e10vk
Table of Contents

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K
 
     
(Mark One)    
þ
  ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
    For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009
OR
o
  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
    For the transition period from          to          
 
Commission file number: 1-14267
REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)
 
     
Delaware
  65-0716904
(State of Incorporation)
  (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 
     
18500 North Allied Way
  85054
Phoenix, Arizona
  (Zip Code)
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
   
 
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (480) 627-2700
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 
     
Title of Each Class
 
Name of Each Exchange on which Registered
Common Stock, par value $.01 per share
  The New York Stock Exchange
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes þ     No o
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes o     No þ
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ     No o
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files)  Yes þ     No o
 
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
 
             
Large accelerated filer þ
  Accelerated filer o   Non-accelerated filer o   Smaller reporting company o
        (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)    
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes o     No þ
 
As of June 30, 2009, the aggregate market value of the shares of the Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $9.3 billion.
 
As of February 16, 2010, the registrant had outstanding 380,983,615 shares of Common Stock (excluding treasury shares of 14,933,855).
 
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
 
Portions of the Registrant’s Proxy Statement relative to the 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference in Part III hereof.
 


 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
                 
  PART I              
  Item 1.     Business     2  
  Item 1A.     Risk Factors     16  
  Item 1B.     Unresolved Staff Comments     25  
  Item 2.     Properties     25  
  Item 3.     Legal Proceedings     25  
  Item 4.     Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders     32  
             
  PART II              
  Item 5.     Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities     32  
  Item 6.     Selected Financial Data     35  
  Item 7.     Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations     36  
  Item 7A.     Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk     78  
  Item 8.     Financial Statements and Supplementary Data     80  
  Item 9.     Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure     162  
  Item 9A.     Controls and Procedures     162  
  Item 9B.     Other Information     163  
             
  PART III              
  Item 10.     Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance     163  
  Item 11.     Executive Compensation     163  
  Item 12.     Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters     163  
  Item 13.     Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence     164  
  Item 14.     Principal Accounting Fees and Services     164  
             
  PART IV              
  Item 15.     Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules     164  
        Signatures     174  
 EXHIBIT 10.66
 EX-21.1
 EX-23.1
 EX-31.1
 EX-31.2
 EX-32.1
 EX-32.2
 EX-101 INSTANCE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 SCHEMA DOCUMENT
 EX-101 CALCULATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
 EX-101 DEFINITION LINKBASE DOCUMENT


Table of Contents

Unless the context requires otherwise, all references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “Republic”, “the company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Republic Services, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries, including Allied Waste Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries (Allied) for periods on or after December 5, 2008.
 
PART I
 
ITEM 1.   BUSINESS
 
Overview
 
We are the second largest provider of services in the domestic non-hazardous solid waste industry as measured by revenue. We provide non-hazardous solid waste collection services for commercial, industrial, municipal and residential customers through 376 collection companies in 40 states and Puerto Rico. We own or operate 223 transfer stations, 192 active solid waste landfills and 78 recycling facilities. We also operate 74 landfill gas and renewable energy projects. We were incorporated as a Delaware corporation in 1996.
 
Based on analysts’ reports and industry trade publications, we believe that the United States non-hazardous solid waste services industry generates annual revenue of approximately $56 billion, of which approximately 58% is generated by publicly owned waste companies. We believe that we and one other public waste company generated in excess of 60% of the publicly owned companies’ total revenue. Additionally, industry data indicates that the non-hazardous waste industry in the United States remains fragmented as privately held companies and municipal and other local governmental authorities generate approximately 16% and 26%, respectively, of total industry revenue. In general, growth in the solid waste industry is linked to growth in the overall economy, including the level of new household and business formation and is subject to changes in residential and commercial construction activity.
 
Our operations are national in scope, but the physical collection and disposal of waste is very much a local business; therefore, the dynamics and opportunities differ in each of our markets. By combining local operating management with standardized business practices, we can drive greater overall operating efficiency across the company, while maintaining day-to-day operating decisions at the local level, closest to the customer. We implement this strategy through an organizational structure that groups our operations within a corporate, region and area structure. We manage our operations through four geographic operating segments which are also our reportable segments: Eastern, Midwest, Southern and Western. The boundaries of our operating segments have changed and may continue to change from time to time. Each of our regions is organized into several operating areas and each area contains multiple operating locations. Each of our regions and substantially all our areas provide collection, transfer, recycling and disposal services. We believe this structure facilitates the integration of our operations within each region, which is a critical component of our operating strategy, and allows us to maximize the growth opportunities in each of our markets and to operate the business efficiently, while maintaining effective controls and standards over operational and administrative matters, including financial reporting. See Note 14, Segment Reporting, to our consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for further discussion of our operating segments.
 
On December 5, 2008, we acquired all of the issued and outstanding shares of Allied in a stock-for-stock transaction for an aggregate purchase price of $12.1 billion, which included approximately $5.4 billion of debt, at fair value. As a condition of the merger with Allied, the Department of Justice (DOJ) required us to divest of certain assets and related liabilities. As of September 30, 2009, we completed our required divestitures. As a result of our acquisition of Allied, we committed to a restructuring plan related to our corporate overhead and other administrative and operating functions. The plan included closing our corporate office in Florida, consolidating administrative functions to Arizona, the former headquarters of Allied, and reducing staffing levels. The plan also included closing and consolidating certain operating locations and terminating certain leases. We believe that our merger with Allied created a strong operating platform that will allow us to continue to provide quality service to our customers and superior returns to our stockholders.
 
We had revenue of $8.2 billion and $3.7 billion and operating income of $1.6 billion and $0.3 billion for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. In addition to our merger with Allied, a number of


2


Table of Contents

items impacted our 2009 and 2008 financial results. For a description of these items, see Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Overview of Our Business and Consolidated Results of Operations included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
During the past several years, we supported our internal growth strategy with our presence in markets with higher than average population growth. We believe our presence in these markets positions us to experience growth at rates that are generally higher than those of declining population growth.
 
We continue to focus on enhancing shareholder value by implementing our financial, operating and growth strategies. In order to ensure that our goals relative to these strategies are achieved, we have developed and implemented incentive programs that help focus our entire company on realizing key performance metrics which include increasing free cash flow, achieving targeted earnings, maintaining and improving returns on invested capital, as well as achieving and maintaining integration synergies. Our financial, operating and growth strategies are described further herein.
 
Financial Strategy
 
Key components of our financial strategy include our ability to generate free cash flow and sustain or improve our return on invested capital. Our definition of free cash flow, which is not a measure determined in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP), is cash provided by operating activities less purchases of property and equipment, plus proceeds from sales of property and equipment as presented in our consolidated statements of cash flows. We believe that free cash flow is a driver of shareholder value and provides useful information regarding the recurring cash provided by our operating activities after expenditures for property and equipment, net of proceeds from sales of property and equipment. Free cash flow also demonstrates our ability to execute our financial strategy, which includes reinvesting in capital assets to ensure a high level of customer service, investing in capital assets to facilitate growth in our customer base and services provided, maintaining our investment grade ratings and minimizing debt, paying cash dividends, repurchasing our stock and maintaining and improving our market position through business optimization. In addition, free cash flow is a key metric used to determine management’s compensation.
 
We manage our free cash flow by ensuring that capital expenditures and operating asset levels are appropriate in light of our existing business and growth opportunities and by closely managing our working capital, which consists primarily of accounts receivable and accounts payable.
 
We have used and will continue to use our cash flow to maximize shareholder value as well as our return on invested capital. Our strategy includes:
 
  •   Customer Service. We will continue to reinvest in our existing fleet of vehicles, equipment, landfills and facilities to ensure the highest level of service to our customers and the communities we serve. Because of the economic slowdown, we were able to lower our capital reinvestment during 2009 below that which otherwise would have been expected for the combined companies. However, we remain acutely focused on ensuring that we are not under investing in our business and that we have the appropriate complement of physical assets to take advantage of additional business resulting from an economic recovery. In addition, we continue to focus on innovative waste disposal processes and programs to help our customers achieve their goals related to sustainability and environmentally sound waste practices. We believe that these in turn will help us achieve profitable growth.
 
  •   Internal Growth.
 
Price Growth. Growth through price increases helps ensure that we obtain an adequate return on our substantial capital investment and the business risk associated with such investment. Price increases also allow us to recover historical and current year increases in operating costs, which ultimately enhances our operating margins.
 
Volume Growth. Growth through increases in our customer base and services provided is the most capital efficient means for us to build our business. This includes not only expanding landfill and transfer capacity and investing in trucks and containers, but also includes investing in information


3


Table of Contents

tools and training needed to ensure high productivity and quality service throughout all functional areas of our business. We work to increase collection and disposal volumes while ensuring that prices charged for such services provide an appropriate return on our capital investment.
 
  •   Debt. During 2009, payments of debt net of borrowings were $865.9 million. During 2009, we repaid approximately $1.6 billion of senior notes and amounts outstanding under our credit facilities primarily using proceeds from offering $1.3 billion of senior notes, proceeds from disposition of assets and cash flow from operations. As a result, we reduced the average coupon rate on our senior notes, on a weighted average basis, by more than 130 basis points while extending our debt maturities thereby giving greater stability to our capital structure. Furthermore, we anticipate taking advantage of capital market opportunities to mitigate our financial risk by issuing new debt and using the proceeds to repay existing debt.
 
  •   Credit Ratings. We believe that a key component of our financial strategy includes maintaining investment grade ratings on our senior debt, which was rated BBB by Standard & Poor’s, BBB- by Fitch and Baa3 by Moody’s as of December 31, 2009. Such ratings have allowed us, and should continue to allow us, to readily access capital markets at competitive rates. Our cash utilization strategy will continue to focus on maintaining our investment grade ratings.
 
  •   Dividends. In July 2003, our Board of Directors initiated a quarterly cash dividend of $0.04 per share. Our quarterly dividend has increased from time to time thereafter, the latest increase occurring in the third quarter of 2008, representing an average annualized growth rate of approximately 30%. Our current quarterly cash dividend per share is $0.19. We will consider increasing our quarterly cash dividend if we believe it will enhance shareholder value.
 
  •   Market Growth and Optimization. Within our markets, our goal is to deliver sustainable, long-term profitable growth while efficiently operating our assets to generate acceptable rates of return. We allocate capital to businesses, markets and development projects to support growth while achieving acceptable rates of return. We develop previously non-permitted, non-contiguous landfill sites (greenfield landfill sites). We also expand our existing landfill sites, when possible. We supplement this organic growth with acquisitions of operating assets, such as landfills, transfer stations, and tuck-in acquisitions of collection and disposal operations in existing markets. We continuously evaluate our existing operating assets and their deployment within each market to determine if we have optimized our position and to ensure appropriate investment of capital. Where operations are not generating acceptable returns, we examine opportunities to achieve greater efficiencies and returns through the integration of additional assets. If such enhancements are not possible, we may ultimately decide to divest the existing assets and reallocate resources to other markets.
 
  •   Share Repurchase. Once we reduce our debt to EBITDA ratio, as defined in our credit agreement, we will consider reinstituting our share repurchase program. We believe that this may occur sometime during 2011. We intend to execute our financial strategy while maintaining flexibility to take advantage of market growth opportunities and maintaining our investment grade ratings. EBITDA is a non-GAAP measure. In this context, EBITDA is used solely to provide information regarding the extent to which we are in compliance with debt covenants and is not comparable to EBITDA used by other companies.
 
For certain risks related to our financial strategy, see Item 1A. Risk Factors.
 
Operating Strategy
 
We seek to leverage existing assets and revenue growth to increase operating margins and enhance shareholder value. Our operating strategy for accomplishing this goal includes the following:
 
  •   utilize the extensive industry knowledge and experience of our executive management team,
 
  •   integrate waste operations,
 
  •   utilize a decentralized management structure in overseeing day-to-day operations,


4


Table of Contents

 
  •   improve operating margins through economies of scale, cost efficiencies and asset utilization,
 
  •   achieve high levels of customer satisfaction, and
 
  •   utilize business information systems to improve consistency in financial and operational performance.
 
Experienced Executive Management Team. We believe that we have one of the most experienced executive management teams in the solid waste industry.
 
James E. O’Connor, who has served as our Chief Executive Officer (CEO) since December 1998, also became our Chairman in January 2003. He worked at Waste Management, Inc. from 1972 to 1978 and from 1982 to 1998. During that time, he served in various management positions, including Senior Vice President in 1997 and 1998, and Area President of Waste Management of Florida, Inc. from 1992 to 1997. Mr. O’Connor has 35 years of experience in the solid waste industry.
 
Donald W. Slager became our President and Chief Operating Officer (COO) upon our merger with Allied in December 2008. Prior to the merger, Mr. Slager worked for Allied from 1992 through 2008 and served in various management positions, including President and COO from 2004 through 2008 and Executive Vice President and COO from 2003 to 2004. From 2001 to 2003, Mr. Slager served as Senior Vice President, Operations. He held various management positions at Allied from 1992 to 2003, and was previously General Manager at National Waste Services, where he served in various management positions since 1985. Mr. Slager has over 24 years of experience in the solid waste industry.
 
Tod C. Holmes has served as our Chief Financial Officer (CFO) since August 1998. Mr. Holmes served as our Vice President of Finance from June 1998 until August 1998 and as Vice President of Finance of our former parent company’s Solid Waste Group from January 1998 until June 1998. From 1987 to 1998, Mr. Holmes served in various management positions with Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., including Vice President, Investor Relations from 1996 to 1998, Divisional Vice President, Collection Operations from 1995 to 1996, Divisional Vice President and Regional Controller — Northern Region from 1993 to 1995, and Divisional Vice President and Assistant Corporate Controller from 1991 to 1993. Mr. Holmes has over 22 years of experience in the solid waste industry.
 
Our regional senior vice presidents have an average of 22 years of experience in the industry.
 
Continuing Merger Integration Strategy. On December 5, 2008 we completed our merger with Allied. We believe that our merger integration strategy is well underway, and we continue to believe this merger is different from historical attempts to consolidate the waste industry for a number of reasons, including the following:
 
  •   Two Mature Companies. Most previous attempts to consolidate the waste industry focused on a “roll up” strategy often involving relatively young companies solely focused on increasing revenue through acquisitions. Our merger with Allied involved two mature companies with similar business practices and performance metrics that have been developed and refined over the course of a number of years. We believe that the combination of our maturity and proven business practices and performance metrics has been a critical component of our success in 2009 and will be a critical component of our future success.
 
  •   Best Practices. Our merger also affords us the opportunity to select the best tools and systems and to adopt the best practices of two successful companies. Republic had a history of financial discipline evident in the consistent generation of increasing levels of free cash flow. Allied was noted for its integrated operations and focus on procurement. We believe that our merger has given us an unique opportunity to combine the strengths of these two successful organizations and create a best-in-class waste management company.
 
  •   Timely and Focused Integration Process. We are acutely aware that previous acquisitions in the waste management and other industries failed because of a lack of focus on integration. As such, we began to develop our integration process and strategy in June 2008, long before our merger was consummated. Our process identified specific integration related tasks focused on all levels of the


5


Table of Contents

  organization, especially our individual business units. We engaged employees at all levels of the company to develop a detailed integration plan and to ensure that each of our employees understands their role in the process. The integration process is well underway and is ahead of schedule.
 
  •   Strong Operating Platform. The merger has created a company with a strong, national operating platform. The foundation of this platform is our large network of disposal sites. This disposal network provides us with a far stronger vertically integrated operating structure than either company would have been able to achieve on its own. We believe that our improved vertically integrated operations will be a key driver of our future profitability.
 
  •   Complementary Operations and Cultures. The overlay of our operating locations reflects another compelling attribute of our merger. Republic and Allied operated complementary geographies and shared very similar cultures that are centered on a commitment to providing “industry-leading solid waste and environmental services that exceed our customers’ highest expectations.”
 
  •   Significant Synergies. Prior to the effective date of our merger with Allied, we identified $150 million of annual run-rate integration synergies. We also developed a detailed plan for realizing this goal that includes participation at all levels throughout the company from the drivers of our fleet of collection vehicles to our board of directors. This plan anticipated achieving $100 million of annual run-rate integration synergies by the end of fiscal 2009. As of December 31, 2009, we have already met our original goal of $150 million of run-rate synergies and have increased our total goal for annual run-rate synergies to $165 million to $175 million. We expect to achieve this goal by the end of 2010.
 
  •   Strong Capital Structure. Republic enjoys a strong capital structure and investment grade credit ratings post-merger. Our combination with Allied has created a company that produces substantial annual free cash flow. This strong cash producing characteristic will allow us to pursue our mission of increasing shareholder value by focusing on investing in our business, paying down our debt, funding dividends and reinstituting our share repurchase program.
 
Decentralized Management Structure. We rely on a decentralized management structure to minimize administrative overhead costs and to manage our day-to-day operations more efficiently. Our local management has extensive industry experience in growing, operating and managing solid waste companies and has substantial experience in their local geographic markets. Each regional management team includes a senior vice president, vice president-controller, vice president of human resources, vice president of sales, vice president of operations support, director of safety, director of engineering and environmental management, and director of market planning and development. We believe that our strong regional management teams allow us to more effectively and efficiently drive our initiatives and help ensure consistency throughout our organization. Our regional management teams and our area presidents have extensive authority, responsibility and autonomy for operations within their respective geographic markets. Compensation for our area management teams is primarily based on improving operating income produced and the free cash flow and return on invested capital generated in each manager’s geographic area of responsibility. In addition, through long-term incentive programs, including stock options, we believe we have achieved one of the lowest turnover levels in the industry for our local management teams. As a result of retaining experienced managers with extensive knowledge of and involvement in their local communities, we are proactive in anticipating our customers’ needs and adjusting to changes in our markets. We also seek to implement the best practices of our various regions and areas throughout our operations to improve operating margins.
 
Integrated Operations. We seek to achieve a high rate of internalization by controlling waste streams from the point of collection through disposal. We expect that our fully integrated markets generally will have a lower cost of operations and more favorable cash flows than our non-integrated markets. Through acquisitions, landfill operating agreements and other market development activities, we create market-specific, integrated operations typically consisting of one or more collection companies, transfer stations and landfills. We consider acquiring companies that own or operate landfills with significant permitted disposal capacity and appropriate levels of waste volume. We also seek to acquire solid waste collection companies in markets in which we own or operate landfills. In addition, we generate internal growth in our disposal operations by developing new landfills and expanding our existing landfills from time to time in markets in which we have


6


Table of Contents

significant collection operations or in markets that we determine lack sufficient disposal capacity. During the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, approximately 68% and 58%, respectively, of the total waste volume that we collected was disposed at landfill sites that we own or operate (internalization). This increase in internalization is due to a higher concentration of integrated hauling and landfill operations acquired in our merger with Allied. In a number of our larger markets, we and our competitors are required to take waste to government-controlled disposal facilities (flow-control). This provides us with an opportunity to effectively compete in these markets without investing in landfill capacity. Because we do not have landfill facilities or government-controlled disposal facilities for all markets in which we provide collection services, we believe that landfill and transfer station acquisitions, operating agreements, and market development give us the opportunity to increase our waste internalization rate and further integrate our operations. By further integrating operations in existing markets, we may be able to reduce our disposal costs.
 
Economies of Scale, Cost Efficiencies and Asset Utilization. We continue to identify and implement best practices throughout our organization with the goal of permanently improving overall operating and financial results. These best practice initiatives focus on critical areas of our operations such as landfill operations, truck routing, maintenance and related service efficiencies, purchasing and administrative activities. The consolidation of acquired businesses into existing operations reduces costs by decreasing capital and expenses used for truck routing, personnel, equipment and vehicle maintenance, inventories and back-office administration. Generally, we consolidate our acquired administrative centers to reduce our general and administrative costs. Of particular benefit are the opportunities associated with the blending of operations as a result of the Allied merger. Scheduled for full completion by the first half of 2010, these markets offer the potential for marked improvement in operating results. Generally speaking, there are significant opportunities in these markets to leverage economies of scale and the existing asset base, while realizing improved operating efficiencies. Upon the completion of the integration of Allied, our goal is to maintain our selling, general and administrative costs at no more than 10.0% of revenue, which we believe is appropriate given our existing business platform. In addition, our procurement initiatives ensure that we negotiate the best volume discounts for goods and services purchased, including waste disposal rates at landfills operated by third parties. Furthermore, we have taken steps to maximize the utilization of our assets. For example, to reduce the number of collection vehicles and maximize the efficiency of our fleet and drivers, we use a route optimization program to minimize drive times and improve operating density. By using assets more efficiently, operating expenses can be reduced.
 
High Levels of Customer Satisfaction. We strive to provide the highest level of service to our customer base. Our policy is to periodically visit each commercial account to ensure customer satisfaction and to verify that we are providing the appropriate level of service. In addition to visiting existing customers, a salesperson develops a base of prospective customers within each market. We also have municipal marketing representatives in most service areas that are responsible for working with each municipality or community to which we provide residential service to ensure customer satisfaction. Additionally, the municipal representatives organize and drive the effort to obtain new or renew municipal contracts in their service areas.
 
Focus on Systems Utilization. We continue to invest in the integration and expansion of our information systems and technology platform. Our future platform will consist of best-in-class legacy systems from both Republic and Allied. During 2009, we converted the entire company to a single payable and general ledger system. Additionally, we made significant progress in converting to a single operating system. We expect to complete our operating system conversion by the third quarter of 2010. In addition, during January 2010, we converted the entire company to a single payroll and human resource system. Our future technology related initiatives will include customer relationship management, billing, productivity and maintenance systems. We believe that the combination of these systems will prove to be a competitive advantage for our company.
 
For certain risks related to our operating strategy, see Item 1A. Risk Factors.


7


Table of Contents

Growth Strategy
 
Our growth strategy focuses on increasing revenue, gaining market share and enhancing shareholder value through internal growth and acquisitions. We manage our growth strategy as follows:
 
Internal Growth. Our internal growth strategy focuses on retaining existing customers and obtaining new commercial, municipal and industrial customers through our well-managed sales and marketing activities.
 
•   Pricing Activities. We seek to secure price increases necessary to offset increased costs, to improve our operating margins and to obtain adequate returns on our substantial investments in assets such as our landfills. During 2009, we continued to secure broad-based price increases across all lines of our business to offset various escalating capital and operating costs. Price increases will remain a major component of our overall future operating strategy.
 
•   Long-Term Contracts. We seek to obtain long-term contracts for collecting solid waste in markets with growing populations. These include exclusive franchise agreements with municipalities as well as commercial and industrial contracts. By obtaining such long-term agreements, we have the opportunity to grow our contracted revenue base at the same rate as the underlying population growth in these markets. We believe it is important to have secured exclusive, long-term franchise agreements in growing market areas. We believe that this positions us to experience internal growth rates that are generally higher than our industry’s overall growth rate. In addition, we believe that by securing a base of long-term recurring revenue in growing population markets, we are better able to protect our market position from competition and our business may be less susceptible to downturns in economic conditions.
 
•   Sales and Marketing Activities. We seek to manage our sales and marketing activities to enable us to capitalize on our leading position in many of the markets in which we operate. We provide a National Accounts program in response to the needs of our national clients, centralizing services to effectively manage their needs, such as minimizing their procurement costs. We currently have approximately 1,000 sales and marketing employees in the field who are compensated using a commission structure that is focused on generating high levels of quality revenue. For the most part, these employees directly solicit business from existing and prospective commercial, industrial, municipal and residential customers. We emphasize our rate and cost structures when we train new and existing sales personnel. In addition, we utilize a customer relationship management system that assists our sales people in tracking leads. It also tracks renewal periods for potential commercial, industrial and franchise contracts.
 
•   Development Activities. We seek to identify opportunities to further our position as an integrated service provider in markets where we provide services for a portion of the waste stream. Where appropriate, we seek to obtain permits to build transfer stations, recycling facilities, and landfills that would provide vertically integrated waste services or expand the service areas for our existing disposal sites. Development projects, while generally less capital intensive than acquiring such projects, typically require extensive permitting efforts that can take years to complete with no assurance of success. We undertake development projects when we believe there is a reasonable probability of success and where reasonably priced acquisition opportunities are not available.
 
Acquisition Growth. We look to acquire businesses that complement our existing business platform. Our acquisition growth strategy focuses primarily on privately held solid waste companies and the waste operations of municipal and other local governmental authorities. We believe that our ability to acquire privately held companies is enhanced by increasing competition in the solid waste industry, increasing capital requirements as a result of changes in solid waste regulatory requirements, and the limited number of exit strategies for these privately held companies’ owners. We also seek to acquire operations and facilities from municipalities that are privatizing, as they seek to increase available capital and reduce risk. In addition, we will continue to evaluate opportunities to acquire operations and facilities that are being divested by other publicly owned waste companies. In sum, our acquisition growth strategy focuses primarily on the following:
 
•   acquiring privately held businesses that position us for growth in existing and new markets,
 
•   acquiring well-managed companies and, when appropriate, retaining local management, and


8


Table of Contents

 
•   acquiring operations and facilities from municipalities that are privatizing and from publicly owned companies that are divesting of assets.
 
