United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80:
JULY 1082
Solid Waste
-&EPA A TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM REPORT
DETERMINATION OF COSTS, REVENUES
AND SOLID WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
IN LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
-------
A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANELS PROGRAM REPORT:
DETERMINATION OF COSTS, REVENUES AND SOLID WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS IN LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
Prepared by:
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
Market Center
1320 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
July, 1982
-------
ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII
Grand Forks
• Great Falls
Fargo#
• BISMARCK
Missoula
• HELENA
# Miles Citv
• Butte
Billings
Aberdeen
PIERRE
• Rapid City
Sioux Falls#
Rock Springs
• Rawlins
CHEYENNE
• SALT LAKE CITY
LARIMER COUNTY
DENVER
# Grand Junction
Green River £
• Pueblo
-------
Public Law 94-580 - October 21, 1976
Technical assistance by personnel teams. 42 USC 6913
RESOURCE RECOVERY ANO CONSERVATION PANELS
SEC. 2003. The Administrator shall provide teams of personnel, including
Federal, State, and local employees or^contractors (hereinafter referred to as
"Resource Conservation and Recovery Panels") to provide States and local gov-
ernments upon request with technical assistance on solid waste management,
resource recovery, and resource conservation. Such teams shall include techni-
cal, marketing, financial, and Institutional specialists, and the services of
such teams shall be provided without charge to States or local governments.
This report has been reviewed by the Project
Officer, EPA, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
Project Officer: William Rothenmeyer
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables ii
List of Figures iii
Chapter I - Background and Introduction 1
Chapter II - The Solid Waste Management System
In Larimer County 4
Chapter III - 1981 Itemized Cost and Revenue Analysis 22
Chapter IV - The Solid Waste Data Collection System 40
APPENDICES
A. 1981 Solid Waste Department Cost Summary
B. Personnel Cost Calculations
C. Maintenance Cost Calculations
D. Fuel Cost Calculations
E. Administrative Cost Calculations
F. Estimate of Charge Per Ton of Uncompacted Solid
Waste at the Ft. Collins - Love!and Landfill
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
No. Title Page
1 Description of the Berthoud Transfer Station 9
2 Description of the Estes Park Landfill 12
3 Description of the Ft. Collins - Loveland Landfill 15
4 Description of the Red Feather Lakes Transfer Station 18
5 Description of the Wellington Landfill 20
6 1981 Costs and Revenues for the Berthoud Transfer Station 29
7 1981 Costs and Revenues for the Estes Park Landfill 30
8 1981 Costs and Revenues for the Ft. Collins - Loveland Landfill.. 31
9 1981 Costs and Revenues for the Red Feather Lakes Transfer
Station 32
10 1981 Costs and Revenues for the Wellington Landfill 33
11 1981 Costs and Revenues for the Larimer County Solid Waste
Management System 34
12 Site-Specific Comparison of Costs and Revenues Per Ton
of Solid Waste Handled in Larimer County 35
13 Site-Specific Comparison of Costs and Charges Per Ton of
Solid Waste Handled in Larimer County 36
i i
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No. Ti tle Page
1 Location of the Five Solid Waste Management Facilities
in Larimer County, Colorado 5
2 1981 Landfill User Rates 38
3 1982 Landfill User Rates 39
4 Computerized Cash Register Ticket 41
5 Solid Waste Dump Ticket 43
6 Solid Waste Data Ledger Sheet 45
7 March, 1982 Solid Waste Data Summary for
Ft. Collins-Loveland Landfill 46
- iii -
-------
I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to assess the solid waste management system
in Larimer County, Colorado, from two main perspectives. First, the report
describes the three landfills and two transfer stations operated by the County
and estimates the 1981 costs and revenues accrued by each. Second, the report
evaluates the current methods of cost, revenue and solid waste characteristics
data collection.
Reference materials used in preparation of this report consisted of County
financial records; specifically, the Solid Waste Department's 1981 Cost (expen-
diture) Summary, the 1981 Solid Waste Department personnel expenditure summary,
the Solid Waste Department site collections ledger and other miscellaneous
financial documents. Larimer County officials were extensively interviewed to
provide necessary background and unrecorded information.
This assessment is an adjunct of a Technical Assistance Panels (T.A.
Panels) report which evaluated the feasibility of including a solid waste incin-
eration facility which could produce a useable energy product in the solid waste
management system. The T.A. Panels program was established by Section 2003 of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. It required the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) to provide technical assistance to State and local
governments on "solid waste management, resource recovery and resource conserva-
tion."
Fred C. Hart Associates (FCHA), as the EPA's Region VIII T.A. Panels
contractor conducted a waste-to-energy feasibility study for Larimer County.
The evaluation of waste-to-energy feasibility consisted of comparing current
disposal costs and non-monetary benefits and effects with projected costs, bene-
fits and effects of an incinerator facility. The preliminary findings of the
study clearly demonstrated that waste-to-energy is not currently feasible. The
major reasons for this are:
1) lack of suitable energy consumers,
2) high capital and operating costs of incineration facilities,
- 1 -
-------
3) relatively low local energy costs,
4) the existence of a well-run and relatively low cost solid waste manage-
ment system.
The development of the resource recovery study emphasized several
difficulties involved 1n conducting a detailed solid waste system assessment.
Basic information such as solid waste volumes, densities, sources, composition
and costs of disposal had to be estimated or constructed from unitemized data.
Administrative and operations personnel supplied much invaluable information
regarding these variables yet the data were not being systematically recorded
and tabulated to provide a historical record.
As a result, the Larimer County Resource Recovery Task Force, which
assisted in the initial feasibility study, concluded that remaining project
funds were to be utilized to conduct a general assessment of the solid waste
data management system with a specific look at costs and revenues for 1981.
The scope of work called for the following items.
o Descriptions of each of the County's five solid waste disposal
operations - Chapter 2.
o 1981 itemized costs for labor and benefits, equipment, capital costs
and maintenance, fuel, land and administration for each of the five
sites - Chapter 3.
o Determination of 1981 revenues for each of the five sites - Chapter 3.
o Comparison of costs of disposal with charges for disposal - Chapter 3.
o Assessment of current solid waste data collection methods - Chapter 4.
o Development of an accounting system for use by the County in collecting
the necessary solid waste data - Chapter 4.
- 2 -
-------
Collection of one month's data on the accounting system at two
specified sites - Chapter 4.
Recommendations on improvements needed' in data collection/utilization
and on solid waste disposal practices - Chapter 5.
-------
II. THE SOLID HASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM IN LARIMER COUNTY
The solid waste system in Larimer County i$ managed by the County govern-
ment through the Department of Public Works. Public Works is comprised of seven
sub-departments, all of which have a Director and distinct areas of responsibil-
ity. Three of the seven departments are of interest in this study because they
participate to some extent in solid waste management.
The Solid Waste Department has primary responsiblity for solid waste man-
agement in the County. This department operates five solid waste management
sites. However, the Solid Waste Department and the Department of Roads and
Bridges, also in the Public Works Department, are closely associated in terms of
personnel, equipment and functions. For example, one Director and Administra-
tive Coordinator oversee both departments. There has been fairly regular use of
Roads and Bridges personnel and equipment for Solid Waste operations.
The Fleet Management Department is the third Public Works Department which
is associated with solid waste management. This department was organized in
April, 1982 to manage and maintain all the equipment and vehicles used by the
Roads and Bridges and Solid Waste Departments.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the solid waste
management system in Larimer County, Colorado. The following five solid waste
disposal facilities are maintained at various locations (see Figure 1):
1. Berthoud Transfer Station
2. Estes Park Landfill
3. Fort Collins-Loveland Landfill
4. Red Feather Lakes Transfer Station
5. Weilington Landfil1
- 4 -
-------
FIGURE 1
LOCATION OF THE FIVE SOLID HASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES IN LARIMER COUNTY
-------
Tables 1 through 5 present brief descriptions of each of the waste manage-
ment facilities listed above. The descriptions are organized into 13 categories
which were necessary to provide a basic understanding of the purpose of the site
within the waste management system. The categories chosen also provide all the
factors considered to affect cost computations later in this report. The cate-
gories included on Tables 1 through 5 and their importance in assessment of a
solid waste management system are briefly described below.
1. Location. A description of the-route to the site is provided rather
than an address, as the sites are all rural. The location of a solid
waste management facility relative to the user population and other
solid waste facilities is a significant factor affecting costs.
Isolated sites generally result in increased management costs for
employee's travel time, equipment wear, fuel and maintenance. On the
other hand, closing rural sites 1n favor of centralized, regional
facilities may result in increased costs for prevention of and
enforcement against illegal dumping.
2. Service Area. The term "service area" refers to the general area and
population which use a particular site for disposal. The boundaries
of the service areas are imprecise due to a lack of information neces-
sary to define them.
3. Solid Waste Volumes and Specifics. Solid waste volume is an important
variable in solid waste management. Incoming solid waste volumes
affect the lifetime and size of disposal facilities such as landfills
and incinerators. Solid waste in Larimer County is charged for on a
volume basis (i.e. per cubic yard). Waste densities can vary widely,
however. Uncompacted, loose household wastes range from 100 - 300
lbs/yd3. Compactor units pack solid wastes to densities of 400-800
lbs/yd3. Compaction at the landfill site may yield in-place densities
of 800-1,500 lbs/yd3. Therefore, some estimate of the solid waste
source (e.g. individually delivered, commercial hauler, etc.) is
necessary to convert waste volumes to tonnage. Because it is stan-
dardized, tonnage is more useful in comparing solid waste operation
costs.
- 6 -
-------
4. Operating Schedule. This category provides the hours and days the
site is open for receiving wastes.
5. Land. This category provides ownership, purchase, and/or leasing
arrangements for the lands utilized in the solid waste management sys-
tem. In some parts of the country and in Colorado land costs me|y be
prohibitive when finding a new landfill site becomes necessary. Until
now, land costs have been fairly low in Larimer County. However,
costs are bound to rise and the price of land around the present Ft.
Collins - Loveland landfill has risen greatly (see Table 5) in the
last two decades.
