Oil storage facilities study, Kingston, NY an analysis of the feasibil[i]ty of relocating and/or consolidating existing oil storage and distribution facilities in order to recapture valuable waterfront property

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

OIL

N
ON, AMIN.,
GS NY

An,analysis of the feasibilty of
and/or consolidating
relocating
q oil storage and
dist
ribution facilities in order to
Oec@ture valuable waterfront
pro, p ff- ty.,

IDANIEL SHUSTER, Planning Advisor, Stone Ridge, New York
0** I.Engineering, New York, New York
Ramond, Pwish, Pine & Weirwr, Inc., Tarrytown, Now York

Iq V

L
TP
692.5
S58
1982
FAC M-ES MDY

rr Wr

OIL STORAGE
FACILITIES STUDY
KING51ru , NY

DONALD E. QUICK, MAYOR

The preparation of this report was financially aided
through a Federal Grant from the office of Coastal Zone
Management, National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.
This report was prepared for the New York State Department
of State. Grant No. NA-81-AA DCZ031

U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOH)ON AVENUE
DANIEL SHUSTER, Planning Advisor, Stone Ridge, New YorCHARLESTON , SC 29405-1413
V1%
011ko Engineering, New York, New York
Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc., Tarrytown, New York
r
PrOPOZtjr Of CSC Library
December 1981

]Mika

Irk

7.ZbW

DANIEL SHUSTER

Planning and Community Development Advisor
RD 1, Box 259 Stone Ridge, New York 12484

(914) 687-0758

March 1, 1982

Mayor Donald E. Quick
City Hall
Kingston, New York

Dear Mayor Quick:

We are pleased to submit this final report on the feasibility of re-
locating and/or consolidating existing oil storage and distribution
facilities on the Rondout Creek. My colleagues and I.have found
the assignment a challenging one and believe it has successfully
identified the opportunities and constraints involved in recapturing
some of Kingston's valuable waterfront property.

During our work, we received the utmost cooperation from City staff
without which we would not have been able to complete our task. We
also wish to especially thank the members of the review committee:
Mr. Arthur.Motzkin of KOSCO; Mr. William Davenport of Walter Daven-
port Sons; Mr. Abel Garraghan of Garraghan Oil Co.; Mr. Robert
Pritchard, City Engineer, and his assistant, Jay Hogan; and Mr. James
McGarry, Assistant Corporation Counsel. Their interest, cooperation
and contributions of time and knowledge were indispensible. The
advice and assistance of Mr. David Buerle, CEIP Coordinator for the
New York State Department of State, helped make the work program go
smoothly.

We will continue to be available to help you review the study and
take appropriate action. It has been a pleasure serving you.

Sincerely,

Daniel Shuster, AICP
DS:nrm
Enclosure

Community Planning, Zoning, Site Plans, community Development Programs and Historic Preservation Planning
meniber, American institute of certo-ed Pianner,

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION

I. RECONNAISSANCE AND CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT 1
A. Waterfront Reconnaissance 1
B. Inventory of Oil Storage and Distri,bution
Facilities 4
C. Analysis of Site Development Potential 7
D. Alternate Site Concepts 13

II. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
A. Design and Location Criteria 15
B. Potential New Sites 18
C. Analysis of Development Alternatives 21
D. Implementation Considerations 24

III. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Recommended Plan 31
B. Financing Plan 34
C. Cost Benefit Comparison 38
D. Environmental Assessment 41
E. Conclusions 46

APPENDICES

A -1P
now"

ile

XrE
LA.

INTRODUCTION

Nor

itV

"MOIL

INTRODUCTION

Over the past sixty years, numerous oil storage and distribution
facilities have located along Kingston's waterfront. The scattered
location of these facilities on the Rondout Creek and Hudson River
has resulted in reduced access to the waterfront, adverse impact
ion the aesthetic environment and lost development opportunities.
The community and the surrounding region would benefit from more
effective use of this important recreational and economic asset.

The Rondout Creek waterfront is of importance as both a historic
and natural resource. The adjacent neighborhoods include a National
Register Historic District and several individual historic structures.
A number of significant industrial archeological features are part
of the waterfront environment, including a suspension bridge, a
railroad trestle and a number of brick and cement kilns. The Creek
is home to a variety of pleasure and commercial boating concerns.
The natural beauty of the wooded slopes above the Creek are a har-
monious background. The dominating presence of many oil storage
tanks dispersed along the waterfront detracts from the historic
and aesthetic ambiance of this area.

The extensive land devoted to oil storage and distribution facili-
ties also diminishes opportunities for investment in water-related
commercial and industrial uses as well as detracting from the resi-
dential environment. The City has embarked on an effort to encourage
41 such uses and to improve the climate for their development.

The City Of Kingston was awarded a grant under the Coastal Energy
Impact Program (CEIP) to study the feasibility of relocating and/or
consolidating the existing oil facilities in order to increase pub-
lic access to the shoreline and ameliorate adverse environmental
impacts while increasing economic development potential. The
following report analyzes the existing oil storage functions and
sites, establishes design and location criteria for new facilities,
evaluates alternate sites and development concepts, projects costs
and financing programs, compares relative costs and benefits,
assesses environmental impacts, and recommends the plan considered
most feasible.

ou- j@@C[Lrnfs

"H'u S rER U-

S. V

@:@A
I I@A
., g-K [email protected]
.2k,
mVig
vt

M@ 74

Y'f

,4i

49R,
-66

RECONNAISSANCE AND CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

71T

'77M

@11 IW4

Ilk
WoNd

A. WATERFRONT RECONNAISSANCE

In order to evaluate the existing oil storage and distribution
facilities on the Kingston waterfront it is necessary to
analyze the total environment in which they operate. There-
fore, a general reconnaissance of land use relationships on
the waterfront was conducted. The various uses were identified,
their frontage measured and the relationships between each
other and the waterfront examined. See Map No. 1.

From the new Route 9W Bridge, extending east along the
Rondout Creek to Kingston Point, there are 1.3 miles (7,150
feet) of waterfront in the City of Kingston. Within this
area, all of Kingston's oil storage and distribution facili-
ties are located.

Approximately one-half mile of this waterfront is occupied by
the rail line extending out to the old Hudson River Day Line
Dock. of the remaining 4,650 feet, the oil facilities are
the largest single use, some 1,800 feet, or 39% of the total.
L & M Auto Parts occupies 1,100 feet of frontage, and the
collection of smaller uses between L & M and the new bridge
takes up an equal amount of waterfront. The remainder of
the frontage is taken up by Central Hudson's gas distribution
facility (360 feet) and Creekside Marina (300 feet) which also
leases the bulkhead in front of Central Hudson. The above
distribution does not include Millens scrapyard or the adjacent
oil facility at the intersection of North Street and East
Strand, neither of which actually have direct frontage on
the water, although quite visible from it.

Waterfront property is a unique resource. Uses located on
the waterfront must be evaluated in terms of both their use
of the waterfront location and their impact on general use
and development of the waterfront.

1. Oil Storage Facilities

The oil facilities depend on a waterfront location in
order to receive large volume shipments via barge.
However, as long as there is sufficient space for the
barge to dock while unloading, there is no advantage
to having additional waterfrontage. (in fact there may
be some disadvantage since greater care must be taken
to prevent accidental pollution of the water body). This
condition is illustrated by facility #5 which has only
100 feet of waterfrontage; the actual storage facilities
are on the opposite side of East Strand. In contrast,
the full 900 foot width of facility #4 is, therefore,
not necessary to its function; its shape, long and narrow
parallel to the water, is opposite what might be con-
sidered the optimum shape.
10

OIL STORAGE
AUTO PARTS/SCRAP

MARINA
CENTRAL HUDSON GAS
70

sto

Xf-- A

to j
zl@VWA-

Major Land Uses

Volk.-

The oil tank facilities are by and large well maintained
in accord with their function. The bulk and shape of the
storage tanks, however, is a major visual intrusion.
From the water, they dominate the shoreline; and from
land, they block many views of the water. Thus, in addi-
tion to occupying waterfront which might be used by uses
requiring proportionally more frontage, the storage facili-
ties may also be considered a minor negative factor for
use of other waterfront property.

Each site is examined in further detail in Sections B
and C below.

2. Auto Parts/Junk Yards

Two auto related -parts and scrap facilities impact the
waterfront. L & M Auto Parts occupies a significant
length of frontage. Millens scrap metal, although it
has no direct access to the water, has a major effect
on waterfront development due to its visibility from both
land and water..

Neither of these uses makes any use of its waterfront
location. Rather, their presence reflects the low value
placed on waterfront land in Kingston in the recent past.
A total of some five and one-half acres is occupied by
these two uses.

The nature and appearance of these uses is a major deter-
tant to waterfront development. Despite requirements for
fencing, neither use is effectively screened from street
or water. However, the fencing that does exist obscures
the view to the water from East Strand and creates a
distinct visual and functional barrier to the waterfront.
It would be unrealistic to plan for major land use changes
without considering the means to eliminate the negative
impacts of these two uses.

3. Miscellaneous Uses

The variety of small uses located immediately east of the
new Route 9W Bridge include some uses and buildings which
enhance the waterfront and others which are unrelated.
As a whole, while not contributing substantially to the
waterfront environment at this time, this area does not
detract from other development opportunities and can be
expected to adapt to more appropriate use as the revitali-
zation effect of the West Strand area expands.

4. Central Hudson Gas Works

while not dependent on its waterfront location, this
facility is an important part of the gas distribution
system. Virtually all of the above ground structures
have been removed; and the property is well maintained
and permits views to the water. The bulkhead is already
leased to the adjacent marina and its presence is com-
patible with waterfront use and development.

5. Marinas

Only 300 feet of waterfront is devoted to this most water
dependent use of all.

B. INVENTORY OF OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

The five oil storage facilities in Kingston contain 39 separate
tanks with a total capacity of 13,660,000 gallons. (See Table A).
Nearly 80% of this capacity is used for storage of #2 oil for heating
while only 10% is used for gasoline. The largest single tank holds
1,300,000 gallons while the smallest has a 12,000-gallon capacity.
Detailed maps of @ach of the five sites were obtained. See Map
No. 2 - Location Map. A thorough field inspection of each site
was made by engineers from Olko Engineering and an analysis of the
facilities prepared. The following summarizes the findings and
conclusions of the preliminary site investigation and inventory
of the tank farms, as related to the potential relocation of
these facilities. The full report is included in Progress Report
No. 1.

a. With the tank farms presently located at 5 individual
sites, there is obvious redundancy of support facili-
ties, such as waterfront facilities (bulkheading and
offloading), pumps and piping, loading racks, diking,
oil/water separators, buildings, etc. operation and
maintenance of these facilities would be more effici-
ent and less costly if they were consolidated at one
or two sites, with a large reduction in the total
number of facilities required (see Table B) .

b. Similarly, a large number of relatively small capacity
tanks are presently being used. Operation and main-
tenance costs for the tanks could be reduced, using
a small number of large diameter tanks.

c. Most likely, a new facility, with a smaller number
of tanks and eliminating redundancy of facilities,
could be located on a smaller area than is presently
being used. Also, the value of the waterfront proper-
ties is likely to be higher than the cost of property
at a new site with less water frontage. Therefore,
it is expected that in terms of the cost of the land,
the facilities could be relocated at a net gain to
the owners. This would be offset, of course, by the
high costs of relocating or building new facilities.

d. While the general condition of the tanks is said to
be "good", many of the tanks are quite old (40 to 60
years) and will probably require major reconstruction
or replacement in the near future. Several riveted
tanks have recently been rehabilitated by welding at
substantial cost, and it is likely that similar reha-
bilitation will be required for other tanks
particularly the old riveted tanks.

e. Rather than rehabilitating such old tanks, it is pref-
erable to replace some or all of these tanks with new
tanks, if a suitable location is available. Possibly,
it would be practical to relocate a few of the welded
tanks that are in good condition to service products

s r

LAW

HAS80OUC --- ----
K
WALNUT
PARK

c
To T
m It. WON

4p
Ol

COO
cp

with smaller storage requirements, such as gasoline,
while providing large capacity, new tanks (say 3,000,000-
gallon capacity) for No. 2 Oil. The economic advantage
of relocation vs. new tanks does not appear great.
Apart from the direct costs, it is important from the
owner's viewpoint that the new tanks would have a
better resale value, compared to 50-year old rehabili-
tated tanks, if and when they decided to sell.

f. If the-facilities were to be relocated, some of 'the
existing equipment could probably be reused, including
some of the piping, pumps, valves, loading rack equip-
ment, and oil/water separators. other equipment that
is not reused could be sold and tanks that are not
reused could be sold for scrap metal. Other facilities
such as buildings, dikes, and paved areas have no
salvage value and are a "liability" in the sense that
they would have to be demolished and removed by the
new owner, decreasing the net value of the property.

g. Even if all facilities were to be consolidated at a
new site, it does not appear practical or desirable
to utilize tanker transport, compared to the present
system of barge transport. To utilize tankers, even
the small T-2 tankers (10,000,000 gals.), which are
now becoming obsolete, the tanker delivery would have
to be split with another buyer (if one could be lo-
cated), as the total volume requirements for the tank
farms are relatively small. Tanker service would
also require new berthing and offloading facilities,
which would be extremely costly (assuming their con-
struction would be approved by federal agencies - which
is questionable). The price benefit for tanker vs.
barge delivery is small (about $0.015 per gallon),
and is probably an inadequate incentive to make this
type of investment.

h. To comply with current environmental protection and
fire protection requirements, any new facility would
have to be "upgraded", compared to the existing facili-
ties.

i. occasional flooding does occur, but apparently is not
a problem in terms of structural damage. However,
being located within the "flood plain", the costs of
flood insurance for these sites is high. The new
facility could be located above the flood plain, elim-
inating occasional flooding and saving the costs of
flood insurance.

j. Ice conditions are a continuing problem for barge
deliveries at all sites. There does not appear to
be a oreference for any particular site, in terms
of ice conditions. It is a problem both at Rondout
Creek and on the Hudson River.

k. Dredging has not been a problem in the past, but is
an important consideration in planning for the
future, in view of the difficulties in obtaining
permission to dredge from Federal and State agencies.
In this respect Kingston Point is preferred, as it
is probably less prone to siltation.