We also seek to acquire landfills, transfer stations and collection companies that operate in markets that we are already servicing in order to fully integrate our operations from collection to disposal. In addition, we have in the past and may continue in the future to exchange businesses with other solid waste companies if by doing so there is a net benefit to our business platform. These activities allow us to increase our revenue and market share, lower our cost of operations as a percentage of revenue, and consolidate duplicative facilities and functions to maximize cost efficiencies and economies of scale.
 
For certain risks related to our growth strategy, see Item 1A. Risk Factors.
 
Operations
 
Our operations primarily consist of the collection, transfer and disposal of non-hazardous solid waste.
 
Collection Services. We provide solid waste collection services to commercial, industrial, municipal and residential customers through 376 collection companies. In 2009, 76.9% of our revenue was derived from collection services. Within the collection line of business, 35% of our revenue is from services provided to municipal and residential customers, 40% is from services provided to commercial customers, and 25% is from services provided to industrial and other customers.
 
Our residential collection operations involve the curbside collection of refuse from small containers into collection vehicles for transport to transfer stations or directly to landfills. Residential solid waste collection services are typically performed under contracts with municipalities, which we generally secure by competitive bid and which give us exclusive rights to service all or a portion of the homes in their respective jurisdictions. These contracts or franchises usually range in duration from one to five years, although some of our exclusive franchises are for significantly longer periods. Residential solid waste collection services may also be performed on a subscription basis, in which individual households contract directly with us. The fees received for subscription residential collection are based primarily on market factors, frequency and type of service, the distance to the disposal facility and the cost of disposal. In general, subscription residential collection fees are paid quarterly in advance by the residential customers receiving the service.
 
In our commercial and industrial collection operations, we supply our customers with waste containers of varying sizes. We also rent compactors to large waste generators. Commercial collection services are generally performed under one- to three-year service agreements, and fees are determined by considerations such as market factors, collection frequency, type of equipment furnished, the type and volume or weight of the waste collected, transportation costs, the distance to the disposal facility, and the cost of disposal.
 
We also provide waste collection services to industrial and construction facilities on a contractual basis with terms ranging from a single pickup to one year or longer. Our construction services are provided to the commercial construction and home building sectors. We collect the containers or compacted waste and transport the waste either to a landfill or a transfer station for disposal.
 
We also provide recycling services in certain markets in compliance with local laws or the terms of our franchise agreements. These services include the curbside collection of residential recyclable waste and the provision of a variety of recycling services to commercial and industrial customers.
 
Transfer and Disposal Services. We own or operate 223 transfer stations. We deposit waste at these transfer stations, as do other private haulers and municipal haulers, for compaction and transfer to trailers for transport to disposal sites or recycling facilities. In 2009, transfer and disposal services accounted for 18.9% of our revenue.
 
As of December 31, 2009, we owned or operated 192 active landfills, which had approximately 35,000 permitted acres and total available permitted and probable expansion disposal capacity of approximately 4.6 billion in-place cubic yards. The in-place capacity of our landfills is subject to change based on engineering factors, requirements of regulatory authorities, our ability to continue to operate our landfills in compliance with applicable regulations, and our ability to successfully renew operating permits and obtain


9


Table of Contents

expansion permits at our sites. Some of our landfills accept non-hazardous special waste, including utility ash, asbestos and contaminated soils.
 
Most of our active landfill sites have the potential for expanded disposal capacity beyond the currently permitted acreage. We monitor the availability of permitted disposal capacity at each of our landfills and evaluate whether to pursue an expansion at a given landfill based on estimated future waste volumes and prices, market needs, remaining capacity and likelihood of obtaining an expansion. To satisfy future disposal demand, we are currently seeking to expand permitted capacity at certain of our landfills. However, we cannot assure you that all proposed or future expansions will be permitted as designed.
 
We also have responsibility for 132 closed landfills, for which we have associated closure and post-closure obligations.
 
Landfill Gas and Renewable Energy Projects. During 2009, we brought eleven landfill gas-to-energy projects on line, bringing our total number of such projects to 74 or over one third of our active landfills. These projects consist of the following:
 
•   51 electric generating plants powered by landfill gas,
 
•   14 medium Btu plants that provide landfill gas to industrial users,
 
•   6 high Btu plants that produce pipeline quality gas, and
 
•   3 projects that use landfill gas to power leachate evaporating equipment.
 
Our 51 electric projects generate 323 megawatts of electricity, enough to power approximately 192,000 homes. Our 23 other projects provide or process more than 58,000 square cubic feet per minute of gas, enough to heat almost 200,000 homes. The environmental benefit of all of our projects combined is the equivalent of removing nearly 4 million cars from the road.
 
During 2009, we also combined a first-of-its-kind solar technology with an existing gas-to-energy system which turned our Tessman Road Landfill in San Antonio, Texas into a sustainable energy park. A closed portion of the landfill is now capped with a Solar Energy Cover, developed by Republic, which generates electricity for homes and businesses in the surrounding area. We expect to install a similar system at one or more of our landfills during 2010.
 
Many of our landfills that do not have gas-to-energy or renewable energy projects are capable of supporting such projects. As a result, we intend to bring several of these projects on line each year for many years to come.
 
Recycling Facilities and Other Services. We own or operate 78 materials recovery facilities and other recycling operations. These facilities sort recyclable paper, aluminum, glass and other materials. Most of these recyclable materials are internally collected by our residential collection operations. In some areas, we receive commercial and industrial solid waste that is sorted at our facilities into recyclable materials and non-recyclable waste. The recyclable materials are salvaged, repackaged and sold to third parties, and the non-recyclable waste is disposed of at landfills or incinerators.
 
Sales and Marketing
 
We seek to provide quality services that will enable us to maintain high levels of customer satisfaction. We derive our business from a broad customer base, which we believe will enable us to experience stable growth. We focus our marketing efforts on continuing and expanding our business with existing customers, as well as attracting new customers.
 
We employ approximately 1,000 sales and marketing employees. Our sales and marketing strategy is to provide high-quality, comprehensive solid waste collection, recycling, transfer and disposal services to our customers at competitive prices. We target potential customers of all sizes, from small quantity generators to large “Fortune 500” companies and municipalities.


10


Table of Contents

Most of our marketing activity is local in nature. However, we also provide a national accounts program in response to the needs of some of our national and regional customers. Our national accounts program is designed to provide the best total solution to our customers’ evolving waste management needs in an environmentally responsible manner. We partner with our national clients to reach their sustainability goals, optimize waste streams, balance equipment and service intervals, and provide customized reporting. The national accounts program centralizes services to effectively manage customer needs, while helping minimize procurement costs. With our extended geographic reach, our national accounts program effectively serves 40 states and Puerto Rico. As industry leaders, our mission is to utilize our strengths and expertise to exceed customer expectations by consistently delivering the best national program available.
 
We generally do not change the trade names of the local businesses we acquire, and therefore we do not operate nationally under any one mark or trade name.
 
Customers
 
We provide services to a broad base of commercial, industrial, municipal and residential customers. No one customer has individually accounted for more than 5% of our consolidated revenue or of our reportable segment revenue in any of the last three years.
 
Competition
 
We operate in a highly competitive industry. Entry into our business and the ability to operate profitably in the industry require substantial amounts of capital and managerial experience.
 
Competition in the non-hazardous solid waste industry comes from a few large, national publicly owned companies, including Waste Management, Inc., several regional publicly and privately owned solid waste companies, and thousands of small privately owned companies. In any given market, competitors may have larger operations and greater resources. In addition to national and regional firms and numerous local companies, we compete with municipalities that maintain waste collection or disposal operations. These municipalities may have financial advantages due to the availability of tax revenue and tax-exempt financing.
 
We compete for collection accounts primarily on the basis of price and the quality of our services. From time to time, our competitors may reduce the price of their services in an effort to expand market share or to win a competitively bid municipal contract. Our ability to increase prices in certain markets may be impacted by the pricing policies of our competitors. This may have an impact on our future revenue and profitability.
 
Seasonality and Severe Weather
 
Our operations can be adversely affected by periods of inclement or severe weather, which could increase the volume of waste collected under our existing contracts (without corresponding compensation), delay the collection and disposal of waste, reduce the volume of waste delivered to our disposal sites, or delay the construction or expansion of our landfill sites and other facilities.
 
Regulation
 
Our facilities and operations are subject to a variety of federal, state and local requirements that regulate the environment, public health, safety, zoning and land use. Operating and other permits, licenses and other approvals generally are required for landfills and transfer stations, certain solid waste collection vehicles, fuel storage tanks and other facilities that we own or operate. These permits are subject to denial, revocation, modification and renewal in certain circumstances. Federal, state and local laws and regulations vary, but generally govern wastewater or storm water discharges, air emissions, the handling, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, and the remediation of contamination associated with the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. These laws and regulations provide governmental authorities with strict powers of enforcement, which include the ability to revoke or decline to renew any of our operating permits, obtain injunctions, or impose fines or penalties in the case of violations, including


11


Table of Contents

criminal penalties. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and various other federal, state and local authorities administer these regulations.
 
We strive to conduct our operations in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and permits. However, in the existing climate of heightened environmental concerns, from time to time we have been issued citations or notices from governmental authorities that have resulted in the need to expend funds for remedial work and related activities at various landfills and other facilities. We cannot assure you that citations and notices will not be issued in the future despite our regulatory compliance efforts. We have established final capping, closure, post-closure and remediation liabilities that we believe, based on currently available information, will be adequate to cover our current estimates of regulatory costs. However, we cannot assure you that actual costs will not exceed our reserves. Refer to the Contractual Obligations table within Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained elsewhere herein for further information.
 
Federal Regulation. The following summarizes the primary federal environmental and occupational health and safety-related statutes that affect our facilities and operations:
 
•   The Solid Waste Disposal Act, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA establishes a framework for regulating the handling, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste, and requires states to develop programs to ensure the safe disposal of solid waste in sanitary landfills.
 
Subtitle D of RCRA establishes a framework for regulating the disposal of municipal solid waste. Regulations under Subtitle D currently include minimum comprehensive solid waste management criteria and guidelines, including location restrictions, facility design and operating criteria, final capping, closure and post-closure requirements, financial assurance standards, groundwater monitoring requirements and corrective action standards, many of which had not commonly been in effect or enforced in the past in connection with municipal solid waste landfills. Each state was required to submit to the EPA a permit program designed to implement Subtitle D regulations by April 9, 1993. All of the states in which we operate have implemented permit programs pursuant to RCRA and Subtitle D. These state permit programs may include landfill requirements which are more stringent than those of Subtitle D. Our failure to comply with the environmental requirements of federal, state and local authorities at any of our locations may lead to temporary or permanent loss of an operating permit.
 
All of our planned landfill expansions and new landfill development projects have been engineered to meet or exceed Subtitle D requirements. Operating and design criteria for existing operations have been modified to comply with these regulations. Compliance with Subtitle D regulations has resulted in increased costs and may in the future require substantial additional expenditures in addition to other costs normally associated with our waste management activities.
 
•   The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). CERCLA, among other things, provides for the cleanup of sites from which there is a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance into the environment. CERCLA may impose strict joint and several liability for the costs of cleanup and for damages to natural resources upon current owners and operators of a site, parties who were owners or operators of a site at the time the hazardous substances were disposed of, parties who transported the hazardous substances to a site and parties who arranged for the disposal of the hazardous substances at a site. Under the authority of CERCLA and its implementing regulations, detailed requirements apply to the manner and degree of investigation and remediation of facilities and sites where hazardous substances have been or are threatened to be released into the environment. Liability under CERCLA is not dependent on the existence or disposal of only “hazardous wastes,” but can also be based upon the existence of small quantities of more than 700 “substances” characterized by the EPA as “hazardous,” many of which are found in common household waste.
 
Among other things, CERCLA authorizes the federal government to investigate and remediate sites at which hazardous substances have been or are threatened to be released into the environment or to order (or offer an opportunity to) persons potentially liable for the cleanup of the hazardous substances to do so.


12


Table of Contents

In addition, the EPA has established a National Priorities List of sites at which hazardous substances have been or are threatened to be released and which require investigation or cleanup.
 
CERCLA liability is strict liability. It can be founded upon the release or threatened release, even as a result of unintentional, non-negligent or lawful action, of hazardous substances, including very small quantities of such substances. Thus, even if we have never knowingly transported or received hazardous waste, it is likely that hazardous substances have been deposited or “released” at landfills or other properties owned by third parties where we have transported to and disposed of waste or at our landfills or at other properties that we currently own or operate or may have owned or operated. Therefore, we could be liable under CERCLA for the cost of cleaning up such hazardous substances at such sites and for damages to natural resources, even if those substances were deposited at our facilities before we acquired or operated them. The costs of a CERCLA cleanup can be very expensive. Given the difficulty of obtaining insurance for environmental impairment liability, such liability could have a material impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
•   The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (the Clean Water Act). This act regulates the discharge of pollutants from a variety of sources, including solid waste disposal sites, into streams, rivers and other waters of the United States. Point source runoff from our landfills and transfer stations that is discharged into surface waters must be covered by discharge permits that generally require us to conduct sampling and monitoring, and, under certain circumstances, reduce the quantity of pollutants in those discharges. Storm water discharge regulations under the Clean Water Act require a permit for certain construction activities and discharges from industrial operations and facilities, which may affect our operations. If a landfill or transfer station discharges wastewater through a sewage system to a publicly owned treatment works, the facility must comply with discharge limits imposed by that treatment works. In addition, states may adopt groundwater protection programs under the Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act that could affect solid waste landfills. Furthermore, development which alters or affects wetlands generally must be permitted prior to such development commencing, and permitting agencies may require mitigation.
 
•   The Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act imposes limitations on emissions from various sources, including landfills. In March 1996, the EPA promulgated regulations that require large municipal solid waste landfills to install landfill gas monitoring systems. These regulations apply to landfills that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification on or after May 30, 1991, and, principally, to landfills that can accommodate 2.5 million cubic meters or more of municipal solid waste. The regulations apply whether the landfill is active or closed. The date by which each affected landfill is required to have a gas collection and control system installed and made operational varies depending on calculated emission rates at the landfill. Efforts to curtail the emission of greenhouse gases and to ameliorate the effect of climate change may require our landfills to deploy more stringent emission controls, with resulting capital or operating costs. See Item 1A. Risk Factors — “Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions could impose costs on our operations, the magnitude of which we cannot yet estimate.” Many state regulatory agencies also currently require monitoring systems for the collection and control of certain landfill gas.
 
•   The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA). OSHA authorizes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor to promulgate occupational safety and health standards. A number of these standards, including standards for notices of hazardous chemicals and the handling of asbestos, apply to our facilities and operations.
 
State and Local Regulation. Each state in which we operate has its own laws and regulations governing solid waste disposal, water and air pollution, and, in most cases, releases and cleanup of hazardous substances and liabilities for such matters. States also have adopted regulations governing the design, operation, maintenance and closure of landfills and transfer stations. Some counties, municipalities and other local governments have adopted similar laws and regulations. Our facilities and operations are likely to be subject to these types of requirements. In addition, our solid waste collection and landfill operations may be affected by the trend in many states toward requiring the development of solid waste reduction and recycling programs. For example, several states have enacted laws that require counties or municipalities to adopt comprehensive plans to reduce, through solid waste planning, composting, recycling or other programs, the volume of solid waste deposited in


13


Table of Contents

landfills. Additionally, laws and regulations restricting the disposal of certain waste in solid waste landfills, including yard waste, newspapers, beverage containers, unshredded tires, lead-acid batteries, electronic wastes and household appliances, have been promulgated in several states and are being considered in others. Legislative and regulatory measures to mandate or encourage waste reduction at the source and waste recycling also have been or are under consideration by the U.S. Congress and the EPA.
 
To construct, operate and expand a landfill, we must obtain one or more construction or operating permits, as well as zoning and land use approvals. These permits and approvals may be difficult and time-consuming to obtain and to operate in compliance with, are often opposed by neighboring landowners and citizens’ groups, may be subject to periodic renewal, and are subject to denial, modification, non-renewal and revocation by the issuing agency. In connection with our acquisition of existing landfills, we may be required to expend considerable time, effort and money to bring the acquired facilities into compliance with applicable requirements and to obtain the permits and approvals necessary to increase their capacity.
 
Other Regulations. Many of our facilities own and operate underground storage tanks that are generally used to store petroleum-based products. These tanks are generally subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations that mandate their periodic testing, upgrading, closure and removal, and that, in the event of leaks, require that polluted groundwater and soils be remediated. We believe that all of our underground storage tanks currently meet all applicable regulations. If underground storage tanks we own or operate leak, we could be liable for response costs and, if the leakage migrates onto the property of others, we could be liable for damages to third parties. We are unaware of facts indicating that issues of compliance with regulations related to underground storage tanks will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
 
With regard to our solid waste transportation operations, we are subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board and are regulated by the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carriers, and by regulatory agencies in states that regulate such matters. Various states and local government authorities have enacted or promulgated, or are considering enacting or promulgating, laws and regulations that would restrict the transportation of solid waste across state, county, or other jurisdiction lines. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a law that restricts the importation of out-of-state solid waste was unconstitutional; however, states have attempted to distinguish proposed laws from those involved in and implicated by that ruling. In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that a flow control law, which attempted to restrict solid waste from leaving its place of generation, imposed an impermissible burden upon interstate commerce, and, therefore, was unconstitutional. In 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a local government to direct the flow of solid waste to a publicly owned waste facility. A number of county and other local jurisdictions have enacted ordinances or other regulations restricting the free movement of solid waste across jurisdictional boundaries. Other governments may enact similar regulations in the future. These regulations may, in some cases, cause a decline in volumes of waste delivered to our landfills or transfer stations and may increase our costs of disposal, thereby adversely affecting our operations.
 
Liabilities Established for Landfill and Environmental Costs. We have established liabilities for landfill and environmental costs, which include landfill site final capping, closure and post-closure costs. We periodically reassess such costs based on various methods and assumptions regarding landfill airspace and the technical requirements of Subtitle D of RCRA, and we adjust our rates used to expense final capping, closure and post-closure costs accordingly. Based on current information and regulatory requirements, we believe that our liabilities recorded for such landfill and environmental expenditures are adequate. However, environmental laws may change, and we cannot assure you that our recorded liabilities will be adequate to cover requirements under existing or new environmental laws and regulations, future changes or interpretations of existing laws and regulations, or adverse environmental conditions previously unknown to us.
 
Liability Insurance and Bonding
 
The nature of our business exposes us to the risk of liabilities arising out of our operations, including possible damages to the environment. Such potential liabilities could involve, for example, claims for remediation costs, personal injury, property damage and damage to the environment in cases where we may be held


14


Table of Contents

responsible for the escape of harmful materials; claims of employees, customers or third parties for personal injury or property damage occurring in the course of our operations; or claims alleging negligence or other wrongdoing in the planning or performance of work. We could also be subject to fines and civil and criminal penalties in connection with alleged violations of regulatory requirements. Because of the nature and scope of the possible environmental damages, liabilities imposed in environmental litigation can be significant. Our solid waste operations have third party environmental liability insurance with limits in excess of those required by permit regulations, subject to certain limitations and exclusions. However, we cannot assure you that such environmental liability insurance would be adequate, in scope or amount, in the event of a major loss, nor can we assure you that we would continue to carry excess environmental liability insurance should market conditions in the insurance industry make such coverage costs prohibitive.
 
We have general liability, vehicle liability, employment practices liability, pollution liability, directors and officers’ liability, workers’ compensation and employer’s liability coverage, as well as umbrella liability policies to provide excess coverage over the underlying limits contained in these primary policies. We also carry property insurance. Although we try to operate safely and prudently and we have, subject to limitations and exclusions, substantial liability insurance, we cannot assure you that we will not be exposed to uninsured liabilities that could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
Our insurance programs for workers’ compensation, general liability, vehicle liability and employee-related health care benefits are effectively self-insured. Claims in excess of self-insurance levels are insured subject to the excess policy limits and exclusions. Accruals are based on claims filed and actuarial estimates of claims development and claims incurred but not reported. Due to the variable condition of the insurance market, we have experienced, and may experience in the future, increased self-insurance retention levels and increased premiums. As we assume more risk for self-insurance through higher retention levels, we may experience more variability in our self-insurance reserves and expense.
 
In the normal course of business, we post performance bonds, insurance policies, letters of credit, or cash or marketable securities deposits in connection with municipal residential collection contracts, the operation, closure or post-closure of landfills, environmental remediation, environmental permits, and business licenses and permits as a financial guarantee of our performance. To date, we have satisfied financial responsibility requirements by making cash or marketable securities deposits or by obtaining bank letters of credit, insurance policies or surety bonds.
 
Employees
 
As of December 31, 2009, we employed approximately 31,000 full-time employees, approximately 27% of whom were covered by collective bargaining agreements. From time to time, our operating locations may experience union organizing efforts. We have not historically experienced any significant work stoppages. We currently have no disputes or bargaining circumstances that we believe could cause significant disruptions in our business. Our management believes that we have good relations with our employees.
 
Availability of Reports and Other Information
 
Our corporate website is http://www.republicservices.com. We make available on this website, free of charge, access to our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, Proxy Statements on Schedule 14A and amendments to those materials filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. We make such materials available as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically submit them to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Our corporate website also contains our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Ethics and Charters of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, Audit Committee and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. In addition, the SEC website is http://www.sec.gov. The SEC makes available on this website, free of charge, reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers, such as us, that file electronically with the SEC. Information on our website or the SEC website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We intend to satisfy the disclosure requirements under Item 5.05 of


15


Table of Contents

Form 8-K and applicable New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) rules regarding amendments to or waivers of our Code of Ethics by posting this information on our website at www.republicservices.com.
 
ITEM 1A.  RISK FACTORS
 
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains certain forward-looking information about us that is intended to be covered by the safe harbor for “forward-looking statements” provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts. Words such as “expect,” “will,” “may,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “estimate,” “project,” “intend,” “should,” “can,” “likely,” “could” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements include statements about the expected benefits of the merger, our plans, strategies and prospects. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. These statements are based upon the current beliefs and expectations of our management and are subject to risk and uncertainties, including the risks set forth below in these risk factors, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied or projected by, the forward-looking information and statements.
 
In light of these risks, uncertainties, assumptions and factors, the results anticipated by the forward-looking statements discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may not occur. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Except to the extent required by applicable law or regulation, we undertake no obligation to update or publish revised forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
 
We have substantial indebtedness, which may limit our financial flexibility.
 
As of December 31, 2009, we had approximately $7.4 billion in principal value of debt and capital leases outstanding. This amount of indebtedness and our debt service requirements may limit our financial flexibility to access additional capital and make capital expenditures and other investments in our business, to withstand economic downturns and interest rate increases, to plan for or react to changes in our business and our industry, and to comply with the financial and other restrictive covenants of our debt instruments. Further, our ability to comply with the financial and other covenants contained in our debt instruments may be affected by changes in economic or business conditions or other events that are beyond our control. If we do not comply with these covenants and restrictions, we may be required to take actions such as reducing or delaying capital expenditures, reducing dividends, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing all or part of our existing debt, or seeking additional equity capital.
 
The downturn in the U.S. economy may continue to have an adverse impact on our operating results.
 
A weak economy generally results in decreases in the volumes of waste generated. In 2009, weakness in the U.S. economy had a negative effect on our revenue, operating results and operating cash flows. The current and previous economic slowdowns have negatively impacted the portion of our collection business servicing the manufacturing and construction industries and our proceeds from sales of recycled commodities. As a result of the global economic crisis, we may experience the negative effects of increased competitive pricing pressure and customer turnover as well. We cannot assure you that worsening economic conditions or a prolonged or recurring recession will not have a significant adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Further, we cannot assure you that an improvement in economic conditions will result in an immediate, or any, improvement in our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
 
The downturn in the U.S. economy may expose us to credit risk for amounts due from governmental agencies, large national accounts and others.
 
The weak U.S. economy has reduced the amount of taxes collected by various governmental agencies. We provide services to a number of these agencies including numerous municipalities. These governmental agencies may suffer financial difficulties resulting from a decrease in tax revenue and may ultimately be


16


Table of Contents

unable or unwilling to pay amounts owed to us. In addition, the weak economy may cause other customers, including our large national accounts, to suffer financial difficulties and ultimately to be unable or unwilling to pay amounts owed to us. This could have a negative impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
The downturn in the U.S. economy and in the financial markets could expose us to counter-party risk associated with our derivatives.
 
To reduce our exposure to fluctuations in various commodities and interest rates, we have entered into a number of derivative agreements. These derivative agreements require us or the counter-party to such agreements to make payments to the other party if the price of certain commodities or interest rates vary from a specified amount. A continued downturn in the U.S. economy or in the financial markets could adversely impact the financial stability of the counter-parties with which we do business, potentially limiting their ability to fulfill their obligations under our derivative agreements. This could have a negative impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
The waste industry is highly competitive and includes competitors that may have greater financial and operational resources, flexibility to reduce prices and other competitive advantages that could make it difficult for us to compete effectively.
 
