Loading...
2012 CONTAINER SITE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & REPORT d,. JEFFERSON COUNTY Container Site Alternatives Evaluation & Report JEFFERSON COUNTY ' Container Site Alternatives Evaluation & Report August 2012 Prepared for: ' Jefferson County Commission ' SpCaT It/� A i 1 GrQtWest engineering I ' I ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' 1. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................. 1 Ill. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM . . 1 A. Special Wastes ....................................................................................................................1 fB. Recycling..............................................................................................................................1 C. Staffing and Hours of Operation.........................................................................................2 111. DESCRIPTION OF EACH FACILITY...............................................................................2 A. Boulder.................................................................................................................................2 B. Whitehall ..............................................................................................................................3 C. Basin.....................................................................................................................................3 D. Montana City........................................................................................................................3 E. Clancy...................................................................................................................................3 F. Jefferson City .......................................................................................................................4 IV. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION BACKGROUND ............................................4 V. DROP GATE ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................5 VI. BARRIER ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................5 A. Permanent Barrier Alternatives..........................................................................................6 ' B. Safety Barrier Alternative No. 1 - Soil Removal with Pavement Replacement..............6 C. Safety Barrier Alternative No. 2& 2A - Barrier Rail with or without Pavement ' Replacement........................................................................................................................7 D. Safety Barrier Alternative No. 5 & 5A - Wall Block with or without Pavement Replacement........................................................................................................................8 E. Safety Barrier Alternative No. 6 & 6A - Concrete Wall Extension with or without PavementReplacement......................................................................................................8 ' F. Temporary Barrier Alternatives...........................................................................................9 G. Safety Barrier Alternative No. 3 & 3A - Barrier Wall Gates and Fencing with or without t Pavement Replacement......................................................................................................9 H. Combination Permanent Barrier and Temporary Barrier-Safety Barrier Alternative No. 7 & 7A - Concrete Wall Extension with 8-Foot Container Gates with or without ' Pavement Replacement....................................................................................................10 I. Hopper Installation Alternative -Safety Alternative No. 4 & 4A - Hopper Installation with or without Pavement Replacement..........................................................................11 J. Safety Barrier Improvements Recommendations...........................................................12 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report i VII. PAY-AS-YOU-THROW PROGRAM (PAYT) EVALUATION ............................................12 A. Background........................................................................................................................12 B. Truck Scale Alternative .....................................................................................................13 C. Hopper Alternative.............................................................................................................14 D. Weight-Based Pay-As-You-Throw Recommendation .......................................................14 Vlll. HAULING AND COMPACTION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS...................................is jA. Description of Current Hauling System...........................................................................15 B. Compaction Analysis.........................................................................................................15 ' C. Boulder Compaction Alternatives.....................................................................................17 IX. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................18 APPENDICES Appendix A Safety Barrier Alternatives Cost Tables Appendix B Site Figures Appendix C Safety Alternatives Figures ' Appendix D PAYT Cost Tables and Figures Appendix E Hauling Analysis Cost Tables Appendix F Drop Gate Cost Estimates JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report ii I. BACKGROUND Great West Engineering is contracted by Jefferson County, Montana to complete an evaluation and report on Jefferson County's solid waste infrastructure. The purpose of this report is to evaluate safety improvements alternatives, weight based Pay-As-You-Throw(PAYT) alternatives, and compaction/hauling alternatives for the Jefferson County Solid Waste Transfer infrastructure. The evaluation in this report included extensive investigations of each facility, interviews with County staff, and discussions with the County Commission. 11. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM The County owns and operates six collection and transfer facilities located near Whitehall, Boulder, Basin, Jefferson City, Clancy and Montana City. With the exception of Basin, the facilities consist of retaining walls which provide the needed grade separation to allow tipping of waste directly into open top 40 cubic yard roll-off containers. Customers haul waste to the transfer sites primarily by personal vehicle and articulated trailers. The Basin, Clancy, and Jefferson City sites do not have adequate space or facilities to allow trailers to dump. Jefferson County hauls the wastes from each site, except Basin,to the City County Sanitation (CCS) landfill located south of East Helena. Wastes collected at the Basin site are hauled by Giulio Disposal to the CCS landfill under a contract with the County. Residents with curbside pickup in Boulder also have their waste hauled by Giulio directly to CCS. CCS also provides curbside pick-up to the northern part of the County. Residents with curbside collection pay for that service separately. Currently there is no charge to Jefferson County residents when they dispose of regular household waste at one of the container sites if their annual assessment of$129.69 per unit on the property tax has been paid. Non-Jefferson County residents can dispose of waste with a daily special use permit with a price dependent on the load size. Non-County residents may also dispose of waste with a pre-paid quarterly permit. Jefferson County residents may also haul their own wastes directly to City County Sanitation. ' A. Special Wastes Different fees apply for tires, brick, concrete, clean dirt, soil, rock, construction, demolition, refrigerators,Class III wastes, used motor oil, batteries, and freezers. These fees are paid at the time of drop off at the container site. Burn barrels are not accepted at any of the sites. B. Recycling Jefferson Count provides a number of recycling opportunities for residents. The Solid Waste District allows metal salvaging by Jefferson County residents at the Boulder and Whitehall sites. A special permit is required for salvaging of metal. The metal objects must have a value under $50 and the item is not to be resold. Metal objects not salvaged such as appliances, bicycles, siding, grills, and other large metal objects are brought in and recycled into scrap metal. Appliances containingfreon need to be clean and have doors and shelving removed. Recycling bins are located at the Boulder, Whitehall, Montana City, and Clancy sites, and limited recycling services are also available at the Jefferson City and Basin sites. All recyclables must be clean. Recycle bins are also located in Boulder at the County Courthouse and at the IGA in Whitehall. Plastic recycle bins for plastics 1-9, tin and aluminum cans, and mixed paper recycle bins are located at the Montana City site, Boulder Courthouse, and the IGA in Whitehall. Plastic bags may be recycled at Wal-Mart, K-Mart and most grocery stores. Cardboard is collected at all container sites with the exception of Jefferson City. All cardboard JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report 1 ' must be broken down and empty. Used motor oil is accepted in clean, sealed containers(5 gallons or less)at the Boulder, Whitehall, Clancy,and Montana City sties. Each site has a scavenge or"Up-For-Grabs" area in which Jefferson County residents can drop off unwanted but usable items including: appliances,tools, or furniture. These items can be set aside and then collected by any other Jefferson County resident for their personal use. C. Staffing and Hours of Operation The County has employees which serve as attendants at the Boulder, Whitehall, Clancy, Jefferson City, and Montana City sites during the hours of operation. The attendants are responsible for collecting fees, load inspections,site clean-up and direction of customers to the proper containers for material disposal. The current hours of operation for each site are located in the following table: Table A J qW efferson County Container Site Hours of 0 eration Site Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Montana City 9 30 a.m.