilities with a barge-rail terminal on the Arkansas River at the Port of Fort Smith 80 miles south of the site by way of Interstates 540 and 40. The City of Springdale provides water service to the site through a 12-inch main with a normal line pressure of 60 psi. The City of Springdale also provides sewer service to the site through a 12-inch main. AWG provides natural gas service to the site through a 3-inch main with a normal line pressure of 30 psi. SWEPCO and OEC provide electricity to the site with a voltage of 12 kilovolts.

The fourth property is located inside the city limits of Lincoln and is owned by the City of Lincoln. There are 18 acres of land available within the property priced at $8,400 per acre. The property is partially cleared and has a slope of less than 5 percent. Cal-Maine Hatchery and Talbot Industries have facilities in the area. U.S. Highway 62 is 0.6 miles northeast of the site, and Interstate 40 is 43 miles south of the site by way of Interstate 540. Commercial air service is available at Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, located 18 miles east of the site. There are also port facilities with a barge-rail terminal on the Arkansas River at the Port of Van Buren 45 miles south of the site. The City of Lincoln provides water service to the site through a 10-inch main with a normal line pressure of 80 psi. The City of Lincoln also provides sewer service to the site through an eight-inch main. AWG provides natural gas service to the site through a 2-inch main with a normal line pressure of 35 psi. OEC provides electricity to the site with a voltage of 7.2 kilovolts.

The fifth property is located inside the city limits of Prairie Grove and is owned by the Prairie Grove Industrial Development Corporation. There are 10 acres of land available within the property priced at $5,000 per acre. The property is cleared and has a slope of less than two percent. Greg Enterprises and Arkansas Galvanizing have facilities in the area. U.S. Highway 62 is 0.25 miles south of the site, and Interstate 40 is 50 miles south of the site by way of Interstate 540. Commercial air service is available at Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, located 12 miles east of the site. There are also port facilities with a barge-rail terminal, loading docks, and warehouse facilities at the Port of Fort Smith on the Arkansas River 50 miles south of the site. The Prairie Grove Water and Sewer Department provides water service to the site through an 8-inch main with a normal line pressure of 100 psi. The Prairie Grove Water and Sewer Department has a 12-inch main 2,000 feet north of the site; an extension will be required. AWG provides natural gas service to the site through a 3-inch main with a normal line pressure of 40 psi. SWEPCO and OEC provide electricity to the site with a voltage of 69 kilovolts.

Center for Business and Economic Research 20

There are four available industrial buildings in Washington County. The first building, constructed in 1975, is located at 1101 South Beechwood in Fayetteville and was previously occupied by Baldwin Piano. The metal facility has 88,000 square-feet of space (86,800 square-feet of manufacturing space and 1,200 square-feet of office space) on 6-inch concrete floors and is accompanied by 4 acres of land, with an additional 10 acres available. Clearance under the beams ranges from 18 feet, 3 inches to 30 feet, 0 inches; the span between the beams ranges from 20 feet, 4 inches to 31 feet, 0 inches. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad has a line 0.3 miles from the facility. The facility has 2 dock-high doors, 8 truck wells, and 100 paved parking spaces. The City of Fayetteville provides water service to the facility through an eight-inch main. The City of Fayetteville also provides sewer services through a 12-inch sewer main. AWG provides the facility with natural gas service through a four-inch main. SWEPCO provides the facility with electricity. The facility is for lease at a price of $2.35 per square-foot per year.

The second building, constructed in 1960, is located at 1800 Stirman in Fayetteville and was previously occupied by Levi Strauss & Company. The exterior walls are constructed of masonry. The facility has 59,000 square-feet of space (55,000 square-feet of manufacturing space and 4,000 square-feet of office space) on 4-inch concrete floors and is accompanied by 10 acres of land. Clearance under the beams and the span between the beams is ten feet, six inches. The Arkansas and Missouri Railroad has a line 0.5 miles from the facility. The facility has 3 floor-level doors, 3 dock-high doors, 1 truck well, and 350 paved parking spaces. The City of Fayetteville provides water service to the facility through a 10-inch main with a normal line pressure of 75 psi. The City of Fayetteville also provides sewer services through a six-inch sewer main. AWG provides the facility with natural gas service. SWEPCO provides the facility with electricity. The facility is for lease at a price of $10,000 per month or $2.00 per square-foot per year.

