Reply With QuoteDvoakleyOriginally posted by Dvoakley
Can you tell me how much it would have cost if the pelletization project had not been started and the sludge had to sent to landfills? Right now you are listening to the political spin from the politicos who are up for election.
Like Sgt. Friday used to say "Just the facts please".
Fair question. I looked into this and found some very disturbing information. Let me answer your question by talking about the project goals as well as landfill costs. First, landfill costs. According to the town's records, the cost to landfill sludge decreased significantly from 1992, when the project was first being studied, through 1996 when the project was first started. Here are the figures I've obtained:
1990 through 1993 -- $74.50 per ton (this represented a substantial increase from the previous cost of $32 per ton)
1993 through 1995 -- approximately $59.00 per ton
1995 through 2003 -- approximately $43.00 per ton
2003 through the present -- approximately $39 per ton
If you do not believe me, make a FOIL request and ask for the sludge landfilling contracts with modern disposal.
Based upon these costs, we have spent the following amounts to landfill sludge on an annual basis since 1994:
1994 -- approximately $1 million
1995 -- $814,157
1996 -- $636,744
1997 -- $498,827
1998 -- $504,415
1999 -- $330,216
2000 -- $371,689 (please note we actually spent more money to landfill sludge the first year Watkins was there in 2000).
2001 – $57,302 (as I will discuss later, the lesser amounts reflected for landfilling sludge in 2001 and thereafter are actually due to changes made by the plant staff and another consultant).
2002 -- $88,016
2003 -- $96,166
The above amounts were for landfilling sludge only. The plant also landfills grit and pellets (that cannot be distributed or sold). So the actual landfill bill is higher but I am focusing only on the sludge since that is what is in issue. When I do the cost analysis regarding the project, I will include the cost to landfill pellets in recent years but I am not going to list those costs separately here.
Just looking at these figures, it is important to note that most of the reduction in the cost of landfilling sludge has occurred because of the reduced cost per ton to landfill sludge. As you can see, the current cost is almost half what it was in 1992. The pellet project did not start to operate until late 1996. But we have been led to believe that the reduction in landfill costs from over $1 million per year down to the current level is as a result of the solids handling project, which, as is evident from the above figures, is simply not true. That's point No. 1.
Now, let's move on to the goals of the project. You may remember that in late 1997, there was a group known as the East Amherst Taxpayers Association that was raising questions about the solids handling project, including the costs associated with that project. In response to these questions, Paul Bowers submitted a memorandum to Grelick, dated January 5, 1998, in which he contended that even with the additional costs associated with the project, it was still the most cost-effective solution when compared to other alternatives. He presented three different alternatives:
1. Digest and landfill sludge (what he called a minimum action alternative)
2. Digest, pelletize and market the pellets (the original goal of the solids handling project)
And what he called the worst-case scenario:
3. Build two new digesters and digest, pelletize and market the pellets.
He then took each of these options and costed them out over the 20-year life expectancy of the project (1997-2017). Here's what he came up with:
******************
Option #1 -- $24 million broken down annually as follows:
Debt Service -- $400,000
Operation and Maintenance -- $100,000
Landfill Sludge -- $700,000
Landfill Pellets -- $0
Market Pellets (at $30/ton) -- $0
Total Annual Cost -- $1,200,000
20 Year Cost -- $24 million
Option #2 -- $18.8 million broken down annually as follows:
Debt Service -- $700,000
Operation and Maintenance -- $300,000
Landfill Sludge -- $0
Landfill Pellets -- $0
Market Pellets (at $30/ton) -- ($120,000)
Total Annual Cost -- $880,000
18 Year Cost (1999-2017) -- $15,840,000
First Two Years (1997-1998) -- $2,973,000
20 Year Cost -- $18,813,000
Option #3 -- $22.7 million broken down annually as follows:
Debt Service -- $875,000
Operation and Maintenance -- $340,000
Landfill Sludge -- $0
Landfill Pellets -- $0
Market Pellets (at $30/ton) -- ($120,000)
Total Annual Cost -- $1,095,000
18 Year Cost (1999-2017) -- $19,710,000
First Two Years (1997-1998) -- $2,973,000
20 Year Cost -- $22,683,000
******************
On the basis of this analysis, Bowers concluded that the original project, as designed and installed by Wendel Engineers, was still the most cost-effective among the three alternatives reviewed and would cost us roughly $18.8 million over the 20 year life of the project.