— 9:30 a.m.— 9:30 a.m.— 9:30 a.m.— 9:30 a.m.— 9:30 a.m.— 5:30 p.m. 5:30 p.m. 5:30 p.m. 5:30 p.m. 5:30 p.m. 5:30 p.m. Clancy 9:30 a.m.— 9:30 a.m.— 9:30 a.m.— 5:30 p.m. 5:30 p.m. 5:30 p.m. Jefferson City 9:30 a.m.- 9:30 a.m.- 5:30 P.M. 5:30 p.m. Boulder 9:30 a.m.- 9:30 a.m. 9:30 a.m.- 5:30 p.m. -5:30 5:30 p.m. m. Whitehall 9:30 a.m.- 9:30 a.m.- 9:30 a.m.- 9:30 a.m.- 5:30 p.m. 5:30 p.m. 5:30 .m. 5:30 P.M. Basin 2:00 p.m.- 2:00 p.m.- 6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. (April- 1 Se tember 111. DESCRIPTION OF EACH FACILITY 1 A. Boulder The Boulder site is a three bay, z-wall construction with 9-foot tall, 10-inch thick retaining walls on footings which was constructed in 1994(Figure 4 in Appendix B). The containers sit on 10- foot by 50-foot, 8-inch concrete slabs below the retaining walls. The top of the retaining walls are equipped with drop gates to prevent waste dropping between the wall and containers. Each container bay has 5-foot by 14-foot long swing gates to control access to the container bay when not being used for waste disposal. This occurs when the container is full or when no container is parked in the bay.The container bays are enclosed by an open framed structure spanned with litter control fencing, which stands 20-feet above the retaining wall and encompasses the containers, but has gates for the containers to be removed and switched when the container is full. The structure is designed to control windblown litter from the site. ' Only municipal solid waste is accepted in the containers. Boulder has separate drop areas for metals, pesticide containers, compost, used oil,and cardboard. The County also operates a Class III landfill and burn pit at the facility under a license with the Montana DEQ. JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report 2 I p Boulder has asphalt pavement on all working areas and on the access road. The Boulder site has secure control of access with fences, gates and plenty of room for truck scales. B. Whitehall The Whitehall site is a three bay, z-wall construction with 9-foot tall, 10-inch thick retaining walls on footings constructed in 1994 (Figure 5 in Appendix B). The containers sit on 10-foot by 50-foot, eight-inch concrete slabs below the retaining walls. The top of the retaining walls are equipped with drop gates to prevent dropping waste in between the wall and containers. Each container bay has 5-foot by 14-foot long swing gates to control access to the container bay when not being used for waste disposal. This occurs when the container is full or when no container is parked in the bay. The container bays are enclosed by an open framed structure spanned with litter control fencing, which stands 20-feet above the retaining wall and encompasses the containers, but has gates for the containers to be removed and switched when the container is full. The structure is designed to control windblown litter from the site. Whitehall has two stationary compactors which occupy two of the three container bays. The bays with compactors are equipped with fabricated steel hoppers rather than drop gates. Packer trucks from the City of Whitehall dispose of waste into the container bay that does not have a compactor. Only municipal solid waste is accepted in the containers. Whitehall has separate drop areas for metals, pesticide containers, compost, used oil, and cardboard. The County also operates a Class III landfill and burn pit at the facility under a license with the Montana DEQ. Whitehall has asphalt pavement on all working areas and on the access road. The Whitehall site has secure control of access with fences, gates and plenty of room for truck scales. C. Basin The Basin site has access from a paved road and is secured with a 5-foot chain link fence. The Basin site accepts metal and municipal solid waste in open top containers. The County has a contract with Giulio Disposal to staff the Basin site during its hours of operation and haul ' collected wastes directly to the landfill. D. Montana City The Montana City Container site is accessed from Saddle Mountain Drive. The site is fenced with jack railing and gates at the entrance. The site has four container walls varying in length and situated in a horseshoe shape. The walls are 10-inches thick and 9-feet tall which are secured with tie backs located 7-feet above ground level and spaced at various intervals along the length of the walls (See Figure 1 in Appendix B). The date of construction is unknown but it appears that the facility has been expanded several times. The container walls have drop gates to prevent waste from being dropped between the container and the wall. The Montana City site has three containers that accept municipal solid waste, one bin for metals, one bin for grass, one bin for tires (which are transferred to Boulder), and two bins for brush. The site also accepts plastics, paper, cardboard, and cans in recycle bins, and oil in a used oil receptacle. There is limited room for scales at this site. E. Clancy ' The Clancy Container site is accessed from Shady Lane. The site is partially fenced - a section of fencing is missing to the west of the entrance gate. The site has four container walls varying in length and situated in a horseshoe shape. The walls are 10-inches thick and 9-feet tall which are secured with tie backs located 7-feet above ground level and spaced at various JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report 3 intervals along the length of the walls (See Figure 2 in Appendix B). The date of construction is unknown but the design appears nearly identical to that at Montana City and Jefferson City. The container walls have drop gates to prevent waste from being dropped between the container and the wall. The Clancy site has three containers that accept municipal solid waste, one bin for brush, one bin for metal and one bin for tires. The site also accepts used oil and cardboard. There is not room for scales at this site. Trailers are not allowed to dump at this site. F. Jefferson City The Jefferson City Container site is located immediately adjacent to a county road which poses potential traffic issues when vehicles return to the country road from the container site. The site does not have controlled access or security fencing;therefore the Jefferson City site will I require perimeter fencing as part of all upgrades (See Figure Perimeter Fencing Details in Appendix C). The container wall design is a straight wall with tie backs located 7-feet above ground level and spaced at various intervals along the length of the wall with wing walls at ' each end (See Figure 3 in Appendix B). The date of construction is unknown. The walls are 10- inches thick and 9-feet tall. The wall is 64-feet long with 9-foot long wing walls on either side of the straight wall. The Jefferson City site has two containers that accept municipal solid waste ' and one twenty cubic yard metal container. Brush is not accepted at this site. This container wall has drop gates to prevent waste from being dropped between the container and the wall. There is not room on the site for scales. IV. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION BACKGROUND The first task was to perform an evaluation of the existing facilities and identify safety concerns at each of the five transfer sites operated by the County. Nine safety alternatives are evaluated in this report including two drop gate alternatives and seven barrier alternatives. Drop gate cost estimates are included in Appendix F. Appendix A contains detailed cost estimates for each barrier alternative ' and Appendix C contains details of each barrier alternative. Safety concerns and liability losses at these types of solid waste facilities across Montana initiated an investigation by the Montana Associate of County Officials (MACO) in 2007. MACO manages a joint insurance trust for the counties and is interested with limiting liability and claims. According to MACO the total insured liability loses (31d party claims)from July 1995 to March 2009 exceeded $800,000. The total incurred Workers Compensation costs were over$100,000 including one employee death during that same time period. Jefferson County has also had several accidents at the container sites over the last year which it wants to address. MACO determined that most container sites around the state of Montana did not meet current building code standards. The current standards state that any landing utilized by the public that is located more than 30-inches measured vertically to the floor or grade below at any point within 36- inches horizontally to the edge of the open side shall require a guard located along the open-sided walking surface. The guard must be fixed at a minimum of 42-inches high, measured vertically above the adjacent walking surface. The guards shall not have openings which allow the passage of ' a sphere 4-inches in diameter. All of the alternatives described and evaluated below are in compliance with MACO recommendations and State building code standards. 