The third building, constructed in 1980, is located at 820 Industrial Park Drive in Lincoln and was previously occupied by Liggett & Platt. The metal facility has 45,470 square- feet of space (44,115 square-feet of manufacturing space and 1,365 square-feet of office space) on 4-inch concrete floors and is accompanied by 5.63 acres of land. Clearance under the beams ranges from 14 feet, 1 inch to 18 feet, 11 inches; the span between the beams ranges from 15 feet, 10 inches to 20 feet, 2 inches. The Kansas City Southern Railroad has a line 12 miles from the facility. The facility has 2 floor-level doors, 4 dock-high doors, 20 paved parking spaces, and 50 gravel parking spaces. The City of Lincoln provides water service to the facility through a 6-inch main with a normal line pressure of 75 psi. The City of Lincoln also provides sewer services through a 20-inch sewer main. AWG provides the facility with natural gas service through a four-inch main with a normal line pressure of five psi. OEC provides the facility with electricity. The facility is for sale at a price of $595,000.

The fourth building, constructed in 1982, is located at 2002 Ford Avenue in Springdale and was previously occupied by Artran, manufacturer of machine tools and electronics. The metal facility has 29,000 square-feet of space (20,000 square-feet of manufacturing

Center for Business and Economic Research 21 space and 9,000 square-feet of office space) on 4- to 8-inch thick concrete floors and is accompanied by 2.3 acres of land. Clearance under the beams ranges from 10 feet, 1 inch to 15 feet, 0 inches; the span between the beams ranges from 14 feet, 0 inches to 17 feet, one inch. The Kansas City Southern Railroad has a line three miles from the facility. The facility has 2 floor-level doors, 1 truck well, and 60 gravel parking spaces. The City of Springdale provides water service to the facility through an 8-inch main with a normal line pressure of 65 psi. The City of Springdale also provides sewer services through an eight-inch sewer main. AWG provides the facility with natural gas service through a two-inch main with a normal line pressure of five psi. SWEPCO provides the facility with electricity. The facility is for sale at a price of $1.3 million.

Sources: Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Site.asp?SiteNumber=FAY003 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Site.asp?SiteNumber=FAY001 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Site.asp?SiteNumber=SPRI001 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Site.asp?SiteNumber=LIN001 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Site.asp?SiteNumber=PRAG001 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Building.asp?BldNumber=555 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Building.asp?BldNumber=718 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Building.asp?BldNumber=263 Available Building and Site Database for Arkansas Communities, Arkansas Department of Economic Development. http://www.1800arkansas.com/Buildings_Sites/Building.asp?BldNumber=871

VI. Economic Goals

Much of Washington County’s economic activity centers on the University of Arkansas, but other industries also support the growth in the county. The University functions as a major employer in Fayetteville and as a host to more than 15,000 students annually. Much of the service and retail employment in Washington County supports the needs of

Center for Business and Economic Research 22 the faculty, staff, and students. The University drives employment in another way by providing a highly qualified work force that attracts companies to Washington County. Additionally, the University is striving to leverage faculty research into home-grown companies.

Springdale is home to the corporate headquarters of Tyson, Inc. Much of the Washington County economy that does not center on the University is directly tied to agribusiness and poultry in particular. The close proximity of the headquarters of Wal-Mart in Benton County also provides Washington County with offices for Fortune 500 companies that do business with the retailing giant.

All of these factors have lead to high per capita income, low poverty, and high retailing and education average weekly wages. The citizens of Washington County are, on average, better educated than other Arkansans. This fact reinforces a virtuous cycle where companies are attracted to the area because of the quality of the workforce, and the workforce improves because of the existence of good firms in the region.

In order to maintain the high growth rates that Washington County has enjoyed and to maintain the standard of living, constant investment in infrastructure is necessary. Economic developers must look into the future to project what the needs of the population and industry will be and plan ahead for growth. Additionally, support for the University’s mission to be a strong research institution is critical to keep talent within the state.

