Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-01 Packet CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Special Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 November 1, 1994 5:00 p.m. . . Roll Call AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments. 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Workshop to Discuss Ukiah Landfill and Solid Waste Management Alternatives - Possible Council Action Regarding Conceptual Direction 4. ADJOURNMENT The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. MEMORANDUM DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1994 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CHARLES L. ROUGH, JR., CITY MANAGER~~ SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 1, 1994 SOLID WASTE WORKSHOP This workshop is intended to provide basic information regarding the current solid waste situation and allow the Council to consider various options for future actions and strategies. This memorandum documents the central facts as we know them at this time, presents cost figures, and analyses of alternatives for dealing with solid waste processing in the short and medium terms. No specific action is being sought or recommended at this time. This is an opportunity for dialogue with the participants in this significant issue. We begin with the presumptions, related to both the physical and fiscal aspects of this issue, which premise the analyses. PHYSICAL PRESUMPTIONS a. "Ukiah Wastestream" is defined as the current and future refuse generated within the City of Ukiah, surrounding County of Mendocino areas including Potter Valley and Anderson Valley, currently (as of November 1, 1994) being accepted at the Ukiah landfill. b. "Willits Wastestream" is defined as the current and future refuse generated within the City of Willits, City of Fort Bragg, and the surrounding adjacent County of Mendocino areas currently (as of November 1, 1994) being accepted at the Willits landfill. c. The current permit for the Ukiah landfill authorizes use of approximately 40 acres south of the creek. d. The adoption of Subtitle D on October 9, 1993 precludes expansion of the landfill footprint past the current permitted area. Additional land area would require new permit approvals and significant investment in a liner and gas collection system. e. The users of the landfill during calendar year 1993, by volume and calculated weight, respectively, were: self haulers 53% and 29%, commercial haulers 47% and 71%, f. The remaining airspace (volume to accommodate refuse) as of January 1 1993 was 600,000 cubic yards. ' g. The current ratio of trash to soil cover is 3:1' upon acceptance of the Willits wastestream it will be 4:1. ' h. The density of refuse in the landfill is estimated as 1,000 pounds per cubic yard. i. The expected annual diversion through recycling efforts is a net of three percent, based upon two percent growth and five percent refuse reduction. During 1993-94 diversion within the City of Ukiah was 29.1%. j. Landfill calculations and life are presented in terms of fiscal years. k. According to the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), Masonite ash will be eliminated by January 1, 1996. This represents a reduction of 4,370 cubic yards from the wastestream. I. The Willits landfill is to close January 31, 1997. m. Estimated annual refuse tonnage/cubic yard figures for each landfill are: FISCAL YEAR 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 FISCAL UKIAH (Tons/cubic yards) 28,000* / 56,000 27,160 / 54,320 24,160 / 48,320 23,435 / 46,870 22,732 / 45,464 22,732 / 45,464 23,187 / 46,374 23,650 / 47,300 WILLITS (Tons/cubic yards) 19,600' / 39,200 20,000 / 40,000 19,400 / 38,800 18,818 / 37,636 18,253 / 35,506 18,253 / 36,506 18,618 / 37,326 18,989 / 37,236 *Actual n. Current 1994-95 annual operation and maintenance costs for Ukiah landfill are $1,169,424 ($1,013,924 budgeted and $155,500 required additions). See Cost Figures o. Ukiah pre closure costs (1994-95 dollars) total $1,338,000. See Cost Figures p. Ukiah closure costs (1994-95 dollars) total $1,459,686. See Cost Figures q. U kiah post closure costs over 30 years (1994-95 dollars) total $ $2,210,616. See Cost Figures r. Current (as of June 1994) balance in Ukiah closure and post-closure fund is $320,000. As of June 1995 balance in closure and post-closure fund will be $620,000. *Unless this money is necessary to cover cost of gas collection/benzene monitoring required by the State this year. s. Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA) surcharge is $6 per ton and will remain at the same level. Upon Ukiah landfill closure and transfer station implementation, the surcharge would be applied at the transfer station. t. Increased Ukiah operation and maintenance costs (1994-95 dollars) to accept Willits refuse are $40,300. See Cost Figures. COST FIGURES OPERATIONAL COSTS Current adopted budget annual operation and maintenance costs Expenditures necessary to be added to current adopted budget Additional dirt production $ 52,000 Aerial photography (Subsequent biannual expense) Liability insurance 6 months of 1/2 Full Time Equivalent Public Works Superintendent @ $54,000 Total 10,000 80,000 13,5O0 $155,500 $1,013,924 Actual 1994-95 annual operation and maintenance costs $1,169,424 NOTE: This presumes the gas collection system is not required this year and the use of the closure fund is not necessary. Additional annual expenditures to commence in FY 1995-96 (Inflation factor included) 6 months of additional scrapper (dirt production) - $150,000 Additional staff- $98,300 2.5 Full Time Load checkers @ $27,000 (1994-95 base) 6 months of 1/2 Full Time Equivalent Public Works Superintendent @ $54,000 (1994-95 base) Specific equipment purchase and maintenance 1996-97 Rebuild compactor engine - $33,100 1996-97 Replace pickup - $13,200 1996-97 Replace D8 with D6 - $192,900 1997-98 Replace 955L trackloader- $57,900 Modifications to operational costs if Willits Refuse is accepted at Ukiah Addition of one heavy equipment operator @ $40,300 (1994-95 base) VOC Corrective Action $200,000 (1994-95 base) Over an estimated ten year period beginning in 1995-96, the City must operate, maintain, and report on the VOC corrective action program. Total costs are estimated at $200,000 over the ten years. $100,000 is for reporting and $100,000 is for operation and maintenance. PRECLOSURE AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PROJECTS Fiscal Year 1994-95 Standpipe and filter systems for sedimentation ponds Phase II construction of easterly sedimentation pond Abandon groundwater monitoring wells - four Extend leachate main Engineering feasibility study and corrective action program (groundwater impact mitigation) Design and permitting for groundwater