|
J
<br /> Sf)Lla W�CS7'"E WC)RK GRQClP St�/G�RECQMM�ENL1A7Et?N.S
<br /> BAS(5 FOR RECQMltrlEN�ATf01V—FIN,�14tCtA1 PERFOItMANC�
<br /> The Work Group evatuated the projected �pitat and expected casts and operatiana!
<br /> efF':ciencies for ttre tina[recommendation. 7�he capita)and operating projett+ons developed by
<br /> staff and consu�tant are the basis for the Work Group reeommendation and are endorsed 6y
<br /> the Wor�c 6roup as a starting point for moving forward_
<br /> Efficiencies and cost savings are key to the Work Group's fina[recommendation. The$220,8U5
<br /> in projeeted sauings in hauling labor and equipment(2010 dollars)shgwn in Tabte 2 is reatized
<br /> from a projected reduction of 74,00(}miies each year in hauting.
<br /> These savings are in addition tn $14O,OOQ in avoided hauling casts incsease that cautd
<br /> otherwise 6e ex�cted if na changes are made to the S{NCCs or hauling scheduies once the
<br /> tar�dfil!doses—that wil!be avnided with implementation of the final recomrrsendat€an.
<br /> Ta6te z:Finat Ifer.ommendativn operating cosr srrvirras
<br /> �Phen Fully Imgte»terat�d)
<br /> -,� ru�^ y�� 4�',� r ;�,'�' ,�. �i����+.«°a 'Y.e..�7 ,*��;�, S �� �ss� � �.'.
<br /> � ,� �' ����� z� � r i `� � �� � x ��1�� za. �y- �
<br /> � � �
<br /> t: � �,�.,.�'`„��`*s�„ r��_� ,�. �a �.. ���,, _
<br /> Ofmct COStsG�
<br /> Rcduced MSLN and Eulky TriRS $ 65,419 Reduccd Fuc�JMaint fmm from 74 213 fewer truck milcs
<br /> �6crbar Gosts
<br /> Reducad MSWJBukky Collect9on labor $ 74,679 1.3 Eess dri�et FTE rleeci?d,inc►udin,�,6enefrts
<br /> Reduced flCC CoNection labor $ 15,583 U.3 lass dr6ver FTE needed,indudtng t�nefKs
<br /> fquipment Swings
<br /> Eliminatr_?Fmnt I�ad Tn�rkS � �'1,R76 Fliminatr�7@$77(],550 rar,h($45,913 artniially�
<br /> Add 1 Hoak LiR Rotl-aff $ (29,707} /ulds 1 Hook Lift Roll-off @ 1&7,2]S{$?9.707 annuaUy}
<br /> IdET ANNUAL SkViNGS $ 220,805
<br /> This total of$360,8t}5 in projected net savings(the$220,805 io annual savings from Table 2 and
<br /> the$140,(HH}in increased costs that wauld be avoided)justifies the$2_5 M in capitat required
<br /> to rnove forward with tbe upgrades — the "business case" for the finai recammendation,
<br /> provid'+ng a payback of tess than 3f?years and a reasonable "retum on investment" for this
<br /> gublic service.The projected amortization is detailed in separate upgrade cost projections and
<br /> differs for equiprnent and site improvemencs at each site.
<br /> Tabte 3:�t Recomr�edaSors Crr�itul�t Prnjectian
<br /> � - s��v �� �� � . � � �
<br /> +�6�l���� �� e ""°�s ��n z �1T11��Q��.. �.��Dh -
<br /> _ �' <;° �, � _ � _,
<br /> Eubanks district $1,084,949 �79,798
<br /> Walnut(district} $862,570 �G2,581
<br /> Fer usan nei hbqrhood) '194.124 $12.914
<br /> hti h Rock(nei hbortTOOd 216,112 �13,924
<br /> 8radshaw nei hbartrood} $152,d14 �t2,964
<br /> Total costs $2,504,1fi8 5182.180
<br /> 1Oj27l10 DRAN6E COUNTI SOLID WASTE Fage 4 of 8
<br /> 117
<br />
|