VII. Opportunities for Future Business Development

Poultry

The domestic market for the U.S. agribusiness industry is relatively mature, with consistent but modest growth likely in the future. Demand for protein-rich foods is growing more rapidly in developing countries than in the United States, because of their higher population growth, rapid industrialization, and rising disposable income. Furthermore, agricultural output in such countries is growing less rapidly than consumption. Consequently, the U.S. agribusiness industry is strongly positioned to take advantage of future increases in worldwide food demand.

With the world’s gross domestic product expected to rise to nearly $10.1 trillion in 2009 (a 34 percent increase over the preceding 10 years), there is ample reason to expect ever- growing demands on the world’s agriculture. Whenever incomes begin to rise, one of the first things people do is to upgrade their diets. With increasing prosperity, people consume more food grains, meat, sweeteners, and vegetable oils. Since 1990, worldwide consumption of beef, pork, and poultry has surged approximately 29 percent.

Another trend in the U.S agribusiness industry is the number of market participants, ranging from farmers to processors, has steadily declined, as agriculture has moved toward vertical integration and consolidation. According to the Center for Rural Affairs, a

Center for Business and Economic Research 23 private nonprofit group focused on rural development and agricultural policy, as of 2000, an estimated 80 percent of the U.S. beef market was controlled by 4 firms: Tyson Foods, ConAgra, Excel Corp., and Farmland National Beef Inc. These same firms, plus Smithfield Foods, controlled approximately 58 percent of the U.S. pork market. In 1999- 2000, 24 percent of pork producers went out of business. Today, 35 producers account for 95 percent of the pork slaughter capacity, although they operate only about 5 percent of the estimated 800 pork slaughterhouses in the United States. According to the National Chicken Council, during 2000, the top 8 chicken producers raised 64 percent of the broilers sold in the United States. Further consolidation in the poultry industry is expected to cut the number of broiler suppliers almost in half by 2010.

For the past three decades, much of the consolidation among meat processors occurred at the slaughter capacity level. Today, however, more and more companies are focusing on acquisitions that will expand their final offerings to include higher-margin processed and prepackaged meat that is ready for the consumer to heat and eat. These can include freshly cooked and frozen meats that have been marinated or seasoned. Advocates of consolidation believe that the process will lead agricultural producers toward more efficiency, less dependence on government assistance, and greater global competitiveness. Furthermore, as larger and more specialized producers realize lower production costs through economies of scale, these savings can be passed through to consumers in the form of lower commodity and processed food prices.

In the mean time, agribusiness is being transformed by modern technology. Technological developments have changed the way things are done on the farm, in assembly, in processing, and in distribution. An increasing number of farmers and ranchers are doing business over the Internet. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 55 percent of all farms were using computers in 2001, up from 38 percent in 1997. In 2000, 24 percent of farms used the Internet as a management tool in their farming operations, including $665 million in online buying and selling. Use of this technology allows farmers to receive and manage timely information in rural locations. In addition, nearly all farms that used the Internet in 2000 to purchase inputs indicated that they are likely to maintain or increase purchases in the future. Thus, with decreasing costs of computers and Internet access, growth in Internet use is likely to continue.

In April 2000, the world’s leading meat and poultry processors took the next step toward realizing “seamless” trade — the transacting of wholesale business without intermediaries, and the streamlining of the purchase and sales process to facilitate higher volumes. Tyson Foods Inc., Cargill, Smithfield Foods, Gold Kist Inc., and Farmland Industries Inc. launched an online marketplace, or portal, for meat and poultry products called Provision X; the venture is headquartered in Chicago. Provision X agreed to be acquired by iTradeNetwork (ITN) in February 2002. ITN provides online e-business solutions for 38 percent of the U.S. retail grocery and food service industries, including seven of the top fifteen food retailers in the nation.

Retail

Center for Business and Economic Research 24

Retailing is a mature business, and growth opportunities are limited, given the large number of retail outlets spread across the country. Demographic trends primarily affect retail sales. As demographic trends influence consumers' preferences and shopping patterns, they are important to retailers' understanding of target markets. For example, the Baby Boom Generation, comprising individuals born between 1946 and 1964, constitutes some 78 million Americans - about 30 percent of the U.S. population. As the Baby Boomers entered adulthood and formed households, they fueled much of the boom in retail sales in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, having swollen the ranks of Americans in their 40s and 50s, their priorities have shifted from youthful spending to tuition payments for children and to saving for retirement.