The actual cost of land to the local population can be viewed from
several perspectives. This study distributes the land costs evenly
over a 20 year design life. Some studies have suggested that to
assess the true costs of solid waste disposal, costs must be assigned
to account for closure of the disposal site. Closure refers to the
steps which must be taken to secure the landfill area and prevent
leachate, methane and settling hazards. Some sites may be unuseable
for many years following closure. Other sites with proper controls
may be available for virtually any type of land use.
Closure costs were not included in the cost analysis presented in this
report. Information necessary to justify estimates of closure costs
is subjective at the present time.
6. Buildings. Buildings and associated facilities such as docks located
at each site are identified and listed.
7. Operating History. This section briefly describes the past, present,
and expected future use of the site as a solid waste management opera-
tion.
8. Equipment. A list of equipment used at each site is included here.
- 7 -
-------
9. Personnel. This section identifies the number and work status (i.e.
part-time or full-time) of the employees at each site.
10. Operations. This is a catch-all category which provides a description
of any special arrangements, contracts or operations performed at each
site which contribute to the costs and/or revenues of solid waste dis-
posal. This category contains no Information if the routine operation
of the site is fully described by the other categories.
11. Data Management. This section identifies the methods of data manage-
ment utilized for each site. Data management has been standardized
throughout the County for solid waste data categories such as volumes,
price charged, composition, etc. However, costs were not yet being
isolated per site at the time of the study.
12. Roads and Bridges Department Contributions. Because of the close
association of the Solid Waste Department and the Roads and Bridges
Department in Larimer County, this section is meant to identify any
regular or typical solid waste operations actually performed by the
Roads and Bridges Department.
13. Revenues. The final category presents revenue figures on site collec-
tions and charges per month if these are available. Accurate figures
are available for the two largest landfill sites but bank deposits and
charges are not regularly kept for the smaller (i.e. lower-volume)
sites. However, since site collections at the three smaller facili-
ties (Berthoud, Red Feather, and Wellington) were relatively low,
accurate estimates were possible.
- 8 -
-------
TABLE 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE BERTHOUD TRANSFER STATION
1. Location. From the town of Berthoud, travel east on Highway 56, turn right
on the road just past the Larimer/Weld County Line (sign), turn left at the
first road. This leads directly to the transfer station.
2. Service Area. Serves the Town of Berthoud (pop'n. = 2,500) and surrounding
rural areas.
3. Solid Waste Volume and Specifics. The county pays the hauling contractor
at a rate of $2.70/yd3. in 1981, the county paid out $19,644 which means
they hauled 7,276 yd^. Compactor units are not allowed to use the transfer
station, only private individuals with loose, household waste so a reasona-
ble density figure is 300 lbs/yd^. Converting yardage to tonnage yields a
1981 solid waste tonnage estimate of 1,090 tons (TPY).
4. Operating Schedule. Wednesday 10-4
Saturday 10-4
5. Land. The property is a former dump which is owned by the Town of
Berthoud. 4.2 acres were purchased many years ago (1973 evaluation =
$1,000) 1.5 acres were purchased in 1973 (evaluation $1,500). The land was
leased to Larimer County in April 1975 for $10 for 20 years.
6. Buildings and Associated Facilities. A gatehouse and dock were constructed
in 1975 at a cost of $50,000.
7. Operating History. The transfer station went into use in 1975. No projec-
tion of useful life. This is the same site as the former landfill site.
8. Equipment. There are four roll-off containers of 30 yd3 and 40 yd3
volumes owned by the hauling contractor.
- 9 -
-------
TABLE 1 (cont.)
DESCRIPTION OF THE BERTHOUD TRANSFER STATION
9. Personnel. The site employs one part-time Solid Waste Department employee.
There is an occasional substitute employee.
10. Operations. The County has a contract with a commercial waste hauler to
haul roll-off containers to the County Landfill. The County pays at a rate
of $2.70/yd3. This comes out of the "Hauling Contracts" line item (11-23)
on Solid Waste Department Cost Summary (See Appendix A).
11. Data Management.
Solid Waste Characteristics: The gatekeeper estimates and records
volumes and category (loose, compacted,
tires, uncovered) for each load on dump
tickets.
Costs: Costs are not being directly recorded although new data
management procedures will allow specific cost accounting.
Revenues: The price charged for each load and the method of payment
are also recorded on the dump tickets.
The administrative coordinator tallies the dump tickets and records
the subtotals on a ledger sheet.
12. Roads and Bridges Contributions. Minor road work is performed by the Roads
and Bridges Department.
- 10 -
-------
TABLE 1 (cont.)
DESCRIPTION OF THE BERTHOUD TRANSFER STATION
Revenues.
1981
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL
$ 475.90
640.75
441.60
583.40
385.50
814.75
656.15
770.15
618.15
580.85
742.15
580.85
$7,290.20
- 11 -
-------
TABLE 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE ESTES PARK LANDFILL
1. Location. From the Town of Estes Park, travel west on Highway 36, turn
right at "M" Road.
2. Service Area. The landfill serves the Town of Estes Park and surrounding
residential areas, Rocky Mountain National Park and Roosevelt National
Forest areas.
3. Solid Waste Volume and Specifics. Solid waste handled by the landfill is
estimated to be 15,000 tons per year (TPY).
4. Operating Schedule.
5. Land. The property is owned by the City of Estes Park which purchased part
of the site in the 1920's for $1,800. No leasing fee is paid by the
County. The area consists of 25 acres, only a portion of which 1s used as
a landfill.
6. Buildings and Associated Facilities. A gatehouse was constructed for an
original cost of $28,000.
7. Operating History. The site has been used as a landfill since the early
1900's. The town purchased part of the area in the 20's for $1,800. The
capacity of the area will be reached very shortly (within 1-2 years) and an
alternate site or method will need to be found. In addition to the problem
of limited space, a lack of cover material and severe high winds also
create operating difficulties.
Winter: Tuesday 9-4
Thursday 9-4
Saturday 9-4
Summer: Monday --> Saturday 8-4
Sunday 9-4
- 12 -
-------
TABLE 2 (cont.)
DESCRIPTION OF THE ESTES PARK LANDFILL
8. Equipment. A loader 1s used full-time at the landfill. It was purchased
in 1980 at a cost of $108,770.
9. Personnel. The site employs two full-time Solid Waste Department employ-
ees, two substitute part-time Solid Waste Department employees and one
full-time Roads and Bridges employee who works regular overtime at the site
during the summer.
10. Operations. Because of a severe cover material shortage, the Roads and
Bridges Department periodically performs cover material acquisition and
stockpiling operations. In 1981, the Roads and Bridges Department conduct-
ed two major dredging and stockpiling programs and recorded these as Solid
Waste Department operations on their new computer budget system. The Roads
and Bridges Department expended approximately $83,895 on these tasks.
11. Data Management.
Solid Waste Characteristics: A computerized cash register system was
installed February 1, 1982. Solid waste
volumes and category (loose, compacted,
septic, tires, animals, junk cars, or
roll-offs) are entered on this and auto-
matically tallied, daily.
Costs: Costs are not being directly recorded although new data
management procedures will allow specific cost accounting.
Revenues: The price charged for each load and the method of payment
are entered on the cash regl ster.
The administrative coordinator records cash register subtotals on
ledger sheets.
- 13 -
-------
TABLE 2 (cont.)
DESCRIPTION OF THE ESTES PARK LANDFILL
12. Roads and Bridges Contributions. The Roads and Bridges Department per-
forms cover material operations (see #10, above) and a full-time Roads and
Bridges employee works approximately 36 hours/month of overtime at the site
June through September.
13. Revenues.
January
2,718.75
February
1,693.50
March
2,492.00
April
2,175.75
May
1,958.00
June
3,132.25
July
7,497.50
August
4,571.05
September
3,779.25
October
3,442.50
November
1,431.50
December
2,623.75
TOTAL
37,515.80
- 14 -
-------
TABLE 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND LANDFILL
1. Location. From Ft. Collins, travel south on College Avenue. At Harmory
Road, turn right (west), and continue along it until reaching Taft Hill
Road. Turn left (south) and the landfill will be on the right.
2. Service Area. The landfill serves essentially the entire county except the
town and area of Wellington and the Estes Park-Rocky Mountain National Park
area. It serves a population of 148,000.
3. Solid Waste Volume and Specifics. The landfill receives an estimated
134,685 tons per year (TPY), a little over half of which is delivered by
commercial haulers.
4. Operating Schedule. Monday --> Saturday 8-4
Sunday 9 - 3:30
5. Land. Ft. Collins purchased the original 320 acres in 1962 for $30,000.
In 1967 1/4 of the property was deeded to Loveland and 1/4 was deeded to
Larimer County. In 1979, 160 additional acres were purchased by County.
Payment will be completed in 1983 at a total cost of $185,600.
6. Buildings and Associated Facilities. The gatehouse was built in 1965. The
replacement value is estimated to be $2,500.
7. Operating History. The landfill is expected to remain functional until the
year 2000.
8. Equipment. The full list is on the cost and revenue summary (Table 8).
9. Personnel. There are six full-time Solid Waste Department employees, two
part-time Solid Waste Department employees, and one or two
occasional substitute Solid Waste Department employees.
- 15 -
-------
TABLE 3 (cont.)
DESCRIPTION OF THE FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND LANDFILL
10. Operations. No additional information.
11. Data Management.
Solid Waste Characteristics: A computerized cash register system was
installed February 1, 1982. Solid waste
volumes and category (loose, compacted,
septic, tires, animals, junk cars, or
roll-offs) are entered on this and
automatically tallied, daily.
Cost: Costs are not being directly recorded although new data
management procedures will allow specific cost accounting.
Revenues: The price charged for each load and the method of payment
are entered on the cash register.
The administrative coordinator records cash register subtotals on
ledger sheets.
12. Roads and Bridges Contributions. None.
- 16 -
-------
TABLE 3 (cont.)