1. Although it is understood that security and vandalism
have not been problems in the past, most of the sites
are unmanned and are "wide oloen" to vandalism and
trespassers (such as small c@ildren). Consolidation
of facilities would improve security and safety con-
ditions, and might also effect a reduction in insurance
premiums.

M. There is almost no area available for expansion or
consolidation at the existing tank farm sites on the
Rondout Creek, although there is some property adjacent
to the Kingston Point sites suitable for a few addi-
tional tanks.

Summarizing some of the above conclusions from this preliminary
site investigation/inventory aspect of the study, Table C lists
relative advantages vs. disadvantages for relocating and consoli-
dating the tank farm facilities.

Table A

SUMMARY OF OIL STORAGE FACILITIES

Kingston, New York

Site No. No. of Gallons Storage,by Product

2 Oil Reg.Gas Reg.U.L.Gas Prem.U.L.Gas Diesel Kerosene Solvent TOTAL

I (G/D) 1,550,000 150,000 80,000 1,780,000

2 (K) 3,259,000 83,000 422,000 3,764,000

3 (G/D) 2,816,000 2,816,000

4 A (K) 1,000,000 506,000 270,000 1,776,000

4 B (K) 1,600,000 12,000 1,612,000

5 (K) 500,000 6000000 500,000 302,000 20,000 1,912,000
TOTALS 10,725,000 683,000 500,000 302,000 676,000 772,000 1 12,000 113,660,000

G/D = Garraghan/Davenport

K = KOSCO

Note; See Appendix A for detailed data for each site.

Source: Field survey by olko Engineering and data from oil companies.

Table B

INVENTORY OF SUPPORT FACILITIES AT TANK PAINS, KINGSTON, NY

Docking Oil Office
..Facil- Fire Loading Water Storage Manned Parking
Site' No. ties' Diking *Fighting -- Arms SeEarators* Buildings office Garage

1 (G/D) Yes (new) Partial No 3 overhead Yes No No
2 bottom load

2 (K) Yes Partial Yes-Foam 8 overhead Yes No No

3 (G/D) No Yes No 1 bottom load None No No No

4A (K) Yes Yes Yes-Foam 4 overhead 2 Yes Yes Yes

4B (K) Yes Yes Yes-Foam 3 overhead 1 Yes No Yes

5 (K) Yes Yes Yes-Foam 2 overhead I Yes No Yes

oil/water separators - 4,000 gal. capacity.

Source: Field survey by Olko Engineering and data from oil companies.

Table C

ADVANTAGES VS. DISADVANTAGES OF RELOCATING

AND CONSOLIDATING TANK FARM 'FACILITIES

ADVANTAGES DTSADVANTAGES

1. Less redundancy of facilities, 1. High costs of relocation
more efficient, lower operat- and new construction.
ing and maintenance costs.

2. Smaller area required 2. Comply with current regu-
plus probable net capital lations - environmental
gain with sale of land vs. and fire protection.
purchase of new land.

3. Room for future expansion. 3. obtain construction per-
mits from State and Fed-
4. Improved resale value of eral Agencies (may be off-
facilities. set by strong local sup-
port for the project).
5. Locate above flood plain -
no flood insurance required.

6. Improved securitv and safety
(lower insurance?).

7. Eliminate future dredging
problems at Rondout Creek (?).

S. Makes available valuable water-
front property for improved
land use (Advantage to City
Basic Purpose of Study).

C. ANALYSIS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Since one major aspect of the study is to determine the
alternate use possibilities of the sites now occupied by
the oil storage facilities, the development characteristics
and potential of each of the five sites was analyzed.
Following is the two-part results of this activity. First
a general analysis of the development potential of the
entire waterfront area, from the new 9W__ bridge to
Kingston Point; and,=second, a detailed investigation
of each site.

1. General Waterfront Development Potential

Since World War II, with the decline of shipping and
deterioration of the Rondout area, waterfront proprty
in Kingston has been in low demand. Consequently,
it became home to many marginal and/or undesirable
uses, which were unrelated to or incompatible with
the waterfront setting, as other uses moved out.
In the past several years, however, this trend has
begun to reverse itself and interest in waterfront
property has increased significantly. Recent studies
as part of the City's Urban Cultural Park (UCP)
program suggest that this potential will expand in
..future years, particularly if a well planned, coordi-
nated approach to waterfront development is followed.

The economic analysis by the Cross Group, as part of
the UCP, projected a demand for 100 new housing units,
40,000 square feet of commercial space, 135 additional
marina slips and half a dozen restaurants in the
Rondout Corridor. In addition, as the area rejuvenates,
other supporting services, particularly those serving
boating interests can be expected to develop.

Two factors will have a significant effect on future
waterfront development: the future disposition of
the rail spur to Kingston Point and the continuing
status of the auto parts/junk yard operations.

a. The status of the rail line has been in flux for
the past year. The Penn Central Corp. has
abandoned the line and will either sell it intact
or have the rails removed and sold for scrap.
Both the City of Kingston and Ulster County have
expressed interest in the line due to its relation-
ship to the City's Urban Cultural Park program and

the County's Catskill Gateway Project both of
which are intended to generate tourist visitation
based, at least in part, on rail transportation
themes. A tourist rail connection to the river
at Kingston Point is an exciting prospect for
both projects.

As of this moment, no agreements on the rail line
have been reached. If it is eventually used as
part of either project, its presence on the water-
front will generate a potential for a variety of
uses. Since the rail line passes through or
adjacent to three of the oil facilities, the
opportunities for use of these sites would
certainly be enhanced. If the line is finally
abandoned and removed these opportunities will be
lost. However, removal of the barrier now created
by the line, in several instances, will expand the
sites available for waterfront uses.

b. The two auto parts/junk yard operations not only
occupy 1,100 feet of water frontage but also
create a visual impact that in itself restricts
development opportunities. The ability to work
out a feasible plan to remove these two uses will
substantially increase development potential on
the waterfront.

2. Detailed Site Analysis

Each of the five sites has been analyzed in terms of the
physical factors which would affect its development if
it were available. These factors include: size and
shape, flood hazard (see Map No. 3), water frontage,
access, utility service, adjacent uses, current zoning
and any other unique features A map of each site
also follows.(see Maps No. 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d).

Sites #1 and #2

In view of their proximity and interrelationship, both
of these sites are considered together in terms of
alternate use potential. Use@o-f one for any other use
if the other remained in use as an oil facility is
considered unlikely.

This combined site is a little over six acres in'area
and has 800 feet of frontage on the Hudson River at

.............
...... .....
.............
.. .......
..............
...............
.................. *.*..*.-...*.-...,.....,.....,..--
... .. .. ... .. . ..........
.................... @P.NE A
.. . . ....... ....
KIIYC;STO,4
STReE-r
.........
.. ........
.. ... ..
. .... ......
........ ..
......... . ... .
............ ..

-P 3 .. ... ... ... .

.. . . .....
..........
....... . .

.. ....... . . ............
............ ......
... .. ..... . ..........

.... .....
........... *.-.-'.-.*..,..,..,..*.........-..-..*.,.-,-,
. ... ... . .
. ......................
......... *..*.*..*..*.--..*..'.*..*.,.'.*..*.'.*.*.,-,-*..*.,.-'...'..-..-.'..*.-'.-,.., ... .....
.... .... ........................

0
UDSON RIVER
.. ..... ...
......... .....
............

.. .. ...

........ .... ... . ...

.. .......
......... . . . .. ...

Sr . . ....

... . . .

Z 0 N tA

. ... . . ...
......... .

.......... .
PoNCXHOCxlE S . .......
. ........... .... .
..........
........ .
.. ......
. . ......

SYCAMORE ST
TOMPKINS
ROUCr
pAFp ........... . ....
... ....... .
.. ..........
..... .. .......
. .. ........

*. . ...... .
CATHE

sl
xv..
0
014 . ...

Flood Hazard Map-
3

an extremely prominent location. Although the entire
site is shown to be within the designated flood hazard
area (see Flood Hazard Boundary Map) some portions
of the site are undoubtedly above the 100 year flood
level.

The only access to the site is via Delaware Avenue,
from the west,which terminates at the site. Not only
is this access one of the most remote in Kingston
from the regional highway system, but also Delaware
Avenue, at its low point just west of the site, is
subject to flooding during periods of heavy rain and
high tide.

The site is served by a six inch water line
in Delaware Avenue. However, the nearest sanitary sewer
line is more than one-quarter mile away at North Street
and pumping would be required to connect to it.

The only immediate adjacent uses are vacant land and
Kingston Point Park. Any development of this site
would have to respect the presence of the existing
beach and the major park facility now under construction.

Sites #1 and #2 are currently zoned M-2, General
Manufacturing. All of the surrounding land on Kingston
Point is zoned RRR, one-Family Residence.

Althouth this site has a unique, spectacular setting,
it also has a number of serious draw-backs in terms of
alternate development possibilities. Since virtually
all the remainder of Kingston Point is owned by the
City and permanently reserved for park use, any develop-
ment on Sites #1 and #2 would always be relatively
isolated. Since the area of the sites is not large, it
would be difficult for a suitable development of any
magnitude to.be created. The single access road,
subject to flooding, is also an impediment to uses
generating frequent or high volumes of traffic. Further-
more, connection to the City's sewer system would require
the expense of a new sewer line and pumping station.

Based on the above factors, it appears that this site
has relatively limited potential for alternate develop-
ment and its relatively small size would not warrant
.the substantial costs necessary to overcome several
serious obstacles to development.

Site #3

This two acre site is the only one of the five which
does not have direct water frontage, being bounded
by two rail spurs and North Street. It has only
enough frontage on North Street to permit a roadway
entrance and is essentially behind the two buildings
which are part of the Millens Scrap Metal operation.
Vehicular access from north and west is via either
North Street or East Strand. The entire site lies
within the designated flood hazard area.

Water service, via a 4" and a 12" line, is available
from North Street. A sanitary sewer line also runs
down North Street.

In addition to tbeMillens scrap Metal operation, the
site adjoins Creekside Marina and the Central Hudson
gas works, both of which are across the rail spur
and front on Rondout Creek. The site is a non-
conforming use in an RRR One-family Residence District.

Under present circumsrances, the potential uses of
this site are limited due to the nature of the
adjacent junk yard and the barrier of the rail lines.
With no water frontage it is likely that only indus-
trial type uses, dependent on rezoning, would be
-appropriate.

Should circumstances change, however, this site could
become part of a major parcel with substantial develop-
ment potential. If the rail line were removed, it
would be contiguous to Creekside Marina and offer
potential for further water related development.
Removal of the adjacent junk yard would permit creation
of a five acre parcel suitable for residential use and
a variety of waterfront commercial and industrial uses.

Althouqh the final development potential of this site
depends on resolution of several pending actions, the
location, size, access and utility service of Site #3
suggest that it could be used to realize some of the
development opportunities projected for the Rondout
40 waterfront.

Site #4

This site of slightly over four acres has the most
water frontage of any of the five sites -- 900 feet.
it is a long and narrow strip -- a little over 100

feet deep at its western end, widening to nearly 300
feet at the eastern end -- between East Strand and the
Rondout Creek. The rail spur cuts across the site
diagonally from the East Strand corner at the west to
the middle of the site at the east end.

The site is accessible along its entire East Strand
frontage from either east or west. It is served by
an 8" water line in East Strand as well as a sanitary
sewer line. The entire site is within the designated
flood hazard area.

Auto parts/scrap metal operations abut this site on
both east and west. Across East Strand is a residential
neighborhood. The entire site is zoned M-2, General
Manufacturing.

Site #4 is well located to accommodate a variety of
the potential uses projected for the waterfront area,
particularly residential and waterfront commercial
activity. The narrow western end presents some
development constraints and the adjacent scrap metal
uses present a visual problem. If the tourist rail
line becomes a reality, this site is one of the few
that could be developed with complimentary uses on
the water.

..Site #5

Some four acres in size, this site has two parts
one-quarter acre with 100 feet of water frontage
between the Rondout Creek and East Strand and the
remainder on the opposite side of East Strand.

Access to both parcels is from the East Strand; the
larger parcel also can be entered from Tompkins
Street. An 8" water line is in both streets as are
sanitary sewers. The rail line runs in the south
side of East Strand in front of the smaller parcel.

only the small parcel on the south side of East
Strand is within the designated flood hazard area.
The northern part of the larger portion is quite
steep and undeveloped. Use of this area would require
extensive site preparation.