We principally compete with large national waste management companies, municipalities and numerous regional and local companies for collection and disposal accounts. Competition for collection accounts is primarily based on price and the quality of services. Competition for disposal business is primarily based on disposal costs, geographic location and quality of operations. Some of our competitors may have greater financial and operational resources than us. Many counties and municipalities that operate their own waste collection and disposal facilities have the benefits of tax revenue or tax-exempt financing. Our ability to obtain solid waste volume for our landfills may also be limited by the fact that some major collection companies also own or operate landfills to which they send their waste. In markets in which we do not own or operate a landfill, our collection operations may operate at a disadvantage to fully integrated competitors. As a result of these factors, we may have difficulty competing effectively from time to time or in certain markets. If we were to lower prices to address these competitive issues, it could negatively impact our revenue growth and profitability.
 
Price increases may not be adequate to offset the impact of increased costs and may cause us to lose volume.
 
We seek to secure price increases necessary to offset increased costs (including fuel and environmental costs), to improve operating margins and to obtain adequate returns on our substantial investments in assets such as our landfills. From time to time, our competitors may reduce their prices in an effort to expand their market share. Contractual, general economic or market-specific conditions may also limit our ability to raise prices. As a result, we may be unable to offset increases in costs, improve our operating margins and obtain adequate investment returns through price increases. We may also lose volume to lower-cost competitors.
 
Increases in the cost of fuel or petrochemicals will increase our operating expenses, and we cannot assure you that we will be able to recover fuel or oil cost increases from our customers.
 
We depend on fuel to run our collection and transfer trucks and other equipment used for collection, transfer, and disposal. We buy fuel in the open market. Fuel prices are unpredictable and can fluctuate significantly based on events beyond our control, including geopolitical developments, actions by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil and gas producers, supply and demand for oil and gas, war, terrorism and unrest in oil-producing countries, and regional production patterns. We may not be able to offset such volatility through fuel surcharges. For example, our fuel costs were $349.8 million in 2009, representing 7.2% of our cost of operations compared to $235.3 million in 2008, representing 9.7% of our cost of operations. This decrease in fuel costs as a percent of our cost of operations primarily reflects a decrease in the price of fuel.


17


Table of Contents

In order to manage our exposure to volatility in fuel prices, we have entered into multiple swap agreements whereby we receive or make payments to counter-parties if the price of fuel varies from a specified amount. However, we do not hedge our entire fuel usage. During 2009, only 6.4% of our fuel purchases were hedged.
 
Over the last several years, regulations have been adopted mandating the reduction of vehicle tail pipe emissions and, in October 2009, the EPA indicated it will establish the first U.S. standards for greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. The regulations could affect the type of fuel our trucks use and could materially increase the cost and consumption of our fuel. Our operations also require the use of products (such as liners at our landfills) whose costs may vary with the price of petrochemicals. An increase in the price of petrochemicals could increase the cost of those products, which would increase our operating and capital costs. We are also susceptible to increases in indirect fuel surcharges from our vendors.
 
Fluctuations in prices for recycled commodities that we sell to customers may adversely affect our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
We process recyclable materials such as paper, cardboard, plastics, aluminum and other metals for sale to third parties. Our results of operations may be affected by changing prices or market requirements for recyclable materials. The resale and purchase prices of, and market demand for, recyclable materials can be volatile due to changes in economic conditions and numerous other factors beyond our control. These fluctuations may affect our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
Adverse weather conditions may limit our operations and increase the costs of collection and disposal.
 
Our collection and landfill operations could be adversely impacted by extended periods of inclement weather, or by increased severity of weather and climate extremes resulting in the future from climate change, any of which could increase the volume of waste collected under our existing contracts (without corresponding compensation), interfere with collection and landfill operations, delay the development of landfill capacity or reduce the volume of waste generated by our customers. In addition, adverse weather conditions may result in the temporary suspension of our operations, which can significantly affect our operating results in the affected regions during those periods.
 
We currently have matters pending with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”), which could result in large cash expenditures and could have a material adverse impact on our operating results and cash flows.
 
We are currently under examination by the IRS with regard to Allied’s federal income tax returns for tax years 2007 and 2008, and Allied’s 2000 through 2006 federal income tax returns are at appeals. Republic is under audit for its 2007 and 2008 federal income tax returns, and under examination for its 2008 federal income tax return.
 
During its examination of Allied’s 2002 tax year, the IRS asserted that a 2002 redemption of four partnership interests in waste-to-energy businesses should have been recharacterized as disguised sale transactions. This issue is currently before the Appeals Division of the IRS. The Company believes its position is supported by relevant technical authorities and strong business purpose and we intend to vigorously defend our position on this matter. The potential tax and interest through December 31, 2009 (to the extent unpaid) have been fully reserved in our consolidated balance sheet. A disallowance would not materially affect our consolidated results of operations; however, a deficiency payment would adversely impact our cash flow in the period the payment was made. The accrual of additional interest charges through the time this matter is resolved will affect our consolidated results of operations. In addition, the successful assertion by the IRS of penalty and penalty-related interest in connection with this matter could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
Additionally, during its examination of Allied’s 2000 through 2003 tax years, the IRS proposed that certain landfill costs be allocated to the collection and control of methane gas that is naturally emitted from landfills. The IRS’ position is that the methane gas emitted by a landfill constitutes a joint product resulting from landfill operations and, therefore, associated costs should not be expensed until the methane gas is sold or otherwise disposed. We believe we have several meritorious defenses, including the fact that methane gas is


18


Table of Contents

not actively produced for sale by us but rather arises naturally in the context of providing disposal services. Therefore, we believe that the resolution of this issue will not have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
 
For additional information on these matters, see Note 10, Income Taxes, to our consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
Other matters may also arise in the course of tax audits that could adversely impact our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
 
We may be unable to execute our financial strategy.
 
Our ability to execute our financial strategy depends on our ability to maintain investment grade ratings on our senior debt. The credit rating process is contingent upon a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control. We cannot assure you that we will be able to maintain our investment grade ratings in the future. Our interest expense would increase and our ability to obtain financing on favorable terms may be adversely affected should we fail to maintain investment grade ratings.
 
Our financial strategy is also dependent on our ability to generate sufficient cash flow to reinvest in our existing business, fund internal growth, acquire other solid waste businesses, pay dividends, reduce indebtedness and minimize borrowings, and take other actions to enhance shareholder value. We cannot assure you that: we will be successful in executing our broad-based pricing program; we will generate sufficient cash flow to execute our financial strategy; we will be able to pay cash dividends at our present rate, that we will be able to increase the amount of such dividends, or that we will be able to reinstitute our share repurchase program.
 
A downgrade in our bond ratings could adversely affect our liquidity by increasing the cost of debt and financial assurance instruments.
 
While downgrades of our bond ratings may not have an immediate impact on our cost of debt or liquidity, they may impact our cost of debt and liquidity over the near to medium term. If the rating agencies downgrade our debt, this may increase the interest rate we must pay to issue new debt, and it may even make it prohibitively expensive for us to issue new debt. If our debt ratings are downgraded, future access to financial assurance markets at a reasonable cost, or at all, also may be adversely impacted.
 
The solid waste industry is a capital-intensive industry and the amount we spend on capital expenditures may exceed current expectations, which could require us to obtain additional funding for our operations or impair our ability to grow our business.
 
Our ability to remain competitive and to grow and expand our operations largely depends on our cash flow from operations and access to capital. If our capital efficiency programs are unable to offset the impact of inflation and business growth, it may be necessary to increase the amount we spend. Additionally, if we make acquisitions or further expand our operations, the amount we expend on capital, capping, closure, post-closure and environmental remediation expenditures will increase. Our cash needs also will increase if the expenditures for capping, closure, post-closure and remediation activities increase above our current estimates, which may occur over a long period due to changes in federal, state or local government requirements and other factors beyond our control. Increases in expenditures would negatively impact our cash flows.
 
Over the last several years, regulations have been adopted mandating the reduction of vehicle tail pipe emissions. These regulations have caused some increases in the costs of the collection vehicles we buy. The EPA recently has indicated it intends to adopt further regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. As a result, we could experience an increase in capital costs. This also could cause an increase in vehicle operating costs or a reduction in operating efficiency. We may reduce the number of vehicles we purchase until manufacturers adopt the new standards to increase efficiency.


19


Table of Contents

We may be unable to obtain or maintain required permits or to expand existing permitted capacity of our landfills, which could decrease our revenue and increase our costs.
 
We cannot assure you that we will successfully obtain or maintain the permits we require to operate our business because permits to operate non-hazardous solid waste landfills and to expand the permitted capacity of existing landfills have become more difficult and expensive to obtain and maintain. Permits often take years to obtain as a result of numerous hearings and compliance requirements with regard to zoning, environmental and other regulations. These permits are also often subject to resistance from citizen or other groups and other political pressures. Local communities and citizen groups, adjacent landowners or governmental agencies may oppose the issuance of a permit or approval we may need, allege violations of the permits under which we currently operate or laws or regulations to which we are subject, or seek to impose liability on us for environmental damage. Responding to these challenges has, at times, increased our costs and extended the time associated with establishing new facilities and expanding existing facilities. In addition, failure to receive regulatory and zoning approval may prohibit us from establishing new facilities, maintaining permits for our facilities or expanding existing facilities. Our failure to obtain the required permits to operate our non-hazardous solid waste landfills could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, we may have to dispose collected waste at landfills operated by our competitors or haul the waste long distances at a higher cost to one of our landfills, either of which could significantly increase our waste disposal costs.
 
The waste industry is subject to extensive government regulation, and existing or future regulations may restrict our operations, increase our costs of operations or require us to make additional capital expenditures.
 
If we inadequately accrue for landfill capping, closure and post-closure costs, our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.
 
A landfill must be closed and capped, and post-closure maintenance commenced, once the permitted capacity of the landfill is reached and additional capacity is not authorized. We have significant financial obligations relating to capping, closure and post-closure costs at our existing owned or operated landfills, and will have material financial obligations with respect to any future owned or operated landfills. We establish accruals for the estimated costs associated with capping, closure and post-closure financial obligations. We could underestimate such accruals, and our financial obligations for capping, closure or post-closure costs could exceed the amount accrued or amounts otherwise receivable pursuant to trust funds established for this purpose. Such a shortfall could result in significant unanticipated charges to income. Additionally, if a landfill is required to be closed earlier than expected or its remaining airspace is reduced for any other reason, the accruals for capping, closure and post-closure could be required to be accelerated, which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
We cannot assure you that we will continue to operate our landfills at current volumes due to the use of alternatives to landfill disposal caused by state requirements or voluntary initiatives.
 
Most of the states in which we operate landfills require counties and municipalities to formulate comprehensive plans to reduce the volume of solid waste deposited in landfills through waste planning, composting and recycling, or other programs. Some state and local governments mandate waste reduction at the source and prohibit the disposal of certain types of wastes, such as yard waste, at landfills. Although such actions are useful in protecting our environment, these actions, as well as voluntary private initiatives by customers to reduce waste or seek disposal alternatives, have and may in the future reduce the volume of waste going to landfills in certain areas. If this occurs, we cannot assure you that we will be able to operate our landfills at their current volumes or charge current prices for landfill disposal services due to the decrease in demand for such services.


20


Table of Contents

The possibility of landfill and transfer station site development projects, expansion projects or pending acquisitions not being completed or certain other events could result in a material charge to income.
 
We capitalize certain expenditures relating to development, expansion and other projects. If a facility or operation is permanently shut down or determined to be impaired, or a development or expansion project is not completed or is determined to be impaired, we will charge any unamortized capitalized expenditures to income relating to such facility or project that we are unable to recover through sale, transfer or otherwise. In future periods, we may incur charges against earnings in accordance with this policy, or other events may cause impairments. Such charges could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
We are subject to costly environmental regulations and flow-control regulations that may affect our operating margins, restrict our operations and subject us to additional liability.
 
Complying with laws and regulations governing the use, treatment, storage, transfer and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes and materials, air quality, water quality and the remediation of contamination associated with the release of hazardous substances is costly. Laws and regulations often require us to enhance or replace our equipment and to modify landfill operations or initiate final closure of a landfill. We cannot assure you that we will be able to implement price increases sufficient to offset the costs of complying with these laws and regulations. In addition, environmental regulatory changes could accelerate or increase expenditures for capping, closure and post-closure, and environmental and remediation activities at solid waste facilities and obligate us to spend sums in addition to those presently accrued for such purposes.
 
Our collection, transfer, and landfill operations are, and may in the future continue to be, affected by state or local laws or regulations that restrict the transportation of solid waste across state, county or other jurisdictional lines. Such laws and regulations could negatively affect our operations, resulting in declines in landfill volumes and increased costs of alternate disposal.
 
In addition to the costs of complying with environmental regulations, we incur costs to defend against litigation brought by government agencies and private parties who may allege we are in violation of our permits and applicable environmental laws and regulations, or who assert claims alleging environmental damage, personal injury or property damage. As a result, we may be required to pay fines or implement corrective measures, or we may have our permits and licenses modified or revoked. A significant judgment against us, the loss of a significant permit or license, or the imposition of a significant fine could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. We establish accruals for our estimates of the costs associated with our environmental obligations. We could underestimate such accruals and remediation costs could exceed amounts accrued. Such shortfalls could result in significant unanticipated charges to income.
 
Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions could impose costs on our operations, the magnitude of which we cannot yet estimate.
 
Efforts to curtail the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs), to ameliorate the effect of climate change, continue to advance on the federal, regional, and state level. Our landfill operations emit methane, identified as a GHG. In June 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would regulate GHGs comprehensively. While the centerpiece of that bill would be a GHG emission allowance cap-and-trade system, landfills would not be compelled to hold allowances for their GHG emissions. Rather, they would be subject to certain further emission controls to be determined through administrative rule-making. Senate passage of counterpart legislation, and whether such legislation would treat landfills in the same manner, is uncertain. Should comprehensive federal climate change legislation be enacted, we expect it to impose costs on our operations, the materiality of which we cannot predict.
 
Absent comprehensive federal legislation to control GHG emissions, EPA is moving ahead administratively under its existing Clean Air Act authority. In October 2009, EPA published a Proposed Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (“PSD tailoring rule”). The proposed rule would set new thresholds for GHG emissions that define when Clean Air Act permits would be required and


21


Table of Contents

would “tailor” these programs to limit which facilities would be required to obtain permits. EPA’s legal authority to “tailor” this rule in the manner it proposed has been challenged. If finalized as proposed, many of our landfills would be subject to the PSD tailoring rule, which could require permit amendments and additional emission controls. In December 2009, EPA finalized its finding that six GHGs endanger public health. While EPA made its finding in the context of regulating air emissions from motor vehicles, other Clean Air Act provisions appear to compel EPA to make comparable findings for stationary sources, such as landfills. We cannot predict the requirements or effective date of stationary source rules that might apply to landfills as a result of this endangerment finding and, accordingly, we cannot assure you that further developments in this area will not have a material effect on our landfill operations or on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
 
We may have potential environmental liabilities that are not covered by our insurance. Changes in insurance markets also may impact our financial results.
 
We may incur liabilities for the deterioration of the environment as a result of our operations. We maintain high deductibles for our environmental liability insurance coverage. If we were to incur substantial liability for environmental damage, our insurance coverage may be inadequate to cover such liability. This could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
Also, due to the variable condition of the insurance market, we may experience future increases in self-insurance levels as a result of increased retention levels and increased premiums. As we assume more risk for self-insurance through higher retention levels, we may experience more variability in our self-insurance reserves and expense.
 
Despite our efforts, we may incur additional hazardous substances liability in excess of amounts presently known and accrued.
 
We are a potentially responsible party at many sites under CERCLA, which provides for the remediation of contaminated facilities and imposes strict, joint and several liability for the cost of remediation on current owners and operators of a facility at which there has been a release or a threatened release of a “hazardous substance,” on parties who were site owners and operators at the time hazardous substances were disposed of, and on persons who arrange for the disposal of such substances at the facility (i.e., generators of the waste and transporters who selected the disposal site). Hundreds of substances are defined as “hazardous” under CERCLA and their presence, even in minute amounts, can result in substantial liability. Notwithstanding our efforts to comply with applicable regulations and to avoid transporting and receiving hazardous substances, we may have additional liability under CERCLA or similar laws in excess of our current reserves because such substances may be present in waste collected by us or disposed of in our landfills, or in waste collected, transported or disposed of in the past by companies we have acquired. Actual costs for these liabilities could be significantly greater than amounts presently accrued for these purposes, which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
 
Currently pending or future litigation or governmental proceedings could result in material adverse consequences, including judgments or settlements.
 
We are, and from time to time become, involved in lawsuits, regulatory inquiries, and governmental and other legal proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of our business. Many of these matters raise difficult and complicated factual and legal issues and are subject to uncertainties and complexities. The timing of the final resolutions to lawsuits, regulatory inquiries, and governmental and other legal proceedings is uncertain. Additionally, the possible outcomes or resolutions to these matters could include adverse judgments or settlements, either of which could require substantial payments, adversely affecting our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.


22


Table of Contents

We may experience difficulties completing the integration of Allied’s business, and we may incur unexpected expenses in connection with that integration.
 
Achieving the anticipated benefits of the merger with Allied will depend significantly on whether we can continue to integrate Allied’s business in an efficient and effective manner. The ongoing integration may result in additional and unforeseen expenses, and the anticipated benefits of the integration plan may not be fully realized. We may not be able to accomplish the integration process smoothly, successfully or on a timely basis. Any inability of our management to successfully and timely integrate the operations of the two companies could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
We may not realize the anticipated synergies and related benefits from the merger with Allied fully or within the timing anticipated.
 
We believe our merger with Allied has been and will continue to be beneficial to our stockholders as a result of the actual and anticipated synergies resulting from the combined operations. While we are currently ahead of our original timeline, we may not be able to achieve the anticipated operating and cost synergies or the long-term strategic benefits of the merger fully or within the timing anticipated. For example, elimination of duplicative costs may not be fully achieved or may take longer than anticipated. For at least the first year after an acquisition, and possibly longer, the benefits from the acquisition will be offset by the costs incurred in integrating the businesses and operations. The inability to realize the full extent of the anticipated synergies or other benefits of the merger, or our encountering unexpected costs or delays in the integration process (which may delay the timing of such synergies or other benefits), could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
We may be unable to manage our growth effectively.
 
Our growth strategy places significant demands on our financial, operational and management resources. To continue our growth, we may need to add administrative and other personnel, and will need to make additional investments in operations and systems. We cannot assure you that we will be able to find and train qualified personnel, or do so on a timely basis, or expand our operations and systems to the extent, and in the time, required.
 
We may be unable to execute our acquisition growth strategy.
 
Our ability to execute our growth strategy depends in part on our ability to identify and acquire desirable acquisition candidates as well as our ability to successfully consolidate acquired operations into our business. The consolidation of our operations with those of acquired companies may present significant challenges to our management. In addition, competition among our competitors for acquisition candidates may prevent us from acquiring certain acquisition candidates. As such, we cannot assure you that:
 
•   desirable acquisition candidates exist or will be identified;
 
•   we will be able to acquire any of the candidates identified;
 
•   we will effectively consolidate companies we acquire; or
 
•   any acquisitions will be profitable or accretive to our earnings.
 
If any of the aforementioned factors force us to alter our growth strategy, our growth prospects could be adversely affected.
 
Businesses we acquire may have undisclosed liabilities.
 
In pursuing our acquisition strategy, our due diligence investigations of the acquisition candidates may fail to discover certain undisclosed liabilities of the acquisition candidates. If we acquire a company having undisclosed liabilities such as environmental, remediation or contractual, as a successor owner we may be responsible for such undisclosed liabilities. We expect to try to minimize our exposure to such liabilities by


23


Table of Contents

conducting due diligence, by obtaining indemnification from each of the sellers of the acquired companies, by deferring payment of a portion of the purchase price as security for the indemnification and by acquiring only specified assets. However, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain indemnification or that any indemnification obtained will be enforceable, collectible or sufficient in amount, scope or duration to fully offset any undisclosed liabilities arising from our acquisitions.
 
Our consolidated financial statements are based on estimates and assumptions that may differ from actual results.
 
Our consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and necessarily include amounts based on estimates and assumptions made by management. Actual results could differ from these amounts. Significant items requiring management to make subjective or complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain include the carrying value of long-lived assets, the depletion and amortization of landfill development costs, accruals for final capping, closure and post-closure costs, valuation allowances for accounts receivable and deferred tax assets, liabilities for potential litigation, claims and assessments, and liabilities for environmental remediation, employee benefit and pension plans, deferred taxes, uncertain tax positions and self-insurance.
 
We cannot assure you that the liabilities recorded for landfill and environmental costs will be adequate to cover the requirements of existing environmental regulations, future changes to or interpretations of existing regulations, or the identification of adverse environmental conditions previously unknown to management.
 
The introduction of new accounting rules, laws or regulations could adversely impact our results of operations.
 
Complying with new accounting rules, laws or regulations could adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, or cause unanticipated fluctuations in our results of operations in future periods.
 
We may be subject to workforce influences, including work stoppages, which could increase our operating costs and disrupt our operations.
 
As of December 31, 2009, approximately 27% of our workforce was represented by various local labor unions. If our unionized workers were to engage in a strike, work stoppage or other slowdown, we could experience a significant disruption of our operations and an increase in our operating costs, which could have an adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, if a greater percentage of our workforce becomes unionized, our business and financial results could be materially and adversely impacted due to the potential for increased operating costs.
 
Our obligation to fund multi-employer pension plans to which we contribute may have an adverse impact on us.
 
We contribute to at least 25 multi-employer pension plans covering at least 17% of our current employees. We do not administer these plans and generally are not represented on the boards of trustees of these plans. The Pension Protection Act enacted in 2006 (the PPA) requires under-funded pension plans to improve their funding ratios. Based on the information available to us, we believe that some of the multi-employer plans to which we contribute are either “critical” or “endangered” as those terms are defined in the PPA. We cannot determine at this time the amount of additional funding, if any, we may be required to make to these plans and, therefore, have not recorded any related liabilities. However, plan assessments could have an adverse impact on our results of operations or cash flows for a given period. Furthermore, under current law, upon the termination of a multi-employer pension plan, or in the event of a withdrawal by us (which we consider from time to time) or a mass withdrawal of contributing employers (each, a “Withdrawal Event”), we would be required to make payments to the plan for our proportionate share of the plan’s unfunded vested liabilities. We cannot assure you that there will not be a Withdrawal Event with respect to any of the multi-employer pension plans to which we contribute or that, in the event of such a Withdrawal Event, the amounts we would be


24


Table of Contents

required to contribute would not have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
The costs of providing for pension benefits and related funding requirements are subject to changes in pension fund values and fluctuating actuarial assumptions, and may have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and cash flows.
 
We sponsor a defined benefit pension plan which is funded with trustee assets invested in a diversified portfolio of debt and equity securities. Our costs for providing such benefits and related funding requirements are subject to changes in the market value of plan assets. Our pension expenses and related funding requirements are also subject to various actuarial calculations and assumptions, which may differ materially from actual results due to changing market and economic conditions, interest rates and other factors. A significant increase in our pension obligations and funding requirements could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
 
The loss of key personnel could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
 
Our future success depends on the continued contributions of several key employees and officers. The loss of the services of key employees and officers, whether such loss is through resignation or other causes, or the inability to attract additional qualified personnel, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and growth prospects.
 
ITEM 1B.  UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
 
None.
 
ITEM 2.  PROPERTIES
 
Our corporate office is located at 18500 North Allied Way, Phoenix, Arizona 85054, where we currently lease approximately 145,000 square feet of office space. We also maintain regional administrative offices in all of our regions.
 
Our principal property and equipment consists of land, landfills, buildings, vehicles and equipment. We own or lease real property in the states in which we conduct operations. At December 31, 2009, we owned or operated 376 collection companies, 223 transfer stations, 192 active solid waste landfills and 78 recycling facilities within 40 states and Puerto Rico. In aggregate, our active solid waste landfills total approximately 97,300 acres, including approximately 35,000 permitted acres. We also own or have responsibilities for 132 closed landfills. We believe that our property and equipment are adequate for our current needs.
 
ITEM 3.  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
 
We are involved in routine judicial and administrative proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business and that relate to, among other things, personal injury or property damage claims, employment matters and commercial and contractual disputes. We are subject to federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. Due to the nature of our business, we are also routinely a party to judicial or administrative proceedings involving governmental authorities and other interested parties related to environmental regulations or liabilities. From time to time, we may also be subject to actions brought by citizens’ groups, adjacent landowners or others in connection with the permitting and licensing of our landfills or transfer stations, or alleging personal injury, environmental damage, or violations of the permits and licenses pursuant to which we operate.
 
We are subject to various federal, state and local tax rules and regulations. These rules are extensive and often complex, and we are required to interpret and apply them to our transactions. Positions taken in tax filings are subject to challenge by taxing authorities. Accordingly, we may have exposure for additional tax liabilities if, upon audit, any positions taken are disallowed by the taxing authorities.