DESCRIPTION OF THE FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND LANDFILL
13. Revenues.
January
32,808.00
February
17,432.80
March
35,488.35
April
29,291.70
34,040.60
June
30,364.85
July
36,354.55
August
44,670.70
September
31,234.05
October
26,999.55
November
33,991.25
December
17,625.65
370,302.05
- 8,200.00
TOTAL
362,102.05
These figures actually include Red Feather Lakes and Wellington receipts which
are estimated to total 8,200 for 1981, so this amount Is subtracted from the
total.
- 17 -
-------
TABLE 4
DESCRIPTION OF THE RED FEATHER LAKES TRANSFER STATION
1. Location. From the City of Ft. Collins, travel north on Highway 287. Turn
left (west) on highway 74 just past LaPorte and stay on this road until you
arrive at Parvin Lake. The transfer station is just off the road in this
area.
2. Service Area. The transfer station serves the Red Feather Lakes area and
other surrounding Roosevelt National Forest areas.
3. Solid Waste Volume and Specifics. Solid waste handled by the transfer
station is estimated to be 260 tons per year (TPY). No compactor units are
allowed to use the transfer stations.
4. Operating Schedule. Saturdays 9-4.
5. Land. The property is leased from the Colorado Fish and Game Department
for $1/99 yr.
6. Buildings and Associated Facilities. A gatehouse and a dock originally
(1978) cost the County $50,000.
7. Operating History. The transfer station was opened 3-4 years ago. Until
1982 the gatekeeper also drove the truck to the Ft. Collins-Loveland land-
fill for disposal. At present, the Solid Waste Department is using a
contractor to haul the garbage on a trial basis.
8. Equipment. In 1981 a 1970 tandem truck was used at the transfer station
for collection and hauling.
10. Personnel. A gate keeper who is a part-time Solid Waste Department
employee, works at the transfer station.
11. Operations. No additional information.
- 18 -
-------
TABLE 4 (cont.)
DESCRIPTION OF THE RED FEATHER LAKES TRANSFER STATION
11. Data Management.
Solid Waste Characteristics:
The gatekeeper estimates and records
volumes and category (loose, compacted,
tires, uncovered) for each load on dump
tickets.
Costs: Costs are not being directly recorded although new data
management procedures will allow specific cost accounting.
Revenues: The price charged for each load and the method of payment
are also recorded on the dump tickets.
The administrative coordinator tallies the dump tickets and records
the subtotals on a ledger sheet.
12. Revenues. Records are not always kept for the Red Feather Site, specifi-
cally. Revenues for 1981 were estimated to be approximately $1,200.
- 19 -
-------
TABLE 5
DESCRIPTION OF THE WELLINGTON LANDFILL
1. Location. Travel north on Interstate Highway 25 from Fort Collins. Exit
at Owl Canyon Road and travel west for 1 mile.
2. Service Area. The landfill serves the Town of Wellington and the surround-
ing rural area.
3. Solid Haste Volume and Specifics. The landfill handles an estimated 2,600
tons per yer (TPY) of uncompacted garbage. Only one very small commercial
collection company with a compactor unit is permitted to use the landfill.
4. Operating Schedule. Open: Wednesday 12-4 Saturday 10-4
Friday 12-4 Sunday 10-4
5. Land. The property is owned by Larimer County. A County gravel mining
operation is also located on the site.
6. Buildings and Associated Facilities. A gatehouse was constructed in 1978
at an original cost of $2,980.
7. Operating History. The site has been used for waste disposal for mariy
years.
8. Equipment. No equipment is used exclusively for the landfill. A Roads and
Bridges Department bulldozer used for the gravel mining operation is used 4
hours/week for the landfill.
9. Personnel. The site employs one part-time Solid Waste Department employee.
10. Operations. The Wellington Landfill is operated in the excavated area of a
Larimer County-owned gravel mining operation. Cover material utilized at
the site is actually the overburden removed from the site. The Roads and
Bridges Department operates the gravel pit with a Roads and Bridges owned
- 20 -
-------
TABLE 5 (cont.)
DESCRIPTION OF THE WELLINGTON LANDFILL
bulldozer. The bulldozer is estimated to spend 4 hours/week on Solid Waste
Department landfill activities for which the Department estimated it
expended $15,000 in 1981.
11. Data Management.
Solid Waste Characteristics: The gatekeeper records solid waste
volumes and category (loose, compacted,
tires, uncovered) for each load dumped
on the dump tickets.
Costs: Costs are not being directly recorded although new data
management procedures will allow specific cost accounting.
Revenues: The price charged for each load and the method of payment
are also recorded on the dump tickets.
The administrative coordinator tallies the dump ticket and records
the subtotals on a ledger sheet.
12. Roads and Bridges Contributions. See #10.
13. Revenues. Records are not always kept for the Wellington Landfill site,
specifically. Revenues for 1981 were estimated to be approximately $7,000.
- 21 -
-------
III. 1981 ITEMIZED COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS
This chapter presents cost and revenue data for each of the five sites 1n
Tables 6 through 10. The project was meant to provide the actual 1981 costs of
solid waste operations for the following Items: 1. Labor, 2. Equipment,
Capital Costs and Maintenance, 3. Fuel, 4. Land, 5. Buildings, 6. Other
Operating Costs, and 7. Administration. Total costs for each solid waste
management site and the management system as a whole were then calculated within
the limits of accuracy allowed by the available data. The process of determin-
ing the costs, and the assumptions and estimates necessary to do so led to an
understanding of the adjustments needed within the Solid Waste Department data
management system and within the Public Works Department to facilitate precise
cost accounting.
There were two fundamental problems in itemizing the costs of solid waste
management 1n Larimer County. The first was an absence of records or absence of
site-specific records which were itemized in a useful manner. For example,
records concerning construction of buildings and costs of construction were
either unavailable or inaccessible. Also, expenditures for such things as
equipment maintenance, fuel and revenues were not identified by site. There are
practical reasons for this as the solid waste operations are extremely vital to
the County and the primary management objective is to keep them running smooth-
ly. However, these practices make a determination of real costs very difficult.
The second problem encountered in itemizing the costs of solid waste
management in Larimer County was the existence of 'hidden costs.' An attempt
was made throughout the process of compiling and calculating cost figures to
identify 'hidden costs' which are defined as costs of solid waste management
that were actually charged to some entity other than the Solid Waste Depart-
ment. For example, cover material acquisition for the Estes Park and Wellington
landfills was performed by the Roads and Bridges Department and resultingly the
costs for cover material acquisition appear within the Roads and Bridges
Department budget. For this analysis the costs associated with cover material
acquisition were tallied as part of the Solid Waste Department's operating bud-
gets for the Estes Park and Wellington landfills. This is an example of a
hidden cost.
- 22 -
-------
On the other hand, the land on which the Red Feather Lakes transfer station
is located is owned by the Colorado Fish and Game Department and leased to
Larimer County for a charge of $1.00 for 99 years. If the County had to pur-
chase or lease this land from a private owner the costs would be substantially
higher. In effect, the County's operation is being subsidized by the Fish and
Game Department. Costs such as this example are not identified as hidden costs
and are excluded from this cost analysis because the land does not represent a
current expense to the Fish and Game Department.
The 1981 cost and revenue tables which follow also provide information on
what department or governmental agency pays those costs. This is placed in
parentheses. Costs that were directly accounted for on the 1981 Solid Waste
Cost Summary (see Appendix A) are referenced to that document by line-item
number in the following manner. For example, the cost item was $6,280.00 for
groundwater monitoring at the Ft. Collins-Loveland landfill (See Table 8, #6).
This figure is followed in the table by the reference ... (SWDCS 11-32). The
parenthesis is the symbol which informs the reader that this is the agency which
pays this particular cost. The initials SWDCS stand for Solid Waste Department
Cost Summary which is located in Appendix A, and 11-32 is the line item under
which this expense is tracked. Costs which were not actually payed out of the
Solid Waste Department budget in 1981, but which are actually costs of operation
(such as building costs) were attributed to the Solid Waste Department or the
appropriate agency.
Calculations of cost figures which had to be estimated or extrapolated are
presented in the appendices. Reference to the appropriate appendix necessary
to check a particular estimate appears in brackets within the tables.
The descriptions of the solid waste management sites and the appendices
complement the cost/revenue summaries. The descriptions provide the background
information necessary to understand the assumptions, estimates and calculations
in the appendices which resulted in the final cost figures.
The seven cost categories used to itemize costs at each site are briefly
described below and Table 6-1981 Cost and Revenue Summary for the Berthoud
Transfer Station-is used as an example to illustrate the methods used.
- 23 -
-------
1. Labor and Benefits. Personnel employed at each site were identified
and the yearly costs of their salaries and benefits were ascertained
from County records. These costs are highly specific and very accu-
rate. Calculations were required to apply the costs of benefits to
the salaries and are presented in Appendix B.
Berthoud: There is one gatekeeper at the Berthoud Transfer Station
who is a part-time County employee and a substitute gatekeeper. These employees
are paid by the Solid Waste Department and the salaries are accounted for on the
Solid Waste Department Cost Summary line item 01-04 (SWDCS--01-04). Their
salaries plus extras paid to all employees which includes social security, work-
man's compensation and unemployment insurance amounted to approximately $5,190
in 1981. To check the calculations one would turn to Appendix B.
2. Equipment, Capital Costs and Maintenance. Equipment utilized at each
site was identified and the year, purchase price and purchaser were
determined if possible. Capital costs of equipment were distributed
over a 10-year period through use of the following formula.
Yearly Charge = Total Cost x .8*
10 years
* It is assummed that 20 per cent of the original cost will be
recovered from sale of the used equipment.
All equipment was considered in determining the maintenance costs
per site. Equipment that was owned by the County for more than ten
years was not accounted for in terms of a yearly charge on its capital
costs (See formula above). Since site- or equipment-specific mainte-
nance costs were not kept, total maintenance costs reported for the
Solid Waste Department Cost Summary were equally apportioned among all
pieces of equipment utilized by the Solid Waste Department. Full
calculations demonstrating the method used in apportioning maintenance
costs are presented in Appendix C.