The site abuts residential uses to the north and
across Tompkins Street. Across East Strand is L&M
auto parts. The entire site is zoned M-2, General
Manufacturing.

Use of this site for water related uses would be
hampered by its limited frontage and the separation
of the larger portion from the water. It would be
more appropriate for a use which would be enhanced
by proximity to the water without requiring direct
access -- such as residential use -- and would also
benefit by being above the flood hazard area.

D. ALTERNATE SITE CONCEPTS

The major aspect of this study is to locate, examine and
analyze sites which may prove to be feasible alternates
to the present oil storage and distribution facilities.
Design and location criteria have been developed. It is
first, however, useful to examine the range of options
which, initially, appear worthy of further study.

The options considered assume that the only feasible
entirely new sites are those close enough to the Hudson
River to be served by barge. of equal importance are
opportunities involving consolidation and expansion of
existing sites.

Four basic concepts have been identified which represent
a broad spectrum of possibilities. Set forth below is a
brief discussion of each including its rationale and
basic pros and cons. Each is also illustrated by an
accompanying map.(see Maps No. 5a, 5b, 5c and 5d).

Concept A: Total Relocation

This represents the most dramatic solution. Removal of
all current facilities and development of an entirely
new facility. The obvious attraction of this solution
is that it makes available the greatest amount of water-
front property for new uses. Its greatest potential draw-
back is the cost of the new facility and a new riverfront
loading area.

Concept B: Kingston Point Combined With New Facility

This option would retain the existing facilities at Kingston
Point and relocate the Rondout Creek facilities to a new
Hudson River site served by distribution lines from Kingston
Point. The advantage of this concept, is that it would
not require a new loading dock and would make all of the
sites along the Rondout Creek available for development.
It would, however, continue the presence of the dominant
oil storage tanks at the mouth of the Creek and require
the expense of acquiring and developing a new facility and
extending new lines and pumping capacity to serve it.

Concept C: Consolidation at Kingston Point

This option would remove the existing facilities on the
Rondout Creek and replace them by sufficient expansion of
the Kingston Point sites. The advantages of this concept
are that no new site is required and that all of the

-A V@@.
logo
0 c

wft as,
Mae

rp't4y,

............ . .

IL-i
oo-@- @4,
z:- -- -- 40 40
40
men
Sites No. 1 &2
4a

00 w

7-ANK

9@_849
TANK

TANK

logo
to logo
to
to to

__Site No.3

?q t@o o %xr crsev,
4b

s7- R E

Site No.4
.LMM
4c
r7

150-

...... ........

W4. -LL
cr)

onto
(D PLANT
Z

J rAAND

i-4 5r

existing sites on the Rondout Creek would become available
for other development. This concept, however, is dependent
on the capacity of the Kingston Point sites to accept
increased storage volume and truck traffic. It would also
concentrate all oil storage facilities at the most visible
site from the river.

Concept D: Kingston Point Expansion/Retaih Site 5

The only two, of the five sites, to be removed under this
option are sites 3 and 4. Site 3 is not'served by water
at this time and, if combined with the adjacent Millens
junk yard would create one of the largest possible parcels
on the creek -- some five and one-half acres. Site 4,
although very shallow, occupies more waterfront than any
other site -- 900 feet -- which could be used for other
purposes. This plan, therefore, has the advantage of
creating two significant development opportunities with
the least disruption of existing facilities. It does,
however, depend on the availability of expansion capacity
at Kingston Point. It also concentrates more storage
facilities at Kingston Point without eliminating all of
.those on Rondout Creek.

EXISTING FACHITY T10- R-ZMAIN,
L

ZZ L
EXISTING I! F'CII.ITY TO '= R-M--'17D
m NEW --Il F.,4-CIIITY-
'!P!k EXISTING DOCKING TO REMAIN
=S NEW DOCKING

NEW PIPEIINE

fell

2
05

Concept A
5a

EXISTING -FACII-ITY T"-;- REEM."LIN.,
X, :,! C IT T rn,
ISTING -11 -Y

CIT
m NEW C-Il Fe'_ @ITY

EXISTING DOCKING TO REMAIN,

NEW DOCKING

NEW PIPEIINTE

C
C.
, e

Concept B
5b

EXISTIl.iG FACIII-TY TO REMAIN

-.I! Fr',_CII.ITY BEE R-7-M--:V-D

NEW CII. F."-CIrLITY-
NP!k EXISTING DOCKING TO REMAIN

NEW DOCKING

NEW PIPEIINE

05
S.ST 0 0

Concept C
5c

0 EXISTING '3!-r FACIIITY T"' -7M'IY,
..L 1 -1. A. - @J n.@ "L
EXI, S- TI N G - 11 Fr.CIITr',tV me-@ ME REMC'V-D

NEW --Il F.A.CIIITY

EXISTING DOCKING TO RZEM.AIN

NEW DOCKING

NEW PIPEI.IN`E

Concept D
5d

II. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

f@@m p
lilt

Aw
"Mill"
6 J6@

A. DESIGN AND LOCATION CRITERIA

Design and location criteria for oil storage and distribu-
tion facilities fall into two categories: those related to
the construction of the facility itself and those dealing
with the design of the facility in relation to the surround-
ing environment.

1. Design Criteria

The substantial size and potentially prominent location
of oil storage facilities requires careful consideration
of design criteria to mitigate possible adverse impacts
on the surrounding environment. Such criteria, in addition
to those standards for environmental protection related
to construction and disaster prevention, include visual
impacts and land use relationships.

a. Visual Criteria (see illustrations 1-4 also)

(1) Where possible tanks should be completely screened
from such major natural features as the Hudson
River by topography or vegetation.

(2) Where complete screening is not possible, tanks
should be sited so that they do not extend above
sight lines to natural features such as hillsides
or tree lines.

(3) Tanks should be located so as not to be the
dominant element in a prominent vista, such as
at the end of a street or on the outside of a
curve in a road or a bend in a river.

(4) Groups of tanks should be of the same height and
spacing, if at all possible, so as to create
rhythmicpattern rather than a variety of discordant
elements.

(5) Tanks should be painted in muted colors, preferably
earth tones. Groups of tanks should be the same
color and any color coding limited to bands at
the base of the tank.

b. Land Use Relationships

oil storage facilities have a number of distinct char-
acteristics which can affect adjacent land uses.. How-
ever, if planned properly, the oil facilities can be
quite compatible neighbors. Following are some criteria:

(1) Since the size and bulk of the storage facilities

meow

MMW

AJI

Elm.

..too . . .
Ok

can be quite dominant, set-back and screening
from surrounding property lines is important.
When located in industrial areas, which is pref-
erable, such set-back is not as critical as when
facilities are adjacent to residential, commer-
cial or recreational uses. In such instances,
the distance from storage tanks to property lines
(including street lines) should be at least twice
the height of the tank.

(2) Access to the storage facilities should be via
a major collector street which can accommodate
the volume of truck traffic. Although such
volumes are not as large as some industrial uses,
the nature and hours of operation could adversely
affect adjacent residential uses.

(3) waterfront docking is essential for the oil
facilities. Such docking areas must be large
enough to accommodate delivery barges to prevent
conflict with other waterfront uses, particularly
docking for pleasure boats.

2. Construction Criteria

Criteria dealing with the functional aspects of oil storage
facilities are summarized below and discussed in greater
.detail in interim Progress Report No. 2.

a. Tank Construction

New tanks are of welded steel construction fabricated
in accord with standards established by the American
Petroleum Institute. Floating roof tanks are used for
gasoline storage while fixed roof tanks (which are
much less costly) are used for storage of less flam-
mable products. Buried, lined concrete tanks are
sometimes used in unusual circumstances, such as at
military installations, but are considered too costly
and otherwise impractical at'any of the potential
sites in Kingston.

b. Tank Layout

Spacing requirements between tanks and from property
limits are established by the National Fire Protec-
tion Association. Spacing depends on type of tank
construction, fire protection facilities, tank size
and diking technique. The appropriate standards have
been used in the preliminary designs developed for new
sites discussed later. (See Appendix B.)

-16

c. Diking Requirements

The basic diking requirement is that the total con-
tents of the largest tank within the diked area can
be impounded. This can be achieved by diking around
the tanks or by a remote impoundment area. Dikes
cannot exceed six feet in height. Earth dikes are most
economical, but concrete walls or even steel fire walls
around the tank itself can be used when space is a
problem.

d. Fire Protection

Fire protection systems are required only when dis-
tance from adjacent properties is insufficient. In
such cases, the Kingston Fire Department's approval
of fire protection measures is required.

e. Access

Access by water is essential to permit volume deliveries.
Barges of the size used require a water depth of 12
feet. Vehicular access via major or collector street
is essential to accommodate the volume of delivery
vehicles and to insure adequate and prompt maintenance
and snow clearance.

B POTENTIAL NEW SITES

A survey was undertaken to identify sites with the apparent
potential to satisfy the criteria established for new oil
storage and distribution facilities. Sites of sufficient
size, with the necessary access via water, are relatively
limited in the City of Kingston. The only area in which such
sites can be found is along the Hudson River waterfront. The
rugged, one and a half miles of shoreline is in only two
ownerships--the former Hudson Cement Company and the Jova
Brick Company. An analysis of these two sites, located on
Map No. 6, follows:

1. Brickyard Site
This site of about 75 acres is just north of 5eiaware
Avenue at Kingston Point and includes some 2,200 feet
of waterfront. Some 30 acres are located between North
Street and the river, while the remainder of the site is
on the opposite side of North Street.

Advantages

The brickyard has several significant advantages as a
site for new oil storage and distribution facilities..

a. The larger portion of the site, west of North Streetf
is a bowl created by many years of excavation as part
of the brick operation. This bowl, with steep slopes
on three sides at least 50 feet above its bottom, is
visible and accessible only from North Street. The
flat bottom of the bowl is large enough to accommodate
a substantial number of oil storage tanks which would
be virtually invisible from the north, west and south
due to the steep slopes and be screened from the river
by trees along North Street.

b. Although somewhat higher than the tank sites
on the waterfront, the base of the bowl is only
about 40 feet above sea level, so that new tanks
could be served with auxiliary pumps.

c. The site is served by a water line and is within 500
feet of a sewer line. Access is via North Street
to the main portion of the site, although it does
have a small frontage on Delaware.Avenue adjacent
to Kingston Point Beach. The rail spur from Kingston
Point also extends through the site, providing a
possible right-of-way for connecting pipe lines from
Kingston Point.

sgl!s aleuiellv,

'IV

wa7
4vv*v

Oft& *40b
%..No

ocoop@,
'0000 000.
4-CO0009 goo 0,0,0000so
090MO006
-r,,rl, 0 0 oo gosogogogO6
'o -C"-oCcGgog�,o
0 00 r.- o -g 0, o 0, g I., . gg 6
2gg ogogaocoo,g 0. 0
c.0,0oog-o-s ogCg0gQ'.'Og0gcg',
oo
r..
.b
.g8g goo
..g.ggg.
.ggggg
C. . 9 0
gg 00 Cc or0
oogo 00.0,occooooo,o
coogo OCOCOoccg gogogogo2coo9c,
0
g-s-S ?ggggp-Q.- -C,000000SO9090 g'O",
0020COOCCOC020
.c,2c@o gooccoo'cog c 000 00,00".
LINV71cl INaKaD : 0" 0 Cc 3@0CgogCoogo 00.2-go'cl-01,00
;Cgog -@gccgogogooo ggggg
,r,,-6 0000000000 20505,00 00c,000CO000
a , 0 0
c-occccoo-oso ogggroog
:0-0 02cgogooco "Coo ;COgoco goo
0 oog ogogCgogoO
C?-O ecooco"o."o --,c
ggRH,,O-gggLg 90.9gogg...O
"'o c ;-68020000,occ,oc
@; 0- 0 - c
g-,.,@C-80-8220-g cogoc
ccrgo 0 g . g o
C8 MCS099299200ao Rogo -,cOcccogoo
ogcgcgcccOrOcRH, ....Oooc)c
o@cR090909, Ho 9c
S
00.0 o
HOC20
ggr Or.0 c
-0 0-0@80,06 gc-SE ol
6?cgcc go
o6C-Hsoooooo-cc?6g80,0g c 0 c
90
;:--E--C 000
W-00 0c'OHH2s92gC.0c2CC.Ogogcg, co
r 0 00
0 c
c 0 0

oc
0
c c
ol

------ ----

.=z

Disadvantages

a. A potential disadvantage of this site is that, although
it has substantial water frontage, boat access is
via channels through shallow flats. It will be necessary
to dredge and maintain a 12-14 foot deep channel to
permit barges delivering oil to directly serve the site.
Such activity is costly and requires a variety of
difficult-to-obtain permits.

b. Several hundred feet of North Street at the site are
in poor condition and would probably require repair
to accommodate increased traffic.

2. Cement Plant Site

Extending from the brickyard north to the City line, this
site includes approximately one mile of waterfront and
over 300 acres within the City limits. Many years of
quarrying as part of cement production have left several
vast pits as well as spoils deposits on the already rugged
site.

Advantages

The site has several unique characteristics which affect
its suitability for use as an oil storage facility.

a. The Hudson River channel passes very close to shore
at the northern portion of the site and existing
docking facilities have ample water depth to serve
oil delivery vessels.

b. Under certain circumstances the extensive excavations
on the site could be assets. Tanks located in the
larger pits would be virtually invisible, the pits
would provide natural oil spill containment facilities,
and the rock would provide an excellent foundation.