1 None of the Jefferson County sites meet the State building code requirements. Some of the sites have fencing on end walls that meets code. Some of the sites have partial barriers which do not meet the code requirement. The Building Codes are not retroactively enforceable and only apply to new construction. If the County were to consider expansion of any of the facilities the code ' JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report 4 requirement for the barrier would need to be met. However,the lack of a barrier has contributed to several accidents at Jefferson County sites and need to be evaluated as an alternative for improving the safety of the facilities. In addition, non-compliance with the building codes increases the County and their insurer's liability in the event of an accident. Another significant safety issue at the Jefferson County sites is the drop gates. These are called flaps by County personnel. The drop gates are designed to reduce the amount of litter that drops between the container and the wall. The safety issue is posed by customers that stand on the drop gates while dumping. The drop gates sit at an angle toward the container and if wet or icy are extremely slippery. In addition,the drop gates are not designed to hold the weight of a person. The drop gates can also be a safety issue to employees because of their weight and the awkwardness associated with lifting them. V. DROP GATE ALTERNATIVES Many facilities in Montana have eliminated the drop gates because of these safety issues. These facilities ask their truck drivers to park as close to the wall as possible to reduce litter problems. This approach has proven to work well. County staff was concerned with damage to the containers and container wall, if the County only elected to remove the drop gates. One alternative for addressing this concern is to install a steel channel or tube near the base of container wall which will act as a rail and prevent the container from hitting the wall. Drop Gate Alternative 1 includes removal of the drop gates and installation of a steel channel for each container bay. The estimated total capital cost for retrofitting all five sites with this Drop Gate Alternative 1 is $32,000. Through further discussions with the County Commission and staff, there was concern raised with Drop Gate Alternative 1. The primary concern was a member of the public becoming injured by stepping between the wall and the container. Drop Gate Alternative 2 includes installation of shorter flap which would cover the gap between the container and the wall. The shorter flap will be designed to cover the gap between the wall and the container but also slant back toward the tipping area to provide better protection to the users. This alternative also includes parkingthe container closer and installing a steel channel to protect the wall. The estimated total capital cost for retrofitting all five sites with this Drop Gate Alternative 2 is $111,000. Appendix F contains detailed cost estimates for this alternative. If the Count elects to go to a permanent barrier alternative,the drop gates will need to be removed because they will be inaccessible. Under the moveable barrier alternatives,the drop gates will either be removed or replaced with a shorter drop gate with improved safety features. VI. BARRIER ALTERNATIVES Two general types of alternatives were evaluated, permanent barriers and moveable barriers. Permanent barriers alternatives include removing tipping area soil so that the existing wall acts as the barrier, concrete barrier rails, concrete wall blocks, and concrete wall extensions. Moveable barriers alternatives include steel gate systems and tipping baskets with tipping arrangements that ' include scales for weighing individual loads. One additional alternative was evaluated which is a combination of permanent barrier and moveable barriers. This alternative consists of concrete wall extensions with two eight-foot gates per container. The evaluation includes cost estimates for capital 1 improvements, figures detailing proposed alternatives, and an evaluation of positive and negative impacts of each alternative to the site's operation. 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report 5 A. Permanent Barrier Alternatives Permanent barrier alternatives require the installation of a permanent 42-inch barrier, which I meets code requirements. The permanent barrier alternatives include removing tipping area soil so that the existing wall acts as the barrier, concrete barrier rails, concrete wall blocks, and concrete wall extension. These alternatives are not feasible for sites (bays) which allow packer trucks, heavy loads, and trailers. A minimum of one bay at the Montana City, Clancy, Boulder, and Whitehall sites need to have gates to accommodate packer trucks, heavy loads, and trailers. The gates will be locked under normal circumstances and only be opened by the site attendant. These alternatives also require that a parking bumper be installed at a minimum distance of nine feet from the edge of the tipping wall so that customers do not stand on top of the barrier and pick-up tailgate (the typical distance from the back tire of the truck to the end of the tailgate is 5-feet). County staff has noticed that the nine foot bumper location is an issue for disposal of some wastes particularly yard wastes. The County may consider removingthe bumper for a few of the stalls particularly yard waste containers. The costs for all of the safety alternatives were evaluated and detailed cost breakdowns are Iincluded in Appendix A. B. Safety Barrier Alternative No. 1 - Soil Removal with Pavement Replacement Alternative No. 1 includes removing approximately 3 to 3.5-feet of soil over the tipping level to establish a 3.5 foot (42-inches) vertical barrier. This alternative will require the Montana City, Clancy, Boulder, and Whitehall sites to remove the soil to achieve 42-inches of vertical barrier, replace the pavement, and leave one bay at existing grade with controlled access through the use of locking gates for the packer trucks, heavy loads and,trailers to dump into the containers. Clancy,Jefferson City, and Montana City sites will remove the existing tie-backs and new ones will be installed 18-inches below the finished grade anchored into a concrete anchor(See Alternative 1 - Wall Anchor Detail in Appendix C). 1 This alternative is the most expensive barrier alternative. The new tie-back system at the Clancy, Jefferson City, and Montana City sites will be labor intensive and require new cast in- place concrete for the new tie-backs, excavation, and embankment to remove the existing tie- backs and install the new ones. Removal of the soil includes the pavement surfacing so this alternative requires the installation of new pavement. A summary of the costs for each site and a total for all of the sites under Alternative No. 1 is shown in the table below. I JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation &Report 6 Table B Jefferson County Container Site Safety Improvements Alternative No. 1 -Soil Removal wMavement 1 Project Cost Summa Montana City $103,000 Clancy $62,000 Jefferson City $46,000 Boulder $104,000 Whitehall $114,000 Total $429,000 C. Safety Barrier Alternative No. 2& 2A - Barrier Rail with or without Pavement Replacement Alternative No. 2 includes installing concrete barrier rails along the length of the walls to achieve 42-inches of vertical barrier. One edge of the barrier rail will rest on the top of the wall and the rest of the barrier rail will be supported by a cast in place concrete curb from the existing ground elevation to the top of wall elevation (See Alternative 2 & 2A- Barrier Rail Details in Appendix C). One bay at the Montana City, Clancy, Boulder, and Whitehall sites will be left at existing grade and will have 42-inch locked gates. The gates will be locked under normal circumstances and only the site attendant will open the gate for heavy wastes, packer trucks,and trailers. Montana City, Clancy, Boulder, and Whitehall sites will have the option to replace the pavement(Alternative No. 2) or not replace the pavement(Alternative No. 2A). Jefferson City will also have the option to add pavement or not add pavement to the site. ' This alternative is not as costly as Alternative No. 1 and is comparable to Alternative Nos. 5 and 6. A summary of the costs for each site and a total for all of the sites under Alternative No. 2 is shown in the table below. Table Jefferson County Container Site Safety Improvements Alternative No.2&2A-Barrier Rail With Pavement No Pavement Replacement Pavement 2) Replacement Pavement 2A 7Montanaity $95,000 $28,000 Clancy $60,000 $24,000 Jefferson City $44,000 $19,000 Boulder $96,000 $10,000 ' Whitehall $103,000 $10,000 Total $398,000 $91,000 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report 7 1 D. Safety Barrier Alternative No. 5 & 5A - Wall Block with or without Pavement Replacement Alternative No. 5 includes installing pre-cast concrete wall blocks along the length of the walls. The concrete wall block will be supported by a cast-in-place concrete curb from the existing ground elevation to the bottom of the wall block to achieve a barrier height of 42-inches (See Alternative 5 &5A - Wall Block Details in Appendix C). ' One bay at the Montana City, Clancy, Boulder,and Whitehall sites will be left at existing grade and will have locked gates at a 42-inch minimum height. The gates will be locked under normal circumstances and only the site attendant will open the gate for heavy wastes, packer trucks, and trailers. Montana City, Clancy, Boulder, and Whitehall sites will have the option to replace the pavement (Alternative No. 5) or not replace the pavement(Alternative No. 5A). Jefferson City will also have the option to add pavement or not add pavement to the site. This alternative is not as costly as Alternative No. 1 and is comparable to Alternative Nos. 2 ' and 6. A summary of the costs for each site and a total for all of the sites under Alternative No. 5 is shown in the table below. 