- 24 -
-------
Berthoud: No County-owned equipment is at the site. Turning to
Appendix C, it is illustrated that $500 was assumed as a general maintenance
charge per site. Then the remainder of the maintenance money was equally split
among all major pieces of equipment used for solid waste operations. Therefore,
the 1981 charge was only estimated to be $500 which was accounted for on the
Solid Waste Department Cost Summary (see Appendix A) line items 11-21 and 11-22
(SWDCS 11-21, 11-22).
3. Fuel, Oil and Antifreeze. Total fuel, oil and antifreeze for equip-
ment usage was identified on the Solid Waste Department Cost Summary
and apportioned equally among all vehicles used for solid waste opera-
tions. The average cost of these items per piece of equipment for
1981 was about $4,740. Consequently, a facility that had only one
piece of equipment was "charged" $4,740 in fuel, oil and antifreeze
costs for 1981 while a site with 10 pieces of equipment would be
charged $47,400.
Heating fuel was accounted for under a different line item on the
Solid Waste Department Cost Summary. These costs were charged propor-
tionate to the hours of operation of the various gatehouses. Calcula-
tions of costs for equipment fuel, oil and antifreeze and heating fuel
are presented in Appendix D.
Berthoud: Since the Berthoud Transfer Station has no equipment the
only fuel used is for heating. Checking Appendix D it is shown that Berthoud's
hours of operation were approximately 11 percent of the total hours of operation
for all the site gatehouses so it was assumed to have been responsible for using
approximately 11 percent of the utilities budget. The funds were accounted for
on the Solid Waste Department Cost Summary line item 11-30 (SWDCS--11-30).
4. Land. If land had been purchased by the County the purchase price
was distributed over the design life of the facility which was assumed
to be 20 years. Calculations are presented on the tables.
Berthoud: This is an example of a 'hidden cost' which was explained
above. The property underlying the transfer station is owned by the Town of
- 25 -
-------
Berthoud and leased to the County for the minimal fee of $10/20 years. Use of
the land is only costing the County $.50 per year. However, the property
actually is or was an expense to the City of Berthoud. Therefore, in an attempt
to identify the actual costs of solid waste management, the cost to the City of
Berthoud which is calculated to be $75/year, is included in the cost accounting.
5. Buildings. Yearly costs of buildings and associated facilities were
attributed using the same technique as that used for land costs.
Calculations are provided on the tables.
Berthoud: The 1975 cost of the gatehouse and dock was $50,000 which,
under this system, will be considered to result in a yearly charge of $2,500
until 1995 (end of assumed 20 year design life period). The construction of
the gatehouse and dock was originally paid for by the Solid Waste Department.
6. Other Operating Costs. This category covers costs which did not
appropriately fit into other cost categories such as hauling con-
tracts and environmental monitoring.
Berthoud: The Solid Waste Department has a contract with a local com-
mercial hauler to supply roll-off containers at the transfer station and to
transport them to the Larimer County landfill for disposal. The Solid Waste
Department pays for this service at a rate of $2.70/yd3*
7. Administrative Costs. Total administrative costs were charged to the
sites as a function of the waste volume handled. Full calculations
to demonstrate these figures are presented in Appendix E.
Berthoud: The Berthoud site handled about 1,090 tons of solid waste
in 1981 which represents about 7 percent of the total waste handled in the
entire solid waste management system in Larimer County. Therefore, the site is
assessed a charge of 7 percent of the total administrative costs or $195 for
1981. Calculations apportioning these costs to the five sites appear in
Appendix E and are accounted for under several line items in the Solid Waste
Cost Summary which are noted in the Appendix.
- 26 -
-------
8. Total Costs. This category simply totals categories 1 through 7 and
yields the total cost in 1981 for the specific site. The average cost
per ton of waste handled is also presented here. Calculating costs
per ton is a standard procedure in solid waste management materials.
Standardizing the cost figure provides an opportunity for comparing
costs of solid waste management in different locales, for assessing
the effects of economies of scale, comparing costs at different
management sites, comparing costs to revenues and comparing costs to
charges for di sposal.
Berthoud: Total costs at Berthoud amounted to $28,510 in 1981. To
determine the average cost per ton, the Berthoud Transfer Station description
can be consulted. Under #3 Solid Waste Volume and Specifics it can be calcu-
lated that the contractor hauled approximately 7,276 yd3 uncanpacted solid
waste to the Fort Collins-Loveland landfill.
Using a density figure of 300 lbs./yd3 results in an estimated solid waste
tonnage in 1981 of 1,090 tons. Therefore, the average cost per ton of solid
waste handling at the Berthoud Transfer Station in 1981 was about $26.20 per
ton.
9. Revenues. Funds to operate the Solid Waste Department are all the
result of site user fee collections. Revenues were not recorded for
the Red Feather Transfer Station and the Wellington Landfill. Since
revenues were quite low at these facilites, however, fairly accurate
estimates are possible.
Berthoud: Revenues resulting from site collections at the Berthoud
Transfer Station in 1981 totaled to $7,290 for a deficit of $21,220. Revenues
per ton were $6.70 while costs were $26.20.
Tables 7 through 10 provide similar detailed cost and revenue estimates for
the other four solid waste sites. Table II presents a comparison of the total
costs and revenues of all five sites and for the Solid Waste Management system
as a whole. The 1981 costs for the solid waste management system were $499,170
with revenues of $415,110 which resulted in a shortfall of $84,060. Of the five
- 27 -
-------
sites, only the Fort Collins-Loveland landfill collects fees which total greater
than its costs.
The per ton cost and revenue figures are also interesting (see Table 12).
Costs per ton range from a low of $2.20 at the Fort Col li ns-Lovel and landfill
to $8.50 at Wellington and $9.40 at Estes Park. There is quite a differential
in terms of actual costs at the landfills.
The transfer stations handling costs (which also include landfilling costs)
are much greater at $26.20 per ton at Berthoud and $53.20 at Red Feather. These
costs cannot be directly compared to the landfilling costs because these are
essentially collection and disposal operations which involve transportation
of wastes. Commercial haulers in the Ft. Collins area and the City and County
of Denver report that transportation costs may account for over
90 percent of their total costs. Assuming that actual disposal costs for
Berthoud are $2.50 per ton (since the solid waste is disposed of at the Fort
Collins-Loveland landfill where the estimated charge per ton = $2.50) the
remaining $23.70 (Berthoud total cost per ton = $26.20 - cost per ton for dispo-
sal = $2.50 = $23.70) represents approximately 90 percent of the total costs.
That compares directly with the commercial haulers' estimates. The same sort of
reasoning applied to the Red Feather situation yields an estimate of 95 percent
of total costs attributable to transportation. The percentages compare well as
do the actual cost comparisons. The City and County of Denver reports costs of
$27 to $54 per ton for collection and disposal.
Table 13 attempts to compare costs per ton to charges for disposal. The
estimated costs per ton from Tables 6 through 10 are listed in the first
column. The second column lists the estimated charge per ton of compacted solid
waste. This relates to the probable average cost to a commercial compactor
hauler. The charge to haulers who purchased punch tickets as $0.75/yd3. Assum-
ming a compacted density of 600 lbs/yd3, this averages about $2.50/ton of solid
waste. Compactor units are not allowed to use either of the transfer stations
or the Wellington landfill so none of the revenues are the result of compacted
waste. The third column lists the estimated charge per ton to individuals haul-
ing loose household wastes. The accuracy of these estimates is questionable.
Since Berthoud, Red Feather and Wellington do not accept compacted wastes, the
- 28 -
-------
TABLE 6
1981 COSTS AND REVENUES FOR THE BERTHOUD TRANSFER STATION
—COSTS—
1. Labor and Benefits.
1 Gatekeeper, part-time employee,
and a substitute
(SWDCS—01-04)
[APPENDIX B]
2. Equipment, Capital Costs and Maintenance.
No equipment owned by County
General maintenance
(SWDCS 11-21, 11-22)
[APPENDIX C]
3. Fuel, Oil and Antifreeze.
Fuel used for heating gatehouse
during winter months
(SWDCS 11-30)
[APPENDIX D]
4. Land. ^
Land owned by the Town of Berthoud,
1981 $
5,190
0"
500
400
leased to County in 1975 for $10/20 years.
Yearly Charge = Total Cost = $1,500 = $75
Design Life 20
(City of Berthoud)
5. Buildings and Associated Facilities.
1 Gatehouse and Dock, original cost (1975)
80
6.
of $50,000
Yearly Charge
(SW Department)
Total Cost = $50,000 = $2,500
Design Life 2T5
Other Operating Costs.
County contract with Yellow Barrel Disposal
to haul roll-offs to County Landfill
9 $2.70/yd3
(SWDCS 11-23)
Administrative Costs.
Administrative costs apportioned relative
to waste volume
(SW Department)
[APPENDIX E]
2,500
7.
19,640
200
8. Total
-REVENUES—
28,510
26.20 per ton
7,290
6.70 per ton
- 29 -
-------
TABLE 7
1981 COSTS AND REVENUES FOR THE ESTES PARK LANDFILL
—COSTS—
1. Labor and Benefits.
2.
1 Gatekeeper, full-time employee, 1 loader-
operator, full-time, 1 substitute
(SWDCS—01-02,04)
1 Full-time County employee works approximately
36 hrs/mo overtime (June-->September) with an
hourly salary of $14.01—pa1d by Road and
Bridges Department.
[APPENDIX B]
Equipment, Capital Costs and Maintenance.
1 Loader, new cost $108,770
Assuming a 10-year life with 20% reclaim value
yearly charge = $108,770 x .8 * 10 yrs =
(SWDCS 90-99)
General Maintenance
(SWDCS 11-21, 11-22)
[APPENDIX C]
3. Fuel, 011 and Antifreeze.
Heating
(SWDCS 11-30) [APPENDIX D]
Gas, Oil and Antifreeze
(SWDCS 11-40) [APPENDIX D]
4. Land.
Owned by the City of Estes Park, purchased
around 1920 and presently leased for a
nominal (or no) fee to the County
(City of Estes Park)
5. Buildings and Associated Facilities.
1 Gatehouse, original cost $28,000
Yearly Charge = Total Cost = $28,000 = $1,400
Design Life
(SW Department)
6.
