|
<br /> TEL: Nov 14 94 15:29 No ,004 P.04
<br />,
<br /> Labor and cqwpmclll CO.l. to dispose of the m~lerial on cily-owned propeny are kept to a millimum, which also belps in
<br /> keeping COSLS low. However, as more maccrial i. haulc'llto landfills, tlto time and equipmelll COsIO increasc subslalllially.
<br /> Con.ervalive eslimales pi... "" extra $10 por tOll for labor and equipmellt on sweepings tltat are hauled 10 landfills. The
<br />. closest landfill ll) lhese conununilics is me Pine Bond landfill, whose cqttcnllip fee is DOW sot 01 $77 per ton. Tablo I
<br /> 'hows rho OWl'elll costs for landfilling based on a 65 pereenl pick-up of sand used during an average wiDler.
<br /> Table I
<br /> Estimated Costs of Landfilling Street Sweepings
<br /> Panner Annual Sand !!sIimated 65% of U.. CoSIS 10 Landfill TOlal ADnual
<br /> Conuul1nily Use in Tons AnnWll Sand Spriog Pick-up Costs.
<br /> COSlS in Toos
<br /> Shol"cview 1,300 $ 5,850 845 S 71,825 $ 77.675
<br /> Vadnais Heights 450 S 2,025 293 $ 24,905 26,930
<br /> Arden Hills 600 $ 2,700 390 $ 33,150 35,850
<br /> Falcon Heigh!, 295 S 1,318 191 S 16,150 17,469
<br /> Laudetaale 65 $ 279 42 $ 3,400 3,679
<br /> New Brightoll 2,500 $ 1I ,250 1,625 $ 138,125 149.375
<br /> UllJe Can3d~ 320 $ 1,440 208 $ 17,680 19,120
<br /> While Bear Lake 3.400 $ 15,300 2,210 $ 187,850 203,]50
<br /> While B""r 300 $ 1,350 195 $ 16,575 17.925
<br /> TownShip
<br /> Roseville. 3,800 $ 18,450 2,470 $ 209,950 $ 227.USO
<br />. Ramsey County 24,000 $108,000 ]2,000 $1,020,000 1.128,000
<br /> Totals 37,025 S147,900 20,466 SI,739,610 $1.906,222
<br /> · lor... Anuual ~OSLs OlUy JlICIWle landhl Illg costs ana =rrlllg sana purenaac, ana ...umes COSIS of 14.~V per Ion lOr
<br /> saud and $85 pcr [OIl average [or I andfilling sweepings.
<br /> Figures in Table 1 rt.-presenr only saud for winter ice eonUol. but no se."\J-coat chips or other malerial. Recycled seal-coat
<br /> chips/granite would save S7 (0 $14 per IOn compared lO purcbasiog new malOTial.
<br /> The driving motivalion behind lhe idea of recycling road maintenance malerial. i. lbe projecled COSl inercases faced by
<br /> many COllUlIUnities. If lanclfillillg was not needed, recycling would he only marginally cost-effect;_. Or perhaps a break-
<br /> even operalion. However, in lighr of me impending, and limited option of landfilling, recycling as an option looks more
<br /> promising for the.e communities. For example, in 1994 Rosc_iIle bas a temporary fill permit that will accommodate [heir
<br /> 1995 spring 'weep material, bill it is subject to eallccll>lion by the propony owner, lhu. possibly requiring an allernative
<br /> lIpproaeh. Also, Ramsey County currenrly h.. limited capacity for disposing of !heir malCrials, bill is intending 10 recycle
<br /> rather [h"" us. valuable land for dumping.
<br /> Similar prOJ:ram.
<br /> Currently I we cJo not know of any similar project where several sIJl!1l1cr communities are recycling lheir road maimenancc
<br /> material.. The City of.DlQOmington,_with a gram from tlte Metropolitan Council, is curremly recycling their marerials,
<br /> bill only for itse1r.""i'il"lr dara sbow that average costs of recycling .land is approximately $2 p,:r IOn iUld $1 per ton for
<br /> scsl..,.,al chips. 111eir program is operating al near capacity bocause of its size. Individual sm."\JJer cities would neither
<br /> have enO\lgh material to recycle nOr the funds available 10 implement a .imilar program.
<br />. Grant Proposal
<br /> Page 2
<br />
|