25


Table of Contents

The following is a discussion of certain proceedings against us. Although the ultimate outcome of any legal matter cannot be predicted with certainty, except as otherwise described below, we do not believe that the outcome of our pending litigation, environmental and other administrative proceedings will have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
 
Litigation, Environmental and Other Administrative Matters
 
Countywide Matters
 
On March 26, 2007, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) issued Final Findings and Orders (F&Os) to Republic Services of Ohio II, LLC (Republic-Ohio), an Ohio limited liability company and our wholly owned subsidiary. The F&Os related to environmental conditions attributed to a chemical reaction resulting from the disposal of certain aluminum production waste at the Countywide Recycling and Disposal facility (Countywide) in East Sparta, Ohio. The F&Os, and certain other remedial actions Republic-Ohio agreed with the OEPA to undertake to address the environmental conditions, included, without limitation, the following actions: (a) prohibiting leachate recirculation, (b) refraining from the disposal of solid waste in certain portions of the site, (c) updating engineering plans and specifications and providing further information regarding the integrity of various engineered components at the site, (d) performing additional data collection, (e) taking additional measures to address emissions, (f) expanding the gas collection and control system, (g) installing an isolation break, (h) removing liquids from gas extraction wells, and (i) submitting a plan to the OEPA to suppress the chemical reaction and, following approval by the OEPA, implementing such plan. Republic-Ohio has performed certain interim remedial actions required by the OEPA. Republic-Ohio subsequently received additional orders from the OEPA requiring certain actions to be taken by Republic-Ohio, in addition to or in lieu of requirements contained in prior orders, including additional air quality monitoring and the installation and continued maintenance of gas well dewatering systems.
 
On September 30, 2009, Republic-Ohio entered into two legally binding agreements with the State of Ohio designed to further refine the activities necessary to resolve alleged compliance and licensing issues at the Countywide facility.
 
The first agreement is a Consent Order that resolves ongoing allegations of noncompliance at the facility and reflects agreements regarding the status of facility licensing. The allegations of noncompliance were summarized in a complaint that was filed by the Ohio Attorney General in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas and resolved the same day in accordance with terms of an agreed upon Consent Order entered into between Republic-Ohio and the State of Ohio. The Consent Order with Ohio requires Republic-Ohio to pay civil penalties and financial relief of $10.0 million, submit updated permit documents, and assess, evaluate, and determine the appropriate time to address certain compliance issues at the facility. All civil penalties and financial relief required by the Consent Order have been satisfied. Compliance with the terms of the Consent Order and other applicable rules will result in Countywide being considered to be in substantial compliance or on a legally enforceable schedule to return to compliance for annual licensing purposes.
 
The second agreement is a set of F&Os that were agreed to and entered into with the Ohio EPA. The F&Os require the implementation of a comprehensive operation and maintenance program that contains specific requirements for managing the remediation area. The operation and maintenance program is ultimately designed to result in the final capping and closure of the 88-acre remediation area at Countywide. The September 30, 2009 F&Os supersede all previous F&Os (discussed above) that were issued to Republic-Ohio regarding the reaction in the remediation area of the landfill. The operation and maintenance program requires Countywide to, among other things, maintain the temporary cap and other engineering controls designed to prevent odors and isolate and contain the reaction. The operation and maintenance program also contains provisions that require the installation of a composite cap in the remediation area when conditions become conducive to such installation.
 
Republic-Ohio has also entered into an Agreed Order on Consent (AOC) with the EPA requiring the reimbursement of costs incurred by the EPA and requiring Republic-Ohio to (a) design and install a temperature and gas monitoring system, (b) design and install a composite cap or cover, and (c) develop and implement an air monitoring program. The AOC became effective on April 17, 2008 and Republic-Ohio has


26


Table of Contents

complied with the terms of the AOC. Republic-Ohio also has completed construction of an isolation break under the authority and supervision of the EPA and reimbursed the EPA for certain costs associated with the EPA’s involvement in overseeing implementation of the AOC. On November 20, 2009, the EPA issued a Notification of Completion and Determination of Compliance to Countywide memorializing Countywide’s completion of the work required under the AOC.
 
The Commissioner of the Stark County Health Department (Commissioner) previously recommended that the Stark County Board of Health (Board of Health) suspend Countywide’s 2007 annual operating license. The Commissioner also intended to recommend that the Board of Health deny Countywide’s license application for 2008. Republic-Ohio obtained a preliminary injunction on November 28, 2007 prohibiting the Board of Health from suspending its 2007 operating license. Republic-Ohio also obtained a preliminary injunction on February 15, 2008 prohibiting the Board of Health from denying its 2008 operating license application. The litigation with the Board of Health has been concluded pursuant to a Consent Order entered into between Republic-Ohio and the Board of Health in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. The Consent Order requires the Board of Health to issue conditional and/or final operating licenses to Countywide and requires Republic-Ohio to reimburse the Board of Health for certain expenses not to exceed $300,000 incurred related to monitoring and investigation of complaints regarding Countywide. Countywide’s 2009 operating license has been challenged by Tuscarawas County, and the Board of Health issued Countywide its 2010 operating license on December 30, 2009, which also has been challenged by a local citizens’ group, Club 3000.
 
We believe that we have performed or are diligently performing all actions required under the F&Os, the AOC, and any applicable Consent Orders and that Countywide does not pose a threat to the environment. Additionally, we believe that we satisfy the rules and regulations that govern the operating license at Countywide.
 
In a suit filed on October 8, 2008 in the Tuscarawas County Ohio Court of Common Pleas, approximately 700 plaintiffs have named Republic Services, Inc. and Republic-Ohio as defendants. The claims alleged are negligence and nuisance and arise from the operation of Countywide. Republic-Ohio has owned and operated Countywide since February 1, 1999. Waste Management, Inc. and Waste Management Ohio, Inc., previous owners and operators of Countywide, have been named as defendants as well. Plaintiffs are individuals and businesses located in the geographic area around Countywide. They claim that due to the acceptance of a specific waste stream and operational issues and conditions, the landfill has generated odors and other unsafe emissions which have allegedly impaired the use and value of their property. There are also allegations that the emissions from the landfill may have adverse health effects. A second almost identical lawsuit was filed on October 13, 2009 in the Tuscarawas County Ohio Court of Common Pleas with approximately 82 plaintiffs. These plaintiffs named Republic Services, Inc., Republic-Ohio, Waste Management, Inc., and Waste Management Ohio, Inc. as defendants. The relief requested on behalf of each plaintiff in both actions is: (1) an award of compensatory damages according to proof in an amount in excess of $25,000 for each of the three counts of the amended complaint; (2) an award of punitive damages in the amount of two times compensatory damages, pursuant to applicable statute, or in such amount as may be awarded at trial for each of the three counts of the amended complaint, (3) costs for medical screening and monitoring of each plaintiff; (4) interest on the damages according to law; (5) costs and disbursements of the lawsuit; (6) reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses; and (7) any other and further relief as the court deems just, proper and equitable. We anticipate that the two cases will be consolidated. Answers have been filed in both cases and discovery is ongoing. 164 plaintiffs in the first case and 41 plaintiffs in the second case have been dismissed or are in the process of being dismissed for failing to comply with discovery. We intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs’ allegations in both actions.
 
Luri Matter
 
On August 17, 2007, a lawsuit was filed by a former employee, Ronald Luri v. Republic Services, Inc., Republic Services of Ohio Hauling LLC, Republic Services of Ohio I LLC, Jim Bowen and Ron Krall in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in Ohio. On July 3, 2008, a jury verdict was awarded against us in the amount of $46.6 million, including $43.1 million in punitive damages. On September 24, 2008, the Court awarded pre-judgment interest of $0.3 million and attorney fees and litigation costs of $1.1 million. Post-


27


Table of Contents

judgment interest accrued at a rate of 8% for 2008 and 5% for 2009, and is accruing at a rate of 4% for 2010. Management anticipates that post-judgment interest could accrue through the middle of 2011 for a total of $7.7 million. Post-judgment motions filed on our behalf and certain of our subsidiaries were denied, and on October 1, 2008, we filed a notice of appeal. The parties submitted their appeal briefs and oral argument was scheduled for October 27, 2009. On October 23, 2009, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal holding that the trial court had not entered a final, appealable order. The case has been returned to the trial court for additional proceedings which may include entry of additional order(s) by the trial court followed by another appeal. It is reasonably possible that following all appeals a final judgment of liability for compensatory and punitive damages may be assessed against us related to this matter. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome, management believes that the amount of any final, non-appealable judgment will not be material.
 
Forward Matters
 
The District Attorney for San Joaquin County filed a civil action against Forward, Inc. and Allied Waste Industries, Inc. on February 14, 2008 in the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin. Forward and Allied each filed answers in November 2008, denying all material allegations of the complaint. The complaint seeks civil penalties of $2,500 for each alleged violation, but no less than $10.0 million, and an injunction against Forward and Allied for alleged permit and regulatory violations at the Forward Landfill. The District Attorney contends that the alleged violations constitute unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., by virtue of violations of Public Resources Code Division 30, Part 4, Chapter 3, Article 1, sections 44004 and 44014(b); California Code of Regulations Title 27, Chapter 3, Subchapter 4, Article 6, sections 20690(11) and 20919.5; and Health and Safety Code sections 25200, 25100, et seq., and 25500, et seq. Although the complaint is worded very broadly and does not identify specific permit or regulatory violations, the District Attorney has articulated three primary concerns in past communications, alleging that the landfill: (1) used green waste containing food as alternative daily cover, (2) exceeded its daily solid waste tonnage receipt limitations under its solid waste facility permit, and (3) received hazardous waste in violation of its permit (i.e., auto shredder waste). Additionally, it is alleged that the landfill allowed a concentration of methane gas in excess of five percent. Discovery is currently underway. We are vigorously defending against the allegations.
 
On February 5, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX delivered a Finding and Notice of Violation to the Forward Landfill as a result of alleged violations of the Title V permit issued under the Clean Air Act. The facility is jointly regulated by the EPA and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The alleged violations include operating gas collection wellheads at greater than 15% oxygen, experiencing a subsurface oxidation event on multiple occasions, and submitting inaccurate compliance certifications. We have requested a conference with the agencies and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations.
 
Carbon Limestone Matter
 
On May 4, 2009, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) issued Proposed Findings and Orders (F&Os) to Carbon Limestone Landfill, LLC, our wholly owned subsidiary. The proposed F&Os allege violations regarding the acceptance of hazardous waste from two customers and issues regarding the site’s leachate management collection system and groundwater monitoring program, and seek corrective actions and a civil penalty of $155,311. After negotiations with OEPA, on December 15, 2009, Carbon Limestone Landfill, LLC and the OEPA agreed to a Director’s Findings and Final Order (DFFO) specifying a schedule of corrective actions and a civil penalty of $73,846, comprised of a single payment of $59,077, and funding of a supplemental environmental project costing $14,769. We have commenced payment and instituting the corrective actions as required by the DFFO.
 
Litigation Related to Fuel and Environmental Fees
 
On July 8, 2009, CLN Properties, Inc. and Maevers Management Company, Inc., filed a complaint against the Company and one of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court in Arizona, in which plaintiffs


28


Table of Contents

complain about fuel recovery fees and environmental recovery fees charged by the Company or one of its subsidiaries. On July 23, 2009, Klingler’s European Bake Shop & Deli, Inc., filed a complaint against the Company and one of its subsidiaries in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, in which plaintiff complains about fuel/environmental recovery fees and administrative fees charged by the Company or one of its subsidiaries. The CLN Properties/Maevers complaint, which the plaintiffs amended on August 31, 2009, purports to be filed on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly-situated plaintiffs, while the Klingler’s complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class of similarly situated plaintiffs in Alabama. Each complaint asserts various legal and equitable theories of recovery and alleges in essence that the fees were not properly disclosed, were unfair, and were contrary to contract. We filed motions to dismiss in both actions. On January 13, 2010, the court in the CLN/Maevers case granted our motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. Plaintiff in the Klingler’s case voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice on October 23, 2009 and subsequently re-filed a virtually identical complaint against a different subsidiary of the company on November 20, 2009. We recently moved to dismiss this new complaint. We will continue to vigorously defend the claims in both lawsuits.
 
Imperial Landfill Matter
 
On May 18, 2009, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and the Allegheny County Health Department issued to the Imperial Landfill a proposed consent order and agreement for a series of alleged violations related to landfill gas, leachate control, cover management, and resulting nuisance odor complaints in late 2008 and 2009. PADEP subsequently issued additional notices of violation for similar alleged violations. The combined penalties proposed by the agencies total approximately $1 million. We are engaging in ongoing discussions with the agencies to reach a negotiated settlement, and have been aggressively working to correct any issues alleged in the order.
 
Litigation Related to the Merger with Allied
 
On December 3, 2008, the DOJ and seven state attorneys general filed a complaint, Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, and competitive impact statement, together with a proposed final judgment, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in connection with approval under the HSR Act of our merger with Allied. The court entered the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order on December 4, 2008, which terminated the waiting period under the HSR Act and allowed the parties to close the transaction subject to the conditions described in the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order. These conditions include the divestiture of certain assets which were completed by September 30, 2009. However, the final judgment can only be approved by the court after the DOJ publishes a notice in the Federal Register and considers comments it receives. During this period, if the DOJ believes that the final judgment is no longer in the public interest, the DOJ may withdraw its support of the final judgment and seek to prevent the final judgment from becoming final in its present form. Likewise, the court may, in its discretion, modify the divestitures or other relief sought by the DOJ if the court believes that such modification is in the public interest. On July 16, 2009, the DOJ and the seven state attorneys general filed a motion seeking entry of the proposed final judgment. The precise timing for the confirmation of the final judgment is not known. Management believes that the court will enter the final judgment and that modifications to the final judgment, if any, will not be material.
 
Proxy Disclosure Matter
 
In late 2009, a Republic stockholder brought a lawsuit in Federal court in Delaware challenging our disclosures in our 2009 proxy statement with respect to the Executive Incentive Plan (“EIP”) that was approved by our stockholders at the 2009 annual meeting. The lawsuit is styled as a combined proxy disclosure claim and derivative action. We are a defendant only with respect to the proxy disclosure claim, which seeks only to require us to make additional disclosures regarding the EIP and to hold a new stockholder vote prior to making any payments under the EIP. The derivative claim is purportedly brought on behalf of our company against all of our directors and the individuals who were executive officers at the time of the 2009 annual meeting and alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty. That claim also seeks injunctive relief and seeks to recoup on behalf of our company an unspecified amount of the incentive compensation that may be


29


Table of Contents

paid to our executives under the EIP, as well as the amount of any tax deductions that may be lost if the EIP does not comply with Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. We believe the lawsuit is without merit and is not material and intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiff’s allegations.
 
Contracting Matter
 
We recently discovered actions of non-compliance by one of our subsidiaries with the subcontracting provisions of certain government contracts in one of our markets. We reported the discovery to, and expect further discussions with, law enforcement authorities. Such non-compliance could result in payments by us in the form of restitution, damages, or penalties, or the loss of future business. Based on the information currently available to us, including our expectation that our self-disclosure will be viewed favorably by the applicable authorities, we presently believe that the resolution of the matter, while it may have a material impact on our results of operations or cash flows in the period in which it is recognized or paid, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position.
 
Congress Development Landfill Matters
 
Congress Development Co. (CDC) is a general partnership that owns and operates the Congress Landfill. The general partners in CDC are our subsidiary, Allied Waste Transportation, Inc. (Allied Transportation), and an unaffiliated entity, John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corporation (Sexton). Sexton was the operator of the landfill through early 2007, when Allied Transportation took over as the operator. The general partners likely will be jointly and severally liable for the costs associated with the following matters relating to the Congress Landfill.
 
In January 2006, CDC was issued an Agreed Preliminary Injunction and Order by the Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County. Subsequently, the court issued two additional Supplemental Orders that required CDC to implement certain remedial actions at the Congress Landfill, which remedial actions are underway.
 
In a suit originally filed on December 23, 2009 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and subsequently amended to add additional plaintiffs, approximately 1,000 plaintiffs sued our subsidiaries Allied Transportation and Allied Waste Industries, Inc., CDC and Sexton. The plaintiffs allege bodily injury, property damage and inability to have normal use and enjoyment of property arising from, among other things, odors and other damages arising from landfill gas leaking, and they base their claims on negligence, trespass, and nuisance. The plaintiffs have requested actual damages in excess of $50 million and punitive damages of $50 million. We intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs’ allegations in this action. We cannot at this time predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or the reasonably probable loss, if any.
 
Livingston Matter
 
On October 13, 2009, the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston, State of Louisiana, issued its Post Class Certification Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a lawsuit alleging nuisance from the activities of the CECOS hazardous waste facility located in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The court granted class certification for all those living within a six mile radius of the CECOS site between the years 1977 and 1990. The site last accepted waste in June 1990. The class certification order remains subject to appeal, and we intend to continue to defend this lawsuit vigorously.
 
Sunshine Canyon Matter
 
On November 17, 2009, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) issued an Order for Abatement as a result of a series of odor complaints alleged to be associated with the operations at the Sunshine Canyon Landfill located in Sylmar, California. The Order describes eight notices of violation beginning in November 2008 and continuing to November 2009. The District Hearing Board held a compliance hearing on December 17, 2009, at which we described the measures to mitigate the odors. A final order and settlement document has not been issued.


30


Table of Contents

Tax Matters
 
We and our subsidiaries are subject to income tax in the U.S. and Puerto Rico, as well as income tax in multiple state jurisdictions. We have acquired Allied’s open tax periods as part of the acquisition. Allied is currently under examination or administrative review by various state and federal taxing authorities for certain tax years, including federal income tax audits for calendar years 2000 through 2007. Prior to the merger, the IRS had commenced an examination of our 2005 through 2007 tax years and this exam is currently ongoing. In 2009, the IRS opened an examination of our 2008 tax year. We are also under state examination in various jurisdictions for various tax years. These audits are ongoing.
 
Risk Management Companies
 
Prior to Allied’s acquisition of Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) in July 1999, certain BFI operating companies, as part of a risk management initiative to manage and reduce costs associated with certain liabilities, contributed assets and existing environmental and self-insurance liabilities to six fully consolidated BFI risk management companies (RMCs) in exchange for stock representing a minority ownership interest in the RMCs. Subsequently, the BFI operating companies sold that stock in the RMCs to third parties at fair market value which resulted in a capital loss of approximately $902 million for tax purposes, calculated as the excess of the tax basis of the stock over the cash proceeds received.
 
On January 18, 2001, the IRS designated this type of transaction and other similar transactions as a “potentially abusive tax shelter” under IRS regulations. During 2002, the IRS proposed the disallowance of all of this capital loss. In April 2005, the Appeals Office of the IRS upheld the disallowance of the capital loss deduction with respect to BFI tax years prior to the acquisition. In July 2005, Allied filed a suit for refund in the United States Court of Federal Claims (CFC) relating to the BFI tax years. In January 2009, we paid all tax, interest and penalty asserted by the IRS with respect to the BFI tax years and withdrew our suit for refund in the CFC.
 
In August 2008, Allied received from the IRS a Statutory Notice of Deficiency related to its utilization of BFI’s capital loss carryforward on Allied’s 1999 tax return. In October 2008, Allied filed a suit for refund in federal district court in Arizona with respect to Allied’s 1999 tax year. In December 2009, we reached a settlement with both the DOJ and IRS for Allied’s 1999 tax year and all subsequent tax years. Under the settlement, the company resolved all remaining liability for this matter (including federal and state tax, penalty and interest) for approximately $125 million. We paid approximately $58 million in the first quarter of 2010 and expect to pay the remainder, approximately $67 million, later in 2010. While the final settlement amount is less than the amount previously accrued for this matter, the accrual and the adjustment thereto are reflected in our allocation of purchase price associated with the acquisition of Allied and had no impact on our consolidated statement of income.
 
Exchange of Partnership Interests
 
In April 2002, Allied exchanged minority partnership interests in four waste-to-energy facilities for majority partnership interests in equipment purchasing businesses, which are now wholly owned subsidiaries. In November 2008, the IRS issued a formal disallowance to Allied contending that the exchange was instead a sale on which a corresponding gain should have been recognized. We believe our position is supported by relevant technical authorities and strong business purpose and we intend to vigorously defend our position on this matter. Although we intend to vigorously defend our position on this matter, if the exchange is treated as a sale, we estimate it could have a potential federal and state cash tax impact of approximately $156 million plus accrued interest through December 31, 2009 of approximately $59 million. In addition, the IRS has asserted a penalty of 20% of the additional income tax due. The potential tax and interest (but not penalty or penalty-related interest) of a full adjustment for this matter have been fully reserved in our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2009. The successful assertion by the IRS of penalty and penalty-related interest in connection with this matter could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations and cash flows.


31


Table of Contents

Methane Gas
 
As part of its examination of Allied’s 2000 through 2006 federal income tax returns, the IRS reviewed Allied’s treatment of costs associated with its landfill operations. As a result of this review, the IRS has proposed that certain landfill costs be allocated to the collection and control of methane gas that is naturally produced within the landfill. The IRS’ position is that the methane gas produced by a landfill is a joint product resulting from operation of the landfill and, therefore, these costs should not be expensed until the methane gas is sold or otherwise disposed.
 
We have protested this matter to the Appeals Office of the IRS. We believe we have several meritorious defenses, including the fact that methane gas is not actively produced for sale by us but rather arises naturally in the context of providing disposal services. Therefore, we believe that the subsequent resolution of this issue will not have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
 
ITEM 4.  SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
 
None.
 
PART II
 
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER
MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
 
Market Information, Holders and Dividends
 
The principal market for our common stock is the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), and it is traded under the symbol “RSG”. The following table sets forth the range of the high and low sale prices per share of our common stock on the NYSE and the cash dividends declared per share of common stock for the periods indicated:
 
                         
                Dividends
 
    High     Low     Declared  
 
Year Ended December 31, 2009:
                       
First Quarter
  $  26.81     $ 15.05     $ 0.19  
Second Quarter
    24.45       16.31       0.19  
Third Quarter
    27.34       23.32       0.19  
Fourth Quarter
    29.82       25.44       0.19  
Year Ended December 31, 2008:
                       
First Quarter
  $ 32.00     $  27.30     $  0.17  
Second Quarter
    34.44       29.09       0.17  
Third Quarter
    36.52       27.29       0.19  
Fourth Quarter
    29.96       18.25       0.19  
 
There were 879 holders of record of our common stock at February 16, 2010, which does not include beneficial owners for whom Cede & Co. or others act as nominees.
 
In February 2010, our Board of Directors declared a regular quarterly dividend of $0.19 per share for stockholders of record on April 1, 2010. We expect to continue to pay quarterly cash dividends, and we may consider increasing our quarterly cash dividends if we believe it will enhance shareholder value.
 
We have the ability under our credit facilities to pay dividends and repurchase our common stock subject to our compliance with the financial covenants in our credit facilities. As of December 31, 2009, we were in compliance with the financial covenants of our credit facilities.


32


Table of Contents

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
 
From 2000 through 2009, our Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $2.6 billion of our common stock. As of December 31, 2009, we had paid $2.3 billion to repurchase 82.6 million shares of our common stock. We suspended our share repurchase program in the second quarter of 2008 due to the pending merger with Allied. We expect that our share repurchase program will continue to be suspended until approximately 2011. The following table provides information relating to our purchases of shares of our common stock during the three months ended December 31, 2009:
 
                 
    Total Number of
       
    Shares (or Units)
    Average Price Paid
 
    Purchased (a)     per Share  
 
October 2009
        $  
November 2009
           
December 2009
    20,098         28.83  
                 
      20,098     $             28.83  
                 
 
 
(a) This amount represents shares withheld upon vesting of restricted stock to satisfy statutory minimum tax withholding obligations. We intend to continue to satisfy minimum tax withholding obligations in connection with the vesting of outstanding restricted stock through the withholding of shares.
 
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
 
None


33


Table of Contents

Performance Graph
 
The following graph compares the performance of our common stock to the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index (S&P 500 Index) and the Dow Jones Waste & Disposal Services Index (DJW&DS Index). The graph covers the period from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2009 and assumes that the value of the investment in our common stock and in each index was $100 at December 31, 2004 and that all dividends were reinvested.
 
Comparison of Five Year Cumulative Total Return
Assumes Initial Investment of $100
 
(PERFORMANCE GRAPH)
 
Indexed Returns For Years Ending
 
                                                 
    December 31,
    2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009
 
Republic Services, Inc. 
  $ 100.00     $ 113.61     $ 124.87     $ 146.98     $ 119.27     $ 140.74  
S&P 500 Stock Index
    100.00       104.91       121.48       128.16       80.74       102.11  
DJW&DS Index
    100.00       106.06       130.32       136.29       127.99       145.69  


34


Table of Contents

ITEM 6.  SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
 
The following Selected Financial Data should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2009 and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
Our merger with Allied was effective December 5, 2008 and has been accounted for as an acquisition of Allied by Republic. The consolidated financial statements include the operating results of Allied from the date of the acquisition, and have not been retroactively restated to include Allied’s historical financial position or results of operations. In accordance with the purchase method of accounting, the purchase price paid has been allocated to the assets and liabilities acquired based upon their estimated fair values as of the acquisition date, with the excess of the purchase price over the net assets acquired being recorded as goodwill.
 