7.
~2TT
Other Operating Costs.
Significant cost to the County for cover
material acquisition and stockpiling
(Road and Bridge Department)
Administrative Costs.
Administrative costs apportioned relative
to waste volumes
(SW Department)
[APPENDIX E]
8. Total.
—REVENUES—
1981 $
30,930
3,540
8,700
3,610
—700"
4,740
1,400
83,900
2,750
140,270
9.40 per ton
- 30 -
-------
TABLE 8
1981 COSTS AND REVENUES FOR THE FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND LANDFILL
--COSTS—
1. Labor and Benefits.
6 Full-time employees, 3 part-time
(SWDCS--01-02.04) [APPENDIX B]
2. Equipment, Capital Costs and Maintenance.
Purchased by SW
1981 $
127,560
Purchased by SW Department: New Cost:
71 Dodge Pickup $ 2,990 *
73 Cat Loader 44,690
74 Chevy Pickup 3,040
75 Cat Compactor 109,410
75 Air Compressor 6,720
79 Cat Scraper 153,000
80 Cat Dozer 236,000
TOTAL: $552,860
Purchased by Road and Bridge: New Cost:
48 Cat Blade *
57 Cat Dozer 70,800 *
61 GMC Truck 4,830 *
* greater than 10 years old so not included
Assuming a 10-year life with a 2reclaim value
yearly charge = $552,860 x 8 * 10 = $44,229
(SW Department)
General Maintenance
(SWDCS 11-21,22) [APPENDIX C]
Fuel, Oil and Antifreeze.
44,230
31,610
Heating
(SWDCS 11-30) [APPENDIX D]
Gas, Oil and Antifreeze
(SWDCS 11-40) [APPENDIX D]
Land.
4.
5.
6.
1,810
47,430
Original 320 acre parcel, purchased 1962 for
$30,000 (Cities of Fort Collins, Loveland)
Additional 160 acre parcel, payments end
in 1983, total cost $185,600
yearly charge= Total Cost = $215,600 = $10,780
Design Life 2U
(Public Works Fund--Larimer County)
Buildings and Associated Facilities
10,780
Gatehouse, replacement value (built 1965) $2,500
Yearly Charge = Total Cost = $2,500 = $125
Design Life 2TJ
(SW Department)
Other Operating Costs
130
Groundwater monitoring
(SWDCS 11-32)
Adnrinistrati ve Costs
7.
6,280
Administrative costs apportioned relative to
waste volumes
(SW Department) [APPENDIX E]
8. Total
24,530
-REVENUES—
294,360
2.20 per ton
- 31 -
-------
TABLE 9
1981 COSTS AND REVENUES FOR THE RED FEATHER LAKES TRANSFER STATION
—COSTS—
1. Labor and Benefits.
1981 $
1 Gatekeeper, part-time employee
(SWDCS--01-04) [APPENDIX B]
2. Equipment, Capital Costs and Maintenance.
2,700
1 "Tandem Truck" (1970) Don't attribute a
yearly cost to because it is over 10 years old
General Maintenance
(SWDCS 11-21, 22) [APPENDIX C]
3. Fuel, Oil and Antifreeze.
3,610
Heating
(SWDCS 11-30) [APPENDIX D]
Gas, Oil and Antifreeze
(SWDCS 11-40) [APPENDIX D]
4. Land.
230
4,740
Leased from Colorado Department of Fish and Game
for $1/99 yrs.
5. Buildings and Associated Facilities.
- 0 -
1 Gatehouse and dock, original (1978) cost of
$50,000
yearly charge = Total Cost = $50,000 = 2,500
Design Life 20
(SW Department)
6. Other Operating Costs.
2,500
7. Administrative Costs.
- 0 -
Administrative costs apportioned relative to
waste volumes
(SW Department) [APPENDIX E]
8. Total.
60
-REVENUES—
13,840
53.20 per ton
1,200
4.60 per ton
- 32 -
-------
TABLE 10
1981 COSTS AND REVENUES FOR THE WELLINGTON LANDFILL
—COSTS—
1.
Labor and Benefits.
1 Gatekeeper, part-time employee
1981 $
(SWDCS 01-04)
[APPENDIX B]
5,400
2.
Equipment, Capital Costs and Maintenance.
1 Road and Bridge Bulldozer used approx. 4/hrs./
week for solid waste operations. See #6 below.
General Maintenance
(SWDCS 11-21, 22) [APPENDIX C]
3. Fuel, Oil and Antifreeze.
Heating
500
(SWDCS 11-30)
[APPENDIX D]
660
4. Land.
Land owned by the County, Gravel operation
also conducted there.
5. Buildings and Associated Facilities.
1 Gatehouse, original (1978) cost of $2,980
yearly charge = Total Cost = $2,980 = 149
Design Life 20
(Road and Bridge constructed this building and
billed the SW Department, but it is unknown if
the money was ever transferred.
6. Other Operating Costs.
Significant cost to the County for cover
material acquisition and stockpiling
(Road and Bridge Department)
- 0 -
150
7.
15,000
Administrative Costs.
Administrative costs apportioned relative to
waste volumes
(SW Department)
[APPENDIX E]
480
8. Total
—REVENUES—
22,190
8.50 per ton
7,000
2.70 per ton
- 33 -
-------
TABLE 11
1981 COSTS AND REVENUES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Solid Waste Management Site
Costs $
Revenues $
Berthoud Transfer Station
28,510
7,290
Estes Park Landfill
140,270
37,520
Ft. ColUns-Loveland Landfill
294,360
362,100
Red Feather Lakes Transfer Station
13,840
1,200
Wei 1ington Landfil1
22,190
7,000
TOTAL
499,170
415,110
PER TON (153,636)
3.30
2.70
- 34 -
-------
TABLE 12
SITE-SPECIFIC COMPARISON OF COSTS AND REVENUES PER TON OF
SOLID WASTE HANDLED IN LARIMER COUNTY
Facili ty
Handling Cost
Per Ton of
Solid Waste ($)
Average Revenue
Per Ton of
Solid Waste ($)
Berthoud Transfer Station
26.20
6.70
Estes Park Landfill
9.40
2.50
Ft. Collins-Loveland Landfill
2.20
2.70
Red Feather Lakes Transfer Station
53.20
4.60
Weilington Landfill
8.50
2.70
- 35 -
-------
TABLE 13
SITE-SPECIFIC COMPARISON OF COSTS AND CHARGES PER TON OF
SOLID WASTE IN LARIMER COUNTY
Solid Waste Management Facility
Handling Cost
Per Ton of
Solid Waste ($)
Estimated
Charge Per
Ton of Com-
pacted Solid
Waste ($)
Estimated
Charge Per
Ton of Unccm-
pacted Solid
Waste ($)
Berthoud Tranfer Station
26.20
6.70
Estes Park Landfill
9.40
2.50
+
Ft. Collins-Loveland Landfill
2.20
2.50
3.00
Red Feather Lakes Transfer Station
53.20
~
4.60
Wellington Landfil1
8.50
~
2.70
* Compactor units are not allowed to dispose of wastes at these facilities.
+ Cannot be estimated from the limited data available.
- 36 -
-------
charge per ton is the same as the estimated revenues per ton (total revenues *
estimated tons per year). This resulted in estimates of $6.70/ton at Berthoud,
$4.60/ton at Red Feather and $2.90 a ton at Wellington. The $3.00/ton estimate
for the Ft. Collins-Loveland landfill required more detailed calculations (see
Appendix F). The fact that there are differences in the estimated charges per
ton of uncompacted solid waste is not surprising. The charges are based on
estimated costs and, in the case of Red Feather and Wellington, on estimated
revenues. The relative consistency of the estimates for Ft. Collins-Loveland
($3.00/ton), Red Feather ($4.60/ton), and Wellington ($2.70/ton) suggests that
gatekeepers at the facilities are estimating waste loads in a similar manner and
that total waste estimates are probably reasonably correct.
The Berthoud charge per ton estimate is the most different. Since it
appears that a fairly accurate volume estimate is available (from the hauling
contractor fees), it seems most likely that the density figure used
(300/1bs/yd^) is too low. This is not readily explainable, however.
It does not appear that the system as a whole was breaking even in 1981.
An increase in user fees was instituted in January 1982. Rates were increased
from $0.75/yd3 for compacted garbage (corresponds to approximately $2.50/ton) to
$1.25/yd3 (approximately $4.20/ton). It is not possible to generalize about the
increase in rates for uncompacted garbage because former fees were charged
according to vehicle types (see Figures 2 and 3), not on a volume basis and ave-
rage load volumes are not known. However, Larimer County Health Department
officials suspect that the rate increase has resulted in the higher incidence of
illegal dumping which is occurring.
The total cost per ton figure for the Larimer County solid waste system
suggested that costs per ton for the entire waste management system totaled
$3.25. The cost estimates demonstrate that the solid waste management system in
Larimer County is being operated in an efficient and economical manner. The
increase in rates implemented in 1982 may bring the system as a whole to a break
even point.
- 37 -
-------
FIGURE 2
1981 LANDFILL USER RATES
Effective Date: February 1, 1981
$ Charged per Unit
Covered Uncovered
Automobiles
Station Wagon or Vans With More Than 3 Containers
Pickup Truck With 3 or Less Containers
2-Wheel Trailer - Max, CU. YD. CAP.
4-Wheel Trailer
Pickup With Raised Bed
Other Trucks
Self-Loader Trucks
Old Auto Bodies
Commercial Appliances
Household Appliances
Dead Animals Under 100 Lbs.
Dead Animals Over 100 Lbs.
Septic Discharge Where Allowed
All Packer Trucks
Tandem Axle Trucks
Semi-Trailer Trucks
$1.25 2.50
1.75 3.50
1.25 2.50
1.50 3.00
2.00 4.00
4.00 8.00
5.00 10.00
6.00 12.00
5.00
3.00
1.50
4.00
12.00
7.00
.75/yd3 1.50/yd3
8.00
10.00
16.00
20.00
yd3=cubic yard
- 38 -
-------
FIGURE 3
1982 LANDFILL USER RATES
Effective Date: January 1, 1982
Loose Waste - $2.00 for first 1 cubic yard or any portion thereof, plus
$1.00/yd3 for each additional cubic yard or ar\y portion thereof.
