SWAG agenda 082514 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Comprehensive Review of S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options v2.1 198 10/22/12  PAYT  Organics diversion and conversion technologies Capital, operation and maintenance costs were estimated for various program scenarios considered. In addition, fuel consumption was also calculated for the transfer alternatives to provide a comparison of the consumption on non-renewable fossil fuel resources. Tip fees were estimated for Town-only facilities and market conditions assumed for other transfer and landfill facilities. A net annual cost and NPV calculation was estimated for each program scenario over a 30-year period, and the results compared. 14.4 PRO FORMA RESULTS The pro forma cost analysis results are included and discussed in the report sections as applicable. The Pro Forma Model allows for the assessment of the Town’s projected budgetary costs as a function of various program decisions, and through NPV calculations, the ability to compare the financial implications of complex program decisions over an extended period (e.g., 30 years). An example listing of “Program Scenarios” and program decision inputs into the Pro Forma Model is provided in Exhibit 14-5. The Pro Forma Model considers each of these program decisions inputs, calculates staffing changes and costs, equipment changes and costs, inputs new program or facility costs as appropriate (e.g., direct haul to a landfill or transfer station, construction of a new transfer station, implementing a PAYT program), accounts for whether solid waste will be disposed at an existing transfer station or another private or municipal landfill, and schedules these changes based on assumptions regarding the year a given change will be implemented (e.g., when a new transfer station would be constructed, if a regional landfill was constructed, when it might be available). The Pro Forma Model automatically varies the potential disposal locations and adjusts costs accordingly (see Sections 6, 7, 10, and 11). Example outputs of the Pro Forma Model and the NPV summary calculations are provided in Exhibit 14-6 and Exhibit 14-7, respectively. From the summary NPV table, general conclusions can be inferred as to what course of action might be the most cost-effective. In this example, the following conclusions could be considered based on a review of the summary NPV calculations for the scenarios evaluated:  Direct Hauling to either the City of Durham Transfer Station or Austin Quarter SW Management Facility (Alamance County) appears to be the most cost-effective short- term disposal options. Direct hauling to the Waste Industries transfer station in Durham or to the South Wake Landfill are other options that yield similarly cost- effective results. However, both the Wake County and Alamance County landfills are currently designated exclusively for waste generated within those counties only.