A new study of the incinerator reveals that proceeding with plans to improve the incinerator could be even more costly to city taxpayers than closing it down. The study, conducted by PennFuture, was presented to City Council during its budget hearings on December 11. In November when the mayor presented his budget to Council, he told members of City Council that if the incinerator closes, the city would have to raise taxes by 3 mills and increase trash collection rates by 35 percent.

However, the study showed that if the city borrows the money to add the pollution control devises and expand the incinerator and then fails to attract its maximum daily allotment of trash at 720 tons a day, city taxpayers will be looking at subsiding the incinerator to the tune of $250 for each household each year for the life of the bonds. The analysis is based on the audit documents provided by the Harrisburg Authority.

Under the mayor's scenario, the millage rate increase would hike taxes by about $120 a year (for a home with the assessed value of $40,000) and the increase in trash fees by about $70 annually. (Current trash rates stand at $16.58 a month for refuse and trash disposal. A 35 percent increase would add an additional $5.80 to the monthly charge.)

PennFuture's analysis of the incinerator pointed out the following facts.

The Incinerator is Losing Money Now

• As of last December, the incinerator had accumulated a deficit of $13.5 million.
• This year, the incinerator is losing $5.49 on each ton of garbage it burns. The average fee charged to burn a ton of garbage is $57.45, but its average operating cost to burn a ton of garbage is $62.94 - a difference of $5.49.
• As of October of this year, the incinerator burned an average of 464 tons a day and has lost another $745,000.

The City Wants to Borrow More Money to Expand the Incinerator

• The incinerator does not have adequate pollution controls. It emits dioxin at 20 times the allowable level. To protect public health, the federal Environmental Protection Agency is requiring the city to either install pollution controls or shut down as of December 19.
• The city wants to temporarily limit the amount of trash it burns, so that it will be in a smaller class and will not have to install pollution controls until 2005.
• The city wants to borrow $60 million (latest estimate) to install pollution controls and expand the capacity of the incinerator. (The actual cost would be about $62.5 million when fees are included.)
• The city already owes $55,765,000 on incinerator bonds.
• If the city takes on the new $62.5 million debt for the incinerator improvements, the annual debt service would amount to $5.164 million (calculated at 5.75 percent interest over 25 years).
• If the city borrows $62.5 million to expand and receives the maximum amount of garbage allowed, 720 tons a day, it would need to obtain an additional $43.20 a ton on each ton it burns in the first year of operation to cover the debt service from the existing plant and the $62 million. The expansion would not pay for itself.
• The current market rate for dumping garbage at local landfills is $35 a ton.
• If the incinerator fails to attract 720 tons a day, the financial picture is even worse.
• If the project goes ahead and later fails because it is not competitive, city taxpayers will be liable for the debt - about $250 more for each household each year.

A group of citizens and environmental groups have banded together to form a new organization, the Coalition Against Incineration (CAI). The group is sponsoring a petition drive and series of street skits to educate the public about the hazards of keeping the Harrisburg Incineration in operation.

The first skit took place December 4 outside the City Government Center to urge City Council members to vote against guaranteeing the $25.5 million debt to restructure the bond issue for the incinerator. Citizens pretended to throw fake money into a fake incinerator to drive home the point that voting to restructure the debt and to borrow more money for the incinerator is like burning taxpayers' money.

The second took place on December 12 outside the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection headquarters at 400 Market Street to draw attention to the harm that the Harrisburg Incinerator is doing to its host community. Members called upon the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make good its commitment to close down the Harrisburg incinerator by December 19.

The city is holding talks with the state DEP and EPA in an effort to keep the incinerator operating. The mayor of Harrisburg claims that closing the incinerator will have catastrophic consequences to the city's finances.

The CAI members believe:

• The incinerator is bad for the physical health of the citizens who live near it. Reducing the amount of trash burned at the incinerator (derating) will not stop the plant from producing toxins and will not clean up its ash pits.
• The incinerator is bad for the fiscal health of the citizens who live in Harrisburg. The plant has lost money seven of the last eight years and is not a financially viable enterprise.

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor:

On Monday December 4th I had the misfortune of attending the open session of Harrisburg City Council. This was a special legislative meeting called to pass a resolution re-affirming their intentions to pay back the $25.5 million bonds to derate the incinerator. On October 31st they had passed a bill approving the sale of these bonds to raise $25.5 million to purchase software, etc to derate the incinerator so it would pass the new EPA guidelines. They have since been sent a letter from EPA telling them that what they want to do was not acceptable to EPA and the incinerator would close on Dec. 19th if they did not make the needed corrections. The bond underwriters were naturally nervous about the city's intention to repay the bonds if the incinerator closed and asked for this unprecedented session to reaffirm their previous vote. I imagine that they are worried about selling bonds to finance somet! hing that is under EPA threat of closing. I am sure I wouldn't want to buy them under these circumstances. I had assumed that this would be a forum where the residents could voice their opinions and concerns regarding future city plans and operations. What I saw was a court of pouched Australian marsupials.

The fiscal responsibility shown by the so-called council reminded me of a story about a young man who borrowed money to start a produce business. The young man bought a pickup truck and went to South Carolina where he purchased watermelons 3 for a dollar. He returned to the area and sold the melons for 25 cents each. Business was so good; he borrowed more money to buy a bigger truck. I think it is time for city council and the city residents to tell the mayor he doesn't get any more money to buy a bigger truck!

Sincerely,

Barry Warfield
Harrisburg, PA