Compacted Waste - $1.25/yd^ (Packer Trucks)
Tires - $0.50 each
Animals - $2.00 per 50 lbs. (or any portion thereof)
Septic Waste - $0.75 per 100 gal. (or any portion thereof)
Note: Above rates are for covered loads. Rates for uncovered loads are double
the amounts shown above.
- 39 -
-------
IV. SOLID WASTE DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM
Solid waste disposal is becoming a more important and visible issue in all
parts of the United States. Increasingly sophisticated management techniques
are required to cope with rising costs, volumes and public awareness. Essential
to successful management decisions are accurate and current data on costs, reve-
nues and solid waste characteristics. Therefore, an accessible solid waste data
collection system is fundamental to successful management.
Cost and revenue data are needed to assess the efficiency of existing solid
waste management operations and to provide a basis of comparison for potential
options such as resource recovery. Data concerning the volumes, composition,
seasonal variation and waste generation rates are absolutely critical in cost
benefit analyses performed to assess the potential for resource recovery. For
example, solid waste composition (i.e. the relative percentage of waste compo-
nents such as paper, plastic, glass, metals etc.) provides the information
necessary to calculate the heat value of solid waste and the potential energy
which it could produce as a result of incineration. It also provides recycling
interests with information regarding the potential "raw material" markets they
may expect. Seasonal variation of the waste stream affects the number of
seasonal employees required at a landfill site or the size of a potential
incinerator facility and consequently the costs of either.
Solid waste data collection practices have progressed significantly in the
past year in Larimer County. In the past few months recordkeeping systems
designed to monitor and assess solid waste volumes, preliminary composition,
disposal charges, seasonal variation and equipment usage and maintenance have
been implemented.
Beginning in March, 1982, each of the five disposal facilities had a func-
tioning basic data system. At the Larimer County and Estes Park landfills, com-
puterized cash registers were installed. The cash register system has eight
coded categories called "departments" (see Figure 4) which refer to eight waste
- 40 -
-------
FIGURE 4
COMPUTERIZED CASH REGISTER TICKET
Journal (Actual size)
Receipt (Actual size)
06-0 1-79-
? 1234
Single Item Dept. 0
Oot -
Zero Preset Depi-
Negatrve Dept. 3
•58970 5-
140 £ 3-
• 4 2 5 34 3-
10 £
• 1 876
2 8 £
• 1 1416
26 £
• 7 8 76
27 £
• 6 8 0 3
20 £
• 4 0 96
8 £
• 2 60 3
1 0 £
• 4 654
4 £
• 000
2 £
- 25 0
• 1812 2—
3 4 3 i-
• 4 0 8 8 6 S-
4 0-
* 0 1 9 o-
2 9 3 5—
• 2 7 6 3 3 1 ^-
2 3 5—
• 3 203 5=!-
3 3 3—
• 10031 3^-
2 i—
• 4 Q 0 0 Zt-
1 ?—
• 2 000? —
• 2 9 2 3 6 5 2-
- Due
• Register No
• Reset Symbol
- Non»Resettable Grand Total
-Sum of Items
¦Gross SelesTotal
"Item Count of Single Item Oept
-Single Item Dept Total
-Item Count of Dept
-Oept Tool
Thank you_
Call again
06-01-79.
S 1234
Department -
-1 tem Count of Zero Preset Dept
r 1
• 11 Of
5--
- - * i 3 5 5
2
* 15 5 5
i— 4
• 1 3 5 0 5
-00 1
• 0 9 6 ?
• 1 690
• 1 0 0 05
• 1 000
• 3 1 0
-Electro Stamp
-Date
¦ Register No
-Taxable item
-Void Symbol
•Discount
-Tex Amount
¦Total Amount
-Check Tendered
•36005
10 3 A
• 9 6 7 3
•7405 S
•17 790
0 0 0 2 Z |
0 0 7 — E
- Item Count of Negative Dept
- Negative Oept Total
•Tax Total
-Net No of Customer
-Net Seles Total
¦No Of Oollar Oiscount
-Dollar Oiscount Total
-No of Cash Transaction
-Cash Total
-No of Check Transaction
-Check Total
-No of Charge Transaction
-Charge TotaJ
-No of R/A Transaction
•R/A Totat
-No of PO Transaction
¦Paid Out Total
-Cash In-Orawer Total
•No of Check Transaction
-Check-ln-Orawer Total
-No of Void
Void Total
Item Count of Return
Merchandise
Return Merchandise Total
Sum of Negative Oept Total
No of Customer for Cashier A
Gross Sales Total for Cashier A
0 0.5 7 i
•Change
Clerk
Conscutrve No
Specifications
NorvResertabie
Consecutive No
Ncn-fneitabU GT
Department
Qerk
Counter
Number Capacity
1 248
8
tS 8
GS NS - CAT
CHG CHK R/A
PO CAlO CKIO
VO RTN - OP
Single Item TX
4 (A B O E ) 8
Number Capacity
4 Customer
Dimensions (Big Orawer)
Weight (Big Or ewer)
Po»w
Ambient Temo
Z Counter - Non resettable - 4 digits
Consecutive No - Non resottable - 4 digits
Total Customer Counter - 4 digits
Cash and Charge Customer Counter 4 digit
460(WU400(DI»364(H) m/m
18 5 kg
AC 117V (220V 240V) 110* 50/50 Hi
0®-40° (32®F-104°F) 10-90* RH
- 41 -
-------
categories. The department numbers on the upper left of the diagram are coded
to the following:
Dept. # Waste Category
1 Loose waste, first yd3
2 Loose waste, additional yardage
3 Septic wastes
4 Compacted wastes
5 Tires
6 Animals
7 Junk cars
8 Roll-offs
These categories are also cost categories (see Figure 3). When the number
of units is punched in by category the total charge per category and per load is
calculated. The cash register also keeps track of the payment method {i.e.,
cash, charge, and no charge). At the end of each operating day the register
tallies each category separately as well as a total. So, each day of operating
produces a computerized total of the waste volumes, waste types and the amount
charged for the wastes.
Berthoud, Red Feather and Wellington have a manual records system for
tracking of slightly less information (see Figure 5). At these sites, the
gatekeepers tally the volumes charged and the following types of waste for each
load on dump-tickets.
1. Loose
2. Compacted
3. Tires
4. Uncovered
5. Roll-offs
The administrative coordinator for the Public Works Department presently
collects both the cash register tapes and the dump-tickets. The volumes,
- 42 -
-------
FIGURE 5
SOLID HASTE DUMP TICKET
0001
VOLUME
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
e
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
0
DATE .
0
0
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
SANITARY LAND FILL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
/ .
; ^COMPACTED ~
(TIRES ' ~ ' !
¦X;~ ' • -v.-
l \UNCOVERED ~
; x,
- i
: (
ROLL-OFFS' ~
CASH
~
TICKET
~
CHECK
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
CLERK.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
~ 50
- 43 -
-------
categories and amount charged are tallied for each operating day and recorded on
ledger sheets (see Figure 6). At the end of each month, monthly subtotals are
obtained.
Once a year's data have been collected and tallied, this information will
provide valuable figures on seasonal variation of solid waste in the County as a
whole and by site. This information may provide further indications of local
waste composition and sources.
The County has also made progress in terms of strict cost accounting for
the Solid Waste Department and the Roads and Bridges Department by setting up a
Fleet Management Department in April, 1982. This department owns and has full
responsibility for all the equipment used by the two departments. The Solid
Waste Department will pay a rental fee for use of the equipment which will be
determined on the basis of depreciation, maintenance costs and operating costs
(including fuel, oil, etc.). Equipment usage will be accounted for and billed
to the appropriate department. Once this system is functioning, a very accurate
accounting of the actual equipment-related costs of solid waste management will
be obtainable.
The current solid waste data collection system appears to be a useful,
efficient and flexible system. Since it has been fully functioning for only
about one month, it is inevitable that problems and/or backups will occur.
These can best be worked out by the people who participate in the daily mainte-
nance of this data system. The data collected can and will be useful in assess-
ing solid waste management costs, disposal charges and in providing data
necessary to judge the feasibility of resource recovery systems.
At this point, it is not possible to predict how frequently and to what
extent this information will be used. No plan for periodic review of the data
has been formulated.
Because the Solid Waste Department has implemented an excellent recordkeep-
ing system which tracks all of the items mentioned in the scope of work, it was
not necessary or appropriate to suggest a new format. The first full month of
the data management system was March 1982. Figure 7 reproduces the monthly
compilation and totals of operations at the Ft. Collins - Loveland landfill.