Disadvantages

This site also has several distinct disadvantages:

a. North Street, which provides access from the city, is
in extremely poor condition and requires major re-
construction. Alternate access-from Route 32 does
exist but requires maintenance of a lengthy stretch
of private road.

b. Although the physical features of the site provide

some unique opportunitiesi they will also undoubtedly
result in abnormal construction costs.

C. Any storage facilities would be at least 75-100 feet
above water level and would require substantial pumping
facilities for barge unloading.

d. The site is served by neither water nor sewer facilities.

C. ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Four concepts for relocation/consolidation of the existing
oil storage facilities were set forth early in this study.
Subsequently, following discussion at a committee meeting,
these concepts were examined further based on the criteria es-
tablished, the potential sites identified, cost factors, func-
tional considerations and possible obstacles.

Based on this analysis, plans for three development alterna-
tives were prepared including preliminary designs and cost
estimates. These development alternatives are based on Concept A,
two versions of Concept B and Concept D as set forth in Part I
of this report. See Appendix C for preliminary detailed plans.

Alternate A (See Map No. 7a) is predicated on relocation of
all existing oil storage facilities to the Brickyard site on
North Street, including dredging and bulkhead repair necessary
to provide barge access.

The obvious major advantage of this alternate is the
removal of all storage facilities from the Rondout Creek
and Kingston Point waterfront and the availability of
all existing sites for alternate use. The new site is
isolated and unobtrusive from either land or water.

Development and operations under this alternate requires
very close cooperation between the two oil companies
since they would be sharing one docking facility and
very close knit storage and distribution terminals. The
size of the storage facilities on the west side of North
Street and the docking area and pipelines on the water-
front may well restrict the development potential of
the land between the water and North Street even though
it would not actually be used by the new facility.

Alternate B-1 (see Map No. 7b) involves the relocation
of the three sites on the Rondout Creek to the brick
yard site while maintaining the two existing facilities
on Kingston Point. The new facility would be served
by pipelines from the present loading docks at Kingston
Point.

This alternative has several advantages. (1) It would
make all of the Rondout Creek sites available for
alternate development opportunities; (2) the new site
would be located so as to have minimum visual impact
or affect on adjacent properties on the waterfront; (3)
there would be ample room for expansion at both the new
site and the remaining Kingston Point sites and (4) the
two sites may offer more operational flexibility than
a single site.

Alternate B-2 (See Map No. 7c) is a modification of the
B-1 concept that would place all oil storage facilities
at the brick yard site, although pipelines from the
existing Kingston Point docks would deliver the oil
products to the site.

The advantages of this alternative are that (1) all
storage and distribution facilities would be combined
on one site, (2) the new site is located so as to have
minimal visual impact on adjacent properties on the
waterfront, (3) not only the Rondout Creek sites but
also the Kingston Point sites would be available for
alternate development opportunities, (4) the new site
is large enough to permit significant expansion in
the future.

Alternate D (See Map No. 7d) would consolidate two of
the three existing Rondout Creek sites at Kingston
Point. The remaining site, used for gasoline storage,
occupies very little water frontage.

The advantage of this plan are related to its relative
ease of accomplishment while still achieving several
important objectives: (1) the only additional land
required are several small parcels, adjacent to the
existing Kingston Point sites, which have relatively
little development potential, (2) disruption to exist-
ing operations in terms of barge delivery and traffic
patterns would be relatively minor (3) the two major
development opportunities on the Rondout Creek waterfront
would be created.
49 Development Costs

Detailed estimates of the cost to develop each of the
selected plans were prepared (see Appendix D) and are
summarized in Table D. These include the cost of re-
locating and constructing the oil storage and distribut-
ion facilities and any necessary ancillary facilities.
The cost of other related but separate activities, such
as acquisition of the existing sites or other property,
is not included.

Although the term relocation is used throughout this
study, it refers only to the transfer of operations
from one site to another. Consideration of factors
involved in actually physically moving existing tanks
(see Progress Report #1) suggests that it is impractical
in most instances. The riveted construction of many
tanks would require excessive labor to dismantle; the
age and condition of some tanks would not warrant the
expenditure for relocation; and the relatively small
size of many of the tanks would only perpetuate operational
inefficiencies. The only major exception to this premise

is a tank not presently owned by the oil companies
the 4,000,000 gallon tank on the cement company property.
The size of this tank is consistent with the larger,
more efficient tanks included in the alternate develop-
ment plans. The feasibility of relocating this tank
in accord with one of the plans will depend on its
purchase price and a detailed analysis of the costs
to dismantle, move, and reconstruct it.

As indicated in Table D, the development cost of
Alternates A, B-1 and B-2 are within 25 percent of each
other. Consequently, factors other than cost are likely
to determine the preferred solution. Alternate D,
however, is only 60 percent of the average cost of the
other three - a difference of over $2,000,000. There-
fore, as financing opportunities are limited, the
relatively low cost of Alternate D may well outweigh
any other disadvantages.

VMZHOO
H H

Vj (n Pi
t-4 q t-I N 0 w 0
0 H " F4
g N t-I0 q
Vj a Vj tti
H (A
V z u H 0 0
0 cl 1-30 0
0 01
a 0
0

0 z
0 0 0
jo -
C:

Of
0
tj OE .4
4
Av

Z
c
T-
HASBOOUCJ@
CK WALNUT
0
PA RK
r
r
c

CAeA&

H m z 0 z 0 0
tA0
ti ti
w 0 CA (A
H

M m
H E (n
z
0 a 0
@3M
a 0
0
to

t) z
0 0
0 to
C:

to
14
N,4
tw
E
---- 'q 'V4
Av

0 I-IASljno()CK
>
V 0 WA FfUT I
PA

ST
FRI
IOU)
ST

C44Y v

f
ION
0 0 0'

DU 1-4
M M M
t-4 0 td 0
H H
!4 to
M
H E (A
t7l Z C) " 0
0 cl 0 0 0
0 t-I
0 0
0
0

0 z
0 0 0
n 10
C:
At
.0 tj
tirt4
tp

Av
Z

IIASI)RotjCl( T
WAUJ T
v
PA RK
33
c

74 7@-
I

Cm
A"A
i-3

47r@

AMrr

cxle

IL L.

0 goo

OIL SITE TO REMAIN

OIL SITE TO BE RELOCATED
i.! /Yo

NEW OIL SITE

OTHER LAND TO BE ACQUIRED
C* NEW LOADING DOCK Alternate D
Vk EXISTING LOADING DOCK TO REIMAIN
"W"" PIPELINE 7d

TABLE D

DEVELOPMENT COST OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A Alt. B-1 Alt. B-2 Alt. D
A. Land Acquisiti Ion* $ 150,000(1) $ 100,000 (2) $ 100,000 (2) $ 25,000 (3)

B. Construction

Mobilization/Demolization 300,000 280,000 300,000 220,000

Site work 515,000 434,000 515,000 258,000

Tanks and Support Facilities

- Tanks 1,630,000 1,630,000 2,585,000 840,000

- Pile Foundations - - - 1,310,000

- Pipelines to Site 187,500 1,155,000 1,155,000 -

- Other 1,975,000 880,000 1,020,000 387,000

Waterfront Improvements 1,210,000 - - -

Engineering, permits, etc. 300,000 270,000 300,000 140,000

Subtotal: 6,117,500 4,649,000 5,875,000 3,155,000

Contingency @ 15% 918,000 700,000 881,000 473,000

Total: 7,035,500 5,349,000 6,756,000 3,628,000

C. GRAND TOTAL $7,185,500 $5,449,000 $6,856,000 $3,653,000

*All estimates were derived from the equalized assessed value of the total brick yard site: $275,000
(1) Based on acquisition of western portion of site plus portions of the waterfront.
(2) Based on acquisition of western portion of site only.
(3) Based on estimated value of 251t per squ are foot.

D. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS

Implementation of any one of the development alternatives
described in the previous section depends on a variety
of factors which will determine the feasibility of the
plan. The development alternatives deal only with the
physical aspects of developing new sites for the storage
and distribution facilities. Equally important are:

(1) Development objectives for the waterfront sites
to be made available;

(2) Economic benefits to be gained from development
of the oil sites and adjacent waterfront land;
and

(3) Availability of financing techniques that will
enable both public agencies and private enterprise
to undertake their respective roles.

1. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

Even the most modest alternate plan offers the
opportunity to recycle some 2,000 feet of water-
front property. in each case, all or portions
of the adjacent junk yards are proposed for
acquisition in order to create marketable de-
velopment parcels (see Maps No. 7a-d). As set
forth in the Urban Cultural Park Feasibility Study,
"The primary goal of land use development along
the Rondout Creek is to maximize its potential
as a valuable public amenity, while continuing
to provide opportunities for compatible private
development along the waterfront."

it is not proposed here that the City create
additional public park land by relocation of the
oil storage facilities. The facilities being
creted at Kingston Point and the West Strand,
when completed, will provide a substantial re-
source of publically owned and operated water-
front parks for both passive and active recreation.
Rather, the objectives for use of the sites to
be made available fall into two categories as dis-
cussed below.

a. Land Use objectives: Sites should be made
available for development of uses which attract
visitors and which are dependent on or enhanced
by the waterfront setting. Such uses - which
may include residences, manufacture and/or sale
of marine products and services, restaurants,
specialty shops, etc. - should be compatible

with the objectives set forth in the Urban
Cultural.Park program and should support other
related businesses.

b. Functional and Design Objectives

There are presently substantial stretches where
waterfront views are completely obscured and
where the adjacent uses not only don't use the
water but also obstruct any access to it. New
uses should be designed to encourage public
use of the waterfront while partaking of the
services offered. Site design should permit
frequent views from the adjacent street through
the site to the water beyond. Public easements
to the water's edge should be incorporated in
new development as should public docking rights.

2. ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Economic benefits to the City from new development
include both direct tax revenues and indirect
benefits from new jobs created. The type and
intensity of new uses will affect the extent of
these benefits. In order to provide some estimate
of the potential magnitude of these benefits, a
hypothetical development program for the land
to be made available under one development concept
has been prepared.

The program set forth in Table E and illustrated
on Map No. 8 was developed from the market demand
and construction value projected for new develop-
ment in the Rondout area by the Cross Group as
part of the Urban Cultural Park Feasibility Study.
These overall estimates were used as the basis
for calculating development potential on the
parcels to be made available under Alternate B-1.
The results would vary under each of the other
alternates, but B-1 represents a middle range option.

As Table E indicates, over $5,000,000 in new
construction could result on the 16 acres of water-
front property to be made available. Over $250,000
in tax revenues would be produced and over 200
construction and permanent jobs created.

AL
RESIDENTI""
4.6 Acres

WN,

.1
manage

Bases

none

!solo

anon
son
ma
8 a
seems 1,
a a a gnome
a
7-,
a downwass,
a a a a a MARINE COMMERCIA'
8 0 0 a 4.6 Acres

_.7

RESTAURANT
-:67 1.2 Acres

a::::::.v MARINE COMI'-MRCIAL
............
a a a 1 Acre
RESIDENTIAL. ........ ............
4.3 Acres
0 a

aa0
a
a Land Plan

soon
9:6.
8
Xg,

TABLE E

HYPOTHETICAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
(Alternate B-1)

USE
Marine
Residential Commercial Restaurant Total

Acres 8.9 5.6 1.2 15.7

Units 70* du 30 000 S.f. 1(60 seats)
90 slips
Market Value $3,500,000 $1,300,000 750,000 $5,550,000

Assessment** 630,000 234,000 135,000 999,000

Real Estate Taxes***

- City 66,000 24,500 14,000 104,500

- School 79,000 29,500 17,000 125,500

- County 19,500 7,000 4,000 30,500

Jobs Created

- Construction 116 43 16 175

- Permanent - 27 16 43

Source: UCP Feasibility Study, Economic Analysis, Cross Group, Inc.
Daniel Shuster, Planning Advisor

*8 dwelling units per acre
**Based on 18 percent equalization rate
***1981 Tax Rates: City $105/1Q00
School $126/1000
County $ 31/1000

3. FINANCING TECHNIQUES

A variety of activities must be financed in order
to realize the proposed development program. Since
there is little likelihood of significant public
grants to undertake major portions of the program,
other financing sources must be employed to maximum
advantage to create the necessary incentives. The
program will be achieved based primarily on mutual
benefit rather than via unilateral government fiat.

Among the cost elements to achieve the various*
plans are those for the following items:

Acquisition of new site(s) for the oil
storage facilities

Purchase of existing oil facilities to'
be removed

Purchase of adjacent scrap yard sites

Construction of new oil facilities

Construction of necessary public infra-
structure to serve new oil facility sites

Construction of new private development
on waterfront sites.

a. Sources of Public Funds

(1) UDAG: Virtually the only grant program
which may be available for a project
such as this is the federal Urban
Development Action Grant (UDAG). This
program is intended to spur private in-
vestment by provision of funds necessary
to complete a feasible "development
package." Awarded on a competitive basis,
such grants must be matched at least 4:1
by private funds. Recent federal policy
has been to provide UDAG funds as secondary
financing 3@ather than an outright grant.
Therefore, a UDAG might be in the form
of a low interest second mortgage, possibly
with deferred payments, to effectively
reduce the cost of other financing.