Our shares, per share data and weighted average common and common equivalent shares outstanding have been retroactively adjusted for all periods prior to 2007 to reflect a 3-for-2 stock split in the form of a stock dividend that was effective on March 16, 2007.
 
See Notes 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the notes to our consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for a discussion of basis of presentation, significant accounting policies, business acquisitions and divestitures, assets held for sale, restructuring charges, landfill and environmental costs, debt, income taxes and stockholders’ equity and their effect on comparability of year-to-year data. These historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected in the future (in millions, except per share amounts).
 
                                         
    Years Ended December 31,  
    2009     2008     2007     2006     2005  
 
Statement of Operations Data:
                                       
Revenue
  $   8,199.1     $   3,685.1     $   3,176.2     $   3,070.6     $   2,863.9  
Expenses:
                                       
Cost of operations
    4,844.2       2,416.7       2,003.9       1,924.4       1,803.9  
Depreciation, amortization and depletion
    869.7       354.1       305.5       296.0       278.8  
Accretion
    88.8       23.9       17.1       15.7       14.5  
Selling, general and administrative
    880.4       434.7       313.7       315.0       289.5  
Loss (gain) on disposition of assets and
                                       
impairments, net
    (137.0 )     89.8                    
Restructuring charges
    63.2       82.7                    
                                         
Operating income
    1,589.8       283.2       536.0       519.5       477.2  
Interest expense
    (595.9 )     (131.9 )     (94.8 )     (95.8 )     (81.0 )
Loss on extinguishment of debt
    (134.1 )                        
Interest income
    2.0       9.6       12.8       15.8       11.4  
Other income (expense), net
    3.2       (1.6 )     14.1       4.2       1.6  
                                         
Income before income taxes
    865.0       159.3       468.1       443.7       409.2  
Provision for income taxes
    368.5       85.4       177.9       164.1       155.5  
                                         
Net income
    496.5       73.9       290.2       279.6       253.7  
Less: Income attributable to noncontrolling interests
    (1.5 )     (0.1 )                  
                                         
Net income attributable to Republic Services, Inc. 
  $ 495.0     $ 73.8     $ 290.2     $ 279.6     $ 253.7  
                                         
Basic earnings per share attributable to Republic Services, Inc. stockholders:
                                       
Basic earnings per share
  $ 1.30     $ 0.38     $ 1.53     $ 1.41     $ 1.23  
                                         
Weighted average common shares outstanding
    379.7       196.7       190.1       198.2       207.0  
                                         
Diluted earnings per share attributable to Republic
                                       
Services, Inc. stockholders:
                                       
Diluted earnings per share
  $ 1.30     $ 0.37     $ 1.51     $ 1.39     $ 1.20  
                                         
Weighted average common and common equivalent shares outstanding
    381.0       198.4       192.0       200.6       210.8  
                                         
Cash dividends per common share
  $ 0.7600     $ 0.7200     $ 0.5534     $ 0.4000     $ 0.3466  
                                         


35


Table of Contents

                                         
    Years Ended December 31,  
    2009     2008     2007     2006     2005  
 
Other Operating Data:
                                       
Cash flows from operating activities
  $ 1,396.5     $ 512.2     $ 661.3     $ 511.2     $ 747.8  
Capital expenditures
    826.3       386.9       292.5       326.7       309.0  
Proceeds from sales of property and equipment
    31.8       8.2       6.1       18.5       10.1  
Balance Sheet Data:
                                       
Cash and cash equivalents
  $ 48.0     $ 68.7     $ 21.8     $ 29.1     $ 131.8  
Restricted cash and marketable securities
    240.5       281.9       165.0       153.3       255.3  
Total assets
    19,540.3       19,921.4       4,467.8       4,429.4       4,550.5  
Total debt
    6,962.6       7,702.5       1,567.8       1,547.2       1,475.1  
Total stockholders’ equity
    7,567.1       7,282.5       1,303.8       1,422.1       1,605.8  
 
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
 
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto, included elsewhere herein. This discussion may contain forward-looking statements that anticipate results based on management’s plans that are subject to uncertainty. We discuss in more detail various factors that could cause actual results to differ from expectations in Item 1A. Risk Factors.
 
Overview of Our Business
 
We are the second largest provider of services in the domestic non-hazardous solid waste industry, as measured by revenue. We provide non-hazardous solid waste collection services for commercial, industrial, municipal and residential customers through 376 collection companies in 40 states and Puerto Rico. We own or operate 223 transfer stations, 192 active solid waste landfills and 78 recycling facilities. We also operate 74 landfill gas and renewable energy projects. We completed our merger with Allied Waste Industries, Inc. (Allied) in December 2008. We believe that this merger creates a strong operating platform that will allow us to continue to provide quality service to our customers and superior returns to our stockholders.
 
Despite the challenging economic environment, our business performed well during 2009 due in large part to the indispensable nature of our services and the scalability of our business. Revenue for the year ended December 31, 2009 increased by 122.5% to $8.2 billion compared to $3.7 billion during the comparable period in 2008. This increase in revenue is attributable to our merger with Allied. Assuming our merger with Allied occurred on January 1, 2008, and the revenue associated with the related divestitures is eliminated in the period the assets were sold along with the comparable prior year period, core revenue for the year ended December 31, 2009 would have decreased 10.7% consisting of a 3.0% increase in core price offset by decreases of 9.5% in core volume, 2.5% in fuel charges and 1.7% in commodity price. The core price increase, together with cost control steps taken by our operations management to scale the business down for lower volumes, served to moderate profit margin declines associated with rising costs and declining revenue resulting from decreases in service volumes.
 
2010 Business Initiatives
 
We expect that the economic challenges we experienced during the latter part of 2008 and all of 2009 will extend into 2010. We anticipate continued year-over-year decreases in volumes in all lines of our business. However, we believe that we will continue to benefit from our cost control and pricing initiatives. Our business is capital intensive. Slower growth allows us to reduce capital spending, thus maintaining strong free cash flow despite a weaker economy. In addition, our attention is focused on completing the integration of our newly merged company, achieving cost synergies and pursuing other revenue enhancing and cost reduction opportunities.

36


Table of Contents

Our business initiatives for 2010 focus on completing the integration of our operations with Allied’s, while remaining focused on the aspects of our operations that have made us successful. Our initiatives include:
 
•   Safety. Safety remains our highest priority for all of our employees. Republic has a long-standing commitment to ensuring a safe working environment for our employees. Our commitment to safety is unwavering and is evident in our mission statement. We will continue to foster a safe work environment for our employees and the communities that we service. In addition, we will continue to reward our people for operating in a safe and conscientious manner.
 
•   Service Delivery. We believe that our focus on service delivery differentiates us from others in the waste management industry. During 2010, we will continue to exceed our customers’ expectations through the consistent delivery of high quality service. We will also focus on increasing the efficiency of our service delivery. We believe that our attention to efficient delivery of high quality customer service will enhance customer retention.
 
•   Synergy Capture. Prior to the effective date of our merger with Allied, we identified $150 million of annual run-rate integration synergies. We also developed a detailed plan for realizing this goal that includes participation at all levels throughout the company from the drivers of our fleet of collection vehicles to our board of directors. This plan anticipated achieving $100 million of annual run-rate integration synergies by the end of fiscal 2009. As of December 31, 2009, we have already met our original goal of $150 million of run-rate synergies and have increased our total goal for annual run-rate synergies to $165 to $175 million. We expect to achieve this goal by the end of 2010. We also expect to spend approximately $34 million in one-time costs during 2010 directly attributable to achieving our synergy goal.
 
•   Other Opportunities. With our synergy goals well within our reach, during 2010 we intend to redirect our attention to other opportunities that were identified during our synergy planning discussions, but were assigned a lower priority. These opportunities include enhancing pricing systems and return on investment models, standardizing prospecting, sales reporting and disposal optimization tools, standardizing repair and maintenance procedures, developing a new operating platform for our national accounts program to ensure customer satisfaction, and consolidating and standardizing our customer call centers. We believe that these initiatives will provide our company with substantial earnings benefit when they are fully implemented.
 
•   Return on Invested Capital. Enhancing our return on invested capital is the culmination of all our 2010 initiatives. We will maintain our focus on disciplined growth and investing in our business to ensure increasing returns on invested capital and shareholder value.
 
Recent Developments
 
In the first quarter of 2010, we notified the registered holders of our 6.125% Senior Notes due 2014 (the 6.125% Senior Notes) that we will redeem all of the notes outstanding in March 2010. The 6.125% Senior Notes will be redeemed at a price equal to 102.042% of the principal amount, of which $425.0 million is outstanding, plus accrued and unpaid interest. We expect to incur a charge upon extinguishment of the 6.125% Senior Notes of approximately $52 million. We expect this charge will be reflected in our first quarter 2010 financial results.
 
In the fourth quarter of 2009, we notified the registered holders of our 7.875% Senior Notes due 2013, our 4.250% Senior Subordinated Convertible Debentures due 2034 and our 7.375% Senior Notes due 2014 that we will redeem all of the notes outstanding in November and December of 2009. The 7.875% Senior Notes due 2013 were redeemed at 102.625%, the 4.250% Senior Subordinated Convertible Debentures due 2034 were redeemed at par and the 7.375% Senior Notes due 2014 were redeemed at 103.688%. With respect to these redemptions, as well as additional secondary market repurchases of our senior notes, we incurred a fourth quarter loss on extinguishment of debt of $102.3 million. Additionally, in September 2009, we purchased and retired $325.5 million of our outstanding senior notes maturing in 2010 and 2011 resulting in a third quarter loss on extinguishment of debt of $31.8 million. For the year ended December 31, 2009, total loss on extinguishment of debt was $134.1 million.


37


Table of Contents

The repayment of the senior notes was primarily funded by the issuance of $650.0 million of 5.500% Senior Notes due 2019 and $600.0 million of 5.250% Senior Notes due 2021 in two separate private placement transactions. The notes are general senior unsecured obligations of our parent company. The notes are guaranteed by each of our subsidiaries that also guarantee our Credit Facilities. These guarantees are general senior unsecured obligations of the subsidiary guarantors. In addition, we entered into a Registration Rights Agreements with the representatives of the initial purchasers of the notes. Under the Registration Rights Agreements, we agreed to use our reasonable best efforts to cause to become effective a registration statement to exchange the notes for freely tradable notes issued by us. If we are unable to effect the exchange offer within 365 days, we agreed to pay additional interest on the notes.
 
In the future we may choose to voluntarily retire certain portions of our outstanding debt before their maturity dates using cash from operations or additional borrowings. We may also explore opportunities in capital markets to fund redemptions should market conditions be favorable. The early extinguishment of debt may result in an impairment charge in the period in which the debt is repurchased and retired. The loss on early extinguishment of debt relates to premiums paid to effectuate the repurchase and the relative portion of unamortized note discounts and debt issue costs.
 
Business Acquisitions and Divestitures
 
We make decisions to acquire, invest in or divest of businesses based on financial and strategic considerations. Businesses acquired are accounted for under the purchase method of accounting and are included in our consolidated financial statements from the date of acquisition.
 
Merger with Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
 
On December 5, 2008, we acquired all the issued and outstanding shares of Allied in a stock-for-stock transaction for an aggregate purchase price of $12.1 billion, which included approximately $5.4 billion of debt, at fair value. We completed our purchase price allocation for this acquisition during 2009. Adjustments, if any, after the allocation period made to the valuation of assets and liabilities acquired will be recorded in the consolidated statement of income in the period in which such adjustments become known. All of the approximate $9.7 billion of goodwill and other intangible assets resulting from the acquisition will be non-deductible for income tax purposes.
 
As a condition of the merger with Allied in December 2008, the Department of Justice (DOJ) required us to divest of certain assets and related liabilities. As such, we classified these assets and liabilities as assets held for sale in our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2008. As of December 31, 2009, we have completed our required divestitures and we recognized a net gain on disposition of our legacy Republic net assets of $153.5 million.
 
As a result of our acquisition of Allied, we committed to a restructuring plan related to our corporate overhead and other administrative and operating functions. The plan included closing our corporate office in Florida, consolidating administrative functions to Arizona, the former headquarters of Allied, and reducing staffing levels. The plan also included closing and consolidating certain operating locations and terminating certain leases. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we incurred $63.2 million of restructuring and integration charges related to our integration of Allied, of which $34.0 million consists of charges for severance and other employee termination and relocation benefits. The remainder of the charges primarily related to consulting and professional fees. Substantially all the charges are recorded in our corporate segment. During 2010, we expect to incur additional charges approximating $12 million to complete our plan. We expect that the majority of these charges will be paid during 2010 and extend into 2011. As a result of our integration activities, we expect to achieve $165 million to $175 million of annual run-rate synergies by the end of 2010.
 
Other Business Acquisitions and Divestitures
 
In October 2009, we divested a hauling operation in Miami-Dade County, Florida and received proceeds of $32.7 million and recognized a loss of $10.2 million.


38


Table of Contents

In addition to the acquisition of Allied in December 2008, we acquired various other solid waste businesses during the years ended December 31, 2008, and 2007. The aggregate purchase price we paid for these transactions was $13.4 million and $4.4 million, respectively.
 
In November 2007, we divested of our Texas-based compost, mulch and soil business and received proceeds of $36.5 million. A gain of $12.5 million was recorded in 2007 on this divestiture.
 
Consolidated Results of Operations
 
Years Ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
 
The following table summarizes our operating revenue, costs and expenses in millions of dollars and as a percentage of our revenue for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007:
 
                                                 
    2009     2008     2007  
 
Revenue
  $ 8,199.1       100.0 %   $ 3,685.1       100.0 %   $ 3,176.2       100.0 %
Cost of operations
    4,844.2       59.1       2,416.7       65.6       2,003.9       63.1  
Depreciation, amortization and depletion of property and equipment
    799.1       9.7       342.3       9.3       299.0       9.4  
Amortization of other intangible assets
    70.6       0.9       11.8       0.3       6.5       0.2  
Accretion
    88.8       1.1       23.9       0.7       17.1       0.5  
Selling, general and administrative
    880.4       10.7       434.7       11.8       313.7       9.9  
(Gain) loss on disposition of assets and impairments, net
    (137.0 )     (1.7 )     89.8       2.4       -       -  
Restructuring charges
    63.2       0.8       82.7       2.2       -       -  
                                                 
Operating income
  $   1,589.8       19.4 %   $ 283.2       7.7 %   $ 536.0       16.9 %
                                                 
 
Our pre-tax income was $865.0 million, $159.3 million and $468.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Our net income attributable to Republic Services, Inc. was $495.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, or $1.30 per diluted share, compared to $73.8 million, or $0.37 per diluted share in 2008 and $290.2 million, or $1.51 per diluted share, in 2007.
 
During each of the two years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, we recorded a number of gains, charges (recoveries) and other expenses that impacted our pre-tax income, net income attributable to Republic Services, Inc. (Net Income - Republic) and diluted earnings per share. These items primarily consist of the following (in millions, except per share data):
 
                                                 
    Year Ended December 31, 2009     Year Ended December 31, 2008  
          Net
    Diluted
          Net
    Diluted
 
    Pre-tax
    Income -
    Earnings
    Pre-tax
    Income -
    Earnings
 
    Income     Republic     per Share     Income     Republic     per Share  
 
As reported
  $ 865.0     $ 495.0     $ 1.30     $ 159.3     $ 73.8     $ 0.37  
Loss on extinguishment of debt
    134.1       83.3       0.22       -       -       -  
Restructuring charges
    63.2       38.6       0.10       82.7       49.9       0.25  
Costs to achieve synergies
    41.8       25.6       0.06       2.9       1.7       0.01  
(Gain) loss on disposition of assets and impairments, net
    (137.0 )     (73.8 )     (0.19 )     89.8       54.1       0.27  
Remediation (recoveries) charges
    (6.8 )     (4.1 )     (0.01 )     156.8       94.6       0.48  
Tax effect of permanent items
    -       -       -       -       31.1       0.16  
                                                 
Adjusted
  $  960.3     $  564.6     $     1.48     $  491.5     $  305.2     $      1.54  
                                                 
 
Loss on extinguishment of debt. During the third and fourth quarters of 2009 we issued $1,250.0 million of senior notes, the proceeds of which were primarily used to purchase and retire outstanding senior notes maturing in 2010 through 2034. Additionally, we repurchased certain of our outstanding senior notes in the secondary market.


39


Table of Contents

Restructuring charges. During 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2008, we incurred $63.2 million and $82.7 million, respectively, of restructuring and integration charges related to our merger with Allied. These charges consist of severance and other employee termination and relocation benefits as well as consulting and professional fees. Substantially all of these charges were recorded in our “Corporate entities” segment.
 
Costs to achieve synergies. During 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2008, we incurred $41.8 million and $2.9 million, respectively, of incremental costs to achieve our synergy plans. These incremental costs primarily relate to a synergy incentive plan as well as other integration costs. In 2010, we expect that we will continue to accrue approximately $34 million for our synergy incentive plan.
 
(Gain) loss on disposition of assets and impairments, net. During 2009, we recorded (gain) loss on disposition of assets, net of costs to sell of $(137.0) million related to the mandatory disposition of assets as required by DOJ as well as discretionary dispositions. During 2008, we recorded asset impairments of $89.8 million primarily related to our Countywide facility, our former corporate office in Florida and expected losses on sales of DOJ required divestitures.
 
Remediation (recoveries) charges. During 2009, we recovered $(12.0) million of insurance proceeds related to remediation costs at our Countywide facility, which were partially offset by additional charges of $5.2 million at our closed disposal facility in California. Remediation and related charges of $156.8 million during 2008 were attributable to changes to our cost estimates at our Countywide facility, our closed disposal facility in California, and the Sunrise Landfill in Nevada.
 
Tax effect of permanent items in adjustments. During 2008, our effective tax rate was impacted by several expenses associated with the merger that were not tax deductible.
 
In addition we incurred the following charges for the year ended December 31, 2008:
 
  •   Conforming adjustments for accounting policies. During 2008, we recorded bad debt expense of $14.2 million related to conforming Allied’s methodology for recording the allowance for doubtful accounts for accounts receivable with our methodology and $5.4 million to provide for specific bankruptcy exposures.
 
  •   Legal reserves. During 2008, we incurred $24.3 million of charges related to our estimates of the outcome of various legal matters.
 
  •   Landfill amortization. During 2008, we recorded $2.8 million of incremental landfill amortization expense as compared to the amortization expense Allied would have recorded for the same period.
 
We believe that the presentation of adjusted pre-tax income, adjusted net income attributable to Republic Services, Inc. and adjusted diluted earnings per share, which are not measures determined in accordance with U.S. GAAP, provide an understanding of operational activities before the financial impact of certain items. We use these measures, and believe investors will find them helpful, in understanding the ongoing performance of our operations separate from items that have a disproportionate impact on our results for a particular period. Comparable charges and costs have been incurred in prior periods, and similar types of adjustments can reasonably be expected to be recorded in future periods. Our definition of adjusted pre-tax income, adjusted net income attributable to Republic Services, Inc. and adjusted diluted earnings per share may not be comparable to similarly titled measures presented by other companies.


40


Table of Contents

These gains and charges affected our consolidated statements of income for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, as follows (in millions):
 
                 
    2009     2008  
 
Expenses:
               
Cost of operations
  $ 6.8     $ (153.9 )
Selling, general and administrative
    (41.8 )     (4.8 )
Gain (loss) on disposition of assets and impairments, net
    137.0       (89.8 )
Restructuring charges
    (63.2 )     (82.7 )
Loss on extinguishment of debt
    (134.1 )     -  
Other income (expense), net
    -       (1.0 )
                 
Total charges, net
  $   (95.3 )   $   (332.2 )
                 
 
Revenue
 
We generate revenue primarily from our solid waste collection operations. Our remaining revenue is from other services including landfill disposal and recycling. Our revenue from collection operations consists of fees we receive from commercial, industrial, municipal and residential customers. Our residential and commercial collection operations in some markets are based on long-term contracts with municipalities. Certain of our municipal contracts have annual price escalation clauses that are tied to changes in an underlying base index such as the consumer price index. We generally provide commercial and industrial collection services to individual customers under contracts with terms up to three years. Our transfer station, landfill and to a lesser extent our material recovery facilities generate revenue from disposal or tipping fees charged to third parties. In general, we integrate our recycling operations with our collection operations and obtain revenue from the sale of recyclable materials. Other revenue consists primarily of revenue from sales of recycled materials and revenue from national accounts acquired from Allied. National accounts revenue included in other revenue represents the portion of revenue generated from nationwide contracts in markets outside our operating areas, and, as such, the associated waste handling services are subcontracted to local operators. Consequently, substantially all of this revenue is offset with related subcontract costs, which are recorded in cost of operations. No one customer has individually accounted for more than 5% of our consolidated revenue or of our reportable segment revenue in any of the periods presented.
 
The following table reflects our revenue by service line for the respective years ended December 31 (in millions):
 
                                                 
    2009     2008     2007  
 
Collection:
                                               
Residential
  $ 2,187.0       26.7 %   $ 966.0       26.2 %   $ 802.1       25.3 %
Commercial
    2,553.4       31.1       1,161.4       31.5       944.4       29.7  
Industrial
    1,541.4       18.8       711.4       19.3       645.6       20.3  
Other
    26.9       0.3       23.2       0.7       19.5       0.6  
                                                 
Total collection
    6,308.7       76.9       2,862.0       77.7       2,411.6       75.9  
Transfer and disposal
    3,113.5               1,343.4               1,192.5          
Less: Intercompany
    (1,564.1 )             (683.5 )             (612.3 )        
                                                 
Transfer and disposal, net
    1,549.4       18.9       659.9       17.9       580.2       18.3  
Other
    341.0       4.2       163.2       4.4       184.4       5.8  
                                                 
Total revenue
  $   8,199.1       100.0 %   $   3,685.1       100.0 %   $   3,176.2       100.0 %
                                                 


41


Table of Contents

The following table summarizes our adjusted revenue for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, assuming our merger with Allied occurred on January 1, 2008 (in millions):
 
                 
    2009     2008  
 
Republic Services, Inc. 
  $ 8,199.1     $ 3,685.1  
Allied Waste Industries, Inc. 
    -       5,677.1  
                 
      8,199.1       9,362.2  
Less: Divestitures
    (9.0 )     (160.6 )
Less: Intercompany revenue
    -       (25.2 )
                 
Adjusted revenue
  $   8,190.1     $   9,176.4  
                 
 
Adjusted revenue is used to calculate internal growth for the year ended December 31, 2009. Intercompany revenue relates to prior year transactions between Republic and Allied that would have been eliminated if the companies had merged on January 1, 2008.
 
The following table reflects changes in our core adjusted revenue for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007. We have presented the components of our revenue changes for the year ended December 31, 2009 assuming our merger with Allied occurred on January 1, 2008:
 
                         
    2009     2008     2007  
 
Core price
    3.0 %     4.4 %     4.4 %
Fuel surcharges
    (2.5 )     1.8       0.2  
Commodities
    (1.7 )     0.1       0.9  
                         
Total price
    (1.2 )     6.3       5.5  
Core volume
    (9.5 )     (3.8 )     (1.6 )
                         
Total internal growth
     (10.7 )%          2.5 %          3.9 %
                         
 
Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year’s presentation.
 
We believe that the preceding presentation of adjusted revenue and changes in adjusted revenue provides useful information to investors because it allows investors to understand increases or decreases in our revenue that are driven by changes in the operations of the newly combined company and not merely by the addition of Allied’s revenues for periods after the merger. This information has been prepared for illustrative purposes and is not intended to be indicative of the revenue that would have been realized had the merger been consummated at the beginning of the periods presented or the future results of the combined operations.
 
Revenue – 2009 versus 2008
 
Revenue was $8,199.1 million and $3,685.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, an increase of $4,514.0 million or 122.5%. This increase is due to the acquisition of Allied in December 2008.
 
  •   Changes in core price increased revenue by 3.0% and 4.4% in 2009 and 2008, respectively, due to our broad-based pricing initiative which we started during the fourth quarter of 2003. We anticipate that we will continue to realize this benefit throughout 2010.
 
  •   Changes in fuel surcharges decreased revenue by 2.5% in 2009 compared to an increase of 1.8% in 2008. Revenue benefited from fuel surcharges resulting from high fuel costs that were passed along to our customers during 2008. The decline in fuel surcharges in 2009 compared to 2008 is directly attributable to a decline in fuel costs.
 
  •   Changes in commodity prices decreased revenue by 1.7% in 2009 compared to an increase of 0.1% in 2008. During 2009, lower market demand resulted in lower pricing for the commodities we sell.


42


Table of Contents

 
  •   Changes in core volume decreased revenue by 9.5% and 3.8% in 2009 and 2008, respectively. During 2009, we experienced negative core volume growth in all lines of business, especially in our industrial collection and landfill businesses, as a result of the challenging economic environment. We expect to continue to experience year-over-year volume declines until economic conditions improve.
 