impact mitigation Backfill old sedimentation pond and complete portion of lower perimeter road Install permanent down drains and leachate collection lines Gas monitoring wells installation (5 wells), reporting and first year monitoring Site fencing upgrade Total 1994-95 $16,000 34,000 4,000 27,000 50,000 50,000 22,000 20,000 136,000 1 O, 000 $369,000 Fiscal Year 1995-96 Reconstruct westerly sedimentation pond and leachate pond and install liner and drainage layer system *(1) Construction of VOC corrective action project *(1) Landfill gas extraction and flare (in vicinity of gas well #4) *(1) Raise PG&E transmission lines *(2) Bleedoff piping and valves from borrow pits to permanent sedimentation ponds with filters Install poleline for telephone to landfill gate Total 1995-96 $106,100 21 O, 000 157,500 147,000 15,800 10,500 $646,900 *(1) These are corrective action projects and thus mandatory. *(2) If landfill is to be operated until capacity is reached, the PG&E transmission lines must be raised. Fiscal Year 1996-97 Permanent site fencing Surface drainage improvements Additional fill north side of new gate house, truck scale, and recycling pad Improve north portion of perimeter road ($75,000 total, 1/3 setaside) Complete permanent site fencing (9,500 feet, 6' high, chain link) [$95,000 total, 1/4 setaside] Improve south portion of perimeter road Total 1996-97 22,1 O0 22,1 O0 33,1 O0 27,600 26,20O 58,400 $189,500 Fiscal Year 1997-98 Improve north portion of perimeter road ($75,000 total, 1/3 setaside) Complete permanent site fencing (9,500 feet, 6' high, chain link) [$95,000 total, 1/4 setaside] Total 1997-98 $29,000 27,5OO $56,500 Fiscal Year 1998-99 Improve north portion of perimeter road ($75,000 total, 1/3 setaside) Complete permanent site fencing (9,500 feet, 6' high, chain link) [$95,000 total, 1/4 setaside] Total 1998-99 Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Complete permanent site fencing (9,500 feet, 6' high, chain link) [$95,000 total, 1/4 setaside] Complete surface drainage improvements ($60,000 total, 1/2 setaside) Total 1999-2000 Fiscal Year 2000-01 (To occur in 1999-2000 if Willits wastestream accepted) Complete surface drainage improvements ($60,000 total, 1/2 setaside) Total 2000-01 Total PreClosure Costs ($1,338,000 in 1994-95 dollars) NOTE: These estimates do not include any expenditures for Benzene corrective action. $30,500 28,900 $59,400 $30,300 38,300 $68,600 $40,2O0 $40,200 $1,430,400 CLOSURE PROJECTS (1994-95 dollars) [August 11, 1994 Preliminary Closure Plan, approved by the State Solid Waste Management Board] Test Pad Foundation Layer Barrier Layer Topsoil Layer Drainage Controls CQA Management and Reporting Verification of Clay Layer Thickness Security Aerial Topographic Map Borrow Area Reclamation Demobilization Final Closure/Postclosure Plans CEQA 20% Contingency $ 22,510 6,72O 435,893 484,382 142,500 15,000 7,200 2,000 6,200 16,000 3,000 65,000 10,000 243,281 TOTAL CLOSURE COSTS (1994-95 dollars) $1,459,686 POST CLOSURE PROJECTS (1994-95 dollars) [August 11, 1994 Preliminary Postclosure Plan, approved by the State Solid Waste Management Board] Annual costs Revegetation $ 8,400 Leachate Management 6,000 Monitoring 31,206 Drainage Security Inspection Other 11,2OO 100 1,000 3,500 Annual total 30 years of Postclosure Care 20% Contingency Costs TOTAL POSTCLOSURE COSTS (1994-95 dollars) INTRODUCTION $61,406 $1,842,180 368,436 $2,210,616 The landfill has long been considered a valuable resource for the City, providing an essential urban service to our residents. The City has been able to meet the refuse collection and disposal needs at very reasonable rates in a very responsible manner. However the continued viability of the facility must be evaluated in light of increasing regulations, regulatory oversight, operational and long term costs, neighborhood concerns, approaching landfill capacity, and regional responsibilities. State regulations are significantly increasing the costs of disposal, and placing demands for long term maintenance of the facility, well after its useable life. While the environmental concerns behind these regulations are worthwhile, the attendant expenses to continue operations are becoming prohibitive. The "real costs" of this service are now being realized, and society must address them. This is dramatically illustrated through the increased tipping fees imposed over the last few years. Additionally, the permitting process is so complex and comprehensive that many years and thousands of dollars are required prior to initiating any new means of disposal. As the effectiveness of the recycling efforts increase, the costs are spread over a decreasing "base" and thus a heavier impact per unit. Recycling has significant benefits which outweigh the detractions, but it does have a financial burden to be addressed. This is not just a local situation, but one which each landfill operation throughout the state is addressing. With the limited resources in the North Coast area, the City's landfill has taken on regional significance, exacerbating the pressure for its use. Many efforts are being made on all fronts to lessen the dependency on landfills and reduce the wastestreams requiring disposal. In the last full fiscal year, 1993-94, the City of Ukiah experienced 29.1% diversion. The City's residents and businesses are to be commended for exceeding the goal of 25% by 1995. The goal of 50% by 2000 should be more difficult to reach as the easiest materials and most responsible residents have been tapped for this initial burst. Further, most experts are indicating that 50% may actually be the maximum achievable, because of market limitations and citizen participation. The calculations utilized here incorporate a five percent gross annual increase in diversion to reflect the commitment to the 50% objective. The City Council held previous workshops in November 1993 and again in February 1994 to establish action plans for solid waste. Conditions have changed, new regulations adopted,, and new costs identified, which necessitate reevaluation of the situation, and continued viability of the facility. The direction identified in February of this year was to continue our current operation and accept the Willits wastestream when that landfill closes. Subsequent to that determination two other options were presented including an "advance pool" to make each entity "whole" and a private contract for operation and compensation to the entities involved with landfill operations. The "advance pool" concept has been withdrawn and the private contract proposal is currently being addressed by the MSWMA executive board. This workshop will include consideration of four "scenarios": . UKIAH TO CLOSURE (CURRENT OPERATIONS) * Status quo