Laserfiche WebLink
performed with cost items that are most difficult to <br />accurately estimate. The effect on total costs of north <br />county alternatives caused by changes in assumptions for <br />several cost items is discussed in this section. <br />Disposal Costs. The disposal cost shown for the new Harney <br />Lane Landfill is more accurate than the figure in the 1979 <br />SwMP, but still should be regarded as a planning level, <br />nonsite-specific estimate. The estimate for this study was <br />prepared without a formal site development plan and specific <br />regulatory requirements. Furthermore, land acquisition cost <br />would have to be negotiated. <br />Because of these limitations, the disposal cost for <br />Alternatives A.1 and A.2 could be higher. If the development <br />cost were to increase by 50% and operating cost increase by <br />25%, the total annual disposal cost would increase to <br />approximately $833,000/yr from the $637,000/yr shown in <br />Table 4. As shown in Table 6, this increase in disposal cost <br />makes Alternatives A.1 and A.2 more costly than other <br />alternatives. Under these conditions, there is a slight <br />economic advantage to using Foothill or the proposed central <br />county landfill over the proposed project. However, costs of <br />both the Foothill and the proposed central county landfills <br />are also subject to cost changes. <br />The disposal cost for Foothill was based on an additional <br />contract amount computed in proportion to waste volumes <br />received. Another method for computing the additional <br />contract amount is to use a $/ton or $/cu yd charge similar to <br />the 1979 SwMP. If $1/cu yd is assumed, the cost of using <br />Foothill increases to $570,000/yr from the $319,000/yr shown <br />in Table 4. This increase would more than double the current <br />cost of using the Foothill Landfill. Since the waste volume <br />22 <br />