Shopping trends also affect all aspects of retailing, from store layout to merchandise assortment. Current shopping trends in the U.S retail market can be summarized as Price + Quality = Value, “cross shopping,” “precision shopping,” and “going casual.”

Although the American retail landscape is saturated with stores, sales can be increased by developing new markets overseas. Discount stores, like Wal-Mart, are expanding overseas more rapidly than other types of retailers, such as department stores. This is because discount stores offer low prices to attract customers; merchandising and cultural differences have made it unattractive for department stores, whose mainstay is apparel, to allocate the capital for overseas expansion.

Hospitals

One of the persistent trends in the hospital industry is the steady decline in the number of hospitals in the United States. According to data published by the American Hospital Association (AHA), the number of U.S. hospitals declined 1.4 percent to 5,810, and the number of licensed beds declined 1.0 percent to 984,000 in 2000. Although the number of hospitals fell, admissions are rising. According to the same AHA survey, admissions rose 2.1 percent to 34.9 million in 2000. These statistics indicate that as the total number of hospitals has declined, capacity utilization — the percentage of occupied beds to total beds — has risen.

While inpatient admissions moderated, the number of patients treated in outpatient settings, whether hospital-based or freestanding outpatient clinics, surgery centers, or physicians’ offices, has grown dramatically due to the cost advantages of outpatient treatment. According to the most recent data available from the AHA, industry-wide outpatient visits reached 593 million in 2000, up more than 3.0 percent from 1999.

The growing role of information technology has become part of the marketing strategy utilized by hospitals. In general, hospitals are viewed as being in the early stages of general Internet use, with most of the sites currently providing basic information about a hospital and its services. It is less common for hospitals to utilize the Internet to provide information about disease management or doctor referrals, communicate with patients, or publish an online newsletter. Hospitals have also been increasing their use of information technology for administration and the storage of patient records, including images, such as those from x-rays, ultrasound, computed tomography (CAT), and positron emission

Center for Business and Economic Research 25 tomography (PET). An area of increasing importance is the use of computer systems to make hospitals safer, particularly regarding medication errors.

With the restrictive pricing environment imposed by the realities of managed care organizations, hospitals’ cost-cutting measures are expected to focus on reducing staffing levels and re-engineering to improve worker efficiency. The equipment categories that are likely to suffer the most include automated laboratory testing, cardiac catheterization, computed tomography, critical care, magnetic resonance imaging, nuclear medicine, radiation therapy, ultrasound, and x-rays. There are, however, some areas in which hospitals are expected to invest growing amounts in coming years. These include data processing equipment, telecommunications, energy-saving equipment (such as ventilation systems), and construction of new medical office buildings.

Transportation

The evolution of electronic commerce has changed the way companies sell and ship their goods. The e-commerce segment that is radically altering the transportation industry is business-to-consumer. Traditionally, goods travel in a chain, from raw materials producer to manufacturer, distributor, retailer, and finally to consumer. But the Internet has shortened this process, essentially eliminating the middleman. This changing pattern will hurt full truckload carriers as shipments between manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are eliminated and as smaller lots prevail. On the other hand, package delivery, airfreight express, and less-than-truckload carriers will become beneficiaries of e-commerce. Currently, the first choice of Internet carriers is United Parcel Service (UPS) with a 55 percent share of all e-commerce transactions, according to Zona Research, a consulting firm based in Redwood City, California.

A shortage of qualified drivers has plagued the trucking industry’s long-haul truckload segment since the early 1990s. As recently as 2001, an estimated 80,000 driver slots remained unfilled. Among many factors contributing to the shortage include low pay, long absences of truck drivers from their families, and disrespectful treatment by shippers and carriers. The high turnover rates and driver shortages in the truckload industry can push up carriers’ costs. With industry turnover rates of about 100 percent, recruitment and training expenditures can cost some $3 billion annually. Further, the hiring of inexperienced drivers leads to an increase in accident rates, insurance costs, and claims paid out for damaged cargo, as the less experienced drivers tend to have more accidents than drivers with more tenure.