In this instance, the UDAG might be used
toward construction of the new oil storage
facilities or to provide necessary public

improvements such as street repair or
new utility service. The UDAG funds
might also be used to assist new
development on the former oil storage
sites, although the private funds must
be committed before an application for
UDAG funds can be processed.

(2) SBA Displaced Business Loan: The
Small Business Administration (SBA) makes
available direct loans to assist busi-
nesses displaced by governmental action.
These loans are based on U.S. Treasury
Note rates and are currently at 14 percent
for a 20 year period up to a maximum of
$500,000. In order to be eligible for
such a loan, it would be necessary for
the City to declare the present oil storage
sites as urban renewal projects and
mandate removal of the existing facilities.
Purchase of the property and relocation
payments would have to be based on federal
policy and procedures.

(3) Urban Cultural Park (UCP) Program: One
of the major'objectives of Kingston's
UCP is revitalization of the Rondout
Creek waterfront for increased commercial
and recreational use. Kingston is one
of about a dozen communities designated
as part of the statewide program. Although
no direct funding for the program has
been provided, beyond that for the planning
already completed, efforts are being made
to (1) pass state legislation providing
both funding and financing tools and (2)
secure federal assistance. Actions to
remove the oil facilities and junk yards
to expand development opportunities would
certainly be consistent with the UCP
effort. This potential funding source
should not be overlooked.

b. Incentives for Private Investment

A number of tools which have been developed
in recent years to spur business growth can
be used as an additional incentive to in-
vestment in the new oil storage facilities
as well as the sites to be made available by
relocation of the existing tanks and purchase
of the junk yards.

(1) IDA Financing: The cost of financing
a major construction project can be
reduced substantially through use of
tax exempt revenue bonds offered by
the Ulster County Industrial Development
Agency (IDA). Not only are interest
rates on such bonds lower than conventional
financing for industrial development pro-
jects, but also the IDA, as a tax exempt
body which owns the project,is not liable
for real estate taxes. By the same token,
no sales tax is paid on construction
materials for the project.

Normally, the IDA enters into an agreement
which requires the developer to make pay-
ments to the various taxing districts equal
to the equivalent real estate tax. With
the agreement of the city, however, these
payments could be set at a rate below the
comparable real estate taxes and could
also establish, in advance, the payment
schedule for future years. Thus the IDA
can be used to reduce financing costs and
to stabilize and/or reduce tax payments.

Recently changes have been suggested in
federal legislation which would limit the
purposes for which such bonds could be
sold. Therefore, there will be some un-
certainty as to the effectiveness of this
technique until the situation is resolved.

(2) Tax Incentives: The Economic Recovery
Tax Act of 1981 includes a number of new
provisions which may make capital expenditures
for new or expanded facilities mor'e
attractive than in prior years. Under
the new Accelerated Cost Recovery System,
depreciation time periods have been reduced
to a maximum of 15 years from as much as
40 years under previous regulations. In-
vestment tax credits for machinery and

equipment have also been increased. These
incentives may be of importance to the
current oil storage facility owners, or
may create the necessary climate for
syndication of the new facilities. In
such case, investors seeking tax shelters
would purchase the facilities for lease
to the oil companies who would retain an
option to buy them later, when the tax
incentives have expired.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

h".

it.

161r, 1L wit,
- - wo

All

A. RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN

All of the Dreviously discussed concents for relocation
and/or consolidation of the oil storage and distri-
bution facilities are.generally acceotable in terms of
the basic land use and design objectives for the water-
front. Selection of a feasible plan, however, depends
on a combination of physical, financial and administrative
factors.

The rationale used to select Plan D, the recommended
plan, is discussed below, as are the steps necessary
to achiev,6 it.

1. Basis for Selection

Plan D is recommended as the most feasible due to
its relatively low cost, ease of accomplishment,
and minimal impact on other development.

Cost: Plan D is by far the least expensive of
the four alternates analyzed. At $3,653,000, it
would cost one-third less than Plan B-1, the next
highest alternate. Although it is likely that
pile foundations will be required, should thev not
be necessary, the cost of Plan D would be reduced
to $2.4 million, or less than half the cost of
Plan B-1. In view of the limited availability of
financing assistance, this factor is of major im-
Dortance.

Ease of Accomplishment: Plan D is more easily
accomplished for a number of reasons.

a. Unlike the other alternates no land acquisition
,is required.- Ownershio of the land on which
the new tanks wouldbe constructed is already
divided between the two oil companies or their
principals.

b. No new docking facilities or major 'pipelines
are r-equired. Therefore, not only are the sub-
stantial cost of such facilities unnecessary,
but also the lengthy and uncertain process of
securing necessary permits and approvals is
eliminated.

C. The new facilities can be staged to accommodate
the circumstances of the oil companies without
serious disruption to their existing operations.

31.

Imnact: Plan D does not imoose anv oil facilities
where they do not alreadV exist, nor does it limit
any significant develo?ment opportunities. It is
consistent with the long range Urban Cultural Park
nlans for the Rondout Corridor.

The development potential for Kingston Point is
limited, as discussed previously, due to its size
and location. The only- alterna@e use of the oil
tank sites would be for expansion of Kingston Point
Park. Long range development of the current park
site will take many years and substantial funding
(from uncertain sources) to complete. However, the
brickyard site, common to each of the other alternates
has sufficient size and waterfrontage to support
major waterfront use. Although there are several
substantial imnediments to its use, its development
potential would not be disruDted under Plan D.

2. Implementation Program
Implementation of the selected plan requires a
series of actions by public and private bodies.
Realistically, the active cooperation of most
participants must be assured if the program is
to be carried out.

Urban Renewal Designation: Although no land is to
be acquired for the new oil storage facilities,
the two existing facilities (Sites 3 and 4) must
be acquired as well as the two scram metal properties.
It is recommended that this acquisition be accomplished
under the urban renewal provisions (Article 15)
of New York State Law for the following reasons:

a. If necessary, condemnation mowers can be used to
gain possession of the property and/or to
establish, through court action, the equitable
purchase price.

b. Under urban renewal procedures, the City would
be able to establish specific guidelines and
priorities for new uses on the sites and could
select prospective developer(s) on the basis of
the overall merits of their proposal as onDosed
to just the highest price.

C. More saecific land use and development controls
can be placed on the properties to be sold than
would apply under the normal zoning regulations.

d. If disolacement takes olace as a result of
government action the businesses involved would
be eligible for SBA Displaced Business Loans.

UDAG Application: In order to secure a federal
Urban Development Action Grant, an application must
be submitted by the City after a development program
and financing plan has @een agreed upon but p-rior to
the start of any actual activities. Both the City
and the oil companies must be prepared to make firm
commitments for their share of the program, subject
to UDAG aporoval, prior to submission of the ap@)lica-
tion.

Relocation: Not only the oil storage facilities
@but also the scrap metal yards will be displaced by
the program. The entire effort is geared toward
providing alternate sites for the oil facilities.
The two yards, however, will be difficult to relocate.
Although their present location is completely in-
appropriate with respect to the City's objectives
for the waterfront, such uses do perform a useful
and necessary function. Therefore, every effort
should be made to assist these uses to find suitable
new locations. Criteria for such sites should include
good vehicular access (also rail access for Millens,
if possible), sufficient size to provide ample
buffers and screening from adjacent uses and -oublic
streets, and compatible neighboring heavy commercial
or industrial uses.

Cooperation Agreements: Although each oil company
would construct its own tanks and other facilities,
under Plan D the close proximity of the facilities
will most likelv require certain cooperative efforts
to permit the most efficient layout and operation
of facilities. Both companies own Dortions of the
necessary property; but the configuration of the
individual ownerships is not conducive to proper
design. Therefore, agreement as to layout of facil-
ities on the combined property is important, parti-
cularly to permit shared oil spill containment and
traffic flow patterns. Such cooperation agreements
should clearly define joint responsiblities as well
as individual rights.

B. FINANCING PLAN

In order to develop possible financing plans for Plan D,
the least costly development alternative, costs for each
of the essential elements have been estimated as follows
and a number of potential financing options developed
which reflect both oublic and private expenditures.

.1. Costs

a. Acquisition of Existing Sites: Under Plan D, the
city would acquire two of the existing oil
storage and distribution sites, Sites 3 and 4,
one owned by KOSCO and one by Garraghan/
Davenport. Based on assessed value, site area,
water frontage, other site features, existing
facilities and storage capacity, it is estimated
that the combined value o@ the two sites is
approximately $750,000. Prior to any actual
acquisition, detailed appraisals by qualified
appraisers would be nec@ssary.

b. Construction of New Oil Facility: As indicated
previously, construction of new faciliteis on
Kingston Point, to replace Sites 3 and 4, are
estimated to cost approximately $3,600,000. No
cost for land acquistion is involved since
the oil companies already control the site.

C. Purchase of Scrap Metal Yards: To realize the
full development potential of the waterfront,
it will be necessary for the City to acquire the
two properties currently used for junk and scra 'p,
metal sale and storage. Based on assessed value
and various site factors and improvements, the
cost of acquisition is estimate-@ at $300,000,
subject to detailed appraisal.

d. Street Improvement: Delaware Avenue, between the
railroad tracks and the oil storage sites on
Kingston Point is subject to occasional flooding.
In order to completely eliminate this condition
and insure access to the expanded facilities, it
would be necessary to raise the road bed some
three feet and improve about 1,500 ft. of street.
The City Engineer's office estimated that this
construction will-cost some $160,000 excluding
rebuilding of the rail crossing should this line
be restored to service. This cost has been included
as the City's contribution to the project.

Revenues

Both the Citv and the oil comoanies will receive
revenue from the sale of land , 'ihich will reduce
their total cost. It is estimated that the Citv will
receive $25,000 per acre, or $300,000, from the sale
of the 12 acres to be made available by acquisition
of the junk yards and Sites 3 and 4. The @750,000
received bv the oil comoanies for Sites 3 and 4 will
reduce the net cost of new construction on Kingston
Point.

Table I summarizes the above costs and illustrates
the off-settina revenues which reduce the total cost
to both the Citv and the oil companies and result in
a total net cost to the City of Kingston of $960,000
and to the oil companies of $2,878,000.

TABLE I

city oil Comvanies

Cost Item Cost Revenue Cost Revenue-

a. -City purchases oil
Sites 3 and 4 $750,000 $750,000

b. oil company constructs
new facility $3,628,000

c. City purchases junk
yards 350,000

d. City disposes oil/junk
sites for development
(12 ac. @ $25,000/ac.) $300,000

e. City rebuilds Delaware
Avenue 160,000
Totals $1,260,000 $300,000* $3,628,000 $750,000

Net Cost $ 960,000 $2,878,000

*Interim financing for this revenue will be necessary since it will
not be available until after costs have been incurred.

3. F4nancing
I -I-

The plan to finance the above costs is based on
use of the available financing vehicles, revenue
sources and incentives to the fullest extent
possible. Set forth below are two variations of
the basic financing program based on different
assum-otions as to financing terms and the size of
the UDAG.

City of Kingston oil Comnanies

Total Annual Annual Total Annual
Funding Vehicle & Terms Funds Cost Revenue Funds Cost

City Bond (8.5%/15 yrs.) $960,000 $115,000

Real Estate Tax on New
Develotment $ 70,000 $ 600,000 $ 53,000
UDAG (8%/30 yr) 53,000
IDA Bond (10.5%/15 yr)* 1,738,000 235,000

Sale of DeDreciation and
Tax Credits 540,000

TOTALS: $960,000 $115,000 $121,000 $2,878,000 $288,000

NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE: $288,000

B. City Bond
(8.5%/20 yrs) $960,000 $103,500

Real Estate Tax $ 70,000

UDAG (2%/30 yr) 33,000 $ 750,000 $ 33,500

IDA Bond (10.5%/
20 yr) 1,586,000 193,000
Sale of Depreciation
and Tax Credits 540,000

TOTALS: $960,000 $101,500 $103,000 $2,878,000 $22G,000

NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE: $ 11500 $226,000

*Assumes that bond rates will decline somewhat from current
extremely high rates.

a. City Financing

The financing program assumes that the Cit@7
will raise the $9@0,000 necessary for its -activities
via bonding. Funds for payment of the anniiAl
debt service on the bond depend upon
estimated real estate taxes generated by new
development on the former oil storage/junk yard
sites (based on the estimates derived from the
Hypothetical Development Program) and reoav-
ments of the UDAG by the oil companies. In either
case, the terms of the bond have been set so that
the City would about "break even" during the life
of the bond. After the bonds are retired, the
City would benefit by over $100,000 in additional
revenues each year.

b. Oil Comnanv Financing

Three funding sources are potentially available
to the oil companies. Although each company
would finance its own construction, the financing
analysis has been developed for the combined
private sector investment since the same methods
are equally available to both companies.

Under both options, Urban Development Action
Grants and Industrial Development Agency revenue
bonds are projected-. In addition, a third
source is available through the incentives provided
in the Accelerated Cost Recovery System under the
1981 tax act. The owners of the oil companies can
take advantage of the generous depreciation and
investment credits offered under the act (five
years depreciation of the $3,600,000 cost plus
a 10% tax credit in the first year). The extent
of these advantaaes will deoend on the individual
tax status of each owner. However, incentives
of this magnitude have an actual market value as
a tax shelter to others if the owners cannot use
them. For purposes of this analysis, the market
value has been considered as a funding source.
Based on actual recent experience, it is estimated
41 that the depreciation, $715,000 for five years,

plus $360,000 in investment tax credits can be
"sold" for between $500,000 and $580,000. For
purposes of this analysis, a figure of $540,000
has been used.

