HomeMy WebLinkAboutFI Waste Mngmt options- Estimated costs comparison
.
.
~?_~f:C:'i}~~D
,_\UL :.
{~...,.,+I~,",;.4 --.. .
,--,:-.,',
,.,.....!
C,}-.JI..'
COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED COSTS
VARIOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT OPfIONS
FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK
July 6, 1990
PREPARED FOR TIlE
FISHERS ISLAND CONSERVANCY
PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.
111 CHARTER OAK AVENUE
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106
(203) 722-1709 FAX (203) 722-1710
.~---
.
CONTENTS
ITEM
1.
2.
3.
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC COMPARISONS
DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES
, -
.
,-..,,-
.
PAGE
1
4
8
.
.
SECTION 1.
INTRODUCTION
This report presents a review of the economics and tax impacts of Options available for
the management of solid waste generated on Fishers Island. The report is not intended to direct
the Island or the Town toward any particular management or financing alternative, rather to
contribute to a better understanding of the relative economics of the Options.
Five Options have been examined herein, and are defined as follows:
Option 1.
Option 2.
Option 3.
The District is not dissolved, but continues with its function to operate a new
transfer station and associated facilities. The Town is able to provide a tax rebate
to the Island to eliminate the "double taxation" for refuse disposal purposes, and
the Town provides the capital to build the transfer station and to close the
District's landfill. The waste may go to either Southold or Connecticut under this
Option. However, collection services are discontinued as a District function,
recognizing the availability of the transfer station and recycling facility to
residents, who may be less demanding of Island-wide collection services.
The District is not dissolved, but continues with its function to operate a new
transfer station and associated facilities. Further, the Town is unable to provide
a tax rebate to the Island to eliminate the "double taxation", and the Town is also
unable to provide the capital to build the transfer station and to close the District's
.landfill. The District must raise these funds. The waste may go to either
Southold or Connecticut under this Option. However, collection services are
discontinued as a District function, recognizing the availability of the transfer
station and recycling facility to residents, who may be less demanding of Island-
wide collection services.
The District is dissolved, and the Town assumes all responsibilities for on-going
management of waste, no collection services are provided (other than on an
..' u..-
"-'"''
Option 4.
Option 5.
.
.
individual basis) and the Town provides the capital to build the station and close
the landfill.
The District is not dissolved, but continues to provide collection services, and to
operate a new incinerator. Further, the Town is unable to provide a tax rebate to
the Island to eliminate the "double taxation", and the Town is also unable to
provide the capital to build the incinerator and to close the District's landfill. The
District must raise these funds. This Option involves updating the information
previously developed for the Conservancy with respect to the incinerator.
The existing District is reduced in geographic scope or replaced with a new
district, and the Town assumes all responsibilities for on-going management of
waste, no collection services are provided (other than on an individual basis) and
the Town provides the capital to build the station and close the landfill. The
District oversees waste management services on the Island, and provides collection
services.
As shown, Options I through 3 all rely upon the same method of disposal (that is either
with the Town of Southold, at its landfill, or in the State of Connecticut.) However, Options I
through 3 provide for different levels of Town versus District involvement in the operation
and/or funding of the Island's disposal program. Option 4, which estimates potential costs
associated with a new incinerator on the Island, is offered for comparison purposes, recognizing
the concept of an Island-based incinerator remains under discussion in some circles. Finally,
Option 5 (essentially a modification of Option 3) offers suggestions as to how the Town and the
Island might legally cooperate to achieve both the District's current desire to dissolve itself, and
for the Town to assume waste disposal responsibilities, while at the same time preserving the
opportunity for an organized Island waste collection program and local oversight of operations.
A more complete discussion of the Options is found in the balance of the report.
~
"
....~.,......
Page 2
.
.
Current Planninl! Activities
The Town of Southold is currently studying its long range solid waste disposal options,
for the entire solid waste stream generated in the Town. A contact with a representative of
Dvirka and Bartulucci, the Town's consultant, revealed that numerous long range options
available to the Town are under study. The firm is now preparing a comprehensive solid waste
management plan for the Town, which is expected to be available in late July or early August,
for review.
Since the results of those efforts are not yet available, for this analysis the assumption has
been used that the cost of disposal of waste from the Island, if accomplished at Southold, would
be at the cost currently estimated by the Town for a new replacement landfill ($109 per ton.)
Offsetting this disposal cost, for the Options that have involved the Town in an ope~ting role,
the assumption has been made that the Town will charge a tipping fee on the Island for all waste
received of $100 per ton of waste, in partial compensation for the services provided.
Page 3
,.~
~--.,-
.
.
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC COMPARISONS
This section summarizes the estimates of the economic impact of the various alternatives,
on either the Island, or the Town as a whole. When reviewing the cost estimates, it is important
to recognize the following:
1. All of the Options (except for Option 4, which provides for an Island based
incinerator) rely upon the same basic technical solution, that is a transfer station
and off-island disposal either in Connecticut or with the Town of Southold. As
a result, the actual, total annual cost differences for the disposal aspect of these
Options is slight, with the key difference being who pays for the cost, either the
residents of the Island only, all of the residents of the Town, or a combination of
both sources.
2. Option 1 through 3 appear to present a lower total annual cost for management
of the waste stream from the Island, however the reader is advised to recognize
that these Options do not include payment for Island-wide collection services, a
reduction in service and costs from current practice. In abandoning a single
collector arrangement, it may be that some residents would choose not to hire a
collector to service their horne, however it is the experience of PMA that
substantial economies can result from a single community-wide collection contract,
if many residents wish to be served.