1 Jefferson County Container Site Safety Improvements Alternative No.5&5A-Wall Block With Pavement No Pavement Replacement(No.5) Replacement No.5A Montana City $98,000 $31,000 Clancy $62,000 $26,000 Jefferson City $46,000 $24,000 1 Boulder $97,000 $10,900 Whitehall $104,000 $10,900 Total $407,000 $102,800 E. Safety Barrier Alternative No. 6&6A - Concrete Wall Extension with or without Pavement Replacement Alternative No. 6 includes constructing a cast in place concrete wall extension from the existing top of wall elevation to a height which will achieve a barrier height of 42-inches (See Alternative 6& 6A - Concrete Wall Extension Details in Appendix Q. One bay at the Montana City, Clancy, Boulder, and Whitehall sites will be left at existing grade and will have locked gates at a 42-inch minimum height. The gates will be locked under normal circumstances and only the site attendant will open the gate for heavy wastes, packer trucks,and trailers. 1 Montana City, Clancy, Boulder, and Whitehall sites will have the option to replace the pavement(Alternative No. 6) or not replace the pavement(Alternative No. 6A). Jefferson City will also have the option to add pavement or not add pavement to the site. ' JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report 8 r This alternative is not as costly as Alternative No. 1 and is the least expensive when compared to Alternative Nos. 2 and 5 which all require additional concrete installation. A summary of the costs for each site and a total for all of the sites under Alternative No. 6 is shown in the table below. Jefferson County Container Site Safety Improvements Alternative No.6&6A—Concrete Wall Extension With Pavement No Pavement Replacement(No.6) Replacement No.6A Montana City $95,000 $23,000 Clancy $59,000 $23,000 Jefferson City $44,000 $19,000 Boulder $96,000 $10,000 ' Whitehall $103,000 $10,000 Total $397,000 $88,000 F. Temporary Barrier Alternatives Temporary barrier alternatives require the installation of a moveable 42-inch barrier, which meets code requirements. This option includes installation of a locking gate system with top of wall fencing. The gates will be locked under normal circumstances and only be opened by the site attendant for heavy loads, packer trucks, and trailers. This alternative also requires a parking bumper to be installed at a minimum distance of nine feet from the edge of the tipping wall so that customers do not stand on top of the barrier and pick-up tailgate (the typical distance from the back tire of the truck to the end of the tailgate is r 5-feet). County staff has noticed that the nine foot bumper location is an issue for disposal of some wastes particularly yard wastes. The County may consider removing the bumper for a few of the stalls particularly yard waste containers. tG. Safety Barrier Alternative No.3&3A- Barrier Wall Gates and Fencing with or without Pavement Replacement Alternative No. 3 includes installation of gates at the tipping bays and fencing on the retaining walls between gates to achieve a barrier height of 42-inches (See Alternative 3 &3A - Barrier Wall Gate Details and Barrier Wall Fencing Details in Appendix C), Montana City, Clancy, Boulder, and Whitehall sites will have the option to replace the pavement(Alternative No. 3)or not replace the pavement(Alternative No. 3A), Jefferson City will also have the option to add pavement or not add pavement to the site. This is the least costly alternative and most flexible because it allows for trailers, packer trucks and heavy wastes. A summary of the costs for each site and a total for all of the sites under 1 Alternative No. 3 is shown in the table below. r JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE(Container Site Altemative Evaluation&Report 9 1 1 Table F Jefferson County Container Site Safety Improvements Alternative No.3&3A-Barrier Gates With Pavement No Pavement Replacement( o. 3) Replacement(No. 3A i Montana City $80,000 $12,000 1 Clancy $47,000 $11,000 Jefferson City $40,000 $16,000 Boulder $89,000 $3,800 Whitehall $98,000 $3,800 1 Total $354,000 $46,600 H. Combination Permanent Barrier and Temporary Barrier-Safety Barrier Alternative No. 7&7A- Concrete Wall Extension with 8-Foot Container Gates with or without Pavement Replacement Alternative No. 7 is similar to Alternative No. 6 in that it includes constructing a cast-in-place concrete wall extension from the existing top of wall elevation to a height which will achieve a barrier height of 42-inches (See Alternative 7 & 7A - Concrete Wall Extension with Gates Details in Appendix C). Alternative No. 7 includes installation of two 8-foot long gates for each container. The gates will be similar to Alternative 3 in which the gates will achieve a barrier height of 42-inches. The gates will be separated by sections of the concrete wall extension. The purpose of the 8-foot gates is to allow two access points per container for packer trucks, heavy loads, and trailers. Since the bays with compactors at Whitehall have a hopper there ' would only need to be one eight-foot gate at each of these bays. The gates will be locked under normal circumstances and only the site attendant will open the 1 gate for heavy wastes, packer trucks, and trailers. This alternative also requires a parking bumper to be installed at a minimum distance of nine feet from the edge of the tipping wall so that customers do not stand on top of the barrier and pick-up tailgate (the typical distance from the back tire of the truck to the end of the tailgate is 5-feet). Montana City, Clancy, Boulder, and Whitehall sites will have the option to replace the pavement (Alternative No. 7) or not replace the pavement (Alternative No. 7A). Jefferson City will also have the option to add pavement or not add pavement to the site. This alternative is not as costly as Alternative No. 1 and is the least expensive when compared to Alternative Nos. 2, 5 and 6 which all require additional cast in-place concrete installation. This combination alternative provides permanent barriers and temporary barriers. The 8-foot gates are easier to use than the 10 to 14-foot gates as proposed in Alternative No. 3 and are separated by concrete wall extensions which also allow for more than one packer truck, heavy load, or trailer to access the container at one time. A summary of the costs for each site and a total for all of the sites under Alternative No. 7 is shown in the table below. JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE(Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report 10 Table G ' Jefferson County Container Site Safety Improvements Alternative No. 7&7A-Concrete Wall Extension with 8-Foot Gates With Pavement No Pavement Replacement(No.7) Replacement(No.7A)Montana City $89,000 $23,000 Clancy $55,000 $17,000 Jefferson City $43,000 $18,000 ' Boulder $96,000 $9,600 Whitehall $103,000 $9,700 Total $386,000 $77,300 I. Hopper Installation Alternative-Safety Alternative No.4&4A - Hopper Installation I with or without Pavement Replacement Alternative No. 4 includes installation of hoppers mounted to concrete slabs at the top of the tipping wall. Mechanical hoppers are used extensively in the manufacturing industry. The hoppers would be installed at the top of the wall. Customers would place wastes within the hopper and once full the site attendant would trip the mechanical hopper to dump into the roll- off container. Although hoppers come in a wide range of sizes, a 2-cubic yard container is a ' standard universal container in the waste industry. The hoppers would need to be spaced to allow relatively even distribution of wastes into the roll-off container. In our opinion,this alternative would require three hoppers per container.A cut sheet showing a typical hopper is included in Appendix B. The greatest advantage of this alternative is that the customer has no access to the drop off at the top of the container wall. However,the customer still needs to clear the end wall of the hopper with their wastes which is 46-1/2 inches for a two cubic yard container. One bay at the Montana City, Clancy, Boulder, and Whitehall sites will be left at existing grade without hoppers and will have locked gates at a 42-inch minimum height. The gates will be locked under ' normal circumstances and only the site attendant will open the gate for heavy wastes, packer trucks, and trailers. Top of wall fencing will be provided in all areas without a hopper or access to a tipping bay. The fencing will provide a minimum of 42-inch barrier height. JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation &Report 11 The cost of Alternative No.4 is shown in the table below. ' Table H Jefferson County Container Site Safety Improvements ' Alternative No.4&4A-Hoppers With Pavement No Pavement Replacement(No.4) Replacement(No.4A) Montana City $133,000 $67,000 ' Clancy $91,000 $56,000 Jefferson City $46,000 $23,000 1 Boulder $109,000 $23,000 Whitehall $112,000 $16,000 Total $491,000 $185,000 J. Safety Barrier Improvements Recommendations Our recommendation based on cost,flexibility, and utilization is the moveable alternative, Alternative No. 3 - Barrier Wall Gates and Fencing. This alternative is the least expensive. It is ' the most flexible and easy to use alternative because it allows for trailers, packer trucks, and heavyloads. If the County would like to go with a permanent barrier, Great West Engineering recommends Alternative No. 6 - Concrete Wall Extension. This alternative is