HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Special Code and Sanitation Committee 1983-01-25BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
✓ Special Code & Sanitation Meeting
January 25, 1983
Attending: Trustees Dannels, Hix, Houston, Wagner and Wood,
Town Administrator Hill, Public Works Director
Widmer
Also Attending:
Larimer County Commissioners Thayer, Hotchkiss,
Lloyd, Larimer County Public Works Director
Smith
ESTES PARK LANDFILL:
Commissioner Hotchkiss reported that the Estes Park Landfill is
a few months from being full. It is projected that by May or June
we will be operating on a day-by-day basis. Commissioner Hotchkiss
stated that Section 16 was the only feasible fill in the Estes
Park area. The other alternative is the construction of a transfer
station, which could be set up as a County, public or private
operation. The landfill will be full before a permanent solution
can be worked out and private enterprise will probably have to
take over until a solution is derived.
A summary of the Landfill and Transfer Station Comparisons were
handed out (a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these
proceedings). A lengthy discussion followed on the advantages
and disadvantages of each solution. If Section 16 does work, we
will need a road and bridges to get up there as well as an easement
through the MacGregor Ranch. Section 16 would have a life of approxi-
mately 34 years.
Rex Smith, Larimer County Public Works Director, stated that
incineration had been considered but it would cost $31-43 per ton,
Rocky Mountain National Park would probably not issue a permit,
and all the non -burnable material would still have to be hauled
to a landfill.
The Commissioners suggested that proposals be requested from the
private sector to see how much it will cost to haul solid waste.
Commissoner Hotchkiss stated that the other counties around us
have their solid waste handled by the private sector and it is
paid for by user fees. If Section 16 is not available, this may
be the only solution.
Larimer County is receiving in revenue only 25-30% of the actual
cost of the Estes Park Landfill operation. People in Estes Park
have been paying the same fees as the people in Fort Collins and
Loveland and ineffect the valley users are subsidizing our operation.
The County fee schedule with a private operation would increase
County landfill rates up to three times the present rate. Mr.
John Elley, A-1 Trash Service, stated that 18% of his operation
is the cost he pays for the landfill. If his cost goes up three
times, he will need to pass the increase on to his customers.
The Commissioners suggested that the Town Board and Commissoners
meet again in 30 days and start working in the direction we intend
to pursue. They also asked about advertising for proposals - Rex
Smith would put the guidelines together and then we would have
a more definite answer on the cost to haul.
Administrator Dale Hill and Director Rich Widmer will meet with
Rex Smith on January 28, 1983, to start the Town's input to the
solution. The Board of Trustees will meet to determine the direction
to pursue and then get back to the Commissioners with a meeting
date.
411110
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Code & Sanitation Meeting - Janugry 25, 1983 - Page 2
OTHER BUSINESS - LIBRARY COMMITTEE:
Commissioner Nona Thayer stated that Larimer County will be
appointing a Committee to look into user fees for nonresidents
using the public librarys in Larimer County. She asked Estes Park
to suggest someone for that Committee in order to help develop
a policy for all of Larimer County.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
l
l
7
7
7
1
TABLE 4
LANDFILL AND TRANSFER STATION COMPARISON
Landfill
Advantages
1. One centralized collection and
disposal area allowing increased
control of waste management
practices.
2. Easily accomodates bulky and
demolition wastes.
3. Fairly continuous monitoring by
operator/gatekeeper of waste
types (i.e., .identification of
sludges, hazardous wastes, etc.,
that are not permitted for
disposal at landfill).
4. Lower unit (per ton) costs*.
5. Economy of scale results from
increased waste volume*.
Advantages
Transfer
Disadvantages
1. Increased initial siting re-
quirements (geohydrological
study, land procurement, suffi-
cient suitable cover mateial,.
access roads and bridges,
etc.)*.
2. Potential adverse environmental
impacts and associated monitor-
ing costs*.
3. Increased compliance activities
and associated man-hours and
expenses.
4. Public relations --both in siting
and operating*.