Under Option A it is assumed that a $600,000 UDAG
can be obtained from the federal government which
would be repaid to the City over 30 years at 8%.
The UDAG ratio of one dollar of public funds for each
five of private funds is likely to be well received
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The sale of the depreciation and tax credits would
00 generate $540,000 and the remaining $1,738,000
is assumed to be available via an industrial revenue
bond at 10.5% over 15 vears.

Total cost to the oil companies under this program
would be $288,000 Der .year.

O'Ption B assumes more favorable terms for both the
UDAG and IDA bond. The UDAG wouldbe somewhat larger,
$750,000, at more favorable terms, 2% for 30 years,
thus reducing repayment by $20,000 per year. However,
the public-private funding ratio is also reduced
making a somewhat less favorable UDAG submission.
It is also assumed that IDA financing for the remain-
ing $1,588,000 couldbe extended to twenty years.

The net affect of these more favorable terms would
be to reduce annual costs by over $60,000 to $226,000.
Obviously, this option would be more attractive to
the oil companies. However, it must be recognized
that such terms would depend on realization of a
verv favorable.set of circumstances.

C. COST-BENEFIT COMPARISON

An analysis of the costs versus the benefits of this
project must consider both the quantifiable dollar items
as well as the more intangible, although equally.important,
*The actual practice in such transactions (as dictated under
the "safe harbor" provisions of Sec. 168(f)(8) of the Internal
Revenue Code) is that the new oil storage facilities would
be sold to investors who would pay the oil companies the
$3,628,000 construction costs - $540,000 in cash plus a 5-year
note for the remaining $3,088,000. The investors in turn
would lease the facilities to the oil companies for five years
at an annual rental equal to the note payments. At the end
of five years, they would sell the facilities back to the oil
companies for one dollar.

elements. Following is a summary of this analysis as
it Pertains to both the City of Kingston and the oil
companies.:

City of Kingston

The City of Kingston stands to benefit significantly if
the oil facilities are relocated under the program developed
herein; the cost is projected to be minimal.

1. Economic Costs and Benefits: The financing program,
discussed oreviouslv, was designed so that the
City's actual annual dollar cost can be virtually
off-set by the revenues generated. Following the
initial financing period, the City will receive
approximately $100,000 from development on the sites
directly involved in the program. Some 175 construc-
tion jobs and 43 permanent jobs are estimated to
result from develoDment of.the sites.

The removal of the oil facilities and scrap metal
yards will greatly improve the climate for develop-
ment of other sites on the waterfront and adjacent
property and will enhance the potential success
of activities related to the City's Urban Cultural
Park program. The economic benefits of the UCP
program, which is aimed at capitalizing on the his
torical and recreational attributes of the water-
front, will be substantial. Housing rehabilitation,
new commercial development and tourist spending
were projected in the UCP Feasibility Study, to
generate $700,000 to $1,000,000 in real estate taxes
and $2.4-7.2 million in sales revenue. Removal.
of major barriers to waterfront views and access
will help the City realize this potential.

2. Functional Costs and Benefits

Removal of the oil facilities on the Rondout Creek,
together with the adjacent scrap metal vards, will
open up nearly one-half mile of the waterfront
property for more appropriate use and dramatically
change the ambiance of Kingston's shoreline. Since
the recommended Plan does notrequire use of any
new site, the development potential of such other
waterfront sites as the brickyard or cement Dlant
is kept intact.

The recommended plan will increase the concentration
of oil storage facilities at Kingston Point. Such
increase will result in somewhat greater visibility
from the adjacent beach and river and will also
generate more vehicular traffic and barge service.
However, unless one of the far more costly alter-
natives were oursued, the existing Kingston Point
facilities will remain. The modest increase in the
already existing facilities will be more than off-
set by the advantages gained from the removal of
facilities along the Rondout Creek.

Oil Companies

1. Economic Costs and Benifits

As projected in the above section on financing,
the new facilities on Kingston Point would have a
net cost to the oil companies of some $2,878,000.
The annual cost, over 3b years, would be $226,000
to $288,000, depending on financing terms. To
evaluate the magnitude of this expenditure, it is
necessary to compare it to the annual cost of the
facilities to be replaced.

The present oil facilities were built and/or
purchased over many years under a variety of terms;
actual costs, if any, are not comparable. How-
ever, one means of deriving a cost comparable to
the projected financing cost is to estimate the
return the capital represented by the value of current
facilities could generate if invested to produce
income. Based on the estimated $750,000 value of
Sites 3 and 4 and assuming a 15% return on invested
ca@pital the current facilities are "costing" the
owners $112,500 ner vear.

Maintenance and repair is a necessary cost for any
capital equipment. However, the age and type of con-
struction of the oresent facilities demands more
extensive expenditures than would be necessary for
the new facilities proposed. It is difficult to
estimate this differential, but it must be con-
sidered among the current costs. For purposes of
discussion, it is assumed that both normal main-
tenance and periodic major repairs average 5% of
total capital value per year, or $37,500. Thus total
comparable cost of the existing facilities is approxi-
mately $150,000, or $75-138,000 less than the projected
cost of the new facilities.

2. Functional Costs and Benefits

New, modern facilities consolidated on one site
will increase the operating efficiency of both
oil companies. Except for gasoline, all products
will arrive at, be stored on, and distributed from
one site. This is certain to result in more effic-
ient use of manpower, reduce duplication of equip-
ment and improve site supervision and control.

Development of the new facilities on one site
will require cooperation and coordination during
40 construction and operation. This may pose some
restraints on the individual operators. However,
the history of cooperative efforts between the two
companies in the oast suggests that this should
not be an overwheiming problem.

D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ALthough Alternate D is the recommended nlan, due to its
cost and relative ease of accomplishment, the environmental
consequences of Alternate B2 were also considered, since
this alternate has several distinct advantages. The
p@@rpose of the Environmental Assessment is to review
the environmental considerations related to these,two
plans and any restraints they may present.

1. General Considerations

There is a wide varietv of environmental matters
to be considered in the planning and design of
any tank farm facility, greatly affecting costs.

In general, permits or approvals are required from
the following:

a; U.S. Coast Guard

b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and related
Federal agencies (for dredging or waterfront
construction)

C. New York State Department of Conservation (DEC)

d. New York State Department of Transportation

e. City of Kingston - Building Department

f. City of Kingston - Fire Department

Basic environmental considerations, in designing
a new tank farm facility, are:

Dredging - A fundamental consideration and potential
restraint, particularly in termsof dredge disposal -
0 requires a permit from Army Corps of Engineers, in-
volving a variety of State and Federal agencies (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agencv, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service,
etc.).

Water Pollution - Drainage discharge must meet water
quality criteria, and requires a DEC permit. oil/
water separators required to minimize oil and grease
discharge.

Air Pollution - Fumes from gasoline storage tanks
are a parti lar concern. Air quality permit required
from the State DEC. Vapor recovery systems may be
required in the future - which will be costly.

Oil Spill Control - Oil Spill Control Plan required
by Federal Regulations, subjectto review by the
U.S. Coast Guard. Concerns are ootential spills
from storage tanks, pipelines, and barge unloading
operations.

Fire Protection - Requirements range from tank spacing
and layout requirements, to the design of foam
systems for gasoline tanks, Approval required from
the City of Kingston Fire Department, based, in part,
on the requirements of the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA Code 30).

Erosion Control - During site development and construc-
40 , erosion from cleared lands must be minimized.
A "Site Drainage and Erosion Control Plan" mav be
required by the DEC or the Soil Conservation Service.

Visual Impact - Although there are no specific criteria,
guidelines of the approving agencies (such as the State
DEC or City of Kingston) will affect size, location and
screening of tanks so as to minimize visual impacts.

Except for dredging which, fortunatelv, will not
be required in either Concept B2 or Concept D,
all of the above factors must be considered in the
planning, design, and funding of a new facility at
Kingston. They do not, however, oose site specific
11restraints."

The following sections describe the potential
problems for the two proposed schemes, based on
their specific conditions.

2. Environmental Aspects

a. Concept B2

In general, the Brick Plant Site, utilized for
all tank storage in Concept B2, does not present
unusual site specific environmental problems.
In fact, Concept B2 was selected, in part,
because of favorable natural site conditions
and minimum environmental impact.

The tank farm area would have to conform to the
usual regulations of tank sizes, spacings,
separations, diking, spill recoverv, drainage
and fire protection.

The major environmental "issue," peculiar to
Concept B2, is the construction of connecting
pipelines from the waterfront facilites at
Kindston Point, to the tank storage facilities
at @he Brick Plant Site. Realistically, however,
the potential impact from pipelines is not very
substantial.

Above ground pipelines would be preferred, com-
pared to underground pipelines. Above ground
pipelines would be less costly, because of the
irregular terrain and surface drainage patterns.
Regular inspection and maintenance work would
be easier, with access for emergency repairs.

On the other hand, underground pipelines would
probably be required in the vicinity of public
roads and crossings of small private properties,
or wherever above ground lines would be obtrusive,
disruptive to movements and subject to damage
because of exposure.

In general, the pipeline would cross few private
properties, and community opinion would have to
evaluate the environmental and aesthetic ad-
vantages of eliminating the various individual
tank farms vs. the pipeline crossings.

Accordingly, Concept B2 is generally favorable,
in environmental terms, and does not appear to
have any serious "obstacles" to its implementation.

b. Concept D

Concept D, wherein most storage facilities would
40 be consolidated at Kingston Point, is potentially
somewhat less favorable, in environmental terms,
than Concept B2. There are two basic drawbacks
to more extensive use of Kingston Point - due to:
1).-close proximity to the public beach area,
and 2) present legal designation of "tidal wet-
lands" for a portion of the property.

The large tank farm area at Kingston Point,
similar to Concept B2, would have to conform
to the usual regulations 6f tank sizes, spacings,
separations, diking, spill recovery, drainage
and fire protection.

The close proximity to the adjacent public
beach area is an important consideration in
terms of "visual impact." Adding large, tall
oil storage tanks at Kingston Point, without
screening by trees or other landscaping, would
be objectional, detracting from the "quality" of
the beach area. For this reason, relatively low
tanks were assumed in masterplanning Concept D,
screened by the existing trees, so as to minimize
the "visual impact."

The second factor, the DEC designation of a
portion of the property as "tidal wetlands," was
also taken into account in the masterplanning
of Concept D. In laying out the diked area,
for the storage tanks, it was conservatively
assumed that the "tidal wetlands" area would
not be available for development, and it was
therefore left "intact." Quite possibly this
area could be utilized, although a DEC permit
would be required.

3. Summary of Environmental Findings

Both schemes, "Concept B2" and "Concept D," are
considered favorable, in environmental terms.

The major environmental questions in Concept B2,
with the tank farm at the Brick Plant Site, relate
to the connecting pipelines.to the waterfront
facilities at Kingston Point. However, this is not
expected to be a major environmental issue, with
the available choice of installing sections of the
pipelines above or below ground.

40 The Kingston Point site (Concept D) is somewhat
less favorable, due to the close Proximity of the
public beach area, and the designation of portions
of the site as "tidal wetlands." However, these
factors have already been taken into account, to
reduce their effects, in the masterplanning of
Concept D, which is the favored plan for economic reasons-

In terms of environmental restraints, the most
difficult problems are associated with waterfront
related construction, such as landfill-bulkheading
and dredging. A very important aspect, common
to both Concept B2 and Concept D, is that dredging
and new waterfront construction, except for minor
repairs, etc. - will not be required.

As with any new or expanded tank farm facility,
resolving the environmental aspects will be im-
portant and costly. However, environmental require-
ments are not expected to be a major obstacle @or
either scheme, particularly in view of the positive
support for the project, expected from the city of
Kingston.

It is possible to cite specific environmenal concerns,
at either alternative site. However, the fact is
that any negative environmental aspect, with either
Concept B2 or D, is minimal compared to the present
situation wherein several tank farms are spread
along Rondout Creek. The environmental advantages
of concentrating the facilities at one or two loca-
tions, outweigh the disadvantages of the status quo.

E. CONCLUSIONS

This study has documented the impact of the oil storage
facilities on the Rondout Creek waterfront and the potential
benefits of their relocation. It has also indicated the
practical considerations involved in the relocation. Various
options have been explored and evaluated, costs estimated
and the most feasible plan recommended. A financing program
has been proposed for the recommended plan as has an imple-
mentation program.

The ultimate conclusion is that relocation would have sub-
stantial benefits. It must also be concluded that the
feasibility of even the least costly and most conservative
plan - the recommended Plan D - is dependent on realization
of a favorable set of financing terms and programs and upon
the continued joint cooperation of the City and the oil
companies.

In order to achieve costs within the net annual range pro-
jected in the financing plan, it will be necessary for the
City to secure a UDAG grant and to realize the estimated
tax revenues from new development on the oil facility sites.
The oil companies must be able to arrange IDA financing,
at the terms projected, and utilize the tax incentives identi-
fied. while all of the*se sources are definitely possible,
a favorable economic climate and unchanged governmental
regulations are essential to their availability.