Now, let's take Bowers' analysis and plug in the actual numbers available for Option #2 from current town records. For purposes of this analysis, I have taken the best three years (2001-2003) and used the average for those years.
Debt Service -- $700,000
Operation and Maintenance -- $1,000,000 (this is conservative, they are actually exceeding $1 million per year in operation and maintenance expenses alone)
Landfill Sludge -- $80,000
Landfill Pellets -- $6,000
Market Pellets -- ($12,000)
Total Annual Cost -- $1,774,000
18 Year Cost (1999-2017) -- $31,932,000
First Two Years (1997-1998) -- $2,973,000
20 Year Cost -- $34,905,000
Please note that these figures incorporate and account for the alleged "savings" in landfill expenses for sludge.
And Dvoakley, the best part is you do not have to take my word for it. Make a FOIL request and get a copy of Bowers' January 5, 1998 memorandum as well as the figures for operation and maintenance, landfill expenses and pellets sales over the last several years and you can confirm these figures for yourself. They are contained in a document known as the Dewatering/Solids Cost Report, which is maintained by the treatment facility.
So the bottom line is that we are currently on a path to pay $35 million for a project that was supposed to cost us $16 million to $18 million. In other words, we are losing our shirts. But it gets worse.
The above figures do not account for the additional amounts we are paying to Mr. Watkins of Microlink to allegedly "manage" the facility. As has been reported, that has already cost us another million dollars or more.
The above figures also do not account for payments made to the outside engineering firm (Parsons – Dr. John Goeddertz) that, along with the plant staff, actually made the changes to the system that have allowed them to improve the amount of sludge processed through the system. Again, you do not have to take my word for it, go to the town's web site and look at the minutes for the meeting from July 24, 2000. You will see that a resolution was approved to enter into a contract with Parsons to prepare standard operating procedures for the solids handling project. Not only did Parsons prepare standard operating procedures, which, by the way, should have been prepared by Wendel Engineers, they also made a number of suggestions to improve or optimize the process that were implemented by the plant staff and have allowed it to improve the amount of sludge the system can process. Mr. Watkins from Microlink had nothing to do with any of this. In your FOIL request, ask for a copy of the proposal from Parsons that was approved by the town board on July 24, 2000. Read that proposal carefully and it will give you some of the background on what was done by Parsons in 2000. Please note that the town paid nearly $62,000 for this work.
This same consultant, Dr. John Goeddertz, left Parsons after his initial work in the latter part of 2000 and now works with another engineering firm, URS Corporation. In January 2003, URS Corporation was hired to conduct a solids handling study for the purpose of addressing the continuing deficiencies in the project and suggesting additional improvements. In your FOIL request, ask for a copy of the final report issued in July 2003 and read this report. It goes into a good amount of detail as to the changes that were made to the system and perhaps even more significantly, recommends that the town spend another $4 million to hopefully get the project to operate as it was originally designed. Amongst other recommendations, the report suggests adding additional digestion capacity as part of the improvements recommended. This report ended up costing us another $22,500.
When you consider these additional expenditures, which can conservatively be estimated at, at least an additional $5 million, it is clear that we are going to spend over $40 million for a project that, as late as January 1998, Mr. Bowers told us would not cost us more than $19 million.
And Dvoakley, please go check these figures out for yourself by obtaining copies of the records mentioned. I'm not asking you to take my word for it.
Based upon these facts, it is my view that Grelick, Woodward, McGuire, Bowers and Johnson anticipate that the comptroller's audit will expose a lot of what I have just reviewed with you. Their response, try to blame the plant staff for the problems that they created.
And there's probably a lot more to this than what I have been able to discover so far. The public needs to get involved and put a stop to this and hold Grelick and the others responsible. And the best place to start is when we vote in the election in November.