the least expensive of the permanent barrier alternatives. If the County would like the combination of permanent barrier and temporary barrier which has the benefits of concrete which is stronger than fencing, and still has the ability to allow for trailers, packer trucks, and heavy loads,Alternative 7 is a good choice. The 8-foot gates are easier to use than the 10 to 14-foot gates as proposed in Alternative No. 3 - Barrier Wall Gates and Fencing. This alternative is less expensive than Alternative No. 6 - Concrete Wall Extension but more expensive than Alternative 3. tVII. PAY-AS-YOU-THROW PROGRAM (PAYT) EVALUATION A. Background Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) is a concept that the EPA has advocated to communities for over fifteen years. Under this type of solid waste fee system, residents and other solid waste system customers only pay for the volume or weight of waste they throw away. These systems provide a direct economic incentive for residents to create less waste and recycle more. More than 6,000 communities in the US have PAYT systems in place. The economic benefit of PAYr is thatthe community can save money on both hauling of waste and the landfill tipping fees. There are several other benefits of PAYT beyond economics. PAYT makes the solid waste system more equitable by charging residents for the amount of waste they actually dispose of. This is similar to other utilities such as water, gas, or electricity which use meters to charge consumers. PAYT also promotes environmental sustainability. JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report 12 ' PAYT can be accomplished on either a volume or weight basis. Basing a PAYT program in Jefferson County on volume would be extremely difficult. First,volume based systems work best in communities in which the majority of the community has curbside pick-up. Then the fees can be based on the size of container and the number times it is collected in a week. Since a large percentage of Jefferson County residents self haul their waste to the container ' sites,this would require the attendants to estimate the volume of waste and record it. Estimating waste volumes is very difficult and subjective. This approach has been tried in at least one other rural Montana community with limited success. Weight-based PAYT is technically feasible in Jefferson County because all of the waste is either brought through the container sites or direct hauled to the CCS landfill which has a scale. A 1 weight-based PAYr system requires significant capital investment for implementation including scales, accessories and billing software. The question is whether the tonnage of waste reduced will be significant enough to allow for a reasonable payback on the capital investment and the additional operations costs including scale attendants and billing. The EPA reports that communities which have implemented PAYT programs have reduced waste tonnage by 15%-25%. Jefferson County is only landfilling approximately 3 pounds of waste per capita per day which is significantly below the national and State average. In addition, recycling is more widely practiced nationally especially in urban areas and it is easier for residents to recycle a higher percentage of their waste. It is difficult to estimate how much Jefferson County would reduce its tonnage with the implementation of PAYT since there are no rural communities in ' Montana that currently have weight-based PAYT. Granite County is in the first year of their weight-based PAYT program but do not have a full year of data to determine how much less waste they will be landfilling, ' Weight-Based PAYT requires all loads to be weighed in and out of the container site. Customers are allowed a certain amount of tonnage per unit assessed. The tonnage in excess of the tonnage allotment per unit assessment is charged to the customer at a per ton rate. The customer is then billed annually for any tonnage in excess of the per unit allotment. B. Truck Scale Alternative 1 Truck scales are the most common approach for weight-based PAYT systems. One vehicle at a time stops on the scale, and shows their disposal permit to the scale operator. The scale operator then enters the permit number into the computer and the weight is stored into the ' system. The customer disposes of waste into the appropriate containers as instructed by the scale operator and then the customer stops on the scale on the way out of the site. The customer shows the disposal permit to the scale operator to get the tare weight. The entry ' weight minus the tare weight is the amount of garbage per ton disposed of on that trip. The disposed of weight is subtracted from the annual allotted per unit assessment weight each time the customer disposes of waste at the sites. The system can also be run by card readers in which the customer swipes a card in front of the reader;the computer logs the customer and the weight both in and out of the system. The system then determines the disposed weight from the difference in the outbound weight and ' the inbound weight. The system then subtracts the disposed weight off of the allotted per unit assessment weight. Montana City, Boulder, and Whitehall are the only sites in which adequate space and grade would allow the installation of truck scales. Montana City would require two scales, one for the inbound traffic and one for the outbound traffic. Montana City lacks the space to provide only one scale due to the volume of users at ' the site. If only one scale is used, the traffic would back up onto the County road and block JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report 13 ' traffic. The traffic would also back up into the disposal area which would not allow for vehicles to leave the area in a timely fashion. Montana City would also require card readers to speed ' up the process of vehicles running through the scale. Whitehall and Boulder would only require one scale at each site. The sites have adequate ' space for staging of vehicles. The customers will weigh in and weigh out just as the customers in Montana City. The only difference is that there will be two-way traffic across these scales rather than one-way traffic as at the Montana City site. Layouts for the proposed scales are ' located in Appendix D. A second attendant may be required for providing receipts,traffic management,and collection ' of payment from out-of--County customers, etc. Clancy and Jefferson City do not have adequate space for scales. These two sites would likely be closed under a weight based PAYT system. C. Hopper Alternative Hopper mounted on pallet scales would be another alternative for weighing which would allow ' Jefferson City and Clancy to remain open. A hopper would be placed on a pallet scale and the customer would swipe their card or the operator would enter the permit number into the computer system. The customer would then place the waste into the hopper, the scale would ' weigh the waste, record it into the system under the customer's permit, and the hopper would be tipped into the container for disposal of the waste. ' A summary of the costs for each site and a total for all of the sites under the Weight-Based PAYT system is shown in the table below. The costs for all of the alternatives were evaluated and detailed cost breakdowns are included in Appendix D. Jefferson County Container Site Safety Improvements 1 Pay-As-You Throw Alternatives PAYT -Truck Scales PAYT-Truck Scales wl No PAYT-Hopper Floor wlPavement Replacement Pavement Scales 7morwtanai $246,000 $205,000 $241,000 Boulder $181,000 $95,200 $95,000 ' Whitehall $190,000 $96,300 $71,000 Clancy $185,000 ' Jefferson City $83,000 Total $617,000 $396,500 $675,000 D. Weight-Based Pay-As-You-Throw Recommendation Jefferson County is proactive in examining a PAYT system. As disposal and hauling costs increase there will be more incentive for communities to implement PANT programs. However, due to the high cost of the capital investment and the uncertainty of the pay-off for a weight- based PAYT system,we recommend the County track Granite County's success with their new system before proceeding with a PAYT program. Granite County was fortunate in that their capital investment was 75%grant funded through the Montana TSEP and DNRC programs. JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report 14 ' This happened during a budget surplus for the State in which all of the applications in both programs were funded. Normally solid waste projects are not very competitive in these programs. The next TSEP and DNRC grant application cycle is not until May 2014. If the County is serious about PAYT, we would advise re-examining this issue in the fall of 2013 so that the County can consider applying for grant funding to help fund improvements. VIII. HAULING AND COMPACTION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Jefferson County hauls all wastes from each site,except Basin,to the City County Sanitation landfill located south of East Helena. The focus of this portion of report is to identify whether there are any areas where the County can feasibly reduce costs through hauling changes or compaction of wastes. ' The following table shows the breakdown of landfilled tonnage for 2011. able J Jefferson County Container Site ' Safety Improvements 2011 Landfilled Tonnage Summary Site Hauler Tonnage Percentage of Total 9 9 ' 7Montanat 1,576 26% Clancy 461 7% Jefferson City 294 5% Boulder 587 10% Whitehall 1,769 28% Giulio 931 15% CCS 537 9% Total 6,155 100% A. Description of Current Hauling System The County hauls containers with two trucks, one which is based out of Montana City and the other out of Boulder. Containers are