Should all of the necessary financing mechanisms not be
realized, or should the incentives not prove sufficient,
0 assistance from the State should be sought to fill the gap.
This project is consistent with the objectives of the State-
sponsored Urban Cultural Park Program to develop the City's
waterfront and expand related economic opportunities. An
appropriation in the Supplemental Budget may well provide
the final ingredient to a successful financing plan.
0
Therefore, this study should be used as a benchmark to de-
termine when the necessary components for implementation
are in place and as a basis for evaluating new programs
or funding sources which may replace or supplement those
utilized here. By undertaking this study and identifying
0 the most feasible plan and program, the City is in a position
to act quickly when the necessary conditions are present -
either immediately or in the future.

APPENDICES

*%Was

All*

APPENDICES

A. Detailed Site Inventory

B. Standards for Oil Tank Spacing

C. Preliminary Plans for Development Alternatives

D.. Detailed Cost Estimates for Development Alternatives

APPENDIX A

0
Detailed Site Inventory

0 @

TABLE 1

'INVENTORY OF' OIL 'STORAGE TANKS, KINGSTON, N. Y.

SITE NO'.* KINGSTON POINT (GARRAGHAN/DAVENFORT)

Storage Dimensions
Tank No. -Igal.) ... Ift'.). . .'Product Constructkon

1 750,000 60'Dx35'H No. 2 oil Welded*

2 500,000 501Dx351H No. 2 oil Welded*

3 300,000 401Dx351H No. 2 Oil Welded*

4 150fooo 301Dx301H Diesel Riveted**

5 80fooo 20'Dx25"H' Kerosene Riveted

- 10'Dxl2'H Waste Oil Riveted

Total: 1,780,000

Originally riveted, reconstructed by continuous welding of
all rivets and seams.

**Planned to be reconstructed by welding.

All tanks originally constructed in 19201s.

TABLE 2

INVENTORY OF OIL STORAGE TANKS, KINGSTON, N. Y.

SITE NO. 2 KINGSTON POINT (KOSCO)*

Storage Dimensions
Tank No. (gal.) .... (ft..) - . 'Product 'Construction

1 250,000 351Dx351H No. 2 oil Riveted

2 328,000 401Dx351H

3 184FOO 0 301Dx351H.

4 83rOOO 201Dx371H Gasoline

5 221r000 32.51Dx361H No. 2Oil

6 189,000 301Dx361H

7 541,000 481Dx401H or 0

8 330,000 371Dx4l1H

9 400FOOO 401Dx431H

10 252gOOO 321Dx421H

11 1251000 22.51x421H

12 422FOOO 42'1.Dx421H Kerosene

13 - -

14 433,000 451Dx361H No. 2 oil

Total 3,758,000 gal.

6-8 Delaware Avenue, formerly owned by A. R. Newcombe Co.,
Inc., was purchased by KOSCO in 1981.

Rev. Oct. 1981

'TABLE 3

'INVENTORY OF OIL STORAGE TANKSF KINGSTON, N. Y.

SITE XOr. * I '-; RONDOUT CREEK "(-GARRAGHAN/DAVENPO RT)

Storage Dimensions
'Tank No. Cft..). . .Product 'ConstructIon

6 158r000 251Dx301H No. 2 Oil Riveted

7 327,000 421Dx351H

8 510,000 45?Dx351H

9 250,000 251Dx351H

10 1861000 231Dx351H

11 11300f000 751Dx401H

12 551,000 181Dx201H Waste Oil

13 55 ,-aoo 171Dx301H

-no-000 151Dx201H
Total 21731,OOU**

Also referred to as uformer Mobil" site.

No. 2-oil only; does not include waste oil.

Rev. Oct. 1981

'TA33LE' 4

'INVENTORY OF'O= STORAGE TANKS',' 'KINGSTOITC, X., Y.
... . ...... .... ................. ......
SITE NO.' 4A -- 'RONDOUT CREE - (KOSCO)

Storage Dimensions
Tank No. ?rc@duct Construction

1 253,000 21'Dx36'H** Diesel Welded M

2 253,000 35'Dx36'H

3 if0001000 681Dx371H No. 2 oil

4 270,000 431Dx251H Kerosene Riveted

Four.at
-9-F-000 l0tDxl51L Not used-
Total 1,776,000 (excluding 9,000 gal. tanks not used)

274 East Strand Street, formerly owned by Ballard Oil Co.,, Inc.

"Enclosed by 35'Dxl8'H fire wall.
0

TA33LE 5

nTVENTORY OF OIL STORAGE rZANKS, KINGSTON, N. Y.

SIVE NO. 4B,- RONDOUT*CREEK (KOSCO)

Storage Dimensions
Tank No. (ft.) Product Cons,truc,tion

ifooorooo 68'Dx4O'H No. 2 oil Welded

600,000 60'Dx30'H Riveted

12,000 10'Dx20'L Solvent

Two at
17,,'000 10'Dx20'L Not used

Total 1,612,000 (excluding 17,000 gal. tanks not used.)

224 East Strand Street, formerly owned by Phelan & Cahill,, Inc.

TABLE 6

INVENTORY OF OIL STORAGE TANKS - KINGSTON, N. Y.

SITE NO. 5 - RONDOUT CREEK (KOSCO)*

Storage Dimensions
Tank No. lgal.) (ft.l Product Construction

20 212,000 35'Dx3O'H Prem. UL Gas Riveted

21 500FOOO 50'Dx35'H Reg. UL Gas n

22 500,000 50'Dx35'H No. 2 or Diesel n

23 600,000 32'Dx66'H** Reg. L Gas Welded-
40
24 90"000 25'Dx24'H Prem. UL Gas n

-20,-OrOO ll'Dx32'L Surplus

Total 1,922,000

207 East Strand Street, also referred to as nformer Exxon" site,

"Enclosed by fire wall, 50'Dxl8'H.

Note: UL Unleaded, L Leaded Gasoline.

Rev. Oct. 1981

00 46

TABLE' 7

INVENTORY OF SUPPORT FACILTTIRS' AT TANK PAINS, KTNGSTON, NY

Docking Oil Of f ice
..Facil, Fire Loading Water Storage Manned Parking
'S itd NO. 'tke's, 'Di:king 'Fighting Arms Separators* Buildings office Garage

1 (G/D) Yes (new) Partial No 3 overhead 1 Yes No No
2 bottom load

2 (K) Yes Partia 1 Yes-Foam 8 overhead Yes No No

3 (G/D) No Yes No 1 bottomload None No No No

4A (K) Yes Yes Yes-Foam 4 overhead 2 Yes Yes Yes

4B (K) Yes Yes Yes-Foam 3 overhead 1 Yes No Yes

5 (K) Yes Yes Yes-Foam 2 overhead 1 Yes No Yes

Oil/water separators 4,000 gal. capacity.

TABLE 8

EXPANSION 'CAPACITY *AT EXISTING' -S-ITES

ADD'V CAP.' AVAILABLE
SITE NO. 'LARGEST TANK 'SPILL 'CAPACITY FUTURE 'TANKS' B13t;.' IGALLONS

1 & 2 See "Concept D" > 10VOOOFOOO
(See text - Sect. 2. 2)

3 31,000 bbl. 50,000 bbl. A - 21,150 bbl. (601D.)
B - 7F2OO bbl. (35ID;)
C - 14,,690 bbl. (501D.) 43jO40 (11808,000)

4A 24FOOO bbl. 378000 bbl. A - llj900 bbl. (451D.)
B - llr900 bbl. (451D.)
C - 11,900 bbl. (451D.)
D - 7r200 bbl. (351D.) 42,900 (ly802,000)

4B 25jOOO bbl. 29jOOO bbl. A - 211150 bbl. (601D.)
-B - 141,690 bbl. (501D.) .15,,840 (1,,505jO00)

5 l2rOOO bbl. 50,000 bbl. A - 28#790 bbl. (70'D'O
B - 28,790 bbl. (701D.) 508580 (28418,360)

NOTES:

1. Assumes area maximized at each site, with the earth dikes or concrete walls
constructed 6 feet above interior grade.
2. Tank height = 42.feet for all tanks, limited by "visual" restrictions.
3. Tank designation A,,.B,, C,, etc.,, refers to layouts which are not included as
part of this report.

APPENDIX B

Standards for Oil Tank Spacing

30-20 FLAMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS CODE

2. A fixed metal roof with ventilation at the top and roof eaves
in accordance with APS Standard 650 and containing a metal
floating roof or cover meeting any one of the following requirements:

a. A pontoon or double deck metal floating roof meeting the
requirements of API Standard 650.

b. A metal floating cover supported by liquidight metal
pontoons or floats which provide suffiient buoyancy to prevent sink-
ing of the cover when half of the pontoons or floats are punctured.

(b) An internal metal floating pan, roof or cover which does not
meet the requirements of (a) 2., or one which uses plastic foam (ex-
cept for seals) for flotation even if encapsulated in metal or fiber glass
shall be considered as being a fixed roof tank.

2-2.1.2 Vertical tanks having a weak roof-to-shell seam and storing
Class IIIA liquids may be located at one-half the distance specified
in Table 2-1, provided the tanks are not within a diked area or
drainage path for a tank storing a Class I or Class II liquid.

2-2.1.3 Every aboveground tank for the storage of Class I, Class II
or Class IIIA liquids, except those liquids whith boil-over
characteristics and unstable liquids, operating at pressures exceeding
2.5 pisg (17.24 kPa) or equipped with emergency venting which will
permit pressures to exceed 2.5 psig (17.24 kPa), shall be located in
accordance with Table 2-2.

2-2.1.4 Every aboveground tank for storage of liquids with boil-
over characterisics shall be located in accordance with Table 2-3.

(a) Liquids with boil-over characteristics shall not be stored in
fixed roof tanks larger thatn 150 ft (45.7 m) diameter, unless an ap-
proved inerting system is provided on the tank.

2-2.1.5 Every aboveground tank for the storage of unstable liquids
shall be located in accordance with Table 2-4.

2-2.1.6 Every aboveground tank for the storage of Class IIIB liq-
uids, excluding unstable liquids, shall be located in accordance with
Table 2-5 except when located within a diked area or drainage path
for a tank or tanks storing Class I or Class II liquids. When a Class
IIIB liquid storage tank is within the diked area or grainage path for
a Class I or Class II liquid, 2-2.1.1 or 2-2.1.2 shall apply.

TANK STORAGE 30-21

Table 2-1
Stable Liquids (Operating Pressure 2.5 pisg or Less)(17.24 kPa)

Minimum Distance in Minimum Distance in
Feet for Property line Feet for Nearest Side of
Which is or can be built Any public way or from
Type of Protection Upon, including the Nearest important
Tank opposite side of a public Building on the same
way and shall be not property and shall be
less than 5 feet Not less then 5 feet

Protection 1/2 times diameter of 1/8 times diameter of
Floating for tank tank
Roof Exposure*
[see Diameter of tank but
2-2.1.1(a)1 need not exceed 175 1/8 times diameter of
None feet tank

Approved
foam or
inerting
Vertical system on 1/2 times diameter of 1/8 times diameter of
with tanks not tank tank
weak exceeding
roof 150 feet in
to diameter**
Shell
Seam Protection
(see for Diameter of than 1/3 times diameter of
2-2.1.1) Exposures* tank

2 times diameter of tank
None but need not exceed 350 1/3 times diameter
feet of tank

Approved
Horizontal inerting
and system on
Vertical the tank 1/2 times Table 2-6 1/2 times Table 2-6
with or approved
Emer- foam system
gengy on vertical
Relief tanks
Venting
To limit Protection
Pressurce for Table 2-6 Table 2-6
to 2.5 paig Exposures*

None 2 times Table 2-6 Table 2-6

SI units: 1 Ft= 0.3048m.

*See definition for "Protection for Exposures."

**For tanks over 150 ft in diameter use "Protection for Exposures" of "None" as ap-
plicable.

30-24 FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS CODE

Table 2-5 Class IIIB liquids

Minimum distance in Minimum distance in
feet from property line feet from nearest side of
Capacity Gallons which is or can be built any public way or from
upon, including the nearest important
opposite side of a public building on the same
way property

12,000 or less 5 5
12,001 to 30,000 10 5
30,001 to 50,000 10 10
50,001 to 100,000 15 10
100,001 or more 15 15

Si units: 1 ft= 0.3048m ; 1 gal= 3.785 L.

Table 2-6
Reference Table for Use in Tables 2-1 to 2-4

Minimun distance in Minimum distance in
feet from property line feet from nearest side of
Capacity tank which is or can be built any public way or from
Gallons upon, including the nearest important
opposite side of a public building on the same
way property

275 or less 5 5
276 to 750 10 5
751 to 12,000 15 5
12,001 to 30,000 20 5
30,001 to 50,000 30 10
50,001 to 100,000 50 15
100,001 to 500,000 80 25
500,001 to 1,000,000 100 35
1,000,001 to 2,000,000 135 45
2,000,001 to 3,000,000 165 55
3,000,001 or more 175 60

SI units: 1 ft= 0.3048m; 1 gal= 3.785 L.

2-2.1.7 Where two tank properties of diverse ownerships have a
common boundary, the authority having jurisdiction may, with the
written consent of the owners of the two properties, substitute the
distances provided in 2-2.2.1 through 2-2.2.1 for the minumum
distance set forth in 2-2.1

2-2.1.8 Where end failure of horizontal pressure tanks and vessels
can expose property, the tank shall be placed with the longitudinal
axis parallel to the nearest important exposure.