Trucking companies are coping with the driver shortage by avoiding long-haul freight or by routing such freight through intermodal rail service. Additionally, by harnessing sophisticated computer software, carriers can match drivers with loads moving in the direction of their domiciles. Many companies have installed on-board computers that link drivers to dispatchers and their families via satellite. Such devices steer drivers around congested roads, help them obtain faster road service, and let them communicate with their families and dispatchers without leaving the highway. These devices may become

Center for Business and Economic Research 26 mandatory equipment for all vehicles if the Department of Transportation implements its proposed hours of service regulations.

Intermodal traffic is the movement of general freight, such as consumer goods and light industrial products, in trailers or containers by means of two or more transport modes. Though intermodal rail service fell out of favor with shippers in 2000 and likely in 2001, Standard and Poor’s believes this is temporary and that it will eventually become the preferred transport mode in certain markets. Some 35 percent of the intermodal market goes to truckload carriers, such as J.B. Hunt Transport and Schneider National (which together claim about 10 percent of the market), and to intermodal marketing companies, which are third-party intermediaries.

The future of the intermodal segment — the railroad industry’s fastest-growing business — is tied directly to the level of world economic activity, not to heavy industry or mining. Between 1980 and 1999, intermodal railroad traffic soared 196 percent — a compound annual rate of 5.9 percent. In April 2000, the Association of American Railroads, a Washington, D.C.–based trade organization, projected that 3.08 million trailers and 7.80 million containers would be moved by intermodal rail in 2004. This total of 10.88 million units would be up 33.8 percent from the 8.13 million units moved in 1994 (4.38 million containers and 3.75 million trailers). In the longer term, intermodal’s prospects are bright, as import/export business between the United States and the rest of the world grows and fuel prices and driver shortages push up truckload rates and force business onto the rails. Standard and Poor’s projects that once intermodal’s operations are smoothed out, with frequent departures and high on-time reliability, a large portion of e- commerce will be sent via intermodal transportation, since surveys demonstrate online purchasers’ willingness to sacrifice time for low costs.

Automotive Parts Manufacturing

The aging of the U.S. automobile population, along with its growing size, should benefit firms producing replacement auto parts. The median age of U.S. passenger cars increased to 8.1 years as of June 30, 2001, up from 6.5 years as of June, 30, 1990, according to R.L. Polk & Co., a research firm based in Southfield, Michigan. All vehicles need maintenance. As they get older and out of warranty, they need general repairs. Typically, during the first three to five years of a vehicle's life, brake pads and batteries need to be replaced. At around seven years, spending rises as belts, hoses, alternators, and starters begin to need replacement. The value of repair spending peaks at around 11 years of age, as parts wear out, but even at that age a fixed-up vehicle could last long enough to make repairs financially worthwhile, versus buying a new vehicle. Given such favorable automobile demographics, demand for repairs and replacement parts is expected to continue to trend upward, which will benefit manufactures of auto accessories and components.

Center for Business and Economic Research 27

Aluminum Fabrication

The aluminum industry is particularly dependent on the fortunes of the automobile and construction industries, which, combined, accounted for 45.6 percent of shipments in 2000. Containers (mostly beverage cans) and packaging are a critical market for aluminum, accounting for 20.4 percent of shipments in 2000.

The imperative to reduce vehicle weight and thereby improve gas mileage gives automakers a powerful incentive to substitute aluminum for steel. According to an informal agreement between the Clinton administration and the Big Three automakers (General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., and DaimlerChrysler AG), called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, automakers committed to producing a passenger vehicle capable of traveling 80 miles per gallon. By 2004, each company is expected to produce a prototype vehicle. It is estimated that a 50 percent weight reduction will be needed to produce a vehicle with that gas mileage capability. To obtain such a weight reduction while meeting recycling goals, it will be necessary to substitute aluminum for steel.