monitored by site attendants who regularly communicate ' the status of container capacity to the management and truck drivers. This allows the County to maximize the tonnage hauled per trip and minimize the mileage and ultimately the costs of hauling. The County tracks container numbers and tonnage from each site. The County ' averages over 3.6 tons per uncompacted roll-off container which exceeds the industry rule of thumb of 3.0 to 3.5 tons for uncompacted 40 cubic yard roll-off containers. This indicates the County is doing a good job of consistently hauling full containers. The County takes advantage of backhauling opportunities as they arise. This includes the back haul of brush and metal to the Boulder site. In our opinion,the County is doing good job of optimizing its haul strategies and we have no recommendations for hauling improvements. Our only recommendation is that the County staff continue to focus on optimizing full containers and back haul opportunities with its hauling operation. B. Compaction Analysis Compaction of wastes in containers can reduce the number of trips required to haul wastes and therefore hauling costs. The two most typical approaches for compacting waste in roll-off containers are with either stationary compactors or a backhoe/excavator. The County installed ' two stationary compactors in Whitehall approximately ten years ago because it realized with a ' JEFFE R SON COUNTY SOL ID WA STE�Container Site Alternative Evaluation &R ep ort 15 1 nearly 70 mile one way trip to the landfill that the capital investment in compactors would pay off quickly. Whitehall obtains 2.4 times more tonnage per container than the uncompacted open top roll- offs hauled by the County from the other sites. This results in much less road mileage for transfer trucks. In order to obtain a reasonable pay off on the capital investment for stationary compactors,the site needs a combination of a long haul and adequate tonnage. Montana City,Clancy,and Jefferson City are not economically feasible for stationary compactors or backhoe compaction because of the short haul distance to City County Sanitation from Montana City and the minimal tonnage received at the Clancy and Jefferson ' City sites. These sites are easily screened from any further compaction evaluation. However, Boulder and Basin have been chosen for further evaluation. In order to determine the payoff for stationary compactors,the cost for the County to haul ' wastes needs to be determined per running mile. The County provided Great West with annual hauling mileage as well as costs for fuel, repairs, insurance, and labor. Table K shows the estimated cost per mile for amortization of the truck and trailer purchase. Table L calculates the actual cost per mile incurred by the County to haul wastes. The calculated amount of $3.08 per mile is well within the range for public entities which do their own waste hauling. ' Ta Jefferson County Container Site Improvements Milea a Depreciation of Truck Purch7M- Safety ' Truck&Tilt Frame $ 165,000.00 Trailer Pu $ 45,000.00 1 Sub-Total $ 210,000.00 Interest 5%-5 rs $ 33,000.00 iSub-Total _ $ 243,000.00 Divided by 500,000 miles $ ' Cost per Mile $ 0.49 Less Salvage Value of 10% $ cost per Mile $ 0.44 i JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report 16 1 Table L Jefferson County Container Site Safety Improvements Hauling Cost Estimate Truck Purchase,Operation and Maintenance Item Cos[ I Unit Mileage Cost per Mile Depreciation of Truck See breakdown Table K $ 0.44 ' Fuel $ 30,000 per year 50,000 $ 0.60 Repairs&Tires $ 25,000 Per year 50,000 $ 0.50 ' Insurance(Estimated 75%of Total $ 12,000.00 per year 50,000 $ 0.24 Insurance Cost Labor(Salary and Benefits-Estimates 65% $ 65,000.00 per year 50,000 $ 1.30 of Labor is Actual Hauling)1 Sub-Total $ 3.08 C. Boulder Compaction Alternatives The first alternative is to install stationary compactors at Boulder very similar to those used at the Whitehall site. Tables 10-1 and 10-2 in Appendix E show the estimated capital costs for stationary compactors at Boulder with single phase power from Northwest Energy and by a diesel powered generator. Extension of three phase power to the site for the stationary compactors is financially infeasible due to the distance and extreme cost. Norhtwest Energy allows up to 15 Hp motors with single phase power as long as the motors are equipped with ' soft start capability. The County would be able to install operate the compactors off single phase power with the installation of variable frequency drives(VFDs) which would allow the required soft start capability and convert the single phase power supply to the three phase needed by the compactors. The other option is to generate the needed three phase power with an on-site diesel-powered generator. Table M shows the estimated pay-off period for the installation of stationary compactors with both of these supplies. I ble M' unty Co Boulder Container Site ' Stationary ComjWW31jW&WW&uIatio Total Capital Cost with Variable Frequency Drives $251,000 ' Total Capital Costs with Generator $246,000 Boulder Site in 2011 598 tons/157 boxes=3.81 tons/box(Open Top Containers Whitehall Site in 2011 8.98 tons/box(Stationary Compactors) ' Ratio of Stationary Compactor Tonnage to Open Top Containers 8.9813.81 =2.36 With Stationary Compactors Annual Boulder Containers 157 boxes/2.36=67 Boxes ' Reduction of Annual Boxes with Stationary Compactor 157 boxes-67 boxes=90 boxes Assume that all trips are single container loads Save 90 trips per year Annual miles saved per year 90 trips x 60 miles per round trip 5,400 miles Annual Cost Savings 5,400 miles x$3.08/mile $16,600 per year Payback Line Power Alternative $251,000/$16,600 per year=15 years 1 Payback Generator Alternative $246,0001$16,600 per year= 15 years JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation&Report 17 Given the cost of inflation and the fact that the analysis does not consider electrical service charges for the line power and the maintenance of the compactors, the fifteen year payoff is not ideal. The County needs to decide whether a fifteen year pay-off is acceptable for this capital investment. One important note is that the capital costs for the stationary compactor alternative include the purchase of compactor roll-offs (bottles). The County does regularly replace its open top roll-off containers, so it may be justified to remove the capital cost of the compactor bottles in the determination of the payoff for the capital investment. If the ' compactor bottles are removed from the analysis the payoff is 11.5 years. Another alternative for compacting wastes in containers is utilizing a backhoe or excavator. Other counties and waste districts have had success using this method for compaction of wastes transferred in roll-off containers. Although it is not typically as effective as a stationary compactor, it is still common to achieve a 2:1 ratio in tonnage compared to uncompacted roll- offs. The Boulder site does have an excavator which it uses for other site operations and it is available at least part time at the facility. The biggest drawback to this alternative for Boulder is having a skilled operator available to compact wastes throughout the day. Skill is required to minimize damage to the containers and other infrastructure on site during compaction activities. We understand the current site attendants employed by the County are not experienced excavator operators. IX. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Safety improvements are the highest current need for the container sites. We recommend the existing drop gates either be removed under Drop Gate Alternative 1 or replaced with a shorter and improved flap design under Drop Gate Alternative 2 to reduce this safety hazard. Either of these alternatives will require the truck drivers to park as close to the wall as possible and include the installation of a steel channel near the base of the wall to protect it from damage. It will also require ' the County to move the location of the hand winch for the covers on some of the containers. If new drop gates are installed as part of first phase of the project, then they should be installed to accommodate the future installation of barrier gates. tWe recommend the County select either Alternative 3 (Barrier Gates) or Alternative 7 (Barrier Gates with Concrete Wall Extensions).The County may consider a phased approach to the installation of the gates at one or more facilities initially in order to better optimize the design for the remainder of the facilities. If the County wants to replace pavement at some or all of the sites, we have provided those costs in the evaluation. Obviously this improvement represents a significant capital investment. Regarding implementation of a PAYt program, we recommend the County monitor the success of Granite County's weight-based program before proceeding. The County should also monitor potential funding opportunities for the needed infrastructure. If significant grant funding can be obtained the payoff for a PAYE system will be much quicker and justifiable to the residents. ' At this time no changes to the hauling and compaction procedures are recommended. The County needs to decide whether the capital investment for stationary compactors at Boulder is justified by a fifteen year pay-off(11.5 years without compactor roll-off purchase). Also, if the County needed to ' hire new personnel for the Boulder site at some point in the future, it may worthwhile hiring somebody with excavator operating experience. This would allow the County to capitalize on having the excavator on-site for compaction of roll-off container wastes and reduction in hauling mileage. i JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE I Container Site Alternative Evaluation & Report 18 r r r ! 