CONSOLIDATION ISSUES
Q. Bridge financing – we will only be borrowing a certain amount and the balance being
paid by the sale of proptery. How does it all work.
A. See Attached amortization schedules. A note for $450,000 will cost approximately
$13,000 per year in interest or $28.90 per year per thousand depending on the amount we
need. Interest amounts will vary depending on the length of the loan, dictated by the time
it takes to dispose of the Public Works and Gardiner Water District property.
Q. Entry-way at the Plant how does it work for truck traffic
A. Safety and traffic concerns are part of the MDOT and Planning Board Site review
process.
Q. Alternative funding possibilities 1.Can we get additional funds 2.Can funds be used
for a modified project
A. If the City and the Water District determine that the present project proposal is not
feasible, MDF may discuss modifying the current project.
Q. Could we co-locate water at the Public Works facility
A. This was investigated in both the Kent and Wright-Pierce studies, and was found not
be a cost effective option. See attached Kent & Wright-Pierce reports.
Q. If real estate sells for an other-than-projected price, what will be the impact on the
project. For example, if the GWD or the City sell our real estate for greater than the
budgeted figure, what happens to the excess?
A. It would be applied to the entity who generated the additional revenue.
Q. We need solid figures for property values.
A. We will not be able to get a Broker’s Opinion of Value for about a week. Cost for the
opinion of value on both buildings is approximately $700.
Q. A pretty significant portion of the overall savings results from reducing the
equipment force. What will the impact on the economics be if a decision is made in the
future that some or all of this equipment is not expendable?
A. It would be applied to the entity keeping the equipment previously slated for disposal,
increasing that entity’s expenses on the project. This issue has been given considerable
thought over the past three (3) years while developing this project and the management
team is in agreement.
Q. Determine a method for allocating overall project impacts to individual
entities. These would be in two areas: annual budget impacts, both costs
and savings and capital items, both expenses and revenues. Some of the
examples we talked about were what if a piece of real estate over/underperformed
when sold as compared to projections, how much of the projected $26-30k savings
accrues to the Water District Vs other entities, etc.
A. See Attached spreadsheet. It would increase or decrease the entity’s share in the
project depending on how the asset performs.
Q. Additionally, we challenged the Joint Management Team to reduce the current
projected 12-15 year debt retirement by examining assumptions and generally
tightening up the project.
A. Currently as the project exists we are unable to reduce the number of years needed to
retire the debt. Our current approach is fairly traditional, we are investigating an
alternative design build approach, because of the flexibility of the program there is
potential for significant savings
Q. In terms of the 12 to 15 year projected debt retirement, can we expect
this projection to be more for some entities and less for others?
A. Yes. See attached spreadsheet
Q. How are the identified capital savings ($75,000) from equipment
allocated among entities?
A. See attached spreadsheet
Q. How are the identified capital savings from land and building sales
allocated among entities?
A. See attached spreadsheet
Q. Are the grant funds ($110,000) allocated equally among entities?
A. See attached spreadsheet
Q. How will future revenues ($26,000) be allocated among entities?
A. See attached spreadsheet
Q. How are the total expenses ($910,500) allocated among entities? Do
capital expenses impact entities differently within the scope of the
project?
A. Yes. See attached spreadsheet
Q. What will future net savings be to GWD ratepayers?
A. See attached spreadsheet
OFFICE SPACE
SQ/FT needed
Percentage
Share of overall cost
Water
Water
Public Works
Waste Water
1220
1153
237
46%
44%
10%
$119,600
$114,400
$26,000
$119,600
Total
2610
100%
$260,000
SQ/FT needed
Percentage
Share of overall cost
Water
Public Works
Waste Water
1500
6200
300
19%
77%
4%
$41,800
$169,400
$8,800
Total
8000
100%
$220,000
1000
4500
330
5500
17%
77%
6%
100%
$35,000
$140,000
$10,000
$175,000
$35,000
Water
Public Works
Waste Water
30%
65%
5%
$76,650
$166,075
$12,775
$76,650
Total
100%
$255,500
HEATED GARAGE
PW
WWTP
$114,400
$26,000
$41,800
$169,400
$8,800
COLD STORAGE
Water
Public Works
Waste Water
Total
$130,000
$10,000
MISC. EXPENSE
$166,075
$12,775
Fuel Tank
Site Work
Action Plan
legal
Engineering
Arch.