3. Tax increases, or decreases, as presented in the analysis, should be considered
with respect to the total tax burden residents now realize. Generally, residents of
the Town pay a total tax rate per $1,000 of assessed valuation of between 370 to
380. Hence, an increase of2, 5, or even 35 to residents, in actuality will impact
their tax bi11less than the figures may suggest, if only comparing the projections
to that portion of the total taxes attributed to the budget of the Fishers Island
Garbage and Refuse District (the "District"), for example.
. -
~
~-_r...
Page 4
.
.
The comparison of cost impact for each of the Options is shown on Table 2- I, on the
following page.
As expected, regardless of which management or technical solution the Island chooses,
the total cost for providing solid waste management services for the Island are certain to increase
in the near term. This results from the extremely low historical cost for lease and operation of
the District's landfill site, when compared to off-Island options and to incineration.
Results of Cost Comparison
The following results are observed, and conclusions offered:
1. Based on the economic analysis performed and understanding of the limitations of State
law, it is recommended that Options 1 and 4 not be considered further. Option 1 appears
to contradict the principles of law that preclude the Town's provision of financial support
to the District, while the District continues to operate. Option 4 presents unnecessary
costs, given the potential for the other Options.
2. As shown on Table 2- I, and using the assumptions and methodology described in Section
3, the potential for dissolution of the District and assignment of all future responsibilities
to the Town (Option 3) would result in an approximate annual cost to the Town of
between $360,000 and $400,000, at an increase in the Town's general fund tax rate per
$1,000 of assessed valuation of between 4.1 and 4.6.
3. However, under these assumptions, if the District were retained without change, (Option
2) the tax rate to the Island's residents could increase by approximately 40 per $1,000 of
assessed valuation. For comparison, if, the District chose to continue collection services,
its cost would increase further from the budget shown by 21.8 per $1,000 of assessed
valuation.
-
-
Page 5
-or.,."",
TABLE 2-1 COMPARISON OF OPTIONS
FISHERS ISLAND WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1990 Dollars
· STATUS
\ OF
,
OPTlGN DISTRICT
DISPOSAL
METHOD
USED
DOUBLE COLLECTION PARTY
TAXATION SERVICES OPERATING
1 INCLUDED 1 FACILITIES
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
.'-:.,-:.:...:..:......:..':...:....:.:.:.-,.:.-.::...:.c......'.:..-.:_:.,
. ,~... "."_._...0." .,......_
.:...._............_,.._._..,. ._'_'n....'..._...,..,'..
..'......._................-.- ......-..-...-.--...'-.-,......
.................... .........................
;.,-,....-.:...-.:.._,.....:...._,.:.'_.,., .:.'.'.:.-,:.".:.",".'.",'.:.".'.','.:.'".'.',','.
.....................-- ...................--....
-....._-..-., ........""."...".,
.',.,.........,..,.,.,.,.,.....,--.......-..,.,--..,..,.,. ..,
.-.-........,-..,-..,.......,..... ............,..-,..,......-..-,...-......,..-..
ISTRIC$502;489
iaTRIC $457,268
2 STAYS SOUTHOLD YES
2 STAYS CONNECTICUT YES
NO
NO
ISTRIC $515,425 $515,425
ISTRIC $470,204 $470,204
TOWN $502,489
TOWN $457,268
.,..,.".,.".....".
,-,',-,:,-,:-'.'-",-.,.-.--:.','_,.'.-.'-'.'
......... ..........
..........,.,..,..".,
.,..-,.,',-.-........-....
$814.945
5 REVISED SOUTHOLD
YES
YES
TOWN $657,489 $155,000 22.490 $326,000 -12.334 $403,319
DISTRICT
BUDGET
ALLOCATION
..-...,-.'_.-..............
..,....,.,.,..".".
....,.-.,.,..,..,...,.
.',-,'.-,'.,,-"-",-.",'.
..,.".,......."".".,..
'''.-'--.-''''''''''
................-....-...-..
......................
.",-.,.,.:--.,_.,..,.-.,_.,..,.....,.-.'.
$343316
"",.;;"...,:;;..:.,;.
$298,094
TAX ALLOCATION [IMPACT
ESTIMATED
TAX
RATE
..""",,,,,..
..."......".."...
""-.".".-'-'-'-.'"
..-................'.-...-.....
............."....
.......-...-'-,'.,-'...'..-',.-"..
."...... ,...."...
.....".,."...,..,.....
.-..-.-.....-..........,...
.....".... ........
.,..,..,...,....,.".,
...-..,....-...,...-..,-,..
....49.815
43.253
EXISTING
DISTRICT
COSTS.
ESTIMATED
TAX
INCREASE
.,..,..".,.,....".".".
............-................
..........-............
............ ..
......."....,..",......
..-"............."........
.............................
". . ... .... ..... ,.
..."....."-...............
............................
........... ....
...............................
.~~~;(j66
$326,000
."'.".......,.",,..',.,...
'-:"';';"':-'-":-'-:':-,,';.-,:",':.,-':'
::;::::';::':'::::";':':',:,.,::.:;:,:;:"-
. ......14:991.
. . 8.429
74.788 $326,000
68.226 $326,000
39.964
33.402
TOlIN
BUDGET
ALLOCATION
............"...-...
....................._,....-...
.........-..............
.. ... ...........
........."......-...........
.... ..............
,.....,.,.,....,.........
.....'-:"...'-.._.,.....-.-.--..,..'-............-_....'-'.
... ........ ....
..........-....'..-_...........-.'....,.,...._,...._-.','.'
........... ....
$159;17'4
$159,174
$326,000 -34.824 $403,319
$326,000 -34.824 $358,098
."",,,.. ..
.:-;..,-.:-'....-.:"-:--.;-'...-.-.._'...--'.
..-..............."...,
':':}::~:::::t:{:':}:{:~:::::~:? ........... -. .
