Laserfiche WebLink
Comparison of costs for the base case (Table 4) shows the <br />proposed central county landfill to be the least costly <br />alternative, followed in order by the Foothill Landfill and <br />the Harney Lane Landfill alternatives. However, the <br />differences in total costs among alternatives are small enough <br />such that none of the alternatives has a significant advantage <br />over the others. Furthermore, construction of the Eight Mile <br />Road transfer station has, at best, only marginal economic <br />justification. <br />At the planning level, overall costs of the alternatives <br />depend on certain assumptions for certain cost items. If <br />those assumptions are changed, total costs will be affected. <br />The effect of changes in disposal cost assumptions is <br />summarized as follows. <br />• If the Harney Lane landfill development costs increased <br />by 50% and operating costs increased by 25%, then the <br />proposed central county landfill would remain the least <br />costly alternative, but by a more significant amount <br />over the Harney Lane Landfill alternative. <br />• If the cost for the Foothill Landfill were based on a <br />unit charge of $1.00/cu yd instead of an additional <br />annual contract fee, then the proposed central county <br />landfill would remain the least costly alternative, but <br />by a more significant amount over the Foothill Landfill <br />alternative. <br />• If either (1) the central county landfill development <br />costs increased by 100% and operating costs increased <br />by 50%; or (2) the cost of the central county landfill <br />were based on a unit charge of $1.10/cu yd; then the <br />Foothill Landfill becomes the least costly alternative, <br />but by very small amounts, over the other alternatives. <br />None of these changes improves the economic justification of <br />the Eight Mile Road transfer station. <br />ME <br />