until Ukiah landfill closes in June 2001. * Willits wastestream is handled by Willits landfill until closure in January 1997 and thereafter by some yet undetermined means, other than Ukiah landfill. * Transfer station constructed to handle refuse at Ukiah closure. * Excess refuse from transfer station transported out of County. * Surcharge for Ukiah post closure costs may be applied at transfer station. , UKIAH ACCEPTS WILLITS WASTESTREAM AFTER WILLITS CLOSURE (FEBRUARY WORKSHOP) * Status quo until Willits landfill closes in January 1997. * Beginning in February 1997 Ukiah accepts Willits wastestream until Ukiah closes. * Transfer station constructed to handle refuse at Ukiah closure. * Excess refuse from transfer station transported out of County. * Surcharge for each entity's post closure costs may be applied at transfer station. . CONTRACTED PRIVATE OPERATION/MAKING ALL ENTITLES WHOLE * Closure of landfills is immediate or scheduled per #1 or #2. * Private firm awarded contract to operate inland transfer station facility. * Per contract, private firm compensates those entities responsible for all or a portion of landfill operations with advances for closure and current post closure payments. * Per contract, private firm must, for duration of contract, demonstrate per how AB 939 mandates and requests will be met. . OTHER POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE DERIVED FROM WORKSHOP * Details determined at the workshop. NOTE: This memorandum provides analysis of the first two "scenarios". The MSWMA Executive Board is currently (Friday, October 28) considering "scenario #3", and thus staff's analysis will be completed and forwarded to the Council on Monday. GENERAL DISCUSSION Costs associated with transfer station operations are not addressed here as no specific research has been completed on this subject. Those costs, in any event, are over and above the landfill expenditures noted here. The analysis of the scenarios is an attempt to provide cost and related information to a range of possible actions. The financial analysis of the first two alternatives will include three funding options: A) including funding of post closure costs by date of closure, B) partial funding of post closure costs after date of closure, and C) excluding funding of post closure costs by date of closure. Each of these schedules will be presented in terms of six and eight percent interest rates over the period of calculation. A basis for comparison of the various options is a projected annual tipping fee which is presented following the analysis. The funding options address the issue of when the post closure costs are accumulated. This is a policy determination made during the establishment of landfill rates. The present policy, based upon the adopted budget and last rates set, is to have the total fund in place by closure. Substantial cost savings are realized if post closure costs are funded over the post closure period. The implication of this philosophy is that the current users of the landfill do not pay the full amount of what it costs to dispose of their refuse. Future users will pay for a facility they may not have utilized. State law allows a landfill operator to pledge future revenues to cover post closure costs. The future receuots must be an assured source such as a transfer station, collection rates, or special designated funds. This provides a degree of financing flexibility not previously known to us. The interpretation from the State Solid Waste Board as to all of the approved sources is not firm, but indications are that they will work with local entities to develop responsible solutions. This provision only applies to post closure costs; closure costs must be completely accumulated prior to closure to insure compliance. Post closure costs are actually annual maintenance and operation costs ($61,406, see Cost Figures) to monitor the dormant facility. Option A "front loads" post closure costs and in reality applies the long term costs of the landfill to those who will actually use it. Since these expenditures are part of the "life-cycle" costs, it presents the true cost of refuse disposal to the consumer. It must be noted that the high annual tipping fees may actually have other negative .impacts, such as, escalated road side dumping, increased social expenses, and decreasing revenue. Interest on the fund is utilized as revenue to decrease some of the cost over time. Option B is a middle ground approach to funding the long term costs. The schedule presented with this analysis was prepared to illustrate the same annual tipping fee during the remaining life of the landfill. Upon closure, a surcharge to make up the difference, would be added to the transfer station costs, to cover the annual post closure costs. For the consumer, this would be addition to the rates for collection and disposal in effect at that time. Option C defers all revenue for post closure expenditures to the period when those expenses would occur. This alternative does not burden current operations with setasides for prospective activities. It imposes the responsibilities for funding on future residents and businesses. It does furnish the greatest flexibility in generating adequate revenues to meet both current and anticipated requirements. The use of six and eight percent interest calculations is to present the difference these investment strategies would have on the long term income. The difference in annual tipping rates is between one and three dollars. The ability to receive either of these returns, particularly the eight Percent, is quite speculative. Continued operation of the landfill, regardless of the "scenario", includes increased costs over and above the current budgeted allocations. Necessary additions for the current fiscal year (1994-95) budget and requiring incorporation in subsequent years are: $52,000 for additional dirt (soil cover) production, $10,000 for aerial photography/topographic mapping (subsequently occurring every two years), $80,000 for new environmental protection insurance, and $13,500 for one quarter of Public Works Superintendent. New operating expenditures (in 1994-95 dollars) commencing in 1995-96 and each year thereafter include: $143,000 for additional dirt production to insure adequate soil cover of the refuse (this entails rental of a scrapper for six months of the year); $81,000 for two and one-half new full time load checkers required to monitor the recycling effort, increasing the efficiency of the operation, and the other quarter of the Public Works Superintendent. SCENARIO ANALYSIS "Scenario 1" is the operation of the Ukiah landfill as it is currently constituted until its closure. Presently the landfill accepts refuse from within the city limits, adjacent