$326.000. 83.423
'Only $240,000 of the total budget is actually raised by taxes, the balance Is unexpended funds.
. 'Compared to the present Town Fund Tax Rate of 99.392
Note: The Reader is reminded that the total tax burden for residents of the Island, or the Town Is actually
in the range of $370 to $380 per $1 ,000 of assesed valuation
I................ IThese Options are recommended by PMA for discard, and not to be considered further. Option 1 appears impossible
Xi to implement (contrary to State Law), and Option 4 is unnecessarily expensive.
$0
$0
ESTIMATED
TAX
INCREASE.
.'
0.000
0.000
4.620
4.102
. . 0.000
4.620
.
.
.
4. Using the Town's projected costs of $109 per ton of waste delivered to the landfill, it
would appear that the economics of disposal at the new Preston, Connecticut resources
recovery facility, versus delivery to Southold result in lower. but relatively similar
economics, given the total budgetary requirements.
5. As expected, the incinerator option, which includes off-Island delivery of recyclables,
appears to be the most expensive option, by a considerable margin.
Page 7
. ~
..
.,--.
.
.
SECTION 3
DEVEWPMENT OF COST FSTIMATFS
This Section presents a development of the estimate of cost for each of the Options. The
reader may benefit from examining a report prepared by PMA in 1988 entitled "A review Of
Solid Waste management Options For Fishers Island, New York." For both the transfer station
options, and for the incinerator in particular, the report provides additional insight on the
derivation of the cost for each of these options has been approached.
In developing an estimate of the annual cost associated with each of the Options, the
following approach has been taken:
1. For each option, elements of the program call for the investment of capital (closure of the
landfill, construction of a transfer station, and the purchase of equipment, for example.)
Based on Discussions with the District, capital costs have been reduced by $180,000, to
reflect the expected amount of unexpended funds at the end of this fiscal year. For each,
it has been assumed that these costs will be amortized over its useful life, and using the
interest rate and "bond sizing" assumptions identified in this Section. This is
accomplished to show the annual impact of capital requirements. In practice, either the
District or the Town may wish to pay these costs with a one-time tax appropriation.
2. Relying upon the most recent property valuation data available for the Island and the
Town, the estimated budget, and budget impacts, respectively, have been brought down
to the tax rate level. This is intended to offer the Town an opportunity to relate the
proposed assumption of responsibilities to the Town's current General Fund Budget.
Further, this method allows residents an opportunity to understand the impact of the
Options on their own personal taxes.
3. The cost associated with closure of the District's landfill, while common to each of the
, ~
u. .~_.......
Page 8
.
.
Options, is not well defined at this time, in the opinion of PMA. It is PMA's
understanding that the District's consulting engineer, Cummings and Lafayette, has held
discussions with firms involved in the business of closing landfill sites, from which a
budget estimate was obtained. This estimate, while included in each of the cost estimates
which follow, is deemed insufficient for specific planning purposes at this time, since it
is not based on a specific engineering design, or approach to closure. In fact, it is
understood that the firm which had prepared the estimate never visited the Island to
inspect the site. However, since this cost is common to all Options, the expectation for
increase, or decrease in this activity's cost should not affect the relative attractiveness of
these Options.
4. PMA anticipates that the long term post-closure monitoring of the Island's landfill site
may involve significant, measurable costs. However, the lack of a specific engineering
closure design prevents the development of an annual monitoring cost estimate for use in
this analysis. Again, these costs will be common to each of the Options, and are not
included.
FSTIMA TED COSTS
A description of the Options reviewed was provided in Sections I and 2. The following
summarizes specific aspects of the approach to development of the estimates. Since many of the
basic features are common to each, the Option I description is more complete, while the other
descriptions focus on the changes from Option 1.
Several Tables, on the following pages, present the assumptions used in developing each
cost estimate. The Options are found on the Tables as follows;
OPTION
I
POINT OF DISPOSAL
Southold
TABLE
3-1
. ~
k
,,' r...
Page 9
. .
1 Connecticut 3-2
2 Southold 3-3
2 Connecticut 3-4
3 Southold 3-5
3 Connecticut 3-6
4 Incinerator 3-7
5 Southold 3-8
Since the tables are somewhat self explanatory, the report discussion which follows is
intended to present a derivation of the information shown, or to expand on its implications.
Option 1
Tables 3-1, and 3-2 present the development of costs for Option 1, and assume the waste
is transported either to the Town of Southold, or Connecticut. In discussions with both the
Conservancy's attorney (Mr. Russell Stein) and the attorney for the Fishers Island Garbage and
Refuse District (Mr. Jeff Bragman), PMA was advised that one of the fundamental provisions
of Option 1, namely the use of Town funds to pay for solid waste activities on the Island, while
the District remains in place, is likely not to be permissible according to New York State law.
This analysis has been presented for informational purposes only. It may be determined there
are avenues available to the Town or the District to implement this Option in spirit, if not as
proposed (see Option 5.) One avenue being explored by the Conservancy's attorney is the
potential for reduction of the District's geographic area by specific parcel, such that the Town
would then be able to fund landfill closure, and transfer station construction activities, while the
reduced District remains functional, or the replacement District takes over.
'"
In approaching an estimate of the capital costs associated with implementing Option 1,
the landfill closure cost provided by the District's consultant have been used, although the
limitations identified above remain. Further, transfer station capital costs are based on estimates
provided to PMA by the District's consultant (Cummings & Lafayette) on May 21, 1990.
. ~
,.
''''.'-
Page 10
TABLE 3-.PTION 1-DISTRICT STAYS .
ESTIMATED ~TS-DISPOSAL OF FISHERS ISLAND
MIXED MUNICIPAL WASTE IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TOWN PAYS CAPITAL COSTS, NO DOUBLE TAXATION
($ 1990)
A.