Contingency
Total
$910,500
$273,050
$579,875
$57,575
$33,000
$10,000
$150,000
$71,500
$35,000
$225,000
$5,500
$30,000
$350,500
$80,050
$248,375
$22,075
$23,872
$8,700
$80,050
$5,360
$13,050
$248,375
$16,636
$0
$22,075
$1,876
$7,800
$16,900
$1,300
Grant allocation
Credit for equipment sales
Credit for building sales
Amount to be borrowed (long-term)
Financing cost per year (short-term)
TOTAL LONG TERM FINANCING NEEDS
long-term Financing 20yrs. cost per year
$26,000 Annual Savings allocated among entities
City of Gardiner
Combined Service Center Evaluation
Budget developed by Jon Edgerton of
Wright-Peirce
Capital Savings (PW facility sales)
Capital Savings (GWD facility sales)
Capital Savings (equipment)
Total - Land & Buliding Sales
$
$
$
Capital Expense (new office building)
Capital Expense (heated shed/garage)
Capital Expense (unheated shed/garage)
Capital Expense (fuel tank)
Capital Expense (misc. sitework)
Action Plan for Joint Admin.
Eng., Arch., Legal, etc.
Contingency
Total - Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
225,000
150,000
75,000
Approximate payoff between 12 to 15 years
$
910,500
$
460,500
$
350,500
$110,000
Additional capitol Needs
Avoided Equipment Renewal Costs
Building Ops. Savings (utils $ insur.)
Added Vehicle Costs
Net Annual Savings
450,000
260,000
220,000
175,000
8,500
90,000
7,000
75,000
75,000
Additional capital Needs for construction
Grant from Maine Development
$
$
$
$
33,000
2,000
(9,000)
$26,000
City of Gardiner
Combined Service Center Evaluation
Review of Cost Savings (April 8, 2005)
Scenario I
225,000
150,000
75,000
260,000
220,000
175,000
8,500
90,000
7,000
75,000
75,000
Capital Savings (PW facility sales)
Capital Savings (GWD facility sales)
Capital Savings (equipment)
Capital Expense (new office building)
Capital Expense (heated shed/garage)
Capital Expense (unheated shed/garage)
Capital Expense (fuel tank)
Capital Expense (misc. sitework)
Action Plan for Joint Admin.
Eng., Arch., Legal, etc.
Contingency
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Net Capital Savings ("one time")
$
(377,000)
Assumed Grant Amount
$
110,000
Net Capital Savings (With Grant)
$
(267,000)
Avoided Equipment Renewal Costs
Building Ops. Savings (utils $ insur.)
Added Vehicle Costs
Net Annual Savings
$
$
$
$
33,000
2,000
(9,000)
26,000
5 Year Savings (Pres. Worth @ i=3%)
$
119,072.20
Net 5 year Savings (Pres. Worth)
$
(147,927.80)
8 Year Savings (Pres. Worth @ i=3%)
$
182,512.20
Net 8 year Savings (Pres. Worth)
$
(84,487.80)
10 Year Savings (Pres. Worth @ i=3%)
$
221,785.20
Net 10 year Savings (Pres. Worth)
$
(45,214.80)
12 Year Savings (Pres. Worth @ i=3%)
$
258,804.00
Net 12 year Savings (Pres. Worth)
$
(8,196.00)
VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT SAVINGS IF All DEPARTMENTS LOCATE AT THE
WASTEWATER FACILITY(EXCLUSIVE OF WATER TREATMENT FACILITY)
PUBLIC WORKS VEHICLES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Trackless
Bombadier Tractor
Large Generator
Compressor
410 John Deere Backhoe
One ton service vehicle
Pick-up Mechanic Vehicle
624 John Deere Loader
#32 GMC Top Kick Sand Truck
RPM Loader mounted snow blower
#34 Ford Plow / Sand Truck
#35 GMC Top Kick plow/sand truck
Volvo Plow Sand Truck
544 John Deere Loader Plow
670 Motor Grader
Trailer Mounter Sewer Rodder
#33 GMC Top Kick Sand Truck
Pick up Director of Public Works
$10,000
GARDINER WATER DISTRICT VEHICLES
1
Dump Truck
2
One Ton’s
1
410 backhoe
1
Compressor
1
Skidsteer
3
Pick-ups – Reduce to 3 Pick-ups
GARDINER WASTEWATER VEHICLES
$40,000
1
1
1
1
$26,000
¾ Ton Pick up – Service Truck
Pick –up Chevy S-10
Skidsteer
Loader – Cat
$25,000
$120,000
BUILDINGS & GROUNDS
1
1
1
Pick-Up
One ton
John Deere Trackor – Loader
TOTAL POTENTIAL FUTURE VEHICLE SAVINGS:
$221,000
* Reduction in vehicle and equipment insurance would add additional savings.
VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT SAVINGS IF WASTEWATER STANDS AS IS, AND PUBLIC
WORKS, WATER DISTIRCT (EXCLUSIVE OF WATER TREATMENT FACILITY) &
BUILDINGS & GROUNDS CO-LOCATE
PUBLIC WORKS VEHICLES
1
trackless
1
Bombadier Tractor
1
Large Generator
1
compressor
1
410 John Deere Backhoe
1
One ton service vehicle
1
Pick-up Mechanic Vehicle
1
624 John Deere Loader
1
#32 GMC Top Kick Sand Truck
1
RPM Loader mounted snow blower
1
#34 Ford Plow / Sand Truck
1
#35 GMC Top Kick plow/sand truck
1
Volvo Plow Sand Truck
1
544 John Deere Loader Plow
1
670 Motor Grader
1
Trailer Mounter Sewer Rodder
1
#33 GMC Top Kick Sand Truck
1
Pick up Director of Public Works
$10,000
GARDINER WATER DISTRICT VEHICLES
1
2
1
1
1
4
Dump Truck
One Ton’s
410 backhoe
Compressor
Skidsteer
Pick-ups Reduce to 3 pick ups
$40,000
$20,000
GARDINER WASTEWATER VEHICLES
1
1
1
1
¾ Ton Pick up – Service Truck
Pick –up Chevy S-10
Skidsteer
Loader – Cat
(would need to purchase plow for ¾ vehicle
$8,000 under this sceniro)
$120,000
BUILDINGS & GROUNDS
1
1
1
Pick-Up
One ton
John Deere Trackor – Loader
TOTAL POTENTIAL FUTURE VEHICLE SAVINGS:
$190,000
* Reduction in vehicle and equipment insurance would add additional savings.
VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT SAVINGS IF PUBLIC WORKS STANDS AS IS AND WASTEWATER
AND WATER DISTIRCT (EXCLUSIVE OF WATER TREATMENT FACILITY) CO-LOCATE
PUBLIC WORKS VEHICLES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Trackless
Bombadier Tractor
Large Generator
Compressor
410 John Deere Backhoe
One ton service vehicle
Pick-up Mechanic Vehicle
624 John Deere Loader
#32 GMC Top Kick Sand Truck
RPM Loader mounted snow blower
#34 Ford Plow / Sand Truck
#35 GMC Top Kick plow/sand truck
Volvo Plow Sand Truck
544 John Deere Loader Plow
670 Motor Grader
Trailer Mounter Sewer Rodder
#33 GMC Top Kick Sand Truck
Pick up Director of Public Works
GARDINER WATER DISTRICT VEHICLES
1
2
1
1
1
4
Dump Truck
One Ton’s
410 backhoe
Compressor
Skidsteer
Pick-ups – Reduce to 3 Pick-ups
$40,000
$20,000
GARDINER WASTEWATER VEHICLES
1
1
1
1
¾ Ton Pick up – Service Truck
Pick –up Chevy S-10
Skidsteer
Loader – Cat
(would need to purchase plow for ¾ vehicle
$8,000 under this sceniro)
TOTAL POTENTIAL FUTURE VEHICLE SAVINGS:
$25,000
$120,000
$205,000
* Reduction in vehicle and equipment insurance would add additional savings.
March 31, 2005
Mr. Patrick Gilbert
City Services Director
City of Gardiner
6 Church Street
Gardiner, Maine 04345
Re:
Variance Approval from Siting Requirements for Proposed Sand/Salt Pile
Gardiner Waste Water Treatment Plant, Gardiner, Maine 04345
Dear Mr. Gilbert:
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) has received and reviewed
the City of Gardiner’s (Gardiner’s) request for a variance from our siting requirements
for a sand/salt storage area. Specifically, Gardiner requested a variance from the siting
requirements in MEDEP Rules, Chapter 574 to allow siting of a new sand/salt facility on
a mapped significant sand and gravel aquifer.
Chapter 574, Section 6(A) describes the criteria by which the MEDEP can consider
granting a variance from the siting requirements of the rule. The criteria includes
whether homes or businesses in the area are serviced by a public water supply;
whether the site is located in an area zoned for commercial or industrial development
by the municipality; the proximity to a major river, marine waters or public water supply
intake; and the availability of practicable alternative sites that meet the specified siting
criteria.
Among the many factors considered in our decision-making process were:
♦ Availability of Municipal Services/Impact to Wells – All of the residential
properties in the area are served by municipal water. You indicate that the
nearest private well is approximately 1,000 feet from the proposed location.