1 APPENDIX A 1 1 SAFETY ALTERNATIVES COST ! TABLES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I � r 1� z s f �1 pp E ' � �� '.' . 111 ',• � 111 '. 1111 ',• � 111 ',� � 111 � � 111 ',�G 111 de 111 tv` ',. 1 11 111 . 11 1 1 1 111 .11 1111 :11 . 111 1 '11 1111 11 rr:Yr.;:� . ' 1 I I ' • � � I I '. : III ', 1 � I I '.: � 1 I I I i i SAFETY ALTERNATIVE #1 i COST TABLES i i 1 i 1 1 1 ! 1 ! S # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Excavation 1,400 CY $ 5.00 $ 7,000 ' 2 Pavement Replacement 1,550 SY $ 30.00 $ 46,500 3 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 4 New Tie Backs 22 EA $ 700.00 $ 15,400 5 Retaining Wall (Dump Trailers) 6.5 CY $ 350.00 $ 2,275 6 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 72,000 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 ' Contingency 10% $ 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 86,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 17,000 TOTAL $ 103,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 1 1 PQTY UN ITS UNIT PRICEI EM "TOTAL 1 Excavation 770 CY $ 5.00 $ 3,850 2 Pavement Replacement 850 SY $ 30.00 $ 25,500 3 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 4 New Tie Backs 16 EA $ 700.00 $ 11,200 5 Retaining Wall (Dump Trailers) 6.5 CY $ 350.00 $ 2,275 6 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 44,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 4,000 Contingency 10% $ 4,000 Construction Subtotal $ 52,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 10,000 $ TOTAL $ 62,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 e'/xf, S: Yt��tii s�y2n 1J E T # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Excavation 450 CY $ 5.00 2 Pavement Replacement 550 SY $ 30.00 $ 16,500 3 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 4 New Tie Backs 8 EA $ 700.00 $ 5,600 5 Perimeter Fencing 6'tall 500 LF $ 15.00 $ 7,500 $ 1 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 32,000 Mobilization 10% $ 3,000 Contingency 10% $ 3,000 ' Construction Subtotal $ 38,000 Engineering 20% $ 8,000 $ TOTAL $ 46,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. Y 3 2 # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Excavation 1,900 CY $ 5.00 $ 9,500 ' 2 Pavement Replacement 2,000 SY $ 30.00 $ 60,000 3 Retaining Wall (Dump Trailers) 6.5 CY $ 350.00 $ 2,275 4 113arrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 73,000 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 87,000 Engineering 20% $ 17,000 $ TOTAL $ 104,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Excavation 2,000 CY $ 5.00 $ 10,000 2 Pavement Replacement 2,200 SY $ 30.00 $ 66,000 3 Retaining Wall (Dump Trailers) 6.5 CY $ 350.00 $ 2,275 4 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 79,000 Mobilization 10% $ 8,000 Contingency 10% $ 8,000 Construction Subtotal $ 95,000 Engineering 20% $ 19 000 $ TOTAL $ 114,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. I � � 1 SAFETY ALTERNATIVE #2 � COST TABLES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 NIQTY PUMTS# BID I TEM UNIT PRICE t TOTAL ' 1 Pavement Replacement 1,550 SY $ 30.00 $ 46,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 t 3 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 4 Barrier Rails 22 EA $ 500.00 $ 11,000 5 Concrete Curb 8.5 CY $ 775.00 $ 6,588 1 $ - Direct Construction Subtotal $ 65,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 79,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 16,000 TOTAL $ 95,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 ' 'Pop EM PQTYNITS UNIT PRICE t PTOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 2 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 3 Barrier Rails 22 EA $ 500.00 $ 11,000 4 Concrete Curb 8.5 CY $ 775.00 $ 6,588 1 $ - Direct Construction Subtotal $ 19,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 2,000 Contingency 10% $ 2,000 Construction Subtotal $ 23,000 tEngineering 20% $ 51000 $ ' TOTAL $ 28,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. x E, +- O # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 850 SY $ 30.00 $ 25,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 3 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 4 Barrier Rails 19 EA $ 500.00 $ 9,500 5 Concrete Curb 7 CY $ 775.00 $ 5,425 1 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 42,000 Mobilization 10% $ 4,000 Contingency 10% $ 4,000 Construction Subtotal $ 50,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 10 000 TOTAL $ 60,000 ' Estimated unit costs arc based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. t ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS S 500.00 $ 500 ' 2 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 3 Barrier Rails 19 EA $ 500.00 $ 9,500 4 Concrete Curb 7 Cy $ 775.00 $ 5,425 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 16,000 t Mobilization 10% $ 2,000 Contingency 10% $ 2,000 Construction Subtotal $ 20,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 4,000 $ TOTAL $ 24,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. �y L ?e a` 9[$Y Lk 9 we rA ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 550 SY $ 30.00 $ 16,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 3 Barrier Rails 8 EA $ 500.00 $ 4,000 4 Concrete Curb 3 CY $ 775.00 $ 2,325 5 1 Perimeter Fencing 6'tall 500 LF $ 15.00 $ 7,500 1 $ - Direct Construction Subtotal $ 31,000 Mobilization 10% $ 3,000 Contingency 10% $ 3,000 Construction Subtotal $ 37,000 Engineering 20% $ 7,000 TOTAL $ 44,000 ' 1 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 2 Barrier Rails 8 EA $ 500.00 $ 4,000 3 Concrete Curb 3 CY $ 775.00 $ 2,325 4 Perimeter Fencing 6'tall 500 LF $ 15.00 $ 7,500 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 14,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 16,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 3,000 ' TOTAL $ 19,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 c ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 2,000 SY $ 30.00 $ 60,000 2 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 3 Barrier Rails 6 EA $ 500.00 $ 3,000 4 Concrete Curb 2.5 CY $ 775.00 $ 1,938 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 66,000 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 80,000 Engineering 20% $ 16,000 $ TOTAL $ 96,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 "# BID EM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 2 Barrier Rails 6 EA $ 500.00 $ 3,000 3 Concrete Curb 2.5 CY $ 775.00 $ 1,938 ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 6,000 Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 8,000 Engineering 20% $ 2,000 TOTAL $ 10,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. a # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL + 1 Pavement Replacement 2,200 SY $ 30.00 $ 66,000 2 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 3 Barrier Rails 6 EA $ 500.00 $ 3,000 4 Concrete Curb 2.5 CY $ 775.00 $ 1,938 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 72,000 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 86,000 Engineering 20% $ 17,000 $ - TOTAL $ 103,000 ' ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 4007 $ 800 ' 2 Barrier Rails 6 EA $ 500.00 $ 3,000 3 Concrete Curb 2.5 CY $ 775.00 $ 1,938 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 6,000 Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 8,000 Engineering 20% $ 2,000 1 $ TOTAL $ 10,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. i SAFETY ALTERNATIVE #3 t COST TABLES 1 1 1 i i i 1 i ' 1 1 t 1 t 8 ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 1,550 SY $ 30.00 $ 46,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 3 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 14 EA $ 350.00 $ 4,900 4 Wall Fencing 92 LF $ 30.00 $ 2,760 $ ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 55,000 Mobilization 10% $ 6,000 Contingency 10% $ 6,000 ' Construction Subtotal $ 67,000 Engineering 20% $ 13,000 $ TOTAL $ 80,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 2 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 14 EA $ 350.00 $ 4,900 3 Wall Fencing 92 LF $ 30.00 $ 2,760 ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 8,000 Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 1 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 10,000 Engineering 20% $ 2,000 $ TOTAL $ 12,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. s :car< i I # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 850 SY $ 30.00 $ 25,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 3 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 12 EA $ 350.00 $ 4,200 4 Wall Fencing 88 LF $ 30.00 $ 2,640 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 33,000 Mobilization 10% $ 3,000 Contingency 10% $ 3,000 Construction Subtotal $ 39,000 Engineering 20% $ 8,000 $ TOTAL $ 47,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 2 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 12 EA $ 350.00 $ 4,200 3 Wall Fencing 88 LF S 30.00 $ 2,640 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 7,000 Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 ' Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 9,000 Engineering 20% $ 2,000 $ TOTAL $ 11,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM n. QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL ' 1 Pavement Replacement 550 SY $ 30.00 $ 16,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 3 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 4 EA $ 350.00 $ 1,400 4 Wall Fencing 42 LF $ 30.00 $ 1,260 5 Perimeter Fencing 6' tall 500 LF $ 15.00 $ 7,500 