B.
Tons of Waste Processed Annually
Caohet Costs
Landfill Closure
Transfer Station (Incl. Compactor)
Truck and Boxes
Total Capital Cost
c. Ammortization Of CaDi tal Costs
Teno"Landfill Closure
Term-Station
20 years
20
5
992 Incl. Recyclables
5550,000
5424,288
5150.000
51,124.288
(1)
(2)
years
Interest Rate
Capital Ratio
AlnIal Amortization
7.50%
1.2
5159,174
Tenm-Truck & Boxes
years
D. FeF"r'V Cas ts
Tons of ~8ste Per Off-Island Truck Trip
To New London
Fr,," New London to Southold
E. Annual Cost of Transfer Station ODerations
Personnel
Personnel Fringes at 25%
Fuel & Chemicals
Utilities
I nsuranc:e
Suppli as
Cont i ngency - 25X Of Above I toms
Total Station o&M Cost
F. Annual Costs
Amual Cost Of Collection
AlnIal Recyclables Tipping Fee (at Groton)
Annual Capital Cost Amortization
Arnual Station o&M Cost
Ferry Transportation Cost
Southold Disposal Cost At 5109 Per Ton
Town Refuse & Garbage Taxes Paid By Islander.
General District Costs (legal, engineering, etc.)
Estillllllted Total ArvlUal Cost
G. Tax Allocation
District Tax Bu~
16,891,863 Valuation
Annual Cost Share
Estimated Tax Rate Portion Due to Collection Costs
Estimated Tax Rate All Functions
Townwide Tax Burden S87,300,797 Valuation
Amual Cost Share
Tax Rate Increase to General Town Fund
10
1300 Per Round Trip
5150 Per Round Trip
S85.000
121,250
57.500
13,000
55,000
12,500
531.063
5155,313
Not Applicable To This Option
51,091 lOX of MSW Produced
5159,174
5155,313
544.627
597.286
SO
545.000
$502,489
5343,316
0.000
49.815 Versus 34.824 current
5159,174
1.823 Versus 99.392 current
(1) This is a preliminary budget estimate supplied by the District, and is not
based on an engineering closure plan (plan not prepared.)
(2) Per Cummings and Lafayette (District's Consultant). received by PMA 5/21/90
. Las. 51BO,OOO anticipated unexpended ~istrict funds (1990 Budget).
~
~
,~.,.. ......
TABLE .OPTION 1-DISTRICT STAYS .
ESTIMATED C~TS-DISPOSAL OF FISHERS ISLAND
MIXED MUNICIPAL WASTE IN CONNECTICUT
TOWN PAYS CAPITAL COSTS, NO DOUBLE TAXATION
($ 1990)
A. Tans of Waste Processed Annually
B. CaDite! Costs
Landfill Closure
Transfer Station Clncl. Compactor)
Truck and Boxes
Total Capital Cost
c. Ammortization Of CaDi tal Costs
Teno-Landflll Closure
Term-Station
Te~Truck & Boxes
20 years
20 years
5 years
Interest Rate
Capital Ratio
Arnual Amorthation
7.50X
1.2
S159,174
D. Ferry Costs
Tons of Waste Per Off-Island Truck Trip
To New London
FrOIO New London to Southold
E. Annual Cost of Transfer Stltton Ocerations
Persornel
Persomel Frh>ges at 25X
FueL & ChemicaLs
Util hies
Insurance
Supplies
Contingency - 25X Of Above It....
Total Station o&M Cost
F. Anrusl Costs
Anroal Cost Of Colleetlon
Anroal Reeyelables Tipping Fee (at Groton>
Annual CapitaL Cost Amortization
Anroal Stat I on CUI Cost
ferry Transportation Cost
CorvleCticut Disposal Cost At S75 Per Ton
Town Refuse & Garbage Taxes Paid By Islanders
General District Costs (legal, engineering, etc.)
Estimated Total Annual Cost
G. Tax Allocation
District Tax Burden $6,891,863 Valuation
Annual Cost Share
Estimated Tax Rate Portion Due to Collection Costs
EsUnated Tax Rate All Fl.nCt;ons
Townwide Tax Burden $87,300,797 Valuation
ArnJal Cost Share
Tax Rate Increase to General Town Fl.I"d
992 Inc. Reeyelables
S550,OOO (1)
1424,288 (2)
S150.000
SI,124,288
10
1300 Per Round Trip
SO (Not Appl icable>
SB5,OOO
121,250
S7,500
13,000
S5,OOO
12,500
S31.063
S155,313
Not Applicable To This Option
S1,091 lOX of MSI/ Produced
S159,174
S155,313
S29,751
166,940
SO
145.000
1457,268
S298,094
0.000
43.253 Versus 34.824 current
S159,174
1.823 Versus 99.392 current
(1) This is a preliminary budget estimate supplied by the Of strict, and Is not
blsed on an engineering closure plan (plan not prepared.)
(2) Per Cummings and Lafayette (Olstrict's Consultant>, received by PMA 5/21/90
. Less S1ao,OOO anticipated L.nexpended Oistrlct funds (1990 Budget).
~
1\01-.,,.,,,_
TABLE .OPTION 2-DISTRICT STAYS .
ESTIMATED COSTS-DISPOSAL OF FISHERS ISLAND
MIXED MUNICIPAL WASTE IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TOWN PAYS NO CAPITAL COSTS. DOUBLE TAXATION OCCURS
($ 1990)
A.
B.