In the near term, it is unlikely that aluminum will further displace steel usage in the auto industry. This is partly because more steel than aluminum is used in several strong-selling models. Since the early 1990s, sales of light trucks, vans, and sport-utility vehicles have grown much more quickly than sales of passenger cars. For all vehicles, the amount of steel per vehicle increased to 1,781 pounds in 2001 from 1,717 pounds in 1990. As long as these vehicles remain popular, steel usage in the auto industry will remain high.

Capital Goods Manufacturing

The capital goods industry has a number of trends and themes: consolidation; customers' ever-growing demands for improved value and service; e-commerce initiatives; and the cyclical nature of the overall capital goods industry.

Consolidation remains a long-term trend in many capital goods sectors. Service companies, such as those in engineering and construction, can expand their geographic range or acquire specialty firms that extend their capabilities. Acquisitions are considered by these companies as a mean to add to a business’ portfolio. Through acquisition, the operating subsidiaries may optimize the use of the parent company's capital and to provide the most favorable returns to investors.

To meet customers’ demand, capital goods makers have applied sophisticated electronics to mechanical systems in order to enhance productivity, increase precision, facilitate maintenance, and provide operators with more complete information on the equipment's operating status. Reducing the complexity of the capital equipment is another tactic used by manufactures to improve the equipment's quality and reliability, while cutting the cost to buy and operate it.

The Internet is revolutionizing the way many capital goods manufacturers conduct

Center for Business and Economic Research 28 business. The Internet will affect capital goods manufacturers positively or negatively, and to different degrees, based largely on whether a manufacturer produces price- sensitive, commodity-like products, or proprietary, hard-to-duplicate products. Makers of commodity products, such as nuts and bolts for the auto- and aircraft-manufacturing industries, are probably most vulnerable to the profit-squeezing potential of the Internet. While companies that make sophisticated, hard-to-duplicate industrial goods probably will not be affected much by the Internet.

The cyclical pattern for industrial machinery and equipment demand generally follows the strength of the economy. Growth in industrial equipment sales cooled dramatically over the past few years. Based on U.S. Census statistics, non-military, nonaircraft industrial equipment sales grew at only a 0.25 percent annual rate from 1999 through 2001. The slowing global economy, as well as global industrial overcapacity, forced many manufacturing businesses to reduce production rates dramatically.

Food Production

Demographic changes in the U.S. are reshaping the American food industry. To achieve success in the highly competitive U.S. food industry, companies need a keen understanding of these trends.

The Baby Boom generation- now between the ages of 37 and 55 and accounts for 30 percent of the current U.S. population- creates significant new consumer needs. This generation is at a stage of life in which people usually focus more on nutrition and weight maintenance. Yet in many instances, Baby Boomers’ increased work and family responsibilities reduce their time available for exercise. New products seeking to satisfy these needs are “better-for-you” foods that are low-fat, low-sodium, and convenient to prepare. Studies show that average caloric needs for people aged 50 and older decline by about 10 percent every 10 years. At the same time, older adults tend to have a reduced ability to digest food and absorb nutrients. This factor has led to an expanded market for nutrient-enriched drinks in recent years.

In the over-65 group, nutrition and digestibility remain key dietary concerns. Packaging is also important for this group. Studies show that older consumers prefer packaged food products that are easy to open and have legible labels. Older consumers’ demands for nutritionally enriched items may create a new era in processed food industry. Today’s food makers say their next step may be to compete with the pharmaceutical industry by offering “nutraceuticals” — processed food products that would replace vitamin supplements and other dietary aids, and eventually release products that will help prevent or even reverse some diseases. Currently under investigation is the role that soy proteins play in inhibiting cancer and heart disease. Also of interest is the potential link between antioxidant compounds — vitamin C, vitamin E, and beta-carotene — and the prevention of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and cataracts.

The population of American children aged five to 17 is projected to total approximately 52.4 million by 2005, according to Census Bureau estimates. This group has significant

Center for Business and Economic Research 29 clout in influencing their parents’ purchases. Food manufacturers view these youngsters as important, and they hope to gain lifelong brand-loyal customers.

The increasing diversity of the minority segments of the U.S. population has and will continue to allow U.S. food companies to introduce ethnic cuisines more aggressively. Companies are now trying to make these products “more ethnic” by stressing traditional or “old country” recipes. Beside the established “big three” ethnic cuisines including Mexican, Italian, and Chinese, increasingly popular ethnic food groups will include Indian cuisine and various East Asian cuisines, such as Japanese, Thai, and Vietnamese.

