Laserfiche WebLink
accumulations at the present facilities, vandalism, and also the <br />lack of a finance mechanism other than just general fund <br />revenues. He advised that they looked at the three following <br />alternatives: <br />1. Continuation of the existing system - the existing collection <br />system would continue to be managed and.operated as it is now, the <br />existing pit burner operation would be unchanged and the landfill <br />would be expanded to accommodate future waste quantities. <br />This concept has two sub -options: <br />• Move management of the transfer collection system to utilities <br />with other solid waste functions. <br />s Modify (reduce) collection system crew size. <br />2. The second concept includes landfilling through expansion of the <br />existing site and converting the existing transfer collection <br />station system to a convenience center system featuring site <br />controls, site monitoring and compactors with closed containers. <br />3. The third alternative includes resource recovery with franchised <br />mandatory door-to-door collection. ry <br />Table 9-1 compares costs between the three alternative <br />systems that were evaluated: <br />FEB Z i,,io Boa 67 i,v!A6 <br />