Tons of Waste Processed Annually
cacitet Costs
landfill Closure
Transfer Station (Incl. Compactor)
Truck and Boxes
Total Capital Cost
c. Ammortizatfon Of CaDiteL Costs
TeMl-landfill Closure
Term-Statfon
Term-Truck & Boxes
20 years
20
5
992 Inc. Recyclables
5550. ODD
1424.288
5150.000
51.124.288
(1)
(2)
years
Interest Rate
Capital Ratio
Amuol Amortization
7.5OX
1.2
5159.174
years
D. FerrY Costs
Tons of Waste Per Off-Island Truck Trip
To New london
From New london to Southold
E. Annual Cost of Transfer Statfon Ooeratfons
PersorY'IeL
Personnel Fringes at 25%
Fuel & Chemicals
UtU ities
Insurance
Supplies
Cont i ngeney - 25X Of Above It....
Total Station o&M Cost
F. Annual Costs
Annual Cost Of Collection
Amuol Recyclables Tipping Fee (at Groton)
Annual Capital Cost Amortization
Annual Station o&M Cost
Ferry Transportation Cost
Southold Disposal Cost At 5109 Per Ton
Town Refuse & Garbage Taxes Paid By Islanders
GeneraL District Costs (legal, engineering, etc.)
Estimated Total Annual Cost
G. Tax Allocation
District Tax Burden S6,891,863 Valuation
Annual Cost Share (Includes Double Taxation)
Estimated Tax Rate Portion Due to Collection Costs
Estimated Tax Rate All Functions
Townwfde Tax Burden $87,300,797 Valuation
Annual Cost Share
Tax Rate Increase to General Town Fund
10
S300
5150
Per Rcud Trip
Per RCM..nd Trip
S85,000
521.250
57.500
S3.000
55,000
52.500
531.063
5155.313
Not Applicable To This Option
51.091 lOX of MSW Produced
5159.174
5155.313
144,627
597.286
512,936
145.000
5515.425
5515.425
0.000
74.788 Versus 34.824 current
50
0.000 Versus 99.392 current
(1) This is a preliminary budget estimate supplied by the District, and is not
based on 8n engineering closure plan (plan not prepared.)
(2) Per Cummings and Lafayette (District.s Consultant), received by PMA 5/21/90
'less 5lao,000 anticipated enexpanded ~istrict funds (1990 Budget).
-
~
<.""'."-
TABLE 3-.TION 2-DISTRICT STAYS
ESTIMATED COSTS-DISPOSAL OF FISHERS ISLAND
MIXED MUNICIPAL WASTE IN CONNECTICUT
TOWN PAYS NO CAPITAL COSTS. DOUBLE TAXATION OCCURS
($ 1990)
A.
B.
Tons of Waste Processed Annually
CBeiteL Costs
Landfill Closure
Transfer Station (Incl. Compactor)
Truck and Boxes
Total Capital Cost
C. Ammortizatfon Of CBeitel Costs
Teno-Landflll Closure
Teno-Station
Tena-Truck & Boxes
20 years
20
5
.
992 Inc. Recyclables
5550,000
1424,288
5150.000
51,124,288
(1)
(2)
years
Interest Rate
Capital Ratio
Arn.J8l Amortization
7.50%
1.2
5159,174
years
D. FerrY Costs
Tons of Waste Per Off-Island Truck Trip
To New London
FrOlll New London to Southold
E. Annual Cost of Transfer Station ODerations
PersomeL
Personnel Fringes at 25%
Fuel & Chemicals
Util ities
Insurance
Supplies
Contingency - 25% Of Above Items
Total Station o&M Cost
F. Annual Costs
Annual Cost Of Collection
Annual Recyclables Tipping Fee (at Groton)
Annual Capital Cost Amortization
Amual Station o&M Cost
Ferry Transportation Cost
CCXYleCticut Disposal Cost At $75 Per Ton
Town Refuse & Garbage Taxes Paid By Islanders
General District Costs (legal, engineering, etc.)
Estimated Total Annual Cost
G. Tax Allocation
District Tax Burden 16,891,863 Valuation
Annual Cost Share (Includes Double Taxation)
Estimated Tax Rate Portion Due to Collection Costs
Estimated Tax Rate All Functions
Townwide Tax Burden $87,300,797 Valuation
Annual Cost Share
Tax Rate Increase to General Town Fund
10
1300 Per Round Trip
50 (Not Applicable)
$85,000
121,250
57,500
53,000
- 55,000
12,500
131. 063
5155,313
Not Applicable To This Option
51,091 lOX of MSW Produced
5159,174
5155,313
129,751
$66,940
512,936
145.000
1470,204
1470,204
0.000
68.226 Versus 34.824 current
$0
0.000 Versus 99.392 current
(1) This is a preliminary budget estimate supplied by the District, and is not
based on an engineering closure plan (plan not prepared.)
(2) Per Cummings and Lafayette (District's Consultant), received by PMA 5/21/90
Less $180,000 anticipated unexpended ~istrict funds (1990 BudBet).
-
"""-
TABLE 3-fAPTION 3-DISTRICT DISSOLVES .
ESTIMATED ~TS-DISPOSAL OF FISHERS ISLAND
MIXED MUNICIPAL WASTE IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TOWN PAYS ALL COSTS IN GENERAL FUND
($ 1990)
A. Tons of "aste Processed Amuall y
B. C8cital Costs
L.ndfill Closure
Transfer Station (IncL. Compactor)
Truck end Boxes
Tot.l Cepit.l Cost
C. Ammortization Of CaDi tal Costs
Tenn-L.ndfill Closure
Term.Station
Term.Yruck & Boxes
992 Inc. Recycl.bles
$550,000 (1)
$424,288 (2)
$150.000
$1,124,288
20 years Interest Rate
20 ye.rs C.pit.l R.tio
5 'years AmuaL Amortization
D. Ferry Costs
Tons of W.ste Per Off-Isl.nd Truck Trip
To New London
From New London to southold
E. Annual Cost of Transfer Station Ooerations
Persamet
Personnel Fringes at
Fuel & Chemicals
Utilities
25"
Insurance
Supplies
Cont i ngency - 25" Of Above I toms
Total Station o&M Cost
F. Annual Costs
Amuel Cost Of Collection
Amuel Recycl.bles Tipping Fee (.t Groton)
Annual Capital Cost Amortization
AnnuaL Station o&M Cost
Fer~ Transportation Cost
Southold Oispos.l Cost At $109 Per Ton
Town Refuse & Garbage Taxes Paid By Islanders
General Costs (legal, engineering, etc.)