Consumer lifestyles also impact the food industry. Modern consumers face considerable time constraints, raising the demand for foods that are easy to prepare and serve. Food marketers estimate that the average American is willing to spend no more than 15 minutes preparing an ordinary meal. In addition, today’s shoppers increasingly want to purchase whole meals. Traditional categories such as frozen dinners have been expanded to include frozen breakfasts and lunches. Products specifically designed for microwave cooking have also proliferated.

As consumers’ expenditures on eating out have increased year to year (45.2 percent of total consumer spending on food products in 2001, compared with 44.9 percent in 2000, 42.2 percent in 1990 and 36.5 percent in 1980), food companies have taken advantage of this trend by establishing food service divisions that cater to what were once nontraditional markets — restaurants, schools, airports, corporate cafeterias, and so on. As food companies more frequently distribute their packaged food products through the service outlets, the business lines between food companies and food service outlets are becoming less distinct.

Source: Standard and Poor’s NetAdvantage. http://0-www.netadvantage.standardpoor.com.library.uark.edu/

Center for Business and Economic Research 30

Attachment 7 Hauler Information Haulers

If you contact a hauler on this list and they say they will not provide service to you, please call our office at (888) 426-9278 and report it. Thanks.

Benton 1

L&L Service (417) 435-2056 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 T&G Trash (479) 656-3728 Threet Trash Service (479) 736-2977

Benton 2

ANO (479) 846-3240 Murray's Trash Service (479) 848-3701 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 Threet Trash Service (479) 736-2977

Benton 3

Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 Threet Trash Service (479) 736-2977

Benton 4

Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 Threet Trash Service (479) 736-2977

Benton 5

Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 Threet Trash Service (479) 736-2977

Benton 6

Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Benton 7

Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Benton 8

Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Benton 9

L&L Service (417) 435-2056 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 T&G Trash (479) 656-3728

Benton 10

L&L Service (417) 435-2056 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 T&G Trash (479) 656-3728

Benton 11

Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 T&G Trash (479) 656-3728

Benton 12

L&L Service (417) 435-2056 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 T&G Trash (479) 656-3728

Madison 1

Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Madison 2

Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Madison 3

Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Madison 4

Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Washington 1

Best Trash (479) 267-2804 Phillips Quality Sanitation (479) 846-5542 R&S Trash (479) 824-5207 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Washington 2

Best Trash (479) 267-2804 Longhorn Trash Service (479) 824-3192 Murray's Trash Service (479) 848-3701 R&S Trash (479) 824-5207 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Washington 3

ANO Trash (479) 846-3240 Best Trash (479) 267-2804 Phillips Quality Sanitation (479) 846-5542 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Washington 4

ANO Trash (479) 846-3240 Best Trash (479) 267-2804 Murray's Trash Service (479) 848-3701 Phillips Quality Sanitation (479) 846-5542 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Washington 5

ANO Trash (479) 846-3240 CL Trash (479) 846-3110 Murray's Trash Service (479) 848-3701 Phillips Quality Sanitation (479) 846-5542 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Washington 6

Longhorn Trash Service (479) 824-3192 Murray's Trash Service (479) 848-3701 R&S Trash (479) 824-5207 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 Washington 7

ANO Trash (479) 846-3240 CL Trash (479) 846-3110 Murray's Trash Service (479) 848-3701 Phillips Quality Sanitation (479) 846-5542 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Washington 8

CL Trash (479) 846-3110 Murray's Trash Service (479) 848-3701 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 Threet Trash Service (479) 736-2977

Washington 9

CL Trash (479) 846-3110 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 Threet Trash Service (479) 736-2977

Washington 10

CL Trash (479) 846-3110 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 Threet Trash Service (479) 736-2977

Washington 11

ANO Trash (479) 846-3240 Phillips Trash Service (479) 789-5690 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Washington 12

ANO Trash (479) 846-3240 Phillips Quality Sanitation (479) 846-5542 Phillips Trash Service (479) 789-5690 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098