areas within the Ukiah valley, Anderson Valley, and Potter Valley. The continued viability of this operation is dependent upon the continued disposal of County area refuse. This outside area accounts for approximately 50% of the wastestream and without it the costs to city residents would almost double. If that were to occur the entire solid waste function would have to be reevaluated, with the outcome unknown at this time. Based on the current wastestream and available capacity, the Ukiah landfill can accommodate refuse through June 30, 2001. This allows for the annual deposition of material in the site at a 3:1 ratio of compacted inplace refuse to soil cover in the amounts noted below. The 42,522 cubic yards of airspace (capacity) remaining at closure represents seven percent of the total capacity on January 1, 1993 and is considered essential for contingency, emergency, or calculation modifications. In the event it would be necessary to continue use of the landfill past this date, the balance will accommodate eight months of activity. FISCAL YEAR/DATE CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL REMAINING AVAILABLE AIRSPACE January 1, 1993 600,000 1/1/93 to 6/30/93 37,333 562,667 1993-1994 74,666 488,001 1994-1995 72,426 415,575 1995-1996 64,426 351,149 1996-1997 62,493 288,656 1997-1998 60,618 228,038 1998-1999 60,618 167,420 1999-2000 61,831 105,589 2000-2001 63,067 42,522 Though the calendar life of the landfill is maximized, so are the daily and annual operating costs. Because of less refuse, the amount of average daily cover increases, reducing the ability to optimize the trash to cover ratio. Projected annual tipping fees to fund the operations under this scenario range from $69 to $117 (6%) and $69 to $114 (8%). Scenario 1C (8%) presents the lowest average annual tipping fee. The associated impacts of traffic, noise, and compatibility will continue at the current levels. "Scenario 2" utilizes both inland landfills through their current permitted lives with future disposal accommodated by transfer station and export out of county. This scenario, as noted in Scenario 1, depends completely on cooperation from the other County entities (County, Willits, and Fort Bragg) for the continued use of their wastestreams. The alternative does maximize the physical capabilities of the existing resources, but extends the liability risk of each. It also reduces the effective life of the Ukiah landfill by 17 months, requiring closure at the end of January 2000. There is no allowance for reserve airspace in the event of emergencies or other unforseen situations. FISCAL YEAR/DATE CUBIC January 1, 1993 1/1/93 to 6/30/93 37,333 1993-1994 74,666 1994-1995 72,426 1995-1996 64,426 1996-1997 78,190 1997-1998 102,463 1998-1999 102,463 7/1/99 to 1/31/2000 86,033 YARDS OF MATERIAL REMAINING AVAILABLE AIRSPACE 600,000 562,667 488,001 415,575 351,149 272,959 170,496 168,033 0 Though the period for recovery of costs prior to closure is less than the current operation, the increased tonnage decreases per unit costs. Tipping fees range from $57 to $115 (6%) and $56 to $114 (8%), with Scenario 2C (8%) having the lowest average tipping fee of $70. It also initiates closure sooner and reduces the risk of subsequent regulations. Since the proposal includes continuation and ultimate increase in the Ukiah operations, associated impacts such as traffic and noise will continue at their current levels through 1996-97. In February 1997 both the number and frequency of self haulers and commercial trucks will increase at the site. Increased operational costs will be realized at that time also with the necessity of employing a new Heavy Equipment Operator. SUMMARY A comparison of the "bottom line" of all of these variations indicates a large range in the annual tipping fees required to meet each year's expenditures. These numbers do not reflect the potential for deferring projects, borrowing funds to spread costs over several years, or reduction of projects/expenditures due to modifications in regulations or procedures. The figures do however identify the substantial costs associated with providing this urban service. ANNUAL TIPPING FEES (DOLLAR PER TON) BY SCENARIO 6% ANNUAL INTEREST RATE FISCAL YEAR 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 1994-95 84 69 69 84 69 69 1995-96 115 101 101 115 101 101 1996-97 114 100 100 94 79 79 1997-98 101 100 87 75 79 57 1998-99 104 100 89 72 79 59 1999-2000 109 100 92 58 79 58 2000-01 117 100 97 0 0 0 Average 106 96 91 83 81 71 8% ANNUALINTEREST RATE FISCAL YEAR lA lB 1C 2A 2B 2C 1994-95 84 69 69 84 69 69 1995-96 114 100 100 114 100 100 1996-97 113 99 99 93 79 79 1997-98 99 100 86 74 79 57 1998-99 101 99 88 70 78 58 1999-20 106 99 91 56 79 58 2000-01 114 99 95 0 0 0 Average 104 95 90 82 81 70 10 Pa.qe Nos. Al-a3 A4-A6 A7-A9 A10-A12 A13-A15 A16-A18 A19-A22 A23-A26 A27-A30 A31 -A34 A35-A38 A39-A42 APPENDICES--FINANCIAL ANALYSES Scenario Spreadsheet Title Descriptio SCENARIO #1 - OPTION A (6%) Ukiah wasteshed; includes funding for post closure costs by Ukiah landfill closure date (6/30/2001). SCENARIO #1 - OPTION A (8%) Same as above, 8% interest calculations. SCENARIO #1 - OPTION B (6%) Ukiah wasteshed; includes partial funding for post closure costs by Ukiah landfill closure date (6/30/2001), remaining post closure costs funded by pledge of revenue after landfill closure. SCENARIO #1 - OPTION B (8%) Same as above, 8% interest calculations. SCENARIO #1 - OPTION C (6%) Ukiah wasteshed; excludes funding for post closure costs by Ukiah landfill closure date (6/30/2001). Post closure costs would be funded by a pledge of revenue after landfill closure. SCENARIO #1 - OPTION C (8%) Same as above, 8% interest calculations. SCENARIO #2 - OPTION A (6%) Ukiah and Willits wastesheds; includes funding for post closure costs by Ukiah landfill closure date (1/31/2000). SCENARIO #2 - OPTION A (8%) Same as above, 8% interest calculations. SCENARIO #2 - OPTION B (6%) Ukiah and Willits wastesheds; includes partial funding for post closure costs by Ukiah landfill closure date (1/31/2000), remaining post closure costs funded by pledge of revenue after landfill closure. SCENARIO #2 - OPTION B (8%) Same as above, 8% interest calculations. SCENARIO #2 - OPTION C (6%) Ukiah and Willits wastesheds; excludes funding for post closure costs by Ukiah landfill closure date (1/31/2000). Post closure costs would be funded by a pledge of revenue after landfill closure. SCENARIO #2 - OPTION C (8%) Same as above, 8% interest calculations. mfh:admin SOLID WASTE WORKSHOP 11 Z 0 0 oo8888888888~oooo~ 8888o88o oo oo8888oo ooo 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o oQ Q Q Q QQ Qu u u u uo o 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ~ o o ._ -~ 0 = ~ocucc c ._ ~ o ~E~ u ~~ °~~ ~ ~'~~ °n~ o= _ _ ~o ~ _ 0 0 c~ ~ ~'~00~ ~__ A1 0o5 A2 A3 I,.IJ A4 W D 8o8~88°8°888°°8°o o oo o o 0 (iD O- ~'- Cg C~ 0800 00 0 00 00 §§aa 8 --- 0 (~0 ~') i,--,, i,-- i,-- ~ ._ >. 