5. High site development costs*.
6. Aesthetics*.
Station
1. Provides
handling
seasonal
increased flexibility
of widely -fluctuating
waste volumes*
2. Increased proximity to users
3. Reduced regulatory requirements
and associated costs
4. Potentially allows for some
degree of source separation of
resource recovery or recycling
programs implemented
5. Small potential for serious
adverse environmental impacts*
6. Lower initial capital cost*
Disadvantages
in 1. Cannot easily accomodate bulky
wastes
* Particularly relevant to Estes Park.
2. High potential for blowing lit-
ter, odors, vectors, and burning
(unless personnel present to
collect fees) and aesthetic
problems*
3. Increased use of public highways
by large vehicles and potential
for increased number of traffic
accidents*
4. Increased unit cost*
5. Little economy of scale results
from increased waste volume
SUBTOTAL
o Engineering and Design (15% of Capital Cost)1
TOTAL CAPITAL
AMORTIZED CAPITAL1
Annual Operating Costs
TABLE 3
PRELIMINARY TRANSFER STATION COST ESTIMATE'
Assumed Design Parameters
o 21 tons per trip (60 yd3)
o 331 trips per year (assume 75% of full load each trip)
o 90 miles average roundtrip distance to landfill
o 5 hours per trip
o 4.6 miles per gallon
o $1.00 per gallon --fuel costs
o $1.00 per cubic yard --tipping fee at landfill
Capital Costs
Capital Cost
o Land --Assume Old Landfill Site is Usedl $ 0
o Site Preparation, Building Construction) 40,000
000
o Fencing
o Miscellang2ous tools, utilities, etc.1 3,000
o Equipment --2 stationary compactors 17,000
2 tractor trailers 100,000
2 transfer trailers 80,000
$245,000
37,000
$282,000
$ 50,000
o Labor, including fringes $ 17,000
1 foreman--40 hrs/week @ $8/hr. 29,000
2 driver/operators--40 hrs/week @ $7/hr.
o Transfer Site Operation and Maintenance 25,000
@ 10% of Capital Cost
o Fuel--331 x 90 miles/trip x 6,000
($1.00/gal - 4.6 mpg)
o Tipping Fees
331 trips/yr. x 60 yd3/trip x $1.00/yd3 20,000
$ 97,000
$147,000
$28.27
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
COST PER TON
1 Amortized at 10% interest over 20 years.
2 Amortized at 10% interest over 7 years.
- 18
r
f
7
J
TABLE 2
PRELIMINARY SECTION 16
LANDFILL COST ESTIMATE'
Item
CAPITAL COSTS
Unit Cost Units Total Cost
Land2
Site Development (includes labor)
Road and Bridge Construction'
(all-weather road) -- Lump Sum (L.S.) $160,000
Shelter $3,600/unit 1 3,600
Fencing (stock) 4.10/ft. 7,200 29,500
Gate 500/unit 1 500
Diversion Ditches 4/ft. 7,200 28,800
Wells (monitoring) 500/well 4 2,000
Miscellaneous (utilities,
insurance, tools) L.S. 10,000
SUBTOTAL: Site Development 5214,400
Equipment
Dozer (D-6) 116,000/unit 1 S116,000
Engineering, Design (15% of
site development cost) L.S. S35,200
TOTAL $385,600
AMORTIZED4 $55,500
OPERATING COSTS
Equipment 0peration5
Cover Prestripping S1/cy . 4,000 $ 4,000
Spreading and Compacting .11/cy 40,000 4,400•
Covering 1/cy 4,000 4,000
Maintenance (roads,
ditches, grounds) L.S. 6,000
Labor, Operator
(3 full-time employees) 7/hr. 6,240 43,700
Revegetation 1,500/acre 1.3 2,000
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
$64,100
$119,600
COST PER TON 523.00
1 References: Means' Building Construction Cost Data 1981 and 1981 Dodge Guide
to -Public Works and Heavy Construction Costs. •
2 If the State Land Board approves the site for usage as a landfill, it is
anticipated that a relatively small yearly leasing fee will be charged to
Larimer County.
3 As access to the proposed site consists of two alternatives equally viable at
this point in time; the road and bridge cost herein is the average cost of the
two access routes.
4 All capital improvements amortized at 10% interest over 20 years except for
the dozer which is estimated to have a life of 7 years.
5 Includes overhaul, fuel, parts, and.maintenance.
- 17 -