Estimated Total Annual Cost
Tipping Fee Revenues .t $100 per ton
Net Annual Cost
G. Tax Allocation
Oistrict Tax Burden SO Valuation
Annual Cost Share
Estimated Tax Rate Portion Due to Collection Costs
Estimated T.x R.te All Functions
Townwide Tax Burden S87,3oo,797 Valuation
Annual Cost Share
Tax Rate Increase to General Town Fund
7.50"
1.2
$159,174
10
$300 Per Round Trip
$150 Per Round Trip
$85,000
$21,250
S7,500
$3,000
$5,000
$2,500
$31. 063
$155,313
Not Applic.ble To This option
$1,091 10" of MSI/ Produced
$159,174
$155,313
$44,627
$97,286
Not AppL; c.ble
$45.000
$502,489
$99,170 Town Receipts
$403,319
so Collection Paid By Residents
0.000
0.000 Versus 34.824 current
$403,319
4.620 Versus 99.392 current
(1) This Is a preliminary budget estimate supplied by the District, and is not
, based on an engineering closure plan (plan not prepared..)
(2) Per Cummings and Lafayet~!~(DIstrictls Consultant), received by PMA 5/21/90
Less $180,000 .ntlcipated un;x~ Olstrict funds (1990 Budget).
TABLE 3-6-eION 3-DISTRICT DISSOLVES .
ESTIMATED COSTS-DISPOSAL OF FISHERS ISLAND
MIXED MUNICIPAL WASTE IN CONNECTICUT
TOWN PAYS ALL COSTS IN GENERAL FUND
($ 1990)
A. Tons of ~aste Processed Annually
B. CaDi tal Costs
Landfill Closure
Tronefer Station (Incl. Compactor)
Truck and Boxes
Total Capital Cost
c. Ammortfzation Of CaDital Costs
Tenn-Landfill Closure
Term-Station
Te~Truck & Boxes
992 Inc. Recyclsbles
5550,000 (1)
1424,288 (2)
5150.000
51,124,288
20 years
20 years
5 years
Interest Rate
Capital Retia
ArnJ8l Amortization
7.5OX
1.2
5159,174
o. FerrY Costs
Tons of Waste Per Off-Island Truck Trip
To New London
From New London to Southold
E. Annual Cost of Transfer Station ODerations
PerSOfYlel
10
5300 Per Round Trip
SO (Not Appl icable>
Personnel Fringes at
Fuel & Chemicals
Utfl fties
Insurance
Suppl i es
Contingency - 25X Of Above Items
Total Station o&M Cost
F. Annual Costs
Annual Cost Of Collection
Annual Recyclables Tipping Fee (at Groton>
Annual Capital Cost Amortization
Annual Station o&M Cost
Ferry Transportation Cost
Cornecticut Disposal Cost At $75 Per Ton
Town Refuse & Garbage Taxes 'aid By Islanders
General Costs (legal, engineering, etc.)
Estimated Total Annual Cost
Tipping Fee Reve....s at 5100 per ton
Net Annual Cost
G. Tax Allocation
District Tax Burden SO Valuation
25X
S85,OOO
521,250
57,500
53,000
55,000
52,500
531.063
5155,313
Not Applicable To This Option
51,091 10X of MSW Produced
5159,174
5155,313
529,751
$66,940
not applicable
145.000
1457,268
599,170 Town Receipts
1358,098
Annual Cost Share
Estimated Tax Rate Portion Due to Collection Costs
Estimated Tax Rate All Functions
Townwfde Tax Burden S87,300,797 Valuation
Annual Cost Share
Tax Rate Increase to General Town Fund
SO Collection Paid By Residents
0.000
0.000 Versus 34.824 current
1358,098
4.102 Versus 99.392 current
(1) This is . preliminary budget estimate supplied by the District, and is not
'besed on an engineering closure plan (plan not prepared.)
(2) Per CUIIlIings and LafayettI'1Bi~[ict.s Consultant>, received by PMA 5/21190
Less 5180,000 anticipated unexpended Olstrfct funds (1990 Budget>.
TABLE 3-.TION 4-DISTRICT STAYS .
ESTIMATED COSTS-INCINERATOR AND
ASH LANDFILL PROGRAM (WITH RECYCLING)
DISTRICT PAYS ALL COSTS-WITH DOUBLE TAXATION
($ 1990)
A.
B.
Tons of Waste Processed Annually
CaDi tal Costs
Landfill Closure & Lined Ashfill
Incinerators and PoLlution Control Equipt.
Building & Site WOrk
Tractor, Roll-off Truck and Boxes
Total Capital Cost
c. Ammortization Of Cacitsl Costs
Tenm~Costs for Landfills
Term-Incinerator & Bldg.