Washington 13

Murray's Trash Service (479) 848-3701 Phillips Quality Sanitation (479) 846-5542 Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 Washington 14

Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 Phillips Quality Sanitation (479) 846-5542

Washington 15

Roll Off Service (479) 872-9098 Phillips Quality Sanitation (479) 846-5542

Attachment 8 City/County Collection Information Community County Population Households Trash Service Provider

Avoca Benton 423 162 no Rural Haulers Bella Vista Benton 16,582 7,818 yes American Disposal Service Bentonville Benton 19,730 7,458 yes American Disposal Service Bethel Heights Benton 714 251 yes Waste Management Cave Springs Benton 1,103 420 no Rural Haulers Centerton Benton 2,146 730 yes American Disposal Service Decatur Benton 1,314 465 yes Roll Off Services Elkins Washington 1,251 485 yes Waste Management Elm Springs Washington 1,044 385 no Rural Haulers Farmington Washington 3,605 1,337 yes Waste Management Fayetteville Washington 58,047 23,798 yes City of Fayetteville Garfield Benton 490 177 no Rural Haulers Gateway Benton 116 43 no Rural Haulers Gentry Benton 2,165 842 yes American Disposal Service Goshen Washington 752 277 yes Ozark Disposal Gravette Benton 1,810 697 yes Roll Off Services Greenland Washington 907 335 yes Trash Away Highfill Benton 379 144 yes Threet Trash Hindsville Madison 75 27 no Rural Haulers Huntsville Madison 1,931 761 no Rural Haulers Johnson Washington 2,319 928 yes Waste Management Lincoln Washington 1,752 723 yes City of Lincoln Little Flock Benton 2,585 1,016 no Rural Haulers Lowell Benton 5,013 1,914 yes Roll Off Services Pea Ridge Benton 2,346 890 no Rural Haulers Prairie Grove Washington 2,540 981 yes City of Prairie Grove Rogers Benton 38,829 14,005 yes Waste Management St. Paul Madison 163 70 yes Madison County Siloam Springs Benton 10,843 3,894 yes City of Siloam Springdale Washington 45,798 16,149 yes Waste Management Springtown Benton 114 41 no Mayor Riley @ 381-2070 Sulphur Springs Benton 671 229 yes American Disposal Service Tontitown Washington 942 351 no Rural Haulers West Fork Washington 2,042 750 yes Trash Away Winslow Washington 399 148 no Rural Haulers Benton Co Benton 0 0 no Rural Haulers Madison Co Madison 0 0 no Rural Haulers Washington Co Washington 0 0 no Rural Haulers

Total Total Benton Co Benton 153,406 58,212 Madison Co Madison 14,243 5,463 Washington Co Washington 157,715 60,151 325,364 123,826

Attachment 10 Waste Tire Collection Center Information

Waste Tire Collection Centers

Norm the Tire Man Washington County 809 S.W. 8th 2615 S. Brink Bentonville, AR 72712 Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 273-0141 (479) 444-1725 M-F 8-5, S 8-12 M-F 8-4

Best Brake & Muffler Tri-County Solid Waste 2820 NE Hudson 11398 Bond Rd Rogers, AR 72756 Prairie Grove, AR 72753 (479) 621-9880 (479) 846-3005 M-F 8-5, S 8-12 M-F 8-4:30

Benton County Tire West Fork Auto Parts 2113 Hwy 412 West 125 N. Centennial Siloam Springs, AR 72761 West Fork, AR 72774 (479) 524-6266 (479) 839-2800 M-F 8-5, S 8-12 M-F 8-5

Springdale Tire Madison County Transfer Station 1986 W. Sunset 173 Madison 6553 Springdale, AR 72764 Huntsville, AR 72740 (479) 751-1334 (479) 738-6351 M-F 8-5, S 8-12 M-F 8-4, S 8-12

Northwest Tire 1809 S. Pleasant Springdale, AR 72764 (479) 751-2700 M-F 8-5, S 8-12

2003 Financial Audit

The District is still awaiting delivery of their 2003 Financial Audit. The auditors have finished all field work and are just waiting on forms to be returned from officers, banks and vendors to confirm payments.

Attachment 13 2005 Budgets