'u ~ 0 o , (D E~ m,-_o ~ o o ~ ~ 0 '~ r...~_ E.- o ~x >,---,=_'5-0 · '- U > ~ r- ,.,, _v '.'" ~ c' 0 ~ 0 0 > '-~ '~ J::: o-'-- m ~ ~:-E--"~ .o E-E"'~ (!)o .._~ U- A5 D A6 00000000008004000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 .00 0 0 er) · ¢~ r-. O..0 .~' r-. r~ ¢0 ,-- O- C~I O- -- 0 ~I' r'- O. 000000 O0 000 0 C) C) C) C) C) C) CD C) C) C) C) C) 0000 000 000 88888888 888 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 ,... 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 Cq 0 0 0 0 .0 0 ~00 0 '-- '~_ .. ~ 50 =o .4--- ~ 0c} 0 '~ -c o E ,o ~Eo, ~,~. ~ -- ~>. '- o o · .- ~-'~,E ~o~ ~ ~ o o= ~:8~~a A7 Z A8 ~8 A9 0 0 0 ._,tO °°° ooo888888888~°°o° 00888880 ooo o o o 0 0 0 0 0 00 oo88O888 ooo o 0 0 0 0 0 o888880o ooo o O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0000~~Q~uu~o O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 ~ o 00 0 i 0 ~ ~ ~ o~ 50U~ o~5 ~8.E~ o AiO 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CDC) 0 0 cOcO 0,0 0 0 CDC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CDC) C:) ~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 u9 ~ 0 ~0 bO O- c' 0,~,_--- ._c ~ -- .c- DO 0 o oo O "'~ -~) E~E _> .p.o or. ~- n ·o  ~-~- -- 0 = _8o - U-I W U- All A12 0 Al3 O o 0000888888 O O (D O CD O O (D (D (D O O O O (DO O O O O (DO (DO(DO oooo 8 8 E ~8 ~ '-~'~ ~.E o. ._ c ~ ~ ~ · ~ O ~ ~ ~ .O a~ g~ c m E~ ~ m m ~'5 o ~ o ~ ~ ~ m ~ o o Al4 0 i-- i--- ,--- o , (;0 C'4 0 ,-. ,.-- ,--. 0 ,-- ,... oo oo 8,,0 ~,,0 o ,,0 0 o ,-- ,.- c o. o oo8~ o 0 ",~ ',~ o ,..re o' o (1) x ,dE 0 '- o ~ = .... ~_ ~._ 0 .-- __ C (D E'5 '-- ~ E o ~_gu u.-o.._ c ~ u ~,~ o ~ ,,., o o_~ --,-~ r"' z < 0 C) A15 ,,,, oo8888888888°~°°oo ' i i t'h :::E :r: ,,, -, m m '1- oo8888°° o 0 o 0oo 0 oo o o o oo8888oo ooo o RRR~oooo o ooo o 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 o ~o o ~ ~ > E E E 0 0 o · ~o0 o ~E~ o _ 0 0 ~ O= ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 A16 8888888888888 0 0 0 0 (:D 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D '- rD -0 0.. 0 m o~ ~- -c ~ a E Z 'O 0 O (1) 0 0 c~ Jr. ,._ ,.. _ o o ~ , _~ ~ ~o 0 r-~ r- .. ~.- ~ ~ 0 c ~ (b ~ C r- C m u.I ~- 0 ~, - '- '- > oo ,'" E ~ f~ (D O , _-- 0 ~ ~- .- ,~ __ u,~ ~:) (D O)o r'' (b 0 '~ r- ~_. · ~ "- ----- '--- ~ ~' D r- · ,- O "'- ._0-0 O. ~ '-- m ~ a Ck c O (D (1) C~ ~5 cm 0~ m m 0 ~B ~ '- '"' '"" "-"""" (:D ~ "0 (:D c. 0 0 ..~, A17 · · O. O. 0 0 m,- ~,_ 0 0 0 I Ir'-.. ¢J / /,'- / I~ ~[ Ol Ol ~j ~ oj ~ ~j Al8 O O O O O O O O O O O O U~ O O O O u') O O O O O O O O O O O O ,O O O O O .0 O O. O ~ .- ,O ,O .- ,-- O. ~ O. o9 m. Cq O Cg -- ' ' 0 0 -r -r ,,, ,, ,,, ,,, (.9 -r 0 O O O O O O OO O O O O O (D O (D O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O ooo o ooooo OOOO (DO m--.- I O ~ o o ~ 50© 5 ~o 5.50 -=~ ~'ao~- 0 - W U- Al9 0000 0000 00 0000 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ u E - E 0 0 oe ~ e o ~ 0 , ~ -- 0 e ~ ' ~=~o o ~-~ ~'~ = =-- - , ~ ~ ~ o o05 0 0 0 A20 ("') C~I ,0 ,0 O, 0 0', O, ,0 0 ,0 u") O- O- 0 O- ED fD U'") ',~" '",~ (X:) 0,1 ,--' C~I 0 0 0,--~0 O- 0 "~:~' "'~ 0 uO 0 0 0 (D O, 0 ~ .,,E o ,..,¢ d 0 ~ × ~ '~E ~'6 "'" ,_ ' '-- (D ,.,- ,..- ~ _~.-=~~._ os g '~ "- "- U 'E ,-,R _ r,' Z < 0 0,.,,", A21 POST CLOSURE FUNDING CALCULATIONS - SCENARIO 2 - OPTION A (6% Interest rate) I PRESUMPTIONS: Annual post closure cost in 1994 dollars is: 61,406 Contingency factor to be added to cost: 20.00% Annual post closure cost plus contingency (1994 dollars) is: 73,687 Annual inflation factor for cost increases is: 5.00% Annual investment interest rate I 6.00% Annual contribution not required after 6/30/01. Inflated cost value per year: 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 73,687 77,371 81,240 85,302 89,567 94,045 98,747 103,684 Fund balance as of June 30, 2001 2,864,511 POST CLOSURE INCOME AND EXPENSE PROJECTION Beginning Expenditures Interest Change Ending YEAR Fund Bal. During Year Earned In Bal. Fund Bal. 01-02 2,864,511 108,868 165,339 56,471 2,920,982 02-03 2,920,982 114,311 168,400 54,089 2,975,071 03-04 2,975,071 120,027 171,303 51,276 3,026,347 04-05 3,026,347 126,028 174,019 47,991 3,074,338 05-06 3,074,338 132,329 176,521 44,192 3,118,530 06-07 3,118,530 138,945 178,775 39,830 3,158,360 07-08 3,158,360 145,892! 180,748 34,856 3,193,216 08-09 3,193,216 153,187i 182,402 29,215 3,222,431 09-10 3,222,431 160,846l 183,695 22,849 3,245,280 10-11 3,245,280 168,888 184,584 15,696 3,260,976 11-12 3,260,976 177,332 185,019 7,687 3,268,663 12-13 3,268,663 186,199 184,948 -1,251 3,267,412 13-14 3,267,412 195,509 184,314 -11,195 3,256,217 14-15 3,256,2171 205,284 183,056 -22,228 3,233,989 15-16 3,233,989 215,548 181,106 -34,442 3,199,547 16-17 3,199,547 226,325 178,393 -47,932 3,151,615 17-18 3,151,615 237,641 174,838 -62,803 3,088,812 18-19 3,088,812 249,523 170,357 -79,166 3,009,646 19-20 3,009,646 261,999 164,859 -97,140 2,912,506 20-21 2,912,506 275,099 158,244 -116,855 2,795,651 21-22 2,795,651 288,854 150,408 -138,446 2,657,205 22-23 2,657,205 303,297 141,234 -162,063 2,495,142 23-24 2,495,142 318,462 130,601 -187,861 2,307,281 24-25 2,307,281 334,385 118,374 -216,011 2,091,270j 25-26 2,091,270 351,104 104,410 -246,694 1,844,576 26-27 1,844,576 368,659 88,555 -280,104 1,564,472 27-28 1,564,472 387,092 70,643 -316,449 1,248,023 28-29 1,248,023 406,447 50,495 -355,952 892,071 29-30 892,071 426,769 27,918 -398,851 493,220 30-31 493,220 448,107 2,707 -445,400 47,820 Total 7,232,956 4,416,265 Total years 30 POSTCLC.XLS Printed 10/28/94 at 1:35 PM A22 c~o c~ c~ ~-. 0 O00 o 0 -- 0 , , 0 0 0888 ooo oo 000 0088 000000 O0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ._ ~ ~ ~~.