Term-Equipment
D. Ferry Costs (Recyclable! & leachate)
Tons of Recyclables Per Off-Island Truck Trip
To New London
Amount of Leachate Transported Off Island
E. Annual Cost of Incinerator Ocerations
Personnel
992 Incl. Recyclables
8770.000
81.709.297
8205.000
8150.000
82.834.297
(1) (3)
(2)
(3)
20 years
20
5
years
Interest Rate
CapitalR8tio
Amual Amortization
7.5OX
1.2
S360 .460
years
6
8300 Per Round Trip
UNKNOWN & COST UNKNOWN
Personnel Fringes at
Fuel & Chemicals
Utilities & lime
Insurance
Supplies
Lined Ashflll Monitoring
Incinerator Repairs & Replacements
Cont I ngency - 25X Of Above I terns
Total Incinerator o&M Cost
F. Amual Costs
Amual Cost Of Collection
Amual Recyclables Tipping Fee (at Groton)
Annual Capital Cost Amortization
Annual Facilities o&M Cost
Ferry Transportation Cost
Town Refuse & Garbage Taxes Paid By Islanders
General District Costs (legal, engineering, etc.)
Estimated Total Annual Cost
25X
885.000
821.250
$12.500
87.150
87.500
811,000
S33.000
815.000
848.100
8240.500
8150,000
81,091
8360.460
8240.500
84.959
812,936
845.000
8814.945
Estimated
lOX of MSI/ Produced
G. Tax. Allocation
District Tax Burden $6,891,863 Valuation
Amual Cost Share (Includes Double Taxation)
Estimated Tax Rate Portion Due to Collection Costs
Estimated Tax Rate All Functions
Townwide Tax Burden S87,300,797 Valuation
Annual Cost Share
Tax Rate Increase to General Town Fund
8814,945
21.765
118.247 Versus 34.824 current
so
0.000 Versus 99.392 current
(1) 8550,00 Is. budget estimete for lendfill closure supplied by the Oistrict. & is not
I based on an engineering plan (no plan prepared.) Balance for lined landfill, see note 3.
(2) Based on infol'11llltion prcivt&.4- by.NEIITECH
(3) Based on information provided by Ct.tmIings & Lafayette in 1988, escalated 10%.
Less 8180.000 anticipated unexpended District funds (1990 Budget).
TABLE 3-S.ION 5-NEW OR REVISED DISTRICT.
ESTIMATED COSTS-DISPOSAL OF FISHERS ISLAND
MIXED MUNICIPAL WASTE IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TOWN OPERATES TRANSFER FACILITIES, DISTRICT COLLECTS
($ 1990)
A.
B.
Tons of ~aste Processed Annually
Cacitel Costs
Landfill Closure
Transfer Station (Incl. Compactor)
Truck and Boxes
Total Capital Cost
c. Ammortization Of Cacitel Costs
Term-Landfill Closure
Tena-Station
Term-Truck & Boxes
20 years
20
5
992 Incl. Recyclables
$550,000
$424,288
$150.000
$1,124,288
(1)
(2)
years
Interest Rate
Capital Ratio
Annual Amortization
7.5OX
1.2
$159,174
years
D. Ferry Costs
Tons of Yaste Per Off-Island Truck Trip
To New London
Fred New London to Southold
E. Annual Cost of Transfer Station ODerations
Persomel
Personnel Fringes at
Fuel & Chemicals
Util hies
Insurance
S'4'Plles
Cont I ngency - 25X Of Above Items
TotaL Station o&M Cost
F. Amual Costs
AnnuaL Cost Of Collection
ArnJal Recyclables Tipping Fee (at Groton)
Annual Capital Cost Amortization
Annual Station o&M Cost
Ferry Transportation Cost
Soothold Disposal Cost At $109 Per Ton
Town Refuse & Garbage Taxes Paid By Islanders
General District Costs (legal, engineering, etc.)
General Town Costs (legal, engineering, etc.)
Estimated Total Annual Cost
Tipping Fee Revenues at $100 per ton
Net ArnJal Cost
G. Tax Allocation
District Tax Burden 16,891,863 Valuation
Annual Cost Share
Estimated Tax Rate Portion Due to Collection Costs
Estimated Tax Rate All Functions
Townwide Tax Burden S87,300,797 Valuation
Annual Cost Share
Tax Rate Increase to General Town Flnt
25X
10
S300 Per Roond Trip
$150 Per Roond Trip
S85,OOO
$21,250
$7,500
S3,OOO
$5,000
$2,500
$31.063
$155,313
$150,000 Estimated
$1,091 lOX of MSY ProciJCed
$159,174
$155,313
$44,627
$97,286
Not Applicable
$5,000
$45.000
S657,489
$99,170 Town Receipts
$558,319
$155,000
21.765
22.490 Versus 34.824 current
$403,319
4.620 Versus 99.392 current
(1) This is a preliminary budget estimate supplied by the District, and is not
based on an engineering..cr;ar"'l'lan (plan not prepared.)
(2) Per Cummings and Lafayette (District's Consultant), received by PMA 5/21/90
Less $IBO,OOO anticipated unexpended District funds (1990 Budget).
.
.
In amortizing capital cost components, an amortization term of twenty years was selected,
except for equipment such as the roll-off truck and container boxes, which are amortized over
five years. Further, the interest rate assumption is that debt will be issued at an average interest
rate of 7.5% to fund capital costs. Finally, a capital ratio of 1.2 has been utilized, which
assumes that the actual amount of debt to be issued (due to interest costs during construction, and
engineering, legal and financial support costs) will exceed by approximately 20%, the direct
capital cost of the item. As previously, $180,000 has been removed from the capital costs to
reflect the projected unexpended funds the District will have at the end of this year.
Since Option 1 provides for transportation of waste either to the Town of Southold's
landfill, or to the Resources Recovery Facility under construction in Preston, Connecticut, the
assumptions regarding the amount of waste transported in each off-Island truck trip, and the ferry
cost associated with each trip, are as provided in tables 3-1 and 3-2.
