CCAgenda_95Jan11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Proposed Project 'flits project ot'.ers an opportunity for the pattnm ctmiriuiities to work together on a mutual problem. Reusing these roadway =aerials 'weed. rectum c om for each panner community. However, these materials need to be element in order to be reused. By Maiming a portion of the materiels =eh year, lees material and fewer dollars would be needed on an uta1 basis. This project will also abate this material from municipal landfills and thus provide space for more propriiate mixed waste over a Monger time period. The cost benefit portion of this application clearly shows that there ie a uhstantiat savings to commxmities (and taxpayers) for reclaiming the =limb'. This project takes the current working t ology and makes it available to several smaller, neighboring sxnnmunilies. 11 0x:feline Costs for 'Road Maintenance Materials 34ed on urrent laoor, equipment and overhead rates, the estimated cost per tom in recycle road maintenance material is qr siderbly less than purchasing virgin material. The fuel year estimate for ices nntrol d is approximately $3 and 1- .pgr .ion and for seal —coat chips is less than :$1 per ton. C zonposted soil material is estimated at between $2 and $4 per ton. Ai the present titre, the best available data on -quantities are for ice control sand, and forms the basis of the cost/benefit analysis. These estimates, higher than Bloomington :Toned, reflect the fact that there will be a learning period before the prods becomes ley efficient. Bs ed on the average tonnage of the partner communities a listedi above, the normal nand use is approximately 37,025 toms :e r :ar »l'„ p a.:'ie pating rcomnranitiee. Using 65 percent pick up from roadways for cities and 50 percent for the native, would yield 20,E tons to be recycles!.. This 'project uses a estimate of $66 per ;tour to recycle this material, yiCrting an estimate of approximately 67,539 Additional in-kind furls would he provided by the partner communities to begin the program. Based on these catimatm, the total coat savings ovcx the purchase on new sand annually is estimated to I be $5,057 .annually. 1 Gouts Savings Recycling versus landfsllieg avavings are based on the fact that partner communities will, or have, run out of publicly owned :space to dump their sweepings and their only option would be to haul them to landfills. As this becomes the standard disposal method. the municipal costs for road inain enance will skyrocket. The following table shows dust differences between landi511ing and rctyclinglrcdueed annual purchase of new =aerials for ice ontr 1 sand only. Additiunai savings will be incurred for ac ii -coat aggregate and composted soil products as 'mentioned above, but without solid data on annuai ataotmts, this would only be a guess. 'r ble 2 below, shows three levels of costs and savings. Sub-Total 1 _eprese:rtts costs and savings for those communities which now have la dfilling as their only potion for disposal of meet sweeping. Sub -Total 2 Isom the addition of While 13 r Towtsship, White Bear Lake and Roseville which would have to landfill in the meat future, Finally, the bottom line Tsetta1 shows the addition of Ramsey Conley which would mew by the y far NW. However, Roseville, White Bear Lake R;unsey County would be committed to beginning their recycling effort immediately upon the start of this project and lie Bear Township would participate on a limited basis initially. The tear left colimait in Table 2. shows total savings is on the premise that &greet sweeping materials would be diverted from landfills, there would be an approximately 50 1y c rt reduction in anneal costs for ice control sand and the costs of processing the sweepings would be added in as a colt. 'Therefore, columns marked A, D, and C ovould be costs and would be a savings. Furthermore, the participating coQUmrnities recognize that although they may not need to find alternatives to their present disposal program, they see this in the very near future. Thus, by anticipating this change, the establishment of an alternative program before it me.8 a crisis, and would allow them time to work out any hugs in the system. Grant Proposal ?age