Revenue – 2008 versus 2007
 
Revenue was $3,685.1 million and $3,176.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, an increase of $508.9 million or 16.0% primarily due to the acquisition of Allied in December 2008.
 
  •   Changes in core price increased revenue by 4.4% in 2008 and 2007, respectively, due to our broad-based pricing initiative which we started during the fourth quarter of 2003.
 
  •   Changes in fuel surcharges increased revenue by 1.8% and 0.2% in 2008 and 2007, respectively. Revenue benefited from fuel surcharges due to high fuel costs that were passed along to our customers. The increase in fuel surcharges in 2008 compared to 2007 is directly attributable to an increase in fuel costs.
 
  •   Changes in commodity prices increased revenue by 0.1% and 0.9% in 2008 and 2007, respectively. The decline in revenue growth is primarily due to a decline in global demand.
 
  •   Changes in core volume decreased revenue by 3.8% and 1.6% in 2008 and 2007, respectively, due to decreases across all lines of business as a result of the slowdown in the economy in 2008.
 
Revenue – 2010 Outlook
 
We anticipate internal revenue from core operations to decrease approximately 0.5% - 2.0% during 2010. This decrease consists of expected growth in core pricing of approximately 2.0% - 2.5% offset by an expected decline in volume of approximately 3.0% - 4.0%. Our projections assume no deterioration or improvement in the overall economy from that experienced at the end of 2009. However, our internal growth may be more or less than expected in 2010 depending on economic conditions and our success in implementing pricing initiatives.
 
Cost of Operations
 
Cost of operations was $4,844.2 million, $2,416.7 million and $2,003.9 million, or, as a percentage of revenue, 59.1%, 65.6% and 63.1%, for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The increase in cost of operations in aggregate dollars for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 versus the year ended December 31, 2007 is a result of our acquisition of Allied in December 2008.
 
Cost of operations includes labor and related benefits, which consists of salaries and wages, health and welfare benefits, incentive compensation and payroll taxes. It also includes transfer and disposal costs representing tipping fees paid to third party disposal facilities and transfer stations; maintenance and repairs relating to our vehicles, equipment and containers, including related labor and benefit costs; transportation and subcontractor costs, which include costs for independent haulers who transport our waste to disposal facilities and costs for local operators who provide waste handling services associated with our national accounts in markets outside our standard operating areas; fuel, which includes the direct cost of fuel used by our vehicles, net of fuel credits; disposal franchise fees and taxes consisting of landfill taxes, municipal franchise fees, host community fees and royalties; landfill operating costs, which includes landfill accretion, financial assurance, leachate disposal and other landfill maintenance costs; risk management, which includes casualty insurance premiums and claims; cost of goods sold, which includes material costs paid to suppliers associated with recycling commodities; and other, which includes expenses such as facility operating costs, equipment rent and gains or losses on sale of assets used in our operations.


43


Table of Contents

The following table summarizes the major components of our cost of operations for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 (in millions of dollars and as a percentage of our revenue):
 
                                                 
    2009     2008     2007  
 
Labor and related benefits
  $ 1,561.0       19.0 %   $ 707.0       19.2 %   $ 620.0       19.5 %
Transfer and disposal costs
    695.6       8.5       348.7       9.5       328.0       10.3  
Maintenance and repairs
    649.2       7.9       281.8       7.6       242.2       7.6  
Transportation and subcontract costs
    505.3       6.2       244.4       6.6       206.0       6.5  
Fuel
    349.8       4.3       235.3       6.4       180.3       5.7  
Franchise fees and taxes
    403.7       4.9       139.0       3.8       105.8       3.3  
Landfill operating costs
    117.8       1.4       190.5       5.2       75.6       2.4  
Risk management
    205.9       2.5       111.8       3.0       91.9       2.9  
Cost of goods sold
    60.2       0.8       50.3       1.4       59.8       1.9  
Other
    295.7       3.6       107.9       2.9       94.3       3.0  
                                                 
Total cost of operations
  $   4,844.2         59.1 %   $   2,416.7         65.6 %   $   2,003.9         63.1 %
                                                 
 
The cost categories shown above may change from time to time and may not be comparable to similarly titled categories used by other companies. As such, care should be taken when comparing our cost of operations by cost component to that of other companies.
 
Cost of Operations – 2009 versus 2008
 
Our cost of operations, as a percentage of revenue, improved 6.5% to 59.1% for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to 65.6% for the year ended December 31, 2008, primarily as a result of the following:
 
  •   Transfer and disposal costs decreased as a percentage of revenue primarily due to lower fuel and disposal costs. In addition, transfer and disposal costs were also favorably impacted by increased internalization of our waste streams into landfills either owned or operated by us.
 
  •   Fuel costs decreased approximately 35% from an average of $3.80 per gallon during 2008 to an average of $2.47 per gallon during 2009.
 
  •   Landfill operating costs decreased 3.8% as a percentage of revenue, primarily due to charges we recorded during 2008 consisting of $98.0 million related to estimated costs to comply with F&Os issued by the OEPA and the AOC issued by the EPA in response to environmental conditions at our Countywide facility, $21.9 million related to environmental conditions at our closed disposal facility in California and $34.0 million related to environmental conditions at the Sunrise Landfill. These charges increased our 2008 cost of operations as a percentage of revenue by 4.2% for the year ended December 31, 2008.
 
  •   Other cost of operations increased 0.7% as a percentage of revenue primarily due to increases in occupancy and facility expenses as well as equipment rental expense.
 
Cost of Operations – 2008 versus 2007
 
Our cost of operations, as a percentage of revenue, increased 2.5% to 65.6% for the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to 63.1% for the year ended December 31, 2007, primarily as a result of the following:
 
  •   Labor and related benefits as a percentage of revenue for the year ended December 31, 2008 versus 2007 decreased due to higher revenue resulting from improved pricing and lower labor costs associated with volume decreases in various lines of business.
 
  •   Fuel costs increased 0.7% as a percentage of revenue during the year ended December 31, 2008 versus the year ended December 31, 2007. Our average cost of fuel per gallon increased approximately 38% from $2.76 per gallon during 2007 to $3.80 per gallon during 2008.


44


Table of Contents

 
  •   Landfill operating costs increased as a percentage of revenue for the year ended December 31, 2008 versus 2007, primarily due to charges we recorded during 2008 consisting of $98.0 million related to our Countywide facility, $21.9 million related to our closed disposal facility in California and $34.0 million charge related to the Sunrise Landfill. This increase was partially offset by a $41.0 million charge related to our Countywide facility and an $8.1 million charge related to our closed disposal facility in California recorded during 2007.
 
Depreciation, Amortization and Depletion of Property and Equipment
 
The following table summarizes depreciation, amortization and depletion of property and equipment for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 (in millions of dollars and as a percentage of revenue):
 
                                                 
    2009     2008     2007  
 
Depreciation and amortization of property and equipment
  $ 520.6       6.3 %   $ 222.6       6.0 %   $ 188.9       5.9 %
Landfill depletion and amortization
    278.5       3.4       119.7       3.3       110.1       3.5  
                                                 
Depreciation, amortization and depletion expense
  $   799.1         9.7 %   $   342.3         9.3 %   $   299.0         9.4 %
                                                 
 
Depreciation, amortization and depletion expenses for property and equipment were $799.1 million, $342.3 million and $299.0 million, or, as a percentage of revenue, 9.7%, 9.3% and 9.4%, for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The increase in such expenses in aggregate dollars for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 versus 2007 is primarily due to our acquisition of Allied in December 2008.
 
Depreciation, Amortization and Depletion of Property and Equipment – 2009 versus 2008
 
The increase in depreciation, amortization and depletion expenses as a percentage of revenue is primarily due to increases in depreciation and depletion expense associated with equipment and landfills acquired from Allied and recorded at their current fair values. We allocated $2.6 billion of fair value to the landfills we acquired from Allied. The increase in the landfill depletion and amortization in aggregate dollars is directly attributable to this allocation of fair value.
 
Depreciation, Amortization and Depletion of Property and Equipment – 2008 versus 2007
 
The decrease in such expenses as a percentage of revenue for the year ended December 31, 2008 versus 2007 is primarily due to a reduction of amortization expense associated with lower landfill volumes. In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2007, we incurred approximately $3.3 million of additional depletion and amortization expense associated with a reduction of estimated remaining available airspace at our Countywide facility.
 
Amortization of Intangible and Other Assets
 
Expenses for amortization of intangible and other assets were $70.6 million, $11.8 million and $6.5 million, or, as a percentage of revenue, 0.9%, 0.3% and 0.2% for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Our other intangible and other assets primarily relate to customer lists, franchise agreements, municipal contracts, trade names, favorable lease assets and to a lesser extent non-compete agreements. The increase in such expenses in aggregate dollars and as a percentage of revenue for the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 versus 2007 is due to the amortization of intangible assets recorded as a result of our acquisition of Allied.
 
Accretion Expense
 
Accretion expense was $88.8 million, $23.9 million and $17.1 million, or, as a percentage of revenue, 1.1%, 0.7% and 0.5% for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The increase in such


45


Table of Contents

expenses in aggregate dollars in 2009 and 2008 versus 2007 is primarily due to an increase in asset retirement obligations associated with our acquisition of Allied. The asset retirement obligations acquired from Allied are recorded using a discount rate of 9.75%, which is higher than the credit-adjusted, risk-free rate we have used historically to record such obligations.
 
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
 
Selling, general and administrative expenses were $880.4 million, $434.7 million and $313.7 million, or, as a percentage of revenue, 10.7%, 11.8% and 9.9%, for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
 
Selling, general and administrative expenses include salaries, health and welfare benefits and incentive compensation for corporate and field general management, field support functions, sales force, accounting and finance, legal, management information systems and clerical and administrative departments. Other expenses include rent and office costs, fees for professional services provided by third parties, marketing, investor and community relations, directors’ and officers’ insurance, general employee relocation, travel, entertainment and bank charges, but excludes any such amounts recorded as restructuring charges.
 
The following table provides the components of our selling, general and administrative costs for the three years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 (in millions of dollars and as a percentage of revenue):
 
                                                 
    2009     2008     2007  
 
Salaries
  $ 548.1       6.7 %   $ 237.6       6.4 %   $ 206.3       6.5 %
Provision for doubtful accounts
    27.3       0.3       36.5       1.0       3.9       0.1  
Costs to achieve synergies
    41.6       0.5       2.9       0.1       -       -  
Other
    263.4       3.2       157.7       4.3       103.5       3.3  
                                                 
Total selling, general and administrative expenses
  $   880.4         10.7 %   $   434.7         11.8 %   $   313.7         9.9 %
                                                 
 
The cost categories shown above may change from time to time and may not be comparable to similarly titled categories used by other companies. As such, care should be taken when comparing our selling, general and administrative expenses by cost component to that of other companies.
 
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses – 2009 versus 2008
 
Selling, general and administrative expenses in 2009 include $41.6 million of costs to achieve synergies related to the Allied merger. These costs primarily consist of a synergy related bonus of approximately $34 million accrued in 2009. We expect to incur an additional $34.0 million of expense during 2010 to fully accrue for the synergy related bonus.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2008, we recorded $14.2 million of bad debt expense related to conforming Allied’s methodology for recording the allowance for doubtful accounts on accounts receivable with ours and $5.4 million to provide for specific bankruptcy exposures. We also recorded $24.3 million of settlement charges related to our estimates of the outcome of various legal matters and a charge of $2.9 million related to the synergy related bonus.
 
Excluding charges for synergies, conforming accounting policies, bankruptcies and certain legal matters, selling, general and administrative expenses for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 would have been $838.8 million and $387.9 million, or 10.2% and 10.5% as a percentage of revenue, respectively. Upon the completion of the integration of Allied, our goal is to maintain our selling, general and administrative costs at no more than 10.0% of revenue, which we believe is appropriate given our existing business platform.
 
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses – 2008 versus 2007
 
The increase in selling, general and administrative expenses (excluding the costs mentioned above) in aggregate dollars during 2008 versus 2007 is primarily due to our merger with Allied. The increase in such


46


Table of Contents

expenses as a percentage of revenue for 2008 versus 2007 is primarily due to our merger with Allied and a $4.3 million reduction in our allowance for doubtful accounts which we recorded during the year ended December 31, 2007 as a result of refining our estimate for our allowance based on our historical collection experience.
 
(Gain) Loss on Disposition of Assets and Impairments, Net
 
(Gain) loss on disposition of assets and impairments, net of costs to sell was $(137.0) million and $89.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, and nil for the year ended December 31, 2007.
 
During the year ended December 31, 2009, we divested of certain assets as required by the DOJ as a condition of the merger with Allied and recorded a gain of $153.5 million. Offsetting this gain was a loss of $10.2 million recognized in connection with the divestiture of a hauling operation in Miami-Dade County, Florida as well as $7.1 million of additional asset impairments, primarily related to our former corporate offices and other assets sold or held for sale.
 
During the year ended December 31, 2008, we recorded a charge of $75.9 million related to the impairment of our Countywide facility. This impairment relates to the anticipated loss of permitted airspace associated with complying with F&Os issued by the OEPA and the AOC issued by the EPA based upon recent negotiations with the OEPA and the EPA. Also during the year ended December 31, 2008, we recorded $7.8 million of other impairment charges, consisting primarily of charges related to our former corporate office in South Florida.
 
Restructuring Charges
 
As a result of our acquisition of Allied, we committed to a restructuring plan related to our corporate overhead and other administrative and operating functions. The plan included closing our corporate office in Florida, consolidating administrative functions to Arizona, the former headquarters of Allied, and reducing staffing levels. The plan also included closing and consolidating certain operating locations and terminating certain leases. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we incurred $63.2 million of restructuring and integration charges related to our integration of Allied, of which $34.0 million consists of charges for severance and other employee termination and relocation benefits. The remainder of the charges primarily related to consulting and professional fees. Substantially, all the charges are recorded in our corporate segment. During 2010, we expect to incur additional charges approximating $12 million to complete our plan. We expect that the majority of these charges will be paid during 2010 and will extend into 2011.
 
Interest Expense
 
Interest expense was $595.9 million, $131.9 million and $94.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The following table provides the components of interest expense, including accretion of debt discounts and accretion of discounts primarily associated with environmental and self-funded risk insurance liabilities assumed in the acquisition of Allied:
 
                         
    2009     2008     2007  
 
Interest expense on debt and capital lease obligations
  $ 453.5     $ 123.9     $ 97.8  
Accretion of debt discounts
    92.1       10.1       -  
Accretion of remediation and risk reserves
    58.1       0.5       -  
Less: capitalized interest
    (7.8 )     (2.6 )     (3.0 )
                         
Total interest expense
  $   595.9     $   131.9     $   94.8  
                         
 
The increase in interest expense during the year ended December 31, 2009 versus 2008 is primarily due to the additional debt we assumed as a result of our acquisition of Allied. Interest expense also increased as a result of accreting discounts applied to debt or imputing interest on environmental and risk reserves assumed from Allied.


47


Table of Contents

Loss on Extinguishment of Debt
 
Loss on early extinguishment of debt was $134.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, resulting from the following:
 
  •   In September 2009, we issued $650.0 million of 5.500% Senior Notes due 2019 with an unamortized discount of $4.5 million at December 31, 2009. A portion of the net proceeds from these notes was used to purchase and retire $325.5 million of our outstanding senior notes maturing in 2010 and 2011.
 
  •   In November 2009, we issued $600.0 million of 5.250% Senior Notes due 2021. The net proceeds from these notes as well as draws on our revolver were used to purchase and retire our 7.875% Senior Notes due 2013 (redeemed at 102.625%), our 7.375% Senior Notes due 2014 (redeemed at 103.688%), and our 4.250% Senior Subordinated Convertible Debentures due 2034 (redeemed at par).
 
  •   In addition, during 2009 we repurchased and retired certain of our senior notes in the secondary market.
 
The loss on extinguishment of debt recorded during 2009 consists of premiums paid to repurchase debt, the charge for unamortized debt discounts and professional fees paid to effectuate the repurchase. In the future we may chose to voluntarily retire certain portions of our outstanding debt before their maturity using cash from operations or additional borrowings. We may also explore opportunities in capital markets to fund redemptions. The early extinguishment of debt may result in an impairment charge in the period in which the debt is repurchased and retired.
 
Interest Income and Other Income (Expense), Net
 
Interest income and other income, net of other expense, was $5.2 million, $8.0 million and $26.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
 
Income Taxes
 
Our provision for income taxes was $368.5 million, $85.4 million and $177.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Our effective income tax rate was 42.6%, 53.6% and 38.0% for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Our effective income tax rate is adversely impacted by expenses incurred which are non-deductible for tax, disposition of assets that have little or no basis for tax, and accruals for penalties and interest on uncertain tax positions.
 
In the future we may choose to divest certain operating assets that have little or no tax basis, thereby resulting in a higher taxable gain than otherwise would be recognized. The higher taxable gain will increase our effective rate in the quarter in which the divestiture is consummated.
 
With respect to the settlement of certain tax liabilities regarding our risk management companies, we paid approximately $58 million in the first quarter of 2010 and anticipate paying the remainder, approximately $67 million, later in 2010.
 
During the year ended December 31, 2008, we incurred expenses that were not tax deductible as a result of the merger with Allied. In addition, lower pre-tax earnings contributed to the increase in our effective tax rate.
 
During the year ended December 31, 2007, we recorded a net tax benefit of $4.8 million in our provision for income taxes related to the resolution of various income tax matters, including the effective completion of Internal Revenue Service audits of our consolidated tax returns for fiscal years 2001 through 2004.
 
Reportable Segments
 
Our operations are managed and reviewed through four geographic regions that we designate as our reportable segments. Summarized financial information concerning our reportable segments for the years ended


48


Table of Contents

December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 is shown in the following table (in millions of dollars and as a percentage of revenue):
 
                                                         
          Depreciation,
                               
          Amortization,
    Adjustments to
                         
          Depletion and
    Amortization
          Gain (Loss) on
             
          Accretion Before
    Expense
    Depreciation,
    Disposition of
             
          Adjustments for
    for Asset
    Amortization,
    Assets, Net
    Operating
       
    Net
    Asset Retirement
    Retirement
    Depletion and
    and Asset
    Income
    Operating
 
    Revenue     Obligations     Obligations     Accretion     Impairment     (Loss)     Margin  
 
2009:
                                                       
Eastern
  $ 2,115.0     $ 215.5     $ (1.2 )   $ 214.3     $ 4.0     $ 483.0       22.8 %
Midwest
    1,777.0       227.3       (1.4 )     225.9       27.1       369.1       20.8  
Southern
    2,046.2       241.9       (8.8 )     233.1       29.8       522.9       25.6  
Western
    2,170.0       228.5       6.4       234.9       88.1       582.0       26.8  
Corporate entities
    90.9       50.4       (0.1 )     50.3       (12.0 )     (367.2 )     -  
                                                         
Total
  $  8,199.1     $  963.6     $  (5.1 )   $  958.5     $  137.0     $  1,589.8        19.4  
                                                         
2008:
                                                       
Eastern
  $ 989.9     $ 89.6     $ 5.5     $ 95.1     $ (82.0 )   $ (2.5 )     (0.3 )%
Midwest
    771.7       97.7       (0.9 )     96.8       (0.8 )     127.6       16.5  
Southern
    970.2       94.3       0.5       94.8       -       184.8       19.0  
Western
    942.6       84.7       (5.0 )     79.7       (1.2 )     154.9       16.4  
Corporate entities
    10.7       11.1       0.5       11.6       (5.8 )     (181.6 )     -  
                                                         
Total
  $ 3,685.1     $ 377.4     $ 0.6     $ 378.0     $ (89.8 )   $ 283.2       7.7  
                                                         
2007:
                                                       
Eastern
  $ 865.6     $ 77.8     $ (0.4 )   $ 77.4     $ -     $ 149.7       17.3 %
Midwest
    647.5       88.0       (5.0 )     83.0       -       118.9       18.4  
Southern
    848.9       76.6       0.8       77.4       -       155.9       18.4  
Western
    813.5       69.7       7.9       77.6       -       175.6       21.6  
Corporate entities
    0.7       7.2       -       7.2       -       (64.1 )     -  
                                                         
Total
  $   3,176.2     $       319.3     $        3.3     $      322.6     $      -     $      536.0       16.9  
                                                         
 
Corporate entities include legal, tax, treasury, information technology, risk management, human resources, corporate accounts and other typical administrative functions. National accounts revenue included in corporate entities represents the portion of revenue generated from nationwide contracts in markets outside our operating areas, and, as such, the associated waste handling services are subcontracted to local operators. Consequently, substantially all of this revenue is offset with related subcontract costs, which are recorded in cost of operations.
 
We completed the reorganization of our operating segments related to our acquisition of Allied in the first quarter of 2009, and are providing internal and external reporting in accordance with our reorganized structure. Significant changes in the revenue and operating margins of our reportable segments comparing 2009 with 2008 and comparing 2008 with 2007 are discussed in the following paragraphs. The increase in aggregate dollars for revenue, depreciation, amortization, depletion and accretion, and operating income (loss) for each of our reportable segments is due to our acquisition of Allied. The results of our reportable segments were also affected by the disposition of certain assets and liabilities, as required by the DOJ. Where the effect was significant, we have noted our operating margin exclusive of these gains and losses. Additionally, the decrease in revenue resulting from declines in volumes and commodity prices noted below are attributable to the economic slowdown.
 
2009 compared to 2008
 
•   Eastern Region. Revenue for the year ended December 31, 2009 benefited from core price growth in all lines of business. However, the increase in revenue from core price was more than offset by volume


49


Table of Contents

declines in all lines of business, especially in our industrial and landfill lines of business. We also experienced declines in fuel surcharges.
 
In 2009, we realized a $4.0 million net gain from the disposition of assets, which increased operating margins by 0.2%. We also recovered $12.0 million of insurance proceeds related to remediation costs at our Countywide facility in Ohio, which increased operating margins by 0.6%.
 
In 2008, we incurred a $99.9 million charge for environmental conditions at our Countywide facility, which reduced our operating margin for the year ended December 31, 2008 by 10.1%. We incurred a $75.9 million charge related to the anticipated loss of permitted airspace at Countywide based upon negotiations with the OEPA and EPA, which reduced our operating margin by 7.7%. We also incurred $11.0 million in legal settlement costs, which decreased operating margins by 1.1%.
 
The remaining increase in operating margins is attributed to lower fuel, disposal, and selling, general and administrative expenses, partially offset by higher depreciation and amortization costs resulting from assets acquired from Allied and higher labor and facilities expense.
 
•   Midwest Region. Revenue for the year ended December 31, 2009 benefited from core price growth in all lines of business. However, the increase in revenue from core price was more than offset by volume declines in all lines of business, especially in our industrial and landfill lines of business. We also experienced declines in fuel surcharges.
 
In 2009, we realized net gains from the disposition of assets of $27.1 million, which increased operating margins by 1.5%. Otherwise, the improvement in operating margin for the year ended December 31, 2009 is primarily due to lower transportation, fuel, and selling, general and administrative expenses. The increase in operating margin was partially offset by increased depreciation and amortization expense resulting from assets acquired from Allied and higher facilities expense.
 
•   Southern Region. Revenue for the year ended December 31, 2009 benefited from core price growth in all lines of business. However, the increase in revenue from core price was more than offset by volume declines in all lines of business, especially in our industrial and landfill lines of business. We also experienced declines in fuel surcharges.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2009, we realized net gains from the disposition of assets of $29.8 million, which impacted operating margins by 1.5%. We also realized in 2009 an $8.8 million favorable adjustment to amortization expense for asset retirement obligations which increased our operating margin by 0.4%. Otherwise the improvement in operating margin for the year ended December 31, 2009, is primarily due to lower disposal, transport and fuel costs, partially offset by increased depreciation and amortization expense resulting from assets acquired from Allied and higher facilities expense.
 
•   Western Region. Revenue for the year ended December 31, 2009 benefited from core price growth in all lines of business. However, the increase in revenue from core price was more than offset by volume declines in all lines of business, especially in our industrial and landfill lines of business. We also experienced declines in fuel surcharges.
 
For the year ended December 31, 2009, we realized gains from the disposition of assets of $88.1 million, which increased operating margins by 4.1%. Partially offsetting these gains was an unfavorable adjustment to amortization expense for asset retirement obligations of $6.4 million, reducing operating margin by 0.3%, and remediation charges totaling $5.2 million, reducing operating margin by 0.3% related to environmental conditions at our closed disposal facility in California. In addition, lower landfill revenue (which has higher margins than our collection line of business) negatively impacted 2009 margins.
 
In the second quarter of 2008, we incurred a $34.0 million charge at the Sunrise Landfill and a $21.9 million charge at our closed disposal facility in California for environmental conditions at each of these locations. The charges reduced operating margin by 5.9%. Margins were favorably impacted by lower labor, fuel, transportation and selling, general and administrative expenses, offset by increased depreciation and amortization expense resulting from assets acquired from Allied and higher facilities expense.