Discussions with Mr. Hancock, of the District, resulted in an updated approach to staffing
the transfer station. Under this program a working foreman/supervisor has been included at an
approximate annual salary of $35,000. Also included are a full time accounting/bookkeeper (at
$20,000 annual salary), and a full time operator/driver (at $30,000 per year.) The approximate
personnel fringe cost rate has been assumed to be 25% of each individual's annual salary. These
amounts have been used as staffing levels for all Options, regardless of whether the Town or the
District is operating.
Other routine costs of doing business have been provided for, such as insurance, utilities,
fuel, and supplies. Additionally, a station operations contingency account of 25% of the
operations budget has been provided.
As previously discussed, the disposal cost at the Town's landfill has been assumed to be
$109 per ton (a future estimate.)
< -
-
Page 19
,--.
.
.
For those options which provide for the continuance of District responsibilities for transfer
station operations (2 in particular), it may be shown that the Town could waive a disposal fee
charge at its landfill site, and thereby provide an indirect budgetary support to the District of
approximately $100,000 per year, as an alternative form of support to the Island.
Tax Allocation
For the various Options, there is a cost sharing between the District and the Town's
General Fund, and annual cost estimates have been allocated to either the District, or the Town,
in accordance with the Option's definition. For the District, the budget has been shown both as
that portion allocable on a total basis (including collection services for Options 4 & 5 only), and
the amounts shown are estimates of the actual budget the District is projected to face under the
Option.
For the Town, the cost allocation, both total and on a tax rate basis, represent the
estimated increase in the Town' s general fund expenses to address the stated responsibilities.
Option 2
Option 2 varies from Option 1 in only two respects:
a. The Town General Fund Bears no share of these costs, and therefore the District's budget
shoulders the entire burden.
b. The residents of the Island are "doubly taxed. "
One important issue in the minds of the Island's residents has been the "double taxation"
that has occurred historically with respect to refuse and garbage disposal. The cause of this has
been the existence of the FIGRD, as a distinct taxing entity, whose responsibility has been the
management of waste on the Island. At the same time, the residents of the Island have paid a
- -
-
#---
Page 20
.
.
general fund tax to the Town, a portion of which was used to pay for Town refuse and garbage
disposal activities. Hence, the "double taxation" for refuse issues; the Island's residents pay for
both their own waste management services, plus a portion of that associated with the balance of
the Town. The current Town budget shows that of the General Fund activities, $513,200 is
allocated for garbage and refuse purposes. However, the Town has recently increased its
disposal fee (to 2C per pound) for users of the landfill, and the budget shows an anticipated
revenue from this activity of $350,000. Hence, the net total cost to the Town general fund for
this category is only $163,000. Allocating this amount to the residents of the Island (based on
assessed valuation) results in a double taxation amount of $12,936. While this is not a large sum
at this time, it was previously estimated at $45,942 (amended 1988 budget), and $22,715 (1989
adopted budget) by PMA in its October 4, 1989 report to the Conservancy. Clearly, the
imposition of increasing tipping fees at the Town's landfill have reduced the net cost of this item
to the Town's General Fund. For Option 1 no double taxation is assumed, since the Town would
be rebating these taxes, if paid. For Options 3 and 5, no double taxation occurs since the Town
is providing a service to the Island (at net cost to the Town's general fund.) An amount to cover
double taxation has been included for Options 2 and 4.
Option 3
Option 3 assigns all of the costs to the Town, since the District is abandoned.
Option 4
The estimates presented in this Options are based on a 10% escalation of incinerator (and
air pollution control systems) costs provided in 1988. This approach was used at the advice of
the equipment supplier (NEwrECH.) For consistency, other capital cost elements, such as the
lined landfill cost and the building and site work, have also been escalation by 10%, from the
amount provided by the District in 1988.
It has been assumed that the staffing requirements for the incinerator would be no more
." ~
-
Page 21
" -r_
.
.
than for the transfer station.
The District currently provides collection services to residents of the Island, through an
agreement with a private collector. The collector is paid $176,000 for collection and
maintenance of the "burnable" landftlI. Since a breakdown of this fee has not been provided
(although requested of the operator), it is assumed that of this total, $150,000 is for collection,
with the balance for the landfill. This amount has been included in Options 4 and 5.
As reported in PMA's1988 report, the following concerns remain with respect to this
Option:
1. The size of the lined landfill was not projected to last the term of its amortization (20
years.)
2. No cost estimates had been provided in 1988 by the District for the operation of the lined
landftll, or its environmental monitoring requirements.
3. PMA was never provided information on the design of the landfill, and cannot comment
on whether the facility would meet DEC's current requirements.
4. No means or allowance was provided for the disposal of the leachate that would be
produced by the lined landf1ll. It may be that the material would require disposal off-
Island.
5. . It is PMA's opinion that the planning, engineering and permitting expenses associated
with implementation of the incinerator would be significant, and no allowance has been
made for these costs.
6. Although the equipment supplier, NEWfECH, has assured PMA that the air pollution
system quoted in 1988 would meet current permitting standards, a more detailed review
.. -
-
~--...
Page 22
.
.
of this matter is advised if this option is chosen for implementation.
Option 5
Option 5 presents a view of the projected costs if the Town were to allow the District to
be reduced in geographic scope, thus clearing the way for the Town to legally invest in, and
operate, the transfer station and to close the landfill. Under this option, it is assumed the
reduced District would provide collection services, as is the current practice.
The reduced (or new it' necessary) District could also assist the Town through providing
a local oversight of transfer station and recycling operations. Based on preliminary discussions
with the District's attorney, it appears that this approach complies with State Law.
Page 23
, -
-
#-.....-