♦ Construction of a Building – Gardiner will be constructing a sand/salt building
at the new site. Having the material under permanent cover is a primary
consideration in granting the variance. The building must be completed prior to
storing material at this location.
♦ Existing Source of Potential Contamination – The new sand/salt building
will be constructed behind the Gardiner waste water treatment plant (WWTP).
The WWTP has the potential to impact groundwater quality at the site in the
unlikely case of infrastructural or operational failure.
♦ Stormwater Runoff – You indicate that Gardiner plans to construct a building
and design the loading area so that stormwater run-off discharges to the WWTP
for treatment.
♦ Proximity to Surface Water Body – The site is approximately 300 feet from
the Kennebec River. Any minor impacts to groundwater at the site will likely
discharge to the river which will provide sufficient dilution.
♦ Discontinue Existing Location – Gardiner will abandon its current priority 4
location that is currently exempt from Chapter 574 regulations.
Based on these findings, the MEDEP is approving a variance to construct a sand/salt
facility on a mapped significant sand and gravel aquifer. This approval is valid for the
site in general as long as all other laws, regulations, and ordinances pertaining to
development are complied with. Additionally, the SSP must meet all of the operational
requirements promulgated in Chapter 574, Section 4. Please notify the MEDEP when
construction of the building is complete and you have relocated your sand/salt pile to its
new location.
Any interested person aggrieved by a Department determination made pursuant to
applicable regulations may appeal the decision following the procedures described in
the attached DEP FACT SHEET entitled “Appealing a Commissioner’s Licensing Decision”
(April 2003).
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Erich Kluck of the Sand and Salt
Pile Program at (207) 287-7814 or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Dawn Gallagher, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Protection
Enclosure
cc:
Erich D. Kluck, MEDEP, Sand and Salt Pile Program Coordinator
Peter Coughlan, MaineDOT
Date filed with the Board of Environmental Protection:___________________________
City of Gardiner, Siting Variance Granted, New SSP Location, Gardiner, Maine
—2—
Stratex, LLC
146 Capitol Street
Augusta, Maine 04330
Voice: 207-623-1596
Fax: 207-626-0200
Memo
To:
Cc:
Re:
Pat Gilbert, City of Gardiner
From: Keith Taylor
Date:
April 8, 2005
Environmental contamination and the sale of Gardiner Public Works property
Based on my conversation with you, the City may be interested in selling the property currently
occupied by the Public Works facility on Route 201. As you know, I conducted an environmental audit
on the property a few years ago and am quite familiar with the layout and site conditions. You
expressed concern about whether environmental contamination might exist on the property, and if so,
how it might affect the sale. Here is a summary of our conversation:
In order to avoid buying contaminated property, some buyers complete a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) beforehand. If financing is involved, some banks require it. A Phase I ESA is a
non-sampling assessment that is based on a visual survey, government records, and historical
information. Depending on negotiations, the cost of a Phase I ESA can be covered by the buyer, seller,
or both. Under certain conditions, completing a Phase I ESA before the purchase can protect the buyer
from federal environmental liability, even if contamination is found. No state liability protections are
gained from a Phase I ESA.
If the Phase I ESA shows or suggests contamination, a Phase II ESA may be recommended that
typically includes soil or ground water sampling. If contamination is confirmed, the Maine DEP has a
program where the owner and buyer can receive a release from liability called the Voluntary Response
Action Program (VRAP). Under this program, the DEP will review the ESAs and the consultant’s
recommendation. If the consultant recommends no cleanup and the DEP agrees, it will issue a No
Further Action letter that releases the current and all future landowners from liability associated with
the identified contamination. If cleanup is needed and is completed, the DEP will issue Certificate of
Completion that provides the same liability protections. Both of these DEP documents are recorded
with the deed.
A seller with contaminated property who has an interested buyer usually initiates the VRAP program,
but both parties often participate as co-applicants. Sellers can be proactive and have ESAs completed
before a buyer is identified. If contamination is found, they can work with the DEP and have the terms
of a VRAP ready for any interested buyer. The key benefit of the VRAP program is that the new
owner and all future owners receive a liability release. The only limitation is that the protection only
covers identified contamination, so the more thorough the assessment, the more broad the
environmental protection.
I have been completing all phases of ESAs for almost 20 years and have worked many times with the
DEP under the VRAP program. I am also very familiar with state and federal environmental
regulations and liability. I would be happy to provide you with a proposal or meet with the City to
discuss these issues further.
April 8, 2005
2