50


Table of Contents

•   Corporate Entities. The increase in net revenue relates to Allied’s national accounts program. The increase in depreciation, amortization, depletion and accretion expense, and the increase in the operating loss are attributable to the acquisition of Allied. Included in our gain (loss) on disposition of assets and impairments, net for the year ended December 31, 2009 are transaction related expenses of $8.2 million from the disposition of assets in the other segments and a $3.7 million charge for the asset impairment associated with our former corporate office in Florida.
 
2008 compared to 2007
 
•   Eastern Region. Revenue in our Eastern Region increased during 2008 compared to 2007 due to the addition of operating results for Allied from the date of the acquisition which was effective December 5, 2008. The increase in revenue is also due to price increases in all lines of business. This increase in revenue was partially offset by a decrease in volumes in all lines of business and a decrease in the prices of commodities. The decrease in volume is primarily attributable to less temporary work and lower transfer station volumes due to less construction activity.
 
The operating loss in 2008 includes remediation charges of $99.9 million related to estimated costs to comply with the F&Os issued by the OEPA and the AOC issued by the EPA related to our Countywide facility and an impairment charge of $75.9 million related to the anticipated loss of permitted airspace at Countywide based upon negotiations with the OEPA and EPA. It also includes $11.0 million of settlement costs for certain legal matters.
 
Operating income for 2007 includes a $44.6 million charge to operating expenses associated with environmental conditions at Countywide.
 
•   Midwest Region. Revenue increased during 2008 compared to 2007 due to the acquisition of Allied and price increases in all lines of business. This increase in revenue was partially offset by lower volumes in all lines of business and lower prices of commodities due to the economic slowdown.
 
Operating margins decreased during 2008 compared to 2007 due to an adjustment to amortization expense for asset retirement obligations during 2007 and due to higher fuel costs.
 
•   Southern Region. The acquisition of Allied and price increases in all lines of business resulted in an increase in revenue during 2008 compared to 2007. This increase in revenue was partially offset by volume declines in our industrial collection line of business and at our landfills. This increase in revenue was also partially offset by the sale of our Texas-based compost, mulch and soil business in November 2007.
 
Operating margins increased during 2008 compared to 2007 due to higher revenue, lower disposal costs and lower insurance costs, partially offset by higher fuel costs.
 
•   Western Region. The acquisition of Allied and price increases in all lines of business resulted in an increase in revenue during 2008 compared to 2007. This increase in revenue was partially offset by a decrease in industrial collection, commercial collection, transfer station and landfill volumes resulting from the economic slowdown. This increase in revenue was also partially offset by lower prices of commodities.
 
Operating income in 2008 includes a $34.0 million charge related to estimated costs to comply with a Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement signed with the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management and Clark County, Nevada related to the Sunrise Landfill. It also includes a $21.9 million charge recorded during 2008 associated with environmental conditions at our closed disposal facility in California.
 
Operating income in 2007 includes an $8.1 million increase in landfill operating costs and a $5.2 million increase in amortization expense for asset retirement obligations associated with environmental conditions at our closed disposal facility in California.
 
•   Corporate Entities. The increase in operating costs includes professional fees, distributions under cash and equity award programs, and relocation, severance and other employee termination benefits related to our merger with Allied. Included in our gain (loss) on disposition of assets and impairments, net for the year


51


Table of Contents

ended December 31, 2008 is a $6.0 million charge for the asset impairment associated with our former corporate office in Florida.
 
Landfill and Environmental Matters
 
Our landfill costs include daily operating expenses, costs of capital for cell development, costs for final capping, closure and post-closure, and the legal and administrative costs of ongoing environmental compliance. Daily operating expenses include leachate treatment and disposal, methane gas and groundwater monitoring and system maintenance, interim cap maintenance, and costs associated with the application of daily cover materials. We expense all indirect landfill development costs as they are incurred. We use life cycle accounting and the units-of-consumption method to recognize certain direct landfill costs related to landfill development. In life cycle accounting, certain direct costs are capitalized and charged to depletion expense based on the consumption of cubic yards of available airspace. These costs include all costs to acquire and construct a site, including excavation, natural and synthetic liners, construction of leachate collection systems, installation of methane gas collection and monitoring systems, installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and other costs associated with the acquisition and development of the site. Obligations associated with final capping, closure and post-closure are capitalized and amortized on a units-of-consumption basis as airspace is consumed.
 
Cost and airspace estimates are developed at least annually by engineers. These estimates are used by our operating and accounting personnel to adjust the rates we use to expense capitalized costs. Changes in these estimates primarily relate to changes in costs, available airspace, inflation and applicable regulations. Changes in available airspace include changes in engineering estimates, changes in design and changes due to the addition of airspace lying in expansion areas that we believe have a probable likelihood of being permitted.
 
Available Airspace
 
The following tables reflect landfill airspace activity for active landfills owned or operated by us for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007:
 
                                                         
    Balance
          Landfills
    Permits
          Changes
    Balance
 
    as of
    New
    Acquired,
    Granted,
          in
    as of
 
    December 31,
    Expansions
    Net of
    Net of
    Airspace
    Engineering
    December 31,
 
    2008     Undertaken     Divestitures     Closures     Consumed     Estimates     2009  
 
Cubic yards (in millions):
                                                       
Permitted airspace
    4,559.6       249.0       (176.8 )     (114.8 )     (86.9 )     6.3       4,436.4  
Probable expansion airspace
    386.2       (106.1 )     (62.2 )     (4.7 )     -       (0.7 )     212.5  
                                                         
Total cubic yards
    4,945.8       142.9       (239.0 )     (119.5 )     (86.9 )     5.6       4,648.9  
                                                         
Number of sites:
                                                       
Permitted airspace
    213               (9 )     (12 )                     192  
                                                         
Probable expansion airspace
    23       (9 )     (1 )     (1 )                     12  
                                                         
 


52


Table of Contents

                                                         
    Balance
          Permits
          Changes
          Balance
 
    as of
    Acquisition
    Granted,
          in
    Changes
    as of
 
    December 31,
    of
    Net of
    Airspace
    Engineering
    in
    December 31,
 
    2007     Allied     Closures     Consumed     Estimates     Design     2008  
 
Cubic yards (in millions):
                                                       
Permitted airspace
    1,537.3       3,061.1       22.5       (42.7 )     (18.6 )     -       4,559.6  
Probable expansion airspace
    192.0       214.1       (18.9 )     -       -       (1.0 )     386.2  
                                                         
Total cubic yards
    1,729.3       3,275.2       3.6       (42.7 )     (18.6 )     (1.0 )     4,945.8  
                                                         
Number of sites:
                                                       
Permitted airspace
    58       157       (2 )                             213  
                                                         
Probable expansion airspace
    11       15       (3 )                             23  
                                                         
 
                                                                 
    Balance
          Landfill
    Permits
          Changes
          Balance
 
    as of
    New
    Operating
    Granted,
          in
    Changes
    as of
 
    December 31,
    Expansions
    Contracts,
    Net of
    Airspace
    Engineering
    in
    December 31,
 
    2006     Undertaken     Net     Closures     Consumed     Estimates     Design     2007  
 
Cubic yards (in millions):
                                                               
Permitted airspace
    1,597.2       -       0.2       1.2       (40.3 )     6.9       (27.9 )     1,537.3  
Probable expansion airspace
    124.6       74.4       -       -       -       0.5       (7.5 )     192.0  
                                                                 
Total cubic yards
    1,721.8       74.4       0.2       1.2       (40.3 )     7.4       (35.4 )     1,729.3  
                                                                 
Number of sites:
                                                               
Permitted airspace
    59               -       (1 )                             58  
                                                                 
Probable expansion airspace
    8       3       -       -                               11  
                                                                 
 
Changes in engineering estimates typically include modifications to the available disposal capacity of a landfill based on a refinement of the capacity calculations resulting from updated information. Changes in design typically include significant modifications to a landfill’s footprint or vertical slopes.
 
As of December 31, 2009, we owned or operated 192 active solid waste landfills with total available disposal capacity estimated to be 4.6 billion in-place cubic yards. Total available disposal capacity represents the sum of estimated permitted airspace plus an estimate of probable expansion airspace. These estimates are developed at least annually by engineers utilizing information provided by annual aerial surveys. As of December 31, 2009, total available disposal capacity is estimated to be 4.4 billion in-place cubic yards of permitted airspace plus 0.2 billion in-place cubic yards of probable expansion airspace. Before airspace included in an expansion area is determined to be probable expansion airspace and, therefore, included in our calculation of total available disposal capacity, it must meet all of our expansion criteria. See Note 2, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, and Note 8, Landfill and Environmental Costs, to our consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for further information. During 2009, total available airspace decreased by a net 296.9 million cubic yards primarily due to divestitures, closures and airspace consumed, partially offset by new expansions.
 
During 2008, total available airspace increased by a net 3.2 billion cubic yards due to the merger with Allied in December, which contributed 157 active landfills representing 3.3 billion cubic yards of permitted and probable expansion airspace. Excluding the merger with Allied, total available airspace related to Republic’s pre-merger operations decreased by a net 0.1 billion cubic yards, primarily due to airspace consumed, changes in engineering estimates and changes in design. The decrease during 2008 due to changes in engineering estimates is primarily due to a reduction of remaining airspace at our Countywide facility.

53


Table of Contents

During 2007, total available airspace increased by a net 7.5 million cubic yards due to new expansions undertaken, changes in engineering estimates and permits granted, partially offset by airspace consumed and changes in design. In addition, total available airspace increased as a result of obtaining a new contract to operate a landfill in Texas, which was substantially offset by a reduction resulting from not renewing a contract to operate a small landfill in Texas. Changes in design in 2007 are primarily due to a reduction of estimated remaining available airspace at our Countywide facility.
 
At December 31, 2006, 7.2% of our total available airspace, or 124.6 million cubic yards, consisted of probable expansion airspace at eight of our landfills. At December 31, 2009, 4.6% of our total available airspace, or 212.5 million cubic yards, consisted of probable expansion airspace at twelve of our landfills. Between December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2009, we received permits for twelve of our probable expansions, which demonstrates our continued success in obtaining permits for expansion airspace.
 
As of December 31, 2009, twelve of our landfills meet all of our criteria for including their probable expansion airspace in their total available disposal capacity, eight of which were added as a result of our acquisition of Allied. At projected annual volumes, these landfills have an estimated remaining average site life of 39 years, including probable expansion airspace. The average estimated remaining life of all of our landfills is 46 years. We have other expansion opportunities that are not included in our total available airspace because they do not meet all of our criteria for probable expansion airspace.
 
The following table reflects the estimated operating lives of our active landfill sites based on available and probable disposal capacity using current annual volumes as of December 31, 2009:
 
                                 
    Number of
    Number of
             
    Sites
    Sites
             
    without
    with
          Percent
 
    Expansion
    Expansion
    Total
    of
 
    Airspace     Airspace     Sites     Total  
 
0 to 5 years
    20       -       20       10.4 %
6 to 10 years
    23       1       24       12.5 %
11 to 20 years
    50       4       54       28.1 %
21 to 40 years
    45       5       50       26.1 %
41+ years
    42       2       44       22.9 %
                                 
Total
         180            12            192            100.0 %
                                 
 
Final Capping, Closure and Post-Closure Costs
 
As of December 31, 2009, accrued final capping, closure and post-closure costs were $1,074.5 million, of which $137.5 million is current and $937.0 million is long-term as reflected in our consolidated balance sheets in accrued landfill and environmental costs.
 
Remediation and Other Charges for Landfill Matters
 
In December 2009, we finalized our purchase price allocation for the environmental liabilities we assumed as part of the acquisition of Allied. These liabilities represent our estimate of costs to remediate sites that were previously owned or operated by Allied or sites at which Allied, or a predecessor company that it had acquired, had been identified as a potentially responsible party. The remediation of these sites is in various stages of completion from having received an initial notice from a regulatory agency and commencing investigation to being in the final stages of post remedial monitoring. See also Note 2, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies — Environmental Remediation Liabilities, for further information. We have recorded these liabilities at their estimated fair values using a discount rate of 9.75%. Discounted liabilities are accreted to interest expense through the period that they are paid.


54


Table of Contents

The following is a discussion of certain of our significant remediation matters:
 
Countywide Landfill. In 2007, we were issued Final Findings and Orders (F&Os) by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) related to environmental conditions at our Countywide Recycling and Disposal Facility (Countywide) in East Sparta, Ohio and we agreed to undertake certain other remedial actions with the OEPA as well. During 2008, Republic Services of Ohio II, LLC (Republic-Ohio), an Ohio limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of ours and parent of Countywide, entered into an Agreed Order on Consent (AOC) with the EPA requiring the reimbursement of costs incurred by the EPA and requiring Republic-Ohio to perform certain remediation activities at Countywide. Republic-Ohio also has completed construction of an isolation break under the authority and supervision of the U.S. EPA. On September 30, 2009, Republic-Ohio entered into a set of F&Os with the OEPA that supersede previous F&Os mentioned above. The F&Os require the implementation of a comprehensive operation and maintenance program for managing the remediation area. The operation and maintenance program requires Republic-Ohio to maintain the temporary cap and other engineering controls to prevent odors and isolate and contain the reaction. The operation and maintenance program also requires the installation of a composite cap in the remediation area when conditions become conducive to such installation, and is ultimately designed to result in the final capping and closure of the 88-acre remediation area at Countywide. The remediation liability for Countywide recorded as of December 31, 2009 is $74.2 million, of which approximately $5.7 million is expected to be paid during 2010.
 
West Contra Costa County Landfill. In 2006, we were issued an Enforcement Order by the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) for the Class 1 Hazardous waste cell at the West Contra Costa County Landfill (West County). Subsequently, we entered into a Consent Agreement with DTSC in 2007 at which time we agreed to undertake certain remedial actions. The remediation liability for West County recorded as of December 31, 2009 is $46.8 million, of which approximately $1.6 million is expected to be paid during 2010.
 
Sunrise Landfill. On August 1, 2008, Republic Services of Southern Nevada (RSSN), our wholly owned subsidiary, signed a Consent Decree with the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management and Clark County, Nevada related to the Sunrise Landfill. Under the Consent Decree, RSSN has agreed to perform certain remedial actions at the Sunrise Landfill for which RSSN and Clark County were otherwise jointly and severally liable. RSSN is currently working with the Clark County Staff and Board of Commissioners to develop a mechanism to fund the costs to comply with the Consent Decree. However, we have not recorded any potential recoveries. The remediation liability for Sunrise recorded as of December 31, 2009 is $37.0 million, of which approximately $12.8 million is expected to be paid during 2010.
 
Congress Development Landfill. In January 2006, Congress Development Co. (CDC) was issued an Agreed Preliminary Injunction and Order by the Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County. Subsequently, the court issued two additional Supplemental Orders that required CDC to implement certain remedial actions at the Congress Landfill. The remediation liability recorded for CDC as of December 31, 2009 is $82.5 million, of which approximately $19.9 million is expected to be paid during 2010.
 
It is reasonably possible that we will need to adjust the charges noted above to reflect the effects of new or additional information, to the extent that such information impacts the costs, timing or duration of the required actions. Future changes in our estimates of the costs, timing or duration of the required actions could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


55


Table of Contents

Investment in Landfills
 
The following tables reflect changes in our investment in landfills for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 and the future expected investment as of December 31, 2009 (in millions):
 
                                                                                 
                                              Impairments
             
                            Non-cash
                and
    Adjustments
       
    Balance
                      Additions
          Transfers
    Transfers to
    for
    Balance
 
    as of
                Acquisitions,
    for Asset
    Additions
    and
    Assets
    Asset
    as of
 
    December 31,
    Capital
          Net of
    Retirement
    Charged
    Other
    Held for
    Retirement
    December 31,
 
    2008     Additions     Retirements     Divestitures     Obligations     to Expense     Adjustments     Sale     Obligations     2009  
 
Non-depletable landfill land
  $ 169.3     $ 5.9     $ (2.6 )   $ (7.9 )   $ -     $ -     $ (17.0 )   $ (5.0 )   $ -     $ 142.7  
Landfill development costs
    4,126.3       11.7       (0.3 )     (3.2 )     32.5       -       132.6       (8.5 )     (60.2 )     4,230.9  
Construction-in-progress - landfill
    76.2       278.8       -       -       -       -       (109.5 )     (0.4 )     -       245.1  
Accumulated depletion and amortization
    (1,004.2 )     -       -       1.2       -       (282.5 )     -       5.2       4.9       (1,275.4 )
                                                                                 
Net investment in landfill land and development costs
  $     3,367.6     $  296.4     $      (2.9 )   $       (9.9 )   $       32.5     $  (282.5 )   $       6.1     $ (8.7 )   $     (55.3 )   $     3,343.3  
                                                                                 
 
                         
    Balance
             
    as of
    Expected
    Total
 
    December 31,
    Future
    Expected
 
    2009     Investment     Investment  
 
Non-depletable landfill land
  $ 142.7     $ -     $ 142.7  
Landfill development costs
    4,230.9       5,993.5       10,224.4  
Construction-in-progress - landfill
    245.1       -       245.1  
Accumulated depletion and amortization
    (1,275.4 )     -       (1,275.4 )
                         
Net investment in landfill land and development costs
  $   3,343.3     $   5,993.5     $   9,336.8  
                         
 
                                                                         
                                              Impairments
       
                      Non-Cash
    Adjustments
                and
       
    Balance
                Additions
    for
          Transfers
    Transfers to
    Balance
 
    as of
          Acquisition
    for Asset
    Asset
    Additions
    and
    Assets
    as of
 
    December 31,
    Capital
    of
    Retirement
    Retirement
    Charged
    Other
    Held for
    December 31,
 
    2007     Additions     Allied     Obligations     Obligations     to Expense     Adjustments     Sale     2008  
 
Non-depletable landfill land
  $ 52.7     $ 0.2     $ 115.7     $ -     $ -     $ -     $ 0.7     $ -     $ 169.3  
Landfill development costs
    1,809.1       3.6       2,610.8       20.5       (33.2 )     -       74.8       (359.3 )     4,126.3  
Construction-in-progress - landfill
    66.4       105.1       0.3       -       -       -       (74.0 )     (21.6 )     76.2  
Accumulated depletion and amortization
      (1,039.5 )     -       (1.2 )     -       0.6       (119.1 )     -       155.0       (1,004.2 )
                                                                         
Net investment in landfill land and development costs
  $ 888.7     $  108.9     $  2,725.6     $      20.5     $      (32.6 )   $   (119.1 )   $       1.5     $      (225.9 )   $   3,367.6  
                                                                         
 
                                                                         
                                              Adjustments
       
    Balance
                      Additions
          Transfers
    for
    Balance
 
    as of
                Landfill
    for Asset
    Additions
    and
    Asset
    as of
 
    December 31,
    Capital
          Operating
    Retirement
    Charged
    Other
    Retirement
    December 31,
 
    2006     Additions     Retirements     Contracts     Obligations     to Expense     Adjustments     Obligations     2007  
 
Non-depletable landfill land
  $ 52.7     $ -     $ -     $ -     $ -     $ -     $ -     $ -     $ 52.7  
Landfill development costs
        1,710.6       0.9       (2.5 )     2.5       19.5       -       78.8       (0.7 )     1,809.1  
Construction-in-progress - landfill
    61.1       95.9       -       -       -       -       (90.6 )     -       66.4  
Accumulated depletion and amortization
    (930.6 )     -       2.3       -       -       (110.1 )     -       (1.1 )     (1,039.5 )
                                                                         
Net investment in landfill land and development costs
  $ 893.8     $   96.8     $      (0.2 )   $      2.5     $      19.5     $   (110.1 )   $     (11.8 )   $      (1.8 )   $      888.7  
                                                                         


56


Table of Contents

The following table reflects our net investment in our landfills, excluding non-depletable land, and our depletion, amortization and accretion expense for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007:
 
                         
    2009     2008     2007  
 
Number of landfills owned or operated
    192       213       58  
                         
Net investment, excluding non-depletable land (in millions)
  $  3,200.6     $  3,198.3     $  836.0  
Total estimated available disposal capacity (in millions of cubic yards)
    4,648.9       4,945.8       1,729.3  
                         
Net investment per cubic yard
  $ 0.69     $ 0.65     $ 0.48  
                         
Landfill depletion and amortization expense (in millions)
  $ 278.5     $ 119.7     $ 110.1  
Accretion expense (in millions)
    88.8       23.9       17.1  
                         
      367.3       143.6       127.2  
Airspace consumed (in millions of cubic yards)
    86.9       42.7       40.3  
                         
Depletion, amortization and accretion expense per cubic yard of airspace consumed
  $ 4.23     $ 3.36     $ 3.16  
                         
 
The increase in the investment in our landfills, both in aggregate dollars and as an investment per cubic yard, is primarily due to the acquisition of Allied in December 2008. Landfill development cost in the above table includes $2.6 billion of purchase price for the acquisition that has been allocated to the permitted and probable expansion airspace acquired based on its fair value as of the date of the acquisition. Depletion, amortization and accretion expense increased from 2008 to 2009 and from 2007 to 2008 primarily due to accretion expense associated with capping, closure and post-closure liabilities assumed from Allied. The asset retirement obligations assumed from Allied are recorded using a discount rate of 9.75%, which is higher than the rate we have historically used. See Note 2, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, regarding asset retirement obligation adjustments.
 
During the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, our weighted-average compaction rate was approximately 1,700 pounds per cubic yard based on our three-year historical moving average. Our compaction rates may improve as a result of the settlement and decomposition of waste.
 
As of December 31, 2009, we expect to spend an estimated additional $6.0 billion on existing landfills, primarily related to cell construction and environmental structures, over their expected remaining lives. Our total expected investment, excluding non-depletable land, estimated to be $9.2 billion, or $1.98 per cubic yard, is used in determining our depletion and amortization expense based on airspace consumed using the units-of-consumption method.
 