- 44 -
-------
LARIMER COUNTY SOLID WASTE OEPT ft CoUms
-------
FIGURE 7
MARCH 1982 SOLID WASTE DATA SUMMARY FOR FT. COLLINS - LOVELAND LANDFILL
LARIMER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DEFT Ft.
bUt %o
4/9 Jt
JUO.16
fsa oo
/C07A9
*0*1 {16
t/sJoo
fttOOO
IQ\H 11
JO OO
WOO
Iftoo
J/OP|
tjoo
/Hi St
Vjooo
/OAS 73
/'At SO
to
Hi OV
tlboo
4S*KXf
30^ CO
3/9 0»
Jt OO
V? oo
J JVoo
JfO.fi
/ft OO
SPOO
WW
tsM 99
At 9C
/JO oa
Oft oo
6*0 00
SSLA*
7 A SO
/» oo
So oo
tfr 00
J/0 oo
JJ0O0
/V/ oo
NiOO
93416
u*t*a
Ulii
Jd/ n
J A/ 60
/BO OO
tttOO
OA
/f JO
/lf?CO
Alb CO
AklJXX
rsji*
mi bo
JM. *0
JY.OC
JSUoo
/ rf.fi
ZXtAS
fZ6.fS
tium
9sooo
¦jras
/mat
tObOOO
WOO
KrJ*
W31
moo
ISOOO
//W75
S3i OO
A/i OO
/// OJ
/JSjJf/JLffQ
sfi oo
J 30 OO
70206
II* F»
/» CO
<* o oo
J0
13/ PC
9/P o
moo
m
dACLoa
j£_OCt
tit ii
7it IS
itSi.oo
SSV4*
USjS&L
1* OO
/S4*A3
ttsuoo
itf/c
'993 J! 6
V/3 SQ
A SO op
AOOOO
H6 OO
MOO OO
/* OO
40 4Q
ZKSOO
A/A Oo
A&ep
teVov
it*f oo
Yfooo
iitO oo
iiOoo
A0000
/us SO
/assoo
237 SO
Q'ASO
LSffi
9Y390
£,SYh
/Of OO
J/PO
Jfroo
Tk /#
jrva
nVco
/A oo
H So
rfM OO
ElCtH
16 oa
LSjOO
AQjSn
V* *0
v* r*
Ml 99
si rot.
sWW
sun*
(AS110O
110 Oo
fe* to
JOQOO
400 OO
JVOU
/OOt ft
ISIS IS
/0O1JC
tl 00
4VSOQ
ftoo
usLqb
sa oo
istoo
WOO
SSAOO
nsoo
w
f03oo
5J^a»
/2f00
mSO O
*00 Or.
J7 90
ja oo
/a oo
JJ&H
Yitiir.
VJOiOiL
'061OO
/osti* c
Jvs.*
MOOO
YSS OO
J3&6
J9DC
J t oo
MSOO
110-00
153 Q*
W8>
moo
tQbOQ
9UA6
MOOO
WOO
si oo
wits
sit oo
m 2t
JLQd
aHQQ
41102
399,oc
4/0O
JvAflO
N300
A/HOO
/V3/J6
JlStHS
itsoco
»riv*w
Moo
nuns
woo
3YNOO
J*tM/
SOP'
- 46 -
-------
Examination of the ledger sheet reveals substantial Information about the
day-to-day operations at the landfill In March. Starting at the left margin the
first column marks the day of the month. March 1, 1982 was a Monday. By
separating the weeks and marking the highest volume day in each category the
weekly variation in waste volume can be observed. The highest volumes of loose
waste are generally delivered on Monday or Sunday. One would predict weekends
to be the highest for loose waste since it can be assumed that loose waste is
being disposed of largely by private individuals who would find weekends the
most convenient. Commercial traffic (compacted, roll-offs and septic wastes)
occurs seven days a week with the highest volume days mid-week (usually
Wednesday or Thursday) and with substantially less being delivered on Sundays.
The ledger sheet supplies evidence about the method of payment used by
landfill users. For example, if the subtotals from the 'compacted',1 roll-offs'
and 'septic wastes' columns are added together ($26,179 + 5,658 + 907 = 32,744)
and the subtotals from the punch tickets and charges column are added ($27,581 +
4,850 = 32,431) it is seen that these quantities are roughly equal. This
provides evidence that commercial and large-quantity waste haulers use the
punch tickets and that their payments can be assumed to be roughly equivelant to
punch ticket sales.
The last two columns show actual cash collections at the landfill. If the
amount charged is totaled from all the previous columns and the subtotals of the
"no charge" column are subtracted, the cash total from the last column will be
obtained.
The ledger sheet shows that in March, 1982 approximately 11,970 yd3 of
loose, household waste and, 32,260 yd3 of commercially compacted or industrial
wastes, were delivered. With assumptions of 300 lbs/yd3 and 600 lbs/yd3 respec-
tively for the two categories this leads to an estimate of approximately 11,474
tons of solid waste disposed of in the Ft. Collins - Loveland landfill in March.
Data from succeeding months in 1982 will yield information about seasonal
variation, evidence about waste composition and growth of the waste generation
rate.
- 47 -
-------
The cash register record system at the Larimer County Landfill worked
smoothly with few start-up problems. With time, this information will be very
valuable in month-to-month and year-to-year comparisons.
The scope of work calls for examination of the recordkeeping system at the
Berthoud Transfer Station. However, confusion about the dump ticket format
caused the gatekeeper to fill out the tickets incorrectly. Therefore, the
information for the month of March is invalid for the Berthoud Transfer Station.
Figure 8 provides the March data from the Red Feather Transfer Station. Again,
because the system is new, the formats used are not always consistent. Appar-
ently, all transactions were recorded on this form as opposed to the daily tally
used on the Larimer County Landfill ledger sheet. In the future, it would prob-
ably be more helpful to record only a tally of the operating day's business as
Individual transaction information^maiy be superfluous. Red Feather collected
104 cubic yards of loose solid waste and 8 tires during the month of March. All
transactions were cash transactions for collected revenues of $133.75.
- 48 -
-------
FIGURE 8
MARCH 1982 SOLID HASTE DATA SUMMARY FOR THE RED FEATHER LAKES
TRANSFER STATION
LARIMER COUNTY SOLID WASTE Ot^T V - <¦' i« ,
Mm
Hfi
~*ZL
. t»
«r—1
.. P
•Mtk
CmmiM
- Yi
¦-¦ rti
'MR
it~
,
nr-,H''r*V
wIj '\r
. Mv . >
fc-
turn.
cv
Am.
cv
Dm
a.
cr
C.Y
Am.
AY
A*
«L
ar*'
' *"¦-
#
Ann.
'a*..
i«— *
as
'-O//
iIf.MO
CL»
'' T'
^ v«»
9
n
/_
_.L
j
p—
A_
11.
/J
Y
-/Z
IS
Y
A?
-J
. \i
00
,
li'
*
-
iMoo
-jV.QO
JJlOo
JS.OO
" u
p—
I
—,_J-l
-
}y
-•
j
ccizi
Oa/6-
oatf-
.'.V
Z35
^OO
JJ^OO
/^#o
»
8V
1*
"J
fi'
.
—£
;
M
* ^ *
* *1
ft
.V">
i
7
i—
1
1
Jpo
<* 00
J Irtrt
/_
J
/
y
_/
_ j
. /
y
90
00
00
Q(\
--
-
A>
¥>*r
4
^1r
T
—
ft,On
.3. Oil
J OO
J.0O
J. OO
on/6
A>/6-
oot.7 J,
eoit-
Ool9.
fe
'TI—
U fifk
-4.O0
• A.op
-J o*
-
i*
i*
771
—
-
•
_
•
r* *
Vt*
4^*
4-
r,' 1 • •
I
/
/
/
1
jU?
_A jff
. 400
X
r
—<
-./
f
SO
oo
-
~
r }i"
iI'iTl
"V
"*T*
M*
If
-
JO.On
J o*
s.ro
J oo
J OO
00AC
00A A
00A 9
eatV
JAM
. J OO
_
— JO&
-J.OO
to oo
—^
7T
tn
»V<*
'• i *
.
J *
I ¦
r f
~ <
*
< -»
P
VK
t-
r^—
/
/
/
/
/
1 ,
*00
A0O
.200
stoo
/
/
/
/
00
—
--
—
—
-
r i
X
JJ—
>?%
-
J 00
J,oo
J.00
-Jufo
eaasL
ooa(*
oax 7.
OOIS
0099
sa.o*
J,00
J-OO
A, 00
.J 09
• -
' ' 1
J s
\
it
;
¦•¦ ~r •
' '
.
*•
*3*
b*c
rrrl
¦jt
/no
"t" •
<* «
X
I
1
/_
/.
/
/
/
Jl
A
A
*
A
OO
OO
00
70
OQ
j
/
/
J
/
/
00
90
on
-
' '
-
* ,
>
-
-J oo
J.oo
.J 00
J.00
O03 /
t?o js
0033
OOiV
^J.OO
-£.Ot
-S.00
•/. at
—
--
• ^
-
-
-
-
_
v
1
b
—
~T*~
k
\
/
AOO
i
i
/r
/8{oo
t
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
"rf r
}
;
-
40,OO
OOS6
00 30
_Jlot.
aooo
"
iJ.QO
« »
—
—
* \«
-
—
.
- |
t
~
1
—
—
J5
~SO 00
70
7550
1
t
1
1
J
4oc
1
1
1
?
VflJ
-"J.--
ft 'I
-r -•
TP
U
HJ.A
_V_ .
IMS
--
t33.&0
- 49 -
-------
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
1. The five solid waste disposal sites in Larimer County are located at
convenient and vital positions around the County.
2. The County presently benefits from the use of inexpensive or free property
for location of the solid waste disposal sites.
3. Currently, the Roads and Bridges Department makes significant contributions
to the operation of the Solid Waste Department in terms of labor,
equipment, capital and materials.
4. The present site of the Estes Park Landfill will be exhausted in the near
future and location of an alternative site and/or means of disposal will be
imperative.
5. The Solid Waste Management System is efficient and low cost.
6. The new data management procedures assure that accurate figures will be
obtainable for estimated solid waste volumes, types, disposal charges,
cyclic variations, equipment usage and costs.
7. The costs of solid waste management are rising in Larimer County.
Recommendations
1. Alternatives to the Estes Park Landfill should be examined immediately and
costs of the options compared so the County will be prepared for
site closure.
2. The County should consider installation of scales at the Ft.
Collins-Loveland Landfill so that accurate data regarding tonnage of waste
can be compiled for future planning purposes.
- 50 -
-------
APPENDIX A
SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT COST SUMMARY
*>"7
* '
,' IICPORT**0
A
COST', 8'UHHA8T
P>U 131
Wr"' -V *?¦' ' ' ' " CH*»«P.T0 PK|Og-CAUWB*W TI»» ¦.' ' 'if.