~ ~=~ ~ 8~' ~0~ o ~'o~°~ A23 000080000000000 0000 00000000 CD 0000 00 0 C) 00 CDC) 0000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ' ~ ~ 0 oo ~ ~ o ' 0~0~~ -- A24 A25 POST CLOSURE FUNDING CALCULATIONS - SCENARIO 2 - OPTION A (8% Interest rate) PRESUMPTIONS: Annual post closure cost in 1994 dollars is: 61,406 Contingency factor to be added to cost: 20.00% Annual post closure cost plus contingency (1994 dollars) is: 73,687 Annual inflation factor for cost increases is: 5.00% Annual investment interest rate I 8.00% Annual contribution not required after 6/30/01. Inflated cost value per year: 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 73,687 77,371 81,240 85,302 89,567 94,045 98,747 103,684 Fund balance as of June 30, 2001 2,618,241 POST CLOSURE INCOME AND EXPENSE PROJECTION Beginning Expenditures Interest Change Ending YEAR Fund Bal. During Year Earned In Bal. Fund Bal. 01-02 2,618,241 108,868 200,750 91,882 2,710,123 02-03 2,710,123 114,311 207,665J 93,354 2,803,477 03-04 2,803,477 120,027 214,676 94,649 2,898,126 04-05 2,898,126i 126,028 221,768 95,740 2,993,866 05-06 2,993,866 132,329 228,923 96,594 3,090,460 06-07 3,090,460 138,945 236,121 97,176 3,187,636 07-08 3,187,636 145,892 243,340 97,448 3,285,084 08-09 3,285,084 153,187 250,552 97,365 3,382,449 09-10 3,382,449 160,846 257,728 96,882 3,479,331 10-11 3,479,331 168,888 264,835 95,947 3,575,278 11-12 3,575,278 177,332 271,836 94,504 3,669,782 12-13 3,669,782 186,199 278,687 92,488 3,762,270 13-14 3,762,270 195,509 285,341 89,832 3,852,102 14-15 3,852,102 205,284 291,745 86,461 3,938,563 15-16 3,938,563 215,548 297,841 82,293 4,020,856 i 16-17 4,020,856 226,325 303,562 77,237 4,098,093' 17-18 4,098,093 237,641 308,836 71,195 4,169,288 18-19 4,169,288 249,523 313,581 64,058 4,233,346 19-20 4,233,346 261,999 317,708 55,709 4,289,055 20-21 4,289,055 275,099 321,116 46,017 4,335,072 21-22 4,335,072 288,854 323,697 34,843 4,369,915 22-23 4,369,915 303,297 325,329 22,032 4,391,947 23-24 4,391,947 318,462 325,879 7,417 4,399,364 24-25 4,399,364 334,385 325,198 -9,187 4,390,177 25-26 4,390,177 351,104 323,126 -27,978 4,362,199 26-27 4,362,199 368,659 319,483 -49,176 4,313,023 27-28 4,313,023 387,092 314,074 -73,018 4,240,005 28-29 4,240,005 406,447 306,685 -99,762 4,140,243 29-30 4,140,243 426,769 297,078 -129,691 4,010,552 30-31 4,010,552 448,107 284,996 -163,111 3,847,441 Total 7,232,956 8,462,156 Total years 30 POSTCLC2.XLS Printed 10/28/94 at 4:08 PM A26 zl ! O40O4 00000000000004000000 000000000000,0000009 0 O' 0 ~ --- ,0 ,0 --- ~- O- O,I O- ,-- I-- C~i 0 C~I ,0 co,-,- o 0 o 0 0 0 o oo 0 o 0 o 0 o C) c) c) c) CD C) C) C) C) CD C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 o ~ 0 0 ~ > c ~ c 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~~~~-= oc~ c~ ~ '- ~.~0~ E O=_oo _ -- . -- ~ C~ -5~.~ o ~<~ A27 ° 81~ o~ qx oo88888 CD 0 O O eO ,0 O O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O u~ O O 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O '~' '-- ~ ,-- ,0 04 ~e4N~ ~,d A28 Z I; A29 POST CLOSURE FUNDING CALCULATIONS - SCENARIO 2 - OPTION B (6% Interest rate) PRESUMPTIONS: Annual post closure cost in 1994 dollars is: 61,406 Contingency factor to be added to cost: 20.00% Annual post closure cost plus contingency (1994 dollars) is: 73,687 Annual inflation factor for cost increases is: 5.00% ~,nnual investment interest rate I 6.00% /knnual contribution required after 6/30/01. Inflated cost value per year: 93-94! 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 73,687 77,371 81,240 85,302 89,567 94,045 98,747 103,684. Fund balance as of June 30, 2001 2,300,000 I I POST CLOSURE INCOME AND EXPENSE PROJECTION Beginning Expenditures Interest Future Change Ending YEAR Fund Bal. During Year Earned Funding In Bal. Fund Bal. 01-02 2,300,000 108,868 131,468 40,407' 63,007 2,363,007 02-03 2,363,007 114,311 134,922 40,407 61,018 2,424,025 03-04 2,424,025 120,027 138,240 40,407 58,620 2,482,645, 04-05 2,482,645 126,028 141,397 40,407 55,776 2,538,421 05-06 2,538,421 132,329 144,366 40,407 52,444 2,590,865 06-07 2,590,865 138,945 147,115 40,407 48,577 2,639,442 07-08 2,639,442 145,892 149,613 40,407 44,128 2,683,570 08-09 2,683,570 153,187 151,823 40,407 39,043 2,722,613 09-10 2,722,613, 160,846 153,706 40,407 33,267 2,755,880 10-11 2,755,880 168,888 155,220 40,407~ 26,739 2,782,619 11-12 2,782,619 177,332 156,317 40,407 19,392 2,802,011 12-13 2,802,011 186,199' 156,949 40,407 11,157 2,813,168 13-14 2,813,168 195,509 157,060 40,407 1,958 2,815,126 14-15 2,815,126 205,284 156,591 40,407 -8,286 2,806,840 15-16 2,806,840 215,548 155,478 40,407 -19,663 2,787,177 16-17 2,787,177 226,325 153,651 40,407 -32,267 2,754,910 17-18 2,754,910 237,641 151,036 40,407 -46,198 2,708,712 18-19 2,708,712 249,523 147,551 40,407 -61,565 2,647,147 19-20 2,647,147' 261,999 143,109 40,4071 -78,483 2,568,664 20-21 2,568,664 275,099 137,614 40,407 -97,078 2,471,586 121-22 2,471,586 288,854~ 130,964, 40,407 -117,483 2,354,103 22-23 2,354,103 303,297 123,048 40,407 -139,842 2,214,261 23-24 2,214,261 318,462 113,748 40,407 -164,307 2,049,954 24-25 2,049,954 334,385 102,934 40,407 -191,044 1,858,910 25-26 1,858,910 351,104 90,468 40,407 -220,229. 1,638,681 26-27 1,638,681 368,659 76,201 40,407 -252,051 1,386,630 27-28 1,386,630 387,092 59,972 40,407 -286,713 1,099,917 28-29 1,099,9171 406,447 41,608 40,407 -324,432 775,485 29-30 775,485 426,769 20,923 40,407 -365,439 410,046 30-31 410,046 448,107 -2,284 40,407 -409,984 62 Total 7,232,956~ 3,720,808~ Total years 30 POSTCLC3.XLS Printed 10/28/94 at 1:44 PM A30 x x · t- O · 0 '8_ '8_ ~ o A31 00800000000000 0 uO,-- <~' 00 00 o0,0 00- 00 00 00 u') O, 00 00 00 00 0 ~0 .~- ~ ~ o 0 - E 0 0 oe ~ ¥ ~ o = .~ .~_ ~ o'~ == ~ o ~~:~ ~ ~-~ ~:-- ~ ~~>~ o A32 A33 POST CLOSURE FUNDING CALCULATIONS - SCENARIO 2 - OPTION B (8% Interest rate) I PRESUMPTIONS: Annual post closure cost in 1994 dollars is: 61,406 Contingency factor to be added to cost: 20.00% Annual post closure cost plus contingency (1994 dollars) is: 73,687 Annual inflation factor for cost increases is: 5.00% Annual investment interest rate 8.00% Annual contribution required after 6/30/01. Inflated cost value per year: 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 73,687 77,371 81,240 85,302 89,567 94,045 98,747 103,684 Fund balance as of June 30, 2001 2,300,000 I POST CLOSURE INCOME AND EXPENSE PROJECTION Beginning Expenditures Interest Future Change Ending YEAR Fund Bal. During Year Earned Fundincj In Bal. Fund Bal. 01-02 2,300,000 108,868 175,291 0 66,423 2,366,423 02-03 2,366,423 114,311 180,169 0 65,858 2,432,281 03-04 2,432,281 120,027 184,980 0 64,953 2,497,234 04-05 2,497,234 126,028 189,696 0 63,668 2,560,902 05-06 2,560,902 132,329 194,286 0 61,957 2,622,859 06-07 2,622,859 138,945 198,713 0 59,768 2,682,627 07-08 2,682,627 145,892 202,939 0 57,047 2,739,674 08-09 2,739,674 153,187 206,919 0 53,732 2,793,406 09-10 2,793,406 160,846 210,605 0 49,759 2,843,165 10-11 2,843,165 168,888 213,942 0 45,054 2,888,219 11-12 2,888,219 177,332 216,871 0 39,539 2,927,758 12-13 2,927,758 186,199 219,325 0 33,126 2,960,884 13-14 2,960,884, 195,509 221,230 0: 25,721 2,986,605 14-15 2,986,605 205,284 222,506 0 17,222 3,003,827 15-16 3,003,827 215,548 223,062 0 7,514 3,011,341 16-17 3,011,341 226,325 222,801 0 -3,524 3,007,817 17-18 3,007,817 237,641 221,614 0 -16,027 2,991,790i 18-19 2,991,790 249,523. 219,381 0 -30,142 2,961,648 19-20 2,961,648 261,999 215,972 0 -46,027 2,915,621 20-21 2,915,621 275,099 211,242 0 -63,857 2,851,764 21-22 2,851,764 288,854 205,033 0 -83,821 2,767,943 22-23 2,767,943 303,297 197,172 0 -106,125 2,661,818 23-24 2,661,818 318,462 187,468 0 -130,994 2,530,824 24-25 2,530,824 334,385 175,715 0 -158,670 2,372,154 25-26 2,372,154 351,104 161,684 0 -189,420! 