Property and Equipment
 
The following tables reflect the activity in our property and equipment accounts for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 (in millions):
 
                                                                         
    Gross Property and Equipment  
                            Non-Cash
    Adjustments
          Impairments
       
    Balance
                      Additions
    for
    Transfers
    and Transfers
    Balance
 
    as of
                Acquisitions,
    for Asset
    Asset
    and
    to Assets
    as of
 
    December 31,
    Capital
          Net of
    Retirement
    Retirement
    Other
    Held for
    December 31,
 
    2008     Additions     Retirements     Divestitures     Obligations     Obligations     Adjustments     Sale     2009  
 
Other land
  $ 464.4     $ 10.1     $ (3.5 )   $ (48.3 )   $ -     $ -     $ (0.4 )   $ (3.6 )   $ 418.7  
Non-depletable landfill land
    169.3       5.9       (2.6 )     (7.9 )     -       -       (17.0 )     (5.0 )     142.7  
Landfill development costs
    4,126.3       11.7       (0.3 )     (3.2 )     32.5       (60.2 )     132.6       (8.5 )     4,230.9  
Vehicles and equipment
    3,432.3       509.1       (126.1 )     (7.5 )     -       -       2.0       (17.4 )     3,792.4  
Buildings and improvements
    706.0       17.6       (12.1 )     (0.8 )     -       -       31.2       (0.3 )     741.6  
Construction-in-progress - landfill
    76.2       278.8       -       -       -       -       (109.5 )     (0.4 )     245.1  
Construction-in-progress - other
    26.3       29.3       -       6.9       -       -       (39.3 )     (0.2 )     23.0  
                                                                         
Total
  $       9,000.8     $     862.5     $      (144.6 )   $       (60.8 )   $       32.5     $       (60.2 )   $        (0.4 )   $        (35.4 )   $      9,594.4  
                                                                         
 


57


Table of Contents

                                                         
    Accumulated Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization  
                            Adjustments
             
    Balance
    Additions
                for
    Impairments
    Balance
 
    as of
    Charged
          Acquisitions,
    Asset
    and Transfers
    as of
 
    December 31,
    to
          Net of
    Retirement
    to Assets
    December 31,
 
    2008     Expense     Retirements     Divestitures     Obligations     Held for Sale     2009  
 
Landfill development costs
  $ (1,004.2 )   $ (282.5 )   $ -     $ 1.2     $ 4.9     $ 5.2     $ (1,275.4 )
Vehicles and equipment
    (1,147.3 )     (490.3 )     107.5       4.7       -       7.2       (1,518.2 )
Buildings and improvements
    (111.1 )     (36.9 )     1.4       (0.7 )     -       4.2       (143.1 )
                                                         
Total
  $      (2,262.6 )   $   (809.7 )   $      108.9     $           5.2     $          4.9     $          16.6     $      (2,936.7 )
                                                         
 
                                                                         
    Gross Property and Equipment  
                            Non-Cash
    Adjustments
          Impairments
       
    Balance
                      Additions
    for
    Transfers
    and Transfers
    Balance
 
    as of
                Acquisitions,
    for Asset
    Asset
    and
    to Assets
    as of
 
    December 31,
    Capital
          Net of
    Retirement
    Retirement
    Other
    Held for
    December 31,
 
    2007     Additions     Retirements     Divestitures     Obligations     Obligations     Adjustments     Sale     2008  
 
Other land
  $ 105.7     $ 1.4     $ (0.1 )   $ 358.5     $ -     $ -     $        (0.7 )   $ (0.4 )   $ 464.4  
Non-depletable landfill land
    52.7       0.2       -       115.7       -       -       0.7       -       169.3  
Landfill development costs
    1,809.1       3.6       -       2,610.8       20.5       (33.2 )     74.8       (359.3 )     4,126.3  
Vehicles and equipment
    1,965.1       232.8       (87.8 )     1,380.4       -       -       2.8       (61.0 )     3,432.3  
Buildings and improvements
    346.7       5.0       (7.5 )     379.9       -       -       19.9       (38.0 )     706.0  
Construction-in-progress - landfill
    66.4       105.1       -       0.3       -       -       (74.0 )     (21.6 )     76.2  
Construction-in-progress - other
    11.8       23.9       -       14.2       -       -       (23.5 )     (0.1 )     26.3  
                                                                         
Total
  $      4,357.5     $   372.0     $      (95.4 )   $     4,859.8     $       20.5     $       (33.2 )   $        -     $       (480.4 )   $      9,000.8  
                                                                         
 
                                                         
    Accumulated Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization  
                            Adjustments
             
    Balance
    Additions
                for
    Impairments
    Balance
 
    as of
    Charged
          Acquisitions,
    Asset
    and Transfers
    as of
 
    December 31,
    to
          Net of
    Retirement
    to Assets
    December 31,
 
    2007     Expense     Retirements     Divestitures     Obligations     Held for Sale     2008  
 
Landfill development costs
  $ (1,039.5 )   $ (119.1 )   $ -     $          (1.2 )   $          0.6     $ 155.0     $ (1,004.2 )
Vehicles and equipment
    (1,052.7 )     (208.3 )     87.5       2.9       -       23.3       (1,147.3 )
Buildings and improvements
    (101.0 )     (15.0 )     1.0       -       -       3.9       (111.1 )
                                                         
Total
  $       (2,193.2 )   $   (342.4 )   $        88.5     $ 1.7     $ 0.6     $       182.2     $      (2,262.6 )
                                                         
 
                                                                 
    Gross Property and Equipment  
                            Non-Cash
    Adjustments
             
    Balance
                      Additions
    for
    Transfers
    Balance
 
    as of
                Acquisitions,
    for Asset
    Asset
    and
    as of
 
    December 31,
    Capital
          Net of
    Retirement
    Retirement
    Other
    December 31,
 
    2006     Additions     Retirements     Divestitures     Obligations     Obligations     Adjustments     2007  
 
Other land
  $ 105.9     $ 1.4     $ (0.3 )   $ (3.1 )   $ -     $ -     $        1.8     $ 105.7  
Non-depletable landfill land
    52.7       -       -       -       -       -       -       52.7  
Landfill development costs
    1,710.6       0.9       (2.5 )     2.5       19.5       (0.7 )     78.8       1,809.1  
Vehicles and equipment
    1,886.8       173.4       (77.8 )     (22.1 )     -       -       4.8       1,965.1  
Buildings and improvements
    319.1       2.6       (0.1 )     (2.5 )     -       -       27.6       346.7  
Construction-in-progress - landfill
    61.1       95.9       -       -       -       -       (90.6 )     66.4  
Construction-in-progress - other
    12.3       21.9       -       -       -       -       (22.4 )     11.8  
                                                                 
Total
  $      4,148.5     $   296.1     $       (80.7 )   $        (25.2 )   $       19.5     $        (0.7 )   $ -     $       4,357.5  
                                                                 
 

58


Table of Contents

                                                         
    Accumulated Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization  
                            Adjustments
             
    Balance
    Additions
                for
    Impairments
    Balance
 
    as of
    Charged
          Acquisitions,
    Asset
    and Transfers
    as of
 
    December 31,
    to
          Net of
    Retirement
    to Assets
    December 31,
 
    2006     Expense     Retirements     Divestitures     Obligations     Held for Sale     2007  
 
Landfill development costs
  $ (930.6 )   $ (110.1 )   $ 2.3     $ -     $ (1.1 )   $ -     $ (1,039.5 )
Vehicles and equipment
    (963.5 )     (176.7 )     72.1       15.7       -       (0.3 )     (1,052.7 )
Buildings and improvements
    (90.6 )     (12.2 )     0.2       1.6       -       -       (101.0 )
                                                         
Total
  $  (1,984.7 )   $  (299.0 )   $  74.6     $  17.3     $  (1.1 )   $  (0.3 )   $  (2,193.2 )
                                                         
 
Liquidity and Capital Resources
 
The major components of changes in cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 are discussed in the following paragraphs. The following table summarizes our cash flow from operating activities, investing activities and financing activities for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007:
 
                         
    2009     2008     2007  
 
Net cash provided by operating activities
  $ 1,396.5     $ 512.2     $ 661.3  
Net cash used in investing activities
    (242.5 )     (934.7 )     (260.3 )
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities
    (1,174.7 )     469.4       (408.3 )
 
Cash Flows Provided by Operating Activities
 
The most significant items affecting the comparison of our operating cash flows for 2009 and 2008 are summarized below:
 
Earnings increase. Our net income increased by $422.6 million, on a year-over-year basis, primarily due to the acquisition of Allied in December 2008, which positively affected our cash flow from operations in 2009.
 
Changes in assets and liabilities, net of effects from business acquisitions and divestitures. Changes in assets and liabilities negatively affected our cash flow from operations by $251.9 million in 2009 versus a negative impact of $78.9 million in 2008, primarily as a result of the following:
 
  •   During 2009, the cash we paid to settle our capping, closure, post-closure and remediation obligations increased by $85.9 million. The increase in cash paid for closure and post closure activities is primarily due to our acquisition of Allied.
 
  •   During 2009, we paid $66.5 million for restructuring and synergy related costs incurred in connection with the restructuring plan formulated as a result of our acquisition of Allied. The plan included closing our corporate office in Florida, consolidating administrative functions to Arizona, the former headquarters of Allied, and reducing staffing levels.
 
  •   During 2009, we made income tax payments (net of refunds received) of approximately $444 million, of which approximately $105 million relates to taxes on our divestitures. During 2008, we made income tax payments (net of refunds received) of approximately $128 million. During 2008, approximately $32 million of federal tax payments were deferred and paid in 2009 as a result of the merger with Allied. With respect to the settlement of certain tax liabilities regarding our risk management companies, we paid approximately $58 million in the first quarter of 2010 and expect to pay the remainder, approximately $67 million, later in 2010.
 
Cash provided by operating activities was $512.2 million and $661.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The changes in cash provided by operating activities during the periods are primarily due to the expansion of our business, the timing of payments received for accounts receivable, and the timing of payments made for accounts payable and federal income taxes.

59


Table of Contents

We use cash flows from operations to fund capital expenditures, acquisitions, dividend payments and debt repayments.
 
Cash Flows Used in Investing Activities
 
The most significant items affecting the comparison of our investing cash flows for the periods presented are summarized below:
 
Capital expenditures. Capital expenditures during 2009 were $826.3 million, compared with $386.9 million in 2008 and $292.5 million in 2007. Capital expenditures in 2009 were higher than either 2008 or 2007 due to our acquisition of Allied in December 2008. During 2010, we expect our capital expenditures to approximate $870 million. However, we expect property and equipment received during 2010 to be $790 million, which excludes $80 million of property and equipment received during 2009 but paid for during 2010.
 
Cash paid for acquisitions, net of cash acquired. Cash paid for acquisitions decreased from $553.8 million during 2008 to $0.1 million during 2009. Cash paid for acquisitions in 2008 relates to the retirement of Allied’s credit facility at the close of the acquisition, net of cash acquired, and $13.4 million of cash paid for other acquisitions.
 
Proceeds from divestitures. Proceeds from divestitures (net of cash divested) and other sales of assets were $511.1 million in 2009, $3.3 million in 2008 and $42.1 million in 2007. Proceeds from divestitures in 2009 were the result of divestitures of certain assets as required by the DOJ as a condition of the merger with Allied and certain other business dispositions. Proceeds from divestitures in 2007 related primarily to the disposition of our compost, mulch and soil business in Texas.
 
Change in restricted cash and marketable securities. Changes in our restricted cash and marketable securities balances, which are largely related to the issuance of tax-exempt bonds for our capital needs and amounts held in trust as a guarantee of performance, contributed $41.6 million to our investing activities in 2009 compared to uses of cash of $5.3 million and $11.6 million in 2008 and 2007, respectively. The funds received from issuances of tax-exempt bonds are deposited directly into trust accounts by the bonding authority at the time of issuance. As we do not have the ability to use these funds for general operating purposes, they are classified as restricted cash in our consolidated balance sheets. Proceeds from bond issuances represent cash used in investing activities in our consolidated statements of cash flows. Reimbursements from the trust for qualifying expenditures are presented as cash provided by investing activities in our consolidated statements of cash flows. During 2009, our reimbursements from restricted cash accounts exceeded funds received from the issuance of tax-exempt bonds.
 
We intend to finance capital expenditures and acquisitions through cash on hand, restricted cash held for capital expenditures, cash flows from operations, our revolving credit facilities, and tax-exempt bonds and other financings. We expect to use primarily cash for future business acquisitions.
 
Cash Flows Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities
 
The most significant items affecting the comparison of our cash flows from financing activities for the periods presented are summarized below:
 
Net debt repayments or borrowings. Payments of notes payable and long-term debt net of proceeds from notes payable and long-term debt and issuance of senior notes were $865.9 million in 2009 versus net borrowing of $712.8 million and $11.1 million in 2008 and 2007, respectively. During 2009, we issued $650.0 million of 5.500% Senior Notes due 2019 and $600.0 million of 5.250% Senior Notes due 2021. The primary use of proceeds from the notes together with draws on our Credit Facilities was to purchase and retire: (i) $325.5 million of varied senior notes maturing in 2010 and 2011 pursuant to our September 2009 tender offer; (ii) $450.0 million of 7.875% of Senior Notes due 2013; (iii) $400.0 million of 7.375% Senior Notes due 2014; (iv) $230.0 million of 4.250% Senior Subordinated Convertible Debentures due 2034 and; (v) repurchase certain of our senior notes maturing in 2010 and 2011 in the secondary market. Additionally, our senior unsecured notes bearing interest at a fixed rate of 7.125% matured during 2009. We repaid the remaining principal balance of $99.3 million in May 2009. Net borrowings reflected in our cash flows provided by financing activities in 2008 were primarily related to the merger with Allied. We used proceeds from our revolver to refinance extensions of credit under Allied’s senior credit facility, to pay


60


Table of Contents

fees and expenses in connection therewith, and to pay fees and expenses incurred in connection with the merger.
 
Premiums and fees paid to issue and retire senior notes. In connection with the issuance of our senior notes as well as purchasing and retiring certain indebtedness in 2009, we incurred cash premiums and fees totaling $61.6 million.
 
Purchase of common stock for treasury. From 2000 through 2008, our Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $2.6 billion of our common stock. As of December 31, 2008, we had paid $2.3 billion to repurchase 82.6 million shares of our common stock, of which $138.4 million was paid during 2008 to repurchase 4.6 million shares and $362.8 million was paid during 2007 to repurchase 11.1 million shares of our common stock. The stock repurchase program was suspended in the second quarter of 2008 due to the pending merger with Allied. We expect that the share repurchase program will continue to be suspended until at least 2011.
 
Cash dividends paid. We initiated a quarterly cash dividend in July 2003. The dividend has been increased each year thereafter, with the latest increase occurring in the third quarter of 2008. Our current quarterly dividend per share is $0.19. Dividends paid were $288.3 million, $128.3 million and $93.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
 
Financial Condition
 
As of December 31, 2009, we had $48.0 million of cash and cash equivalents, and $240.5 million of restricted cash deposits and restricted marketable securities, including $93.1 million of restricted cash held for capital expenditures under certain debt facilities.
 
In April 2007, we increased our unsecured revolving credit facility from $750.0 million to $1.0 billion and extended the term from 2010 to 2012. In conjunction with the merger with Allied, in September 2008, we entered into an additional $1.75 billion revolving credit facility with a group of banks. This credit facility was used initially at the time of the merger to refinance extensions of credit under Allied’s senior credit facility, to pay fees and expenses in connection therewith, and to pay fees and expenses incurred in connection with the merger. We also amended our existing $1.0 billion credit facility to conform certain terms of the facility to those included in our new $1.75 billion credit facility. We did not change the maturity date of the $1.0 billion credit facility.
 
The $1.0 billion revolving credit facility due April 2012 and the $1.75 billion revolving credit facility due September 2013 (collectively, Credit Facilities) bear interest at a Base Rate, or a Eurodollar Rate, plus an applicable margin based on our Debt Ratings (all as defined in the agreements). As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the interest rate for our borrowings under our Credit Facilities was 1.82% and 3.43%, respectively. Our Credit Facilities are also subject to facility fees based on applicable rates defined in the agreements and the aggregate commitments, regardless of usage. Borrowings under our Credit Facilities can be used for working capital, capital expenditures, letters of credit and other general corporate purposes. We had $0.3 billion and $0.6 billion of Eurodollar Rate borrowings, and $1.6 billion and $1.7 billion of letters of credit utilizing availability under our Credit Facilities, leaving $0.8 billion and $0.4 billion of availability under our Credit Facilities at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
 
The agreements governing the Credit Facilities require us to comply with certain financial and other covenants. We have the ability to pay dividends and to repurchase common stock provided that we are in compliance with these covenants. Compliance with these covenants is a condition for any incremental borrowings under the Credit Facilities and failure to meet these covenants would enable the lenders to require repayment of any outstanding loans (which would adversely affect our liquidity). At December 31, 2009, our EBITDA to interest ratio was 4.01 compared to the 3.00 minimum required by the covenants. In addition, at December 31, 2009, our total debt to EBITDA ratio was 2.87 compared to the 4.00 maximum allowed by the covenants. At December 31, 2009, we were in compliance with the covenants of the Credit Facilities, and during 2010 we expect to be in compliance.


61


Table of Contents

EBITDA, which is a non-GAAP measure, is calculated as defined in our Credit Facility agreements. In this context, EBITDA is used solely to provide information regarding the extent to which we are in compliance with debt covenants and is not comparable to EBITDA used by other companies or used by us for other purposes.
 
In December 2009 we used cash on hand and incremental borrowings under our Credit Facilities to redeem $400.0 million of our 7.375% Senior Notes due 2014. The Senior Notes were redeemed at a price equal to 103.688% of the principal amount of the notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest. We incurred a charge of $46.0 million for premiums paid to repurchase debt, the charge for unamortized debt discounts and professional fees paid to effectuate the repurchase.
 
In November 2009, we issued $600.0 million of Senior Notes with a fixed interest rate of 5.250% due 2021 in a private placement transaction. The notes are general senior unsecured obligations and mature on November 15, 2021. Interest is payable semi-annually on May 15 and November 15, beginning May 15, 2010. These Senior Notes are guaranteed by each of our subsidiaries that also guarantee our Credit Facilities. These guarantees are general senior unsecured obligations of the subsidiary guarantors. In addition, we entered into a Registration Rights Agreement with the initial purchasers of the notes. Under the Registration Rights Agreement, we agreed to use our reasonable best efforts to cause to become effective a registration statement to exchange the notes for freely tradable notes issued by us. If we are unable to effect the exchange offer within 365 days, we agreed to pay additional interest on the notes. We used the net proceeds from the notes, cash on hand or incremental borrowings under our Credit Facilities as follows: (i) to redeem $450.0 million of our 7.875% Senior Notes due 2013 at 102.625%, and (ii) to redeem $230.0 million of our 4.250% Senior Subordinated Convertible Debentures due 2034 at par. We incurred a loss of $51.9 million for premiums paid to repurchase debt, charges for unamortized debt discounts and professional fees paid to effectuate the repurchase.
 
In September 2009, we issued $650.0 million of 5.500% Senior Notes due 2019 with an unamortized discount of $4.5 million at December 31, 2009. The notes are general senior unsecured obligations and mature on September 15, 2019. Interest is payable semi-annually on March 15 and September 15, beginning March 15, 2010. The notes are guaranteed by each of our subsidiaries that also guarantee our Credit Facilities. These guarantees are general senior unsecured obligations of subsidiary guarantors. In addition, we entered into a Registration Rights Agreement with the initial purchasers of the notes. Under the Registration Rights Agreement, we agreed to use our reasonable best efforts to cause to become effective a registration statement to exchange the notes for freely tradable notes issued by us. If we are unable to effect the exchange offer within 365 days, we agreed to pay additional interest on the notes. We used the net proceeds from the notes, cash on hand or incremental borrowings under our Credit Facilities as follows: (i) $325.5 million to tender for certain outstanding senior notes maturing in 2010 and 2011 that were issued by us or one of our subsidiaries; (ii) approximately $250 million to reduce amounts outstanding under our Credit Facilities, and (iii) approximately $105 million to remit estimated tax payments related to our divestiture of assets in connection with our merger with Allied. We incurred a loss of $31.8 million for premiums paid to repurchase debt, charges for unamortized debt discounts and professional fees paid to effectuate the repurchase.
 
During 2009, we repurchased a portion of our senior notes maturing in 2010 and 2011 in the secondary market, and as a result, we incurred additional losses on extinguishment of debt of $4.4 million related to premiums paid to repurchase debt, charges for unamortized debt discounts and professional fees paid to effectuate the repurchase. Also during 2009, we completed the required divestitures under the consent decree with the DOJ. Proceeds from the sales of the divested assets were primarily used to reduce amounts outstanding under our Credit Facilities. Additionally, our senior unsecured notes bearing interest at a fixed rate of 7.125% matured during 2009. We repaid the remaining principal balance of $99.3 million in May 2009.
 
In the first quarter of 2010 we called $425.0 million of our 6.125% senior notes due 2014. We expect to incur a loss upon extinguishment of the debt of approximately $52 million.
 
We have an accounts receivable securitization program with two financial institutions that allows us to borrow up to $300.0 million on a revolving basis under loan agreements secured by receivables. As of December 31, 2009, receivables secured loans totaled $300.0 million. In May 2009, we renewed the facility for 364 days and reduced the borrowing capacity from $400.0 million to $300.0 million. We expect to repay the facility from


62


Table of Contents

free cash flow, draws on our Credit Facilities or proceeds from other note offerings on or before the May 2010 maturity.
 
In order to manage risk associated with fluctuations in interest rates, we have entered into interest rate swap agreements with investment grade-rated financial institutions. Our outstanding swap agreements have a total notional value of $210.0 million and require us to pay interest at floating rates based on changes in LIBOR and receive interest at a fixed rate of 6.75%. Our swap agreements mature in August 2011.
 
At December 31, 2009, we had $1,223.7 million of tax-exempt bonds and other tax-exempt financings. Borrowings under these bonds and other financings bear interest based on fixed or floating interest rates at the prevailing market ranging from 0.20% to 8.25% at December 31, 2009 and have maturities ranging from 2010 to 2037. As of December 31, 2009, we had $93.1 million of restricted cash related to proceeds from tax-exempt bonds and other tax-exempt financings. This restricted cash will be used to reimburse capital expenditures under the terms of the agreements.
 
We intend to use excess cash on hand and cash from operating activities to repay debt, which may include purchases of our outstanding indebtedness in the secondary market or otherwise. We believe that our excess cash, cash from operating activities and proceeds from our revolving credit facilities provide us with sufficient financial resources to meet our anticipated capital requirements and obligations as they come due.
 
In the future we may choose to voluntarily retire certain portions of our outstanding debt before their maturity date using cash from operations or additional borrowings. We may also explore opportunities in capital markets to fund redemptions should market conditions be favorable. The early extinguishment of debt may result in an impairment charge in the period in which the debt is repurchased and retired. The loss on early extinguishment of debt relates to premiums paid to effectuate the repurchase and the relative portion of unamortized note discounts and debt issue costs.
 
Credit Rating
 
We have received investment grade credit ratings. As of December 31, 2009, our senior debt was rated BBB, Baa3, and BBB- by Standard & Poor’s Rating Services, Inc., Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. and Fitch, Inc., respectively.
 
Fuel Hedges
 
We use derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges to manage our exposure to changes in diesel fuel prices. We have entered into multiple swap agreements related to forecasted diesel fuel purchases. The swaps qualified for, and were designated as, effective hedges of changes in the prices of forecasted diesel fuel purchases (fuel hedges).
 
We have the following fuel hedges outstanding at December 31, 2009 and 2008:
 
                     
            Notional Amount
     
            (in Gallons
    Contract Price
Inception Date   Commencement Date   Termination Date   per Month)     per Gallon
 
January 26, 2007
  January 5, 2009   December 28, 2009     500,000     $2.83
January 26, 2007
  January 4, 2010   December 27, 2010     500,000     2.81
November 5, 2007
  January 5, 2009   December 30, 2013     60,000     3.28
March 17, 2008
  January 5, 2009   December 31, 2012     50,000     3.72
March 17, 2008
  January 5, 2009   December 31, 2012     50,000     3.74
September 22, 2008
  January 1, 2009   December 31, 2011     150,000     4.16 - 4.17
July 10, 2009
  January 1, 2010   December 31, 2010     100,000     2.84
July 10, 2009
  January 1, 2011   December 31, 2011     100,000     3.05
July 10, 2009
  January 1, 2012   December 31, 2012     100,000     3.20
 
If the national U.S. on-highway average price for a gallon of diesel fuel (average price) as published by the Department of Energy exceeds the contract price per gallon, we receive the difference between the average


63


Table of Contents

price and the contract price (multiplied by the notional gallons) from the counter-party. If the national U.S. on-highway average price for a gallon of diesel fuel is less than the contract price per gallon, we pay the difference to the counter-party.
 
The fair values of our fuel hedges are obtained from third-party counter-parties and are determined using standard option valuation models with assumptions about commodity prices being based on those observed in underlying markets (Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy). The aggregated fair values of the outstanding fuel hedges at December 31, 2009 and 2008 were current assets of $3.2 million and $1.2 million, respectively, and accrued liabilities of $4.9 million and $12.9 million, respectively, and have been recorded in other current assets and other accrued liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets, respectively.
 
The effective portions of the changes in fair values as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, net of tax, of $1.0 million and $7.1 million, respectively, have been recorded in stockholders’ equity as components of accumulated other comprehensive income. The ineffective portions of the changes in fair values as of December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 were immaterial and have been recorded in other income (expense), net in our consolidated statements of income. Realized (losses) gains of $(7.3) million, $5.9 million and $(1.6) million related to these fuel hedges are included in cost of operations in our consolidated statements of income for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
 
Commodity Hedges
 
We use derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges to manage our exposure to changes in prices of certain commodities. We have entered into multiple agreements related to certain forecasted commodity sales. The swaps qualified for, and were designated as, effective hedges of changes in the prices of certain forecasted commodity sales (commodity hedges).
 
We have the following commodity hedges outstanding at December 31, 2009 and 2008:
 
                             
                Notional Amount
    Contract Price
 
            Transaction
  (in Short Tons
    Per Short
 
Inception Date   Commencement Date   Termination Date   Hedged   per Month)     Ton  
 
April 28, 2008
  January 1, 2009   December 31, 2010   OCC     1,000     $ 106.00  
April 28, 2008
  January 1, 2009   December 31, 2010   OCC     1,000       110.00  
April 28, 2008
  January 1, 2009   December 31, 2010   ONP     1,000       106.00  
April 28, 2008
  January 1, 2009   December 31, 2010   ONP     1,000       103.00  
May 16, 2008
  January 1, 2009   December 31, 2010   OCC     1,000       105.00  
May 16, 2008
  January 1, 2009   December 31, 2010   OCC     1,000       103.00  
May 16, 2008
  January 1, 2009   December 31, 2010   ONP     1,000       102.00  
May 16, 2008
  January 1, 2009   December 31, 2010   ONP     1,000       106.00  
December 8, 2009
  January 1, 2010   December 31, 2011   ONP     2,000       76.00  
December 10, 2009
  January 1, 2010   December 31, 2011   OCC     2,000       82.00  
December 11, 2009
  January 1, 2010   December 31, 2011   OCC     2,000       82.00  
 
If the price per short ton of the hedging instrument (average price) as reported on the Official Board Market is less than the contract price per short ton, we receive the difference between the average price and the contract price (multiplied by the notional short tons) from the counter-party. If the price of the commodity exceeds the contract price per short ton, we pay the difference to the counter-party.
 
The fair values of our commodity hedges are obtained from third-party counter-parties and are determined using standard option valuation models with assumptions about commodity prices being based on those observed in underlying markets (Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy). The aggregated fair values of the outstanding commodity hedges at December 31, 2009 and 2008 were current assets of $1.8 million and $8.8 million, respectively, and current liabilities of $0.8 million and nil, respectively, and have been recorded in other current assets and other accrued liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets, respectively.
 
The effective portions of the changes in fair values as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, net of tax, of $0.6 million and $5.3 million have been recorded in stockholders’ equity as a component of accumulated other


64


Table of Contents

comprehensive income. The ineffective portions of the changes in fair values as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 were immaterial and have been recorded in other income (expense), net in our consolidated statements of income.
 
Contractual Obligations
 
The following table summarizes our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2009 (in millions):