, ruNo 010 sou 10 mastc rUNo
OtPT •• 994 SOLIO H*STE
¦ ccmici ii am—?oma_mau
illij Ibersonnel- c xpinsh__
01 5«L«HT » OtP'HTMCWt Ht»0
M salaries • permanent
¦HI JALAO Its J-PAHt -1WH
• (_M 3At.Antcs • other
•••• 71 SOCliL SECURITY 1
73 .hospital-InsuranCE-
>«' RETIREMENT
•••• 'i WORKHANS COUP
.;(.UllCMBLimitMT |NfrUHANCt-
OBJECT el TOTALS
11 OPERATING expenses
os orricE supplies
,M*A_06 _0PEHAllNS_3U£eUXi
, i' >1 telephone
' ' '* POSTAGE
'« JkOvERTlSUW
J7 PRINTINO
• 21 REPAIR | NtINT
"IMPAIR i. MaINT
;Chaulin9 CONTRACTS
2S EQUIPMENT DENTIL
"2«"JEnTAL-- BLDG 1 SEALCSIAIt
27 OUCS I subscriptions
!8" HECTINSS
MOTILITIES
M REpAvhENT TO GENERAL1 TUNO
•• (32 J PROJECT . STUOtS
«QlGASa OIL I »NU£H£HL
,»••• »6 TIRES 4 TUBES
JM-. rILL oiht
-55 4BAMSEER TO ROiO fUND.
¦>V'. OBJECT 11
It PARTS. SUPPLIES)
*8' REPAIRS 1 HA|NT,
51 GAS iJUtSEL
•«. «. .« OIESCL
v « REPAIR < HAINTV
. «* ABlttflEEJE .
VolL I CREASt
' OBjrCT 1t TOTALS
PERCENT Of
YEAR OONE • 13*
" -....;i;oiSBURStMENTSi-i-;i:. • ' ':T / '•J-' TOTAL PR CNT
BUDGET ttONTH , TO, OAJE' V - ENCUMBERED " EXPENSE''^ i . BALANCE SPENT
rw-
122*670
0-
24.000
»,?08
J.230
3,470
4,400
900-
—00—
tu ¦
-,3a—
W-
120.372.31
;e»-
27,201,00
«,74Br'JS
—3,439,40.
1,966^30
0,416,21
,00
-Kat~
f 0B
. as
_00-
.00
120,372.30
2,297.42
*00-
lt7i«70
'',fB , >71.603.7'
,03-
27,201.00
«,76S;93
_1,43J?4&_
1,966,30
0,416,21
442-rW-
90.1
- 0.0-
3,a01,.00- 113.6
6t,S3- 180.1
—-209,40*^-106.J-
1,903,70 96,6
4,016.11* 191.2
W-,»3 tM-
.00
171,68)779
3,713,79* 102,2
117,03
UJaaaa
60 4001.
09 11,149,
69 396,
37,619.
37.619,09
26,470
EQUIPMENT
auemu
i.173.69
1,930
2 < 905 *
19,644.
22.590
19,644,34
11.00
um,66
'.00
]>as0
20i719.
6.200.91
U^SlB-,36
6.200,
iA*Jl6,
30
39i000
601.020
9,901,
39.00
20,660,
20,660
,B«i
92,311,
127i90#,
100,300
totals
FUELS
SUPRL1ES
a , iBb ,
400-
• u '
M. ,
«0B_
A-l
-------
4
RCPORMO 5lW«H , -
QOST' SUNHaRy
»S nr «2y^y,5
PAflt
131
' ^
' J\ , ' ' J»r <>S
* i i 1 "* . » '
v* \,r
* r , '?
'r " . "' 1 "
5
< > , ¦ « /' !
• disbursements.——. total
BUOSET MONTM to OATI ' ENOUHBCRCO CXPCN3E
BALANCE
PR cnt ;
SPCNT
' ij 'M^eWITAL OUTli*'-
; V- fey.oHim outlay • other
„ .;• MrtK,/a• '•
7t.Ul,St VV-:/V;M '
- ra.5 ; '-1"
¦' OBJECT «» TOTALS
1 tt -i-n IT 9"tiR «at T°T*LI
»li'M T2,1J»V86 ,00 JJ.m.'M
"¦|0«» VfC 1T1.M2"K "fill ITi'TdV'n
19,A6#,M
Tfl,»
: ^ ««?~' «?* tpthi • ¦¦
«<>,«*¦ *Y ¦' ,;',••• -
Ufl I
fl4»'4 < I
funs at TptALi
it
M,4
" ' 1 ''T'i-i!'?] !T'' ¦ ^ ¦ : „
,
• r;*~ i , 'k
'I ¦ ' ¦ * •
¦ f "* ;¦ : > 'i,- > .£ ,
:
¦v"' r ¦* i ¦ i-'.
, i
¦ v - V'!-v
' * 1- «S , i
»* ""V i*" ¦ w.
•:aj- .»•
aj i*-'
; ' ' - ;
> ,Y o,/J*'} )J [<$& »V."i *1'S ^
i ^
u > * " "
Jl* ^ J.4 »'* ' 1 * ^ » u "
' 1 -. ? . ' «¦' * rV* k
>fV>. r( < JV-'J
. :
' - - . ?
•
!~
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
PERSONNEL COST CALCULATIONS
01
02 Salaries - Permanent (full-time)
04 Salaries - Temporary (part-time)
Total
Benefits to All Employees
Social Security
Workman's Compensation
Unemployment Insurance
Full-time Benefits
Hospital Insurance
Retirement
Total
Total
To Figure Benefits to All Employees:
18,627.71 f 147,654.26 = .12616
To Figure Benefits to Full-time Employees:
5,401.78 ¥ 122,760.38 = .04400
Berthoud: Part-time:
Employees:
1.
2.
Estes Park: Full-time:
Empl oyees:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Part-time:
1.
2,640.00
1,875.94
4,515.94
569.73
5,185.67
4,775.32
5,712.88
5,173.67
10,530.00
26,191.87
3,304.37
1,152.44
30,648.68
252.00
31.79
283.79
30,932.47
120,372.38
27,281.88
147,654.26
9,768.53
8,416.21
442.97
18,627.71
3,435.48
1,966.30
5,401.78
x .12616
x .12616
x .04400
x .12616
B-l
-------
APPENDIX B (cont.)
Larimer County Landfill: Full-time:
Employees:
1.
21,334.17
2.
22,270.80
3.
3,691.98
4.
10,935.54
5.
10,018.88
6.
5,634.62
7.
18,466.13
8.
4,216.39
96,568.51
12,183.08
4,249.01
113,000.60
Part-time:
Empl oyees:
1. 200.00
2. 1,875.94
3. 4,800.00
4. 6,050.00
12,925.94
1,630.74
14,556.68
127,557.28
Red Feather: Part-time:
Employees:
1. 1,800.00
2. 600.00
2,400.00
302.78
2,702.78
Wellington: Part-time:
Employees:
1. 4,800.00
605.57
5,405.57
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
MAINTENANCE COST CALCULATIONS
Solid Waste Department
21 Repair and Maintenance - Equipment
22 Repairs and Maintenance - Supplies
37,615
2,174
39,789
Assume a Cost of $500/site for Facility
Maintenance and for unknowns
5 x $500 = $2,500
39,789
- 2,500
37,289
Then, assume an equal amount charged to
each major piece of equipment which is
used solely by the Solid Waste Department
Site
# Pieces of Major Equipment
$37,289 !• 12 = $3,107
Berthoud
0
X
3,107 0
+
500 =
500
Estes Park
1
= 3,107
+
500
3,607
Ft. Collins-Loveland
10
31,074
+
500
31,575 +
Red Feather
1
3,107
+
500
3,607
Wei 1i ngton
_0
-0-
+
500
500
12
39,789
$30*
* For tires and tubes line item 11-46
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
FUEL COST CALCULATIONS
Solid Waste Department
40 Gas, Oil and Antifreeze $ 56,918
Assume, equally attributed to each piece of
major equipment owned and solely used by SW Dept.
$56,918 i- 12 = $4,743
Site
Berthoud
Estes Park
Ft. Collins-Loveland
Red Reather
Wellington
# Major Equipment
0 x $4743 =
1
10
1
_0
12
$ 4,744
$47,430
$ 4,744
$56,918
$-56,918
-0-
Also, Fuel Used for Heating Gatehouses:
30 Utilities
Divide up by Proportionate Hours of Operation.
$ 3,791
Site
Hrs./Wk.
% of hours
Berthoud
12
.1048 x 3791
-397
Estes Park
21
.1834
-695
Ft. Collins-Loveland
54.5
.4760
-1,805
Red Feather
7
.0611
-232
Wei 1ington
20
.1747
-662
114.5
-0-
D-l
-------
APPENDIX E
ADMINISTRATIVE COST CALCULATIONS
Solid Waste Department
Total Administrative Costs
Roads and Bridges Director and Administrative Coordinator $30,000
Time for Solid Waste
Roads and Bridges Employee Time Accounted for by E.P. - 3,540
Labor and Benefits
$26,460
Operating Expenses (Includes: Line Item #s
05, 06, 13, 14, 16, 17, 25, 26, 27, and 28) 1,534
Total $27,994
Attribute Administrative Costs Proportionate with
Portion of Solid Waste Volume of Facility.
West Volume
%
Berthoud
1,090
.007
x 27,994 = 196
Estes Park
15,000
.098
2,743
Ft. Collins - Loveland
134,685
.876
24,523
Red Feather
260
.002
56
Wellington
2,600
.017
476
27,994
-------
APPENDIX F
ESTIMATE OF CHARGE/TOM FOR UNCOMPACTED SOLID
HASTE AT THE FT. COLLINS-LOVELAND LANDFILL
362,100 Total Site Collections in 1981
" 195,000 Punch Ticket Revenues at Ft. Collins
167,100 Revenues Paid by Private Individuals
$195,00 f $2.50/ton (estimated charge per ton of compacted solid waste)
= 78,000 tons of compacted garbage disposed of in 1981
Estimated Total Waste Disposal at Ft.
134,685 tons Collins-Loveland in 1981
78,000 tons Compacted Solid Waste
56,685 tons Disposed of by Individuals
$167,100 Estimated Revenues Payed by Private Individuals
f 56,685 tons Estimated Tonnage Disposed of by Private
Individuals
= $2.95 Estimated Charge/Ton of Uncompacted Solid Waste
Say, $3.00
F-l
------- |