2,182,734 26-27 2,182,734 368,659 145,126 0 -223,533 1,959,201 27-28 1,959,201 387,092 125,769 0 -261,323 1,697,878 28-29 1,697,878 406,447 103,314 0 -303,133 1,394,745 29-30 1,394,745 426,769 77,438 0 -349,331 1,045,414 30-31 1,045,414 448,107 47,785 0 -400,322 64,5,092 Total 7,232,956 5,578,048 Total years 30 POSTCLC4.XLS Printed 10/28/94 at 2:53 PM ^3zJ r,. 0 r-. 0 0 0 O40O4 0 0 r--- r-- r--,' 0 ~ o --- ~ 0 A35 0 0 0 0 o ,o 0 0 o o 0 0 o8oo ~Nc4~ 0 0 o 0 ~-- ,o 8888 o u9 ,- 0 005 c~ o. ~_ 0 0 A36 A37 POST CLOSURE FUNDING CALCULATIONS - SCENARIO 2 - OPTION C (6% Interest rate) PRESUMPTIONS: Annual post closure cost in 1994 dollars is: 61,406 Contingency factor to be added to cost: 20.00% Annual post closure cost plus contingency (1994 dollars) is: 73,687 Annual inflation factor for cost increases is: 5.00% Annual investment interest rate I 6.00% ~,nnual contribution required after 6/30/01. Inflated cost value per year: 93-94 94-95 95-96~ 96-97~ 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 73,687 77,371 81,240 85,302 89,567 94,045 98,747 103,684 Fund balance as of June 30, 2001 0 POST CLOSURE INCOME AND EXPENSE PROJECTION Beginning! Expenditures Interest ~ Future Change Ending YEAR Fund Bal. During Year Earned Funding In Bal. Fund Bal. 01-02 0 108,868 -6,532 207,499 92,099 92,099 02-03 92,099 114,311 -1,333 207,499 91,855 183,954 03-04 183,954 120,027 3,836 207,499 91,308 275,262! 04-05 275,262 126,028 8,954 207,499 90,425 365,687 05-06 365,687 132,329 14,001 207,499 89,171 454,858 06-07 454,858 138,945 18,955 207,499 87,509 542,367 07-08 542,367 145,892 23,789 207,499 85,396 627,763 08-09 627,763 153,187 28,475 207,499 82,787 710,550 09-10 710,550 160,846 32,982 207,499 79,635 790,185 10-11 790,185 168,888 37,278 207,499 75,889 866,074 11-12 866,074 177,332 41,325 207,499 71,492 937,566 12-13 937,566 186,199 45,082 207,499 66,382~ 1,003,948 13-14 1,003,948 195,509 48,506 207,499 60,496 1,064,444 ,14-15 1,064,444 205,284 51,550 207,499 53,765 1,118,209 15-16 1,118,209 215,548 54,160 207,499 46,111 1,164,320 16-17 1,164,320 226,325 56,280 207,499 37,454 1,201,774 17-18 1,201,774 237,641 57,848 207,499 27,706 1,229,480~ 18-19 1,229,480 249,523 58,797 207,499 16,773 1,246,253 19-20 1,246,253 261,999 59,055 207,499 4,555, 1,250,808 20-21 1,250,808 275,099 58,543 207,499 -9,057 1,241,751 21-22 1,241,751 288,854 57,174 207,499 -24,181 1,217,570 22-23 1,217,570 303,297 54,856 207,499 -40,942 1,176,628 23-24 1,176,628 318,462 51,490 207,499 -59,473 1,117,155 24-25 1,117,155 334,385 46,966 207,499 -79,920 1,037,235: 25-26 1,037,235 351,104 41,168 207,499 -102,437 934,798 26-27 934,798 368,659 33,968 207,499 -127,192 807,606 :)7-28 807,606 387,092 25,231 207,499 -154,362 653,244 28-29 653,244 406,447 14,808 207,499 -184,140 469,104 29-30 469,104 426,769' 2,540 207,499 -216,730 252,374 30-31 252,374 448,107 -11,744 207,499 -252,352 22 Total 7,232,956 1,008,008 Total years 30 POSTCLC5.XLS Printed 10/28/94 at 1:55 PM A38 8000000 O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O ! , ! 000080000 O O (DO O O O O O OO O O O (D O O O O O O OO O O O O ,O O U') O O ! A 0 O ® 0 o~ 50° > '~ ~ o ~o ~ oE ~ oo · '~ .~$ · .- -~oo _ A39 °°88888°°°°°°°° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ~ o o o 0 o o o 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 8888 8 8 8 '~ -c O0 0 Z ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 oo ~ ~ .,~o ~ 0 ~ _ o~ ~'- ~'~ ~~~,, ~ 0 -- ~ ~> aE o o A40 A41 · POST CLOSURE FUNDING CALCULATIONS - SCENARIO 2 - OPTION C (8% Interest rate) PRESUMPTIONS: !Annual post closure cost in 1994 dollars is: 61,406 Contingency factor to be added to cost: 20.00% Annual post closure cost plus contingency (1994 dollars) is: 73,687 Annual inflation factor for cost increases is: 5.00% Annual investment interest rate I 8.00% Annual contribution required after 6/30/01. Inflated cost value per yeor: 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 73,687 77,371 81,240 85,302 89,567 94,045 98,747 103,684 Fund balance as of June 30, 2001 0 I I POST CLOSURE INCOME AND EXPENSE PROJECTION Beginning Expenditures Interest Future Change Ending YEAR Fund Bal. During Year Earned Funding In Bal. Fund Bal. 01-02 0 108,868i -8,709 198,610 81,033 81,033 02-03 81,033 114,311 -2,662 198,610 81,637 162,670 03-04 162,670' 120,027 3,411 198,610 81,994 244,664 04-05 244,664 126,028 9,491 198,610 82,073 326,737 05-06 326,737 132,329 15,553 198,6101 81,834 408,571 06-07 408,571 138,945 21,570 198,610 81,235 489,806 07-08 489,806 145,892 27,513 198,610 80,231 570,037 08-09 570,037 153,187 33,348 198,610 78,771 648,808 09-10 648,808 160,846 39,037 198,610 76,801 725,609 10-11 725,609 168,888 44,538 198,610 74,260 799,869 11-12 799,869 177,332 49,803 198,610 71,081 870,950 12-13 870,950 186,199 54,780 198,610 67,191 938,141 13-14 938,141 195,509 59,411 198,610 62,512 1,000,653 14-15 1,000,653 205,284 63,630 198,610 56,956 1,057,609 15-16 1,057,609 215,548 67,365 198,610 50,427 1,108,036 16-17 1,108,036 226,325 70,537 198,610 42,822 1,150,858 17-18 1,150,858 237,641 73,057 198,610 34,026 1,184,884 18-19 1,184,884 249,523i 74,829; 198,610 23,916 1,208,800 19-20 1,208,800i 261,999 75,744 198,610 12,355 1,221,155 20-21 1,221,155 275,099 75,684 198,610. -805 1,220,350 21-22 1,220,350 288,854 74,520 198,610~ -15,724 1,204,626 22-23 1,204,626 303,297 72,106 198,610 -32,581 1,172,045 23-24 1,172,045 318,462 68,287 198,610 -51,565 1,120,480 24-25 1,120,480 334,385 62,888 198,610 -72,887i 1,047,593 25-26 1,047,593 351,104 55,719 198,610 -96,775 950,818 26-27 950,818 368,659 46,573 198,610 -123,476 827,342 27-28 827,342 387,092 35,220 198,610 -153,262 674,080 28-29 674,080 406,447 21,411 198,610 -186,426 487,654 29-30 487,654 426,769 4,871 198,610 -223,288 264,366 30-31 264,366 448,107 -14,699 198,610 -264,196 170 Total 7,232,956 1,274,826 Total years 30 POSTCLC5.XLS Printed 10/28/94 at 2:56 PM A42 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OCTOBER 30, 1994 CITY COUNCIL CHARLES L. ROUGH, JR., CITY MANAGEFI-~,,~~ NOVEMBER 1, 1994 SOLID WASTE WORKSHOP, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION As noted in the October 28 memorandum, the proposal from the City Managers, noted as "Scenario #3", was being reviewed by the Mendocino Solid Waste Management (MSWMA) Executive Committee and additional information would be forwarded to you on Monday. This memorandum presents a synopsis of the original proposal, changes discussed at the executive committee meeting, and new schedules to illustrate the costs and closure date associated with the old numbers included in the Report of Disposal Site Information (RDSI). SCENARIO #3 A summary of the more important aspects of the September 9, 1994 "Recommended Request for Proposal" (Scenario #3)include: A Request