TANK STORAGE 30-25

2-2.2 Spacing (Shell-to-Shell) Between any two adjacent
aboveground tanks.

2-2.2.1 Tanks storing Classs I,II or IIIA shable liquids shall be
separated om accordance with Table 2-7. expect as provided in
2-2.2.2

2-2.2.2 Crude petroleum tanks having individual capacities not ex-
ceeding 126,000 gal(3,000 barrels), when located at production
facilities in isolated locations, need not be seperated by more than 3
ft(0.91 m).

2-2.2.3 Tanks used only for storing Class IIIB liquids may be
spaced no less than 3 ft(0.91 m) apart unless within a diked area or
drainage path for a tank storing a Class I or II liquid, in which case
the provisions of Table 2-7 apply.

2-2.2.4 When tanks are in a diked area containing Class I or Class
II liquids, or in the drainage path of Class I or Class II liquids, and
are compacted in three or more rows or in an irregular pattern,
greater spacing or other means may be required by the authority
having jurisdiction to make tanks in the interior of the pattern ac-
cessible for fire fighting purposes.

Table 2-7
Minimum Tank Spacing (Shell-to-Shell)

Fixed roof tanks
Floating roof
tanks Class I or Ii Class IIIA
liquids liquids

1/6 sum of adja- 1/6 sum of adja- 1/6 sum of adja-
All tanks not over cent tank dis- cent tank di- cent tank di-
150 feet diameter ameter but not ameters but not ameters but not
less than 3 feet less than 3 feet less than 3 feet

Tanks larger than
150 feet diameter

If remote im-
pounding is in 1/6 sum of adja- 1/4 sum of adja- 1/6 sum of adja-
accordance with cent tank di- cent tank di- cent tank di-
2-2.3.2 ameters ameters ameters

If impounding is
around tanks in 1/4 sum of adja- 1/3 sum of adja- 1/4 sum of adja-
accordance with cent tank dis- cent tank di- cent tank di-
2-2.3.3 ameters ameters ameters

SI units: 1 ft= 0.3048 m.

APPENDIX C.

Preliminary Plans for Development Alternatives

\DP

TA ki, Z- @7- u)
14C> H ri

W-osc-c)
!LS'O. 41L ri
S02, 0

SID' IP @ 4z,
r-17,000

eS-
K05co
7
'Ab
0
I Z, 0 jo0o CAA, f-7
C;I:o* IP, 47'
erdo, 00 Z.,A
TZo"'w,-$o 42 ',1-

14 OIL

'TANK b2 -+ ID 1 0
GO, q@ . @tQH

Fj WMVY TURml
MOLPHIM

e
STIM C-05T-*7.0 64'1LL

lop F1

s T rA@C_ T. m

sso
SM Sao r.0-

Sol, ; 14,
12
Z c*S.420- aj^@L-. pKr-GUL-A,0K J@
N4 2 OIL.

TH Ql.@E Kosco

6&,* @ 3&p
7e.6 &0 cq^-.
V.A.Q r@^304-...-C
12 Z'H-
oil\
Ku"ASTOM flo- r
(W - -Z Om- F-L@v -A -&
it IAXA@GPNS OF Cj,^S04-P'JC)
4t it

COST - *G A -

\CP

Swpf"Qlw T lr^lC T4%
14,CiM
r OFERAT1014M.
X

O'S C. C,
ss 0. As, H.
W=C> SOS. 4100 A@_

a 2 -P 4V H.
40.4r.4 r-17,000 C.^J-.
--,oo C",

Kosco 6pawArso"s

4-2'M

42'
006. 000 r@^_

riplz Uwe% F-wom
WA 0C kitjAsro" Powr
I I . (". z o, rLj % -a
4C%W-^J:_-PwA OF 43)A%O#- C)

fialT

7=-- 71
._ETA 71-7 Hi< E r,' H (5, H

74WK-D Iz

J4 z &I -L -

CiAL.
-0 L
-7 W4 FiZo
1z_ 5e Q e

TA K
_WETLAMD
R SSA
TANK

TANK
0

TANK

At
(Aj : -
TANK
....IP
TANK

J TANK

loo,
TANK

IFUTUKE 0I w S /T-.4@. tZ4
TANK
STc" r-`A":;i s- Ar-mAt .-If= D

M WE-
7p kcP 150 2_6D r- 7
_g@571MATEC) W57 3-CMILLION
19,GME ill co r- @ser

APPENDIX D

-is
Detailed Cost Estimates
for
Development Alternatives

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE NO. 1

(Sheet I of 3)

'CONCEPT A

Item Unit Cost Quantity Subtotal Total

1. MOBILIZATION/DEMOKLUATION L.S. $ 300yOOO $ 3001000

2. SITE WORK

a. Borings and Soil Testing L.S. 20F000

b. Clearing, Grubbing and
Disposal $1,500 12 Acres 181000
c. Erosion Control L.S. 91000

d. Earthwork $5 258000 CY 125,000
e, Grading $1 40j000 SY 40,000
f. Drainage System L.S. 25,,000
g. Earth Dikes and Facing $60 2,500 LF 1501000
h. Pavement $12 10,000 SY 120,000
i. Landscaping L.S. 8j'000

$ 515,000

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE NO. 1

(Sheet 2 of 3)

'CONCEPT A

Item Unit Cost Quantity Subtotal Total

3. TANKS AND SUPPORT FACILITIES

a. Tank 1 (6,317,000 gal.) L.S. $ 750j000
b. Tank 2 (4,,834,000 gal.) L.S. 590,000
ce Tank 3 (1,210,000 gal.) L.S. 225,000
do Tank 4 888,000 gal.) L.S. 180,000
e. Tank 5 2221000 gal.) L.S. 80"000
f. Tank 6 99,000 gal.) Los. 50,000
go Tank 7 888,000 gal.) L.S. 290,000
h. Tank 8 ( 302,000 gal.) L.S. 180,000
i. Tank 9 ( 617,000 gal.) L.S. 240,000
j. Piping and valves L.S. 460j000
k. Fire Protection L.S. 150,000

1. Environmental Protection
(Oil/Water Sep., etc.) L.S. 40,,000
m. Loading Racks (Relocate) L.S. 30,000

(Continued)

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE NO. 1.

(Sheet 3 of 3)

CONCEPT A

Item Unit Cost Quantity Subtotal Total

n. Miscellaneous (Utilities,,
etc.) L.S. $400FOOO

o. Pipelines $250 $750/L.F. 187,500

p. Bulkheading/Dock Facil-
ities) L.S. 360,000

q. Dredging $10 85F000 CY 850,000

$5F0021500

4. OTHER

A. Engineering Fees, Envi-
ronmental Impact,
Permits, etc. LeS. $300,000 $300,000

$6r1171500
918,000
500

TOTAL COST SAY $7.0 MILLION

CONSTRUCTIONCOST'ESTIMATE NO. 2

(Sheet 1 of 3)

CONCEPT Bl

item Unit Cost Quantity Subtotal Total

1. MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION L,S. 280,000 280,000

2. SITE WORK

a. Borings and Soil Testing L.S. 16,000

b. Clearing, Grubbing and
Disposal $1j,500 10 Acres 150,000

c. Erosion Control L.S. 5,,000

-d. Earthwork $ 5 20,000 CY 100,000

e. Grading $1 30,000 SY 30,000

f. Drainage System L.S. 20,000

g. Earth Dikes and Facing $60 2,000 LF 120,000

h. Pavement $12 10,000 SY 120,000

i. Landscaping L.S. 8"000

$ 434,000

CONSTRUCTION 'COST ESTIMATE NO., 2

(Sheet 2 of 3)

CONCEPT Bl

Item Unit Cost Quantity Subtotal Total

3. TANKS AND SUPPORT FACILITIES

a. Tank BI-1 (3,045,000 gal.) L.S. 440,000
b. Tank B1-2 (3,553,000 gal.) L.S. 480FOOO
c. Tank B1-3 ( 888,000 gal.) LeS, 290,000.
d. Tank BI-4 ( 302,000 gal.) L.S. 180,000
e. Tank BI-5 ( 617,000 gal.) L.S. 240,000
f. Piping and Valves L.S. 350,000
g. Fire Protection L.S. 120f000

h. Environmental Protection
(Oil/Water Sep.r etc.) L.S. 35,000

i. Loading Racks (Relocate) L.S. 25,000
j. Miscellaneous (Utilities, etc.) L.S. 350,000
k. Pipelines $350 3,300 LF $1,155,000

$3r665r000

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE NO. 2

(Sheet 3 of 3)

'CONCEPT Bl

Item Unit Cost Quantity Subtotal Total

4. OTHER

a, Engineering Fees, Envi-
ronmental Impact,
Permits,,-etc. L.S. $ 270,000 $ 270,000

$4,649,000
Contingency 700,000
$513491000

TOTAL COST SAY $5.4 MILLION

CONSTRUCTION COSTESTIMATE No. 3

(Sheet I of 3)

CONCEPT B2

Item Unit Cost Quantity Subtotal Total

1. MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION L.Se 300,000 300,000

2. SITE WORK

a. Borings and Soil Testing L.S. 20,000

b. Clearing, Grubbing and
Disposal $1,500 12 Acres 18,000
c. Erosion Control L.S. 9,000
d. Earthwork $5 25,000 CY 125,000
e. Grading $1 40,000 SY 40,000
f. Drainage System L.S. 250,000
g. Earth Dikes and Facing $60 2j500 LF 150,000
h. Pavement $12 10,000 SY 120,000
i. Landscaping L.S. 80,000

$ 515,000

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE NO. 3

(Sheet 2 of 3)

.CONCEPT B2

Item Unit.jCost Quantity Subtotal Total

3. TANKS AND SUPPORT FACILITIES

a. Tank B2-1 (6,317,000 gal.) L.S. 750r000

b. Tank B2-2 (4,834,000 gal.) L.S. 590,000

ca Tank B2-3 (1,210,000 gal.) L.S. 225,000

d. Tank. B2-4 888,000 gal.) L.S. 180,000

e. Tank B2-5 222,000 gal.) L.S. 80"000

f. Tank B2-6 99,000 -gal.) L.S. 50,000

g. Tank B2-7 888,000 gal.) L.S. 290,000

h. Tank B2-8 302,000 gal.) L.S. 180,000

i. Tank B2-9 617,000 gal.) L.S. 240pOOO

j. Piping and Valves L.S. 400,000

k. Fire Protection L.S. 150,000

1. Environmental Protection
(Oil/Water Sep., etc.) L.S. 40,000

m. Loading Racks (Relocate) L.S. 30,000

n. Miscellaneous (Utiliti.es, etc.) L.S. 400,000

o. Pipelines $350 3,300 LF $1,155,000
$4,760,000

CONSTRUCTIONCOST ESTIMATE 3

(Sheet 3 of 3)

CONCEPT B2

Item Unit Cost Quantity Subtotal Total

40 OTHER

a. Engineering Fees, 9nvi-
ronmental Impact,
Permits, etc. L.S. $ 300fOOO $ 300,000

$5f875,000
Contingency (15%) 870,000
0 0 0

TOTAL COST SAY $6.7 MILLION

'CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE NO.'4

(Sheet I-of 3)

CONCEPT D

Item Unit Cost Quantity Subtotal Total

1. MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION L.S. 220FOOO 220,000

2. SITE WORK

a. Borings and Soil Testing L.S. 12,,000

b. Clearing, Grubbing and
Disposal $3,000 4 Acres 12,000

c. Erosion Control L.S. 30,000

d. Demolition and Removal L.S. 30,000

e. Earthwork $5 5,000 CY 25,000

f. Grading $1 15,000 SY 15,000

g. Drainage System L.S. 28,000

h. Earth Dikes and Facing $60 11900 LF 114,000

i. Pavement $12 500 SY 6FOOO

j. Landscaping L.S. 4,000

k. Fencing $14 650 LF 9,100

$ 258,100

'CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE NO.' 4

(Sheet 2 of 3)

'CONCEPT D

Item Unit Cost Quantity Subtotal Total

3. TANKS AND SUPPORT FACILITIES

a. Tank Dl (3,553,000 gal.) L*S. 440FOOO

b. Pile Foundations - Tank Dl L.S. 670,000

ce Tank D2 (3,045,000 gal.) L.S. 400,000

d. Pile Foundations - Tank D2 L.S. 640,000

e." Piping and Valves L.S. 60,000

f. Fire Protection L.S. 70,000

g. Environmental Protection
(oil/water Sep., etc.) L.S. 20,000

h. Loading Racks (relocate) L.S. 17,000

i. Miscellaneous (Utilities, etc.) L.S. 220,000

$2,537,000

CONSTRUCTION 'COST ESTIMATE NO. .4

(Sheet 3 of 3)

CONCEPT D

Item Unit Cost Quantity Subtotal Total

4. OTHER

.a. Engineering Fees, Envi-
ronmental Impact,
Permits, etc. L.S. $ 140,000 $ 140,000

$30,155,100
Contingency (15%) 473000.
$3 Ibzu , 100

TOTAL COST SAY $3.6 MILLION

DATE DUE,

GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED IN V.S.A.

3 6668 14108 0442
ILL