for Proposals (RFP) would be distributed immediately in which the successful bidder would: a) immediately compensate the Cities of Fort Bragg, Ukiah, and Willits, and the County of Mendocino for the closure costs of the Casper, Willits, and Ukiah landfills; b) immediately establish and operate a transfer station/recycling processing center at the Little Lake Industries site in Willits; c) immediately establish and operate (may use subcontractor) a small volume transfer sub-station facility somewhere (between Burke Hill Road and Calpella) in the greater Ukiah Valley. The contract term would be 30 years with termination options at 10 and 20 years. The contract is exclusive, and the facilities are strictly for Mendocino County use. All landfilling (if necessary) shall meet Subtitle D requirements. If out of state landfill is used, access to a secondary California landfill will be assured. AB 939 requirements of each jurisdiction shall be met by contractor. Facility shall accommodate at least 200 tons of refuse per day. Contractor shall pay $4/ton surcharge to MSWMA. If MSWMA is terminated, funds will be used for AB 939 compliance and public education. * Contractor shall pay $2/ton for Contract Administration. Contractor shall pay $7,222,000 to entities to fully fund preclosure, closure, and toe expansion, at Caspar, Ukiah, and Willits landfills. Contractor shall purchase equipment from Willits landfill ($349,128) and Ukiah landfill ($246,634), if same cannot be sold. All entities shall be indemnified from litigation or other action resulting from Contractor's performance. Current employees shall be considered by contractor for employment and contract terms are to be financially secured. The changes to the proposal agreed to during Friday's meeting include: Three specific sites for the transfer station would be identified to be addressed in the RFP. A definition of "county centroid" would be included in the analysis to be conducted. * An analysis of possible sites would in-house. Inflation factors would be applied only to Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs. The contract would have a 30 year term with buyout opportunities every five years. Compensation through the transfer station for travel differentials for those jurisdictions having their refuse hauled the longest distance would be considered. Additional possible modifications to the proposal for consideration are: Timing of the "buyout" could be immediate, when Willits closes, when Ukiah closes, or when the transfer station is constructed and in operation. "Buyout" could be for closure only, with post closure costs being funded through surcharges during the post closure period. "REPORT OF DISPOSAL SITE" (RDSI) INFORMATION Attached are two revenue/expenditure schedules reflecting "Scenario 1C, 8%" and "Scenario 2C, 8%" based upon the tonnage and landfill capacity figures presented in the Report of Disposal Site Information (RDSI) completed in May 1993. The inplace volumes are much less than the most recent calculations and thus there appears to be a longer calendar life to the Ukiah landfill (June 30, 2004 compared to June 30, 2001 for Ukiah only; March 31, 2001 compared to January 31, 2000 for Ukiah and Willits). It should be noted these data are considered to be superseded by the recent calculations and base information presented in the October 28, 1994 memorandum, and are no longer deemed by staff to be accurate or useable. The following three tables are similar to those in the October 28, 1994 memorandum, but utilize the RDSI data as their base. Each table is identified as to the memorandum page and topic. The differences reflect the variation in base data and presumptions. The first is that presented on page 9, which documents landfill capacity reductions by year for Ukiah wasteshed only through closure. Both tables commence with the given of 600,000 cubic yards of airspace remaining on January 1, 1993 (presumption f, 10/28/94 memorandum and original RDSI figure). The RDSI data present an extended calendar life of the landfill. FISCAL YEAR/DATE CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL REMAINING AVAILABLE AIRSPACE January 1, 1993 600,000 1 / 1/93 to 6/30/93 27,802 572,198 1993-1994 54,619 517,579 1994-1995 53,586 463,993 1995-1996 52,501 411,492 1996-1997 51,363 360,129 1997-1998 50,172 309,957 1998-1999 48,926 261,031 1999-2000 47,623 213,408 2000-2001 48,432 164,976 2001-2002 49,255 115,721 2002-2003 50,093 65,628 2003-2004 50,944 14,684 The second table registers the refuse tonnage figures which are noted in the table on page 2 of the 10/28/94 memorandum under "presumption m". It must be realized that since the RDSI was completed in May 1993, the data were generated at least 18 months ago and therefore there are no actual tonnages as are presented in the presumption table. Also, the cubic yards are computed at a density of 1,200 pounds per cubic yard, rather than 1,000 pounds per cubic yard as in the memorandum. FISCAL YEAR UKIAH (Tons/cubic yards) WILLITS (Tons/cubic yards) 1993-94 24,579 / 40,965 * 1994-95 24,114 / 40,190 * 1995-96 23,626 / 39,377 * 1996-97 23,114 / 38,523 7,841 / 13,068 1997-98 22,578 / 37,630 18,253 / 30,422 1998-99 22,017 / 36,695 18,253 / 30,422 1999-2000 21,430 / 35,717 18,618 / 31,010 2000-01 21,795 / 36,325 18,990 / 31,650 2001-02 22,165 / 36,942 ** 2002-03 22,542 / 37,570 ** 2003-04 22,925 / 38,208 ** * Willits data not addressed in RDSI. ** With acceptance of Willits refuse, Ukiah landfill closes March 31, 2001. The third table is that of annual tipping fees which is at the bottom of page 10 of the memorandum. The data below reflect the longer calendar life of the landfill. ANNUAL TIPPING FEES (DOLLARS PER TON) FISCAL YEAR SCENARIO 1C 8% SCENARIO 2C 8% 1994-95 74 74 1995-96 100 100 1996-97 96 77 1997-98 82 54 1998-99 85 56 1999-2000 91 59 2000-01 93 51 2001-02 94 * 2002-03 100 * 2OO3-04 93 * Average 91 67 * With acceptance of Willits refuse, Ukiah landfill closed March 31, 2001, thus no further tipping fees. Supplementary graphic explanations of the landfill operation will be presented by staff'at the workshop to assist the City Council in understanding the current situation at the site. In-lieu of a field trip to the facility, we believe these will enhance everyone's comprehension of the circumstances we are encountering. The following six pages are the Scenario 1C 8% and Scenario 2C 8% schedules with RDSI figures as base data. These are the same format as the memorandum schedules. Please note the RDSI did not consider or present data for Willits. Those figures are based upon the 10/28/94 presumptions calculated at the RDSI refuse inplace density. mfh:admin SOLID WASTE WORKSHOP 2 8§§§°88§ 88 A1 A2 W U. ~0- ~- 0 0 0 ~- O, 0 0 ,...2 --. ~ 0 A4 A5 (D ^6