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 27,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 3,000 Contingency 10% S 3,000 Construction Subtotal $ 33,000 Engineering 20% $ 7,000 $ TOTAL $ 40,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS S 500.00 $ 500 2 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 4 EA $ 350.00 $ 1,400 3 Wall Fencing 42 LF $ 30.00 $ 1,260 ' 4 Perimeter Fencing 6'tall 500 LF $ 15.00 $ 7,500 $ ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 11,000 Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 13,000 Engineering 20% $ 3,000 $ k--�TO—TAL $ 16,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 2,000 SY $ 30.00 $ 60,000 2 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 6 EA $ 400.00 $ 2,400 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 62,000 Mobilization 10% $ 6,000 Contingency 10% $ 6,000 Construction Subtotal $ 74,000 Engineering 20% $ 15,000 $ TOTAL $ 89,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 lBarrier Gates 14 foot length 6 EA $ 400.00 $ 2,400 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 2,400 Mobilization 10% $ 200 Contingency 10% $ 200 Construction Subtotal $ 2,800 Engineering 20% $ 1,000 TOTAL $ 3,800 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. t r t # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICEl TOTAL I Pavement Replacement 2,200 SY $ 30.00 $ 66,000 2 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 6 EA $ 400.00 $ 2,400 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 68,000 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 1 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 82,000 Engineering 20% $ 16,000 $ TOTAL $ 98,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 1 6 EA $ 400.00 1 $ 2,400 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 2,400 Mobilization 10% $ 200 Contingency 10% is 200 ' Construction Subtotal $ 2,800 Engineering 20% $ 1,000 $ TOTAL $ 3,800 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. r i i 1 1 SAFETY ALTERNATIVE #4 COST TABLES i i 1 r i 1 i 1 i I ' MIN # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL ' 1 Purchase Hoppers 18 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 32,400 2 Install Slab &Mount Hopper 18 EA $ 500.00 $ 9,000 3 Top of Wall Fencing 139 LF $ 30.00 $ 4,170 ' 4 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 5 Pavement Replacement 1,550 SY $ 30.00 $ 46,500 1 $ - Direct Construction Subtotal $ 93,000 Mobilization 10% $ 9,000 ' Contingency 10% $ 9,000 Construction Subtotal $ 111,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 22,00011 TOTAL $ 133,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. ' # BID ITEM 00TYUNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Purchase Hoppers 18 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 32,400 ' 2 Install Slab &Mount Hopper 18 EA $ 500.00 $ 9,000 3 Top of Wall Fencing 139 LF $ 30.00 $ 4,170 4 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 46,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 5,000 Contingency 10% $ 5,000 Construction Subtotal $ 56,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 11000 TOTAL $ 67,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 y # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL ' 1 Purchase Hoppers 15 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 27,000 2 Install Slab &Mount Hopper 15 EA $ 500.00 $ 7,500 3 Top of Wall Fencing 116 LF $ 30.00 $ 3,480 4 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 5 Pavement Replacement 850 SY $ 30.00 $ 25,500 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 64,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 6,000 Contingency 10% $ 6,000 Construction Subtotal $ 76,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 15,000 $ TOTAL $ 91,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Purchase Hoppers 15 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 27,000 ' 2 Install Slab & Mount Hopper 15 EA $ 500.00 $ 7,500 3 Top of Wall Fencing 116 LF $ 30.00 $ 3,480 4 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 39,000 Mobilization 10% $ 4,000 Contingency 10% $ 4,000 Construction Subtotal $ 47,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 9,000 ' TOTAL $ 56,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 . ... 1 # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 1 Purchase Hoppers 6 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 10,800 2 Install Slab & Mount Hopper 6 EA $ 500.00 $ 3,000 1 3 Top of Wall Fencing 53 LF $ 30.00 $ 1,590 4 Pavement Replacement 550 SY $ 30.00 $ 16,500 1 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 32,000 Mobilization 10% $ 3,000 Contingency 10% 7$ 3,000 1 Construction Subtotal $ 38,000 Engineering 20% $ 8,000 1 $ TOTAL $ 46,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 1 1 1 # PBIDTEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Purchase Hoppers 6 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 10,800 2 Install Slab &Mount Hopper 6 EA $ 500.00 $ 3,000 1 3 Top of Wall Fencing 53 LF $ 30.00 $ 1,590 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 15,000 1 Mobilization 10% $ 2,000 Contingency 10% $ 2,000 1 Construction Subtotal $ 19,000 Engineering 20% $ 4,000 1 TOTAL $ 23,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana, i 1 i f` # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Purchase Hoppers 6 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 10,800 2 Install Slab & Mount Hopper 6 EA $ 500.00 ' 3 Top of Wall Fencing 27 LF $ 30.00 $ 810 4 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 5 Pavement Replacement 2,000 SY $ 30.00 $ 60,000 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 75,000 Mobilization 10% $ 8,000 Contingency 10% $ 8,000 Construction Subtotal $ 91,000 1 Engineering 20% $ 18,000 $ TOTAL $ 109,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Purchase Hoppers 6 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 10,800 2 Install Slab &Mount Hopper 6 EA $ 500.00 $ 3,000 3 Top of Wall Fencing 27 LF $ 30.00 $ 810 4 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 15,000 Mobilization 10% $ 2,000 Contingency 10% $ 2,000 Construction Subtotal $ 19,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 4,000 $ TOTAL $ 23,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE' TOTAL 1 Purchase Hoppers 4 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 7,200 2 Install Slab &Mount Hopper 4 EA $ 500.00 $ 2,000 I 3 Top of Wall Fencing 37 LF $ 30.00 $ 1,110 4 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 5 IPavernent Replacement 2,200 SY $ 30.00 $ 66,000 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 77,000 Mobilization 10% $ 8,000 Contingency 10% $ 8,000 Construction Subtotal $ 93,000 Engineering 20% $ 19,000 $ TOTAL $ 112,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Purchase Hoppers 4 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 7,200 2 Install Slab &Mount Hopper 4 EA $ 500.00 $ 2,000 3 Top of Wall Fencing 37 LF $ 30.00 $ 1,110 4 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 Direct Construction Subtotal S 11,000 Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 13,000 Engineering 20% $ 3,000 TOTAL $ 16,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 1 1 SAFETY ALTERNATIVE #5 1 COST TABLES 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 1,550 SY $ 30.00 $ 46,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 3 Wall Blocks 36 EA $ 100.00 $ 3,600 4 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 5 Concrete Curb 22 CY $ 775.00 $ 17,050 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 68,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 82,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 16,000 $ TOTAL $ 98,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 2 Wall Blocks 36 EA $ 100.00 $ 3,600 3 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 4 Concrete Curb 22 CY $ 775.00 $ 17,050 1 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 22,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 2,000 Contingency 10% $ 2,000 Construction Subtotal $ 26,000 tEngineering 20% $ 5,000 TOTAL $ 31,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. t : # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL ' 1 Pavement Replacement 850 SY $ 30.00 $ 25,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 3 Wall Blocks 31 EA $ 100.00 $ 3,100 4 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 5 Concrete Curb 18 CY $ 775.00 $ 13,950 1 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 44,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 4,000 Contingency 10% S 4,000 Construction Subtotal $ 52,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 10,000 $ TOTAL $ 62,000 tEstimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. ' # BID ITEM MMRQTYUNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 2 Wall Blocks 31 EA $ 100.00 $ 3,100 3 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 4 Concrete Curb 18 CY $ 775.00 $ 13,950 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 18,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 2,000 Contingency 10% $ 2,000 Construction Subtotal $ 22,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 41000 $ ' TOTAL $ 26,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. r N BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL ' 1 Pavement Replacement 550 SY $ 30.00 $ 16,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 3 Wall Blocks 14 EA $ 100.00 $ 1,400 4 Perimeter Fencing 6 ft Tall 500 LF $ 15.00 $ 7,500 5 Concrete Curb 8 CY $ 775.00 $ 6,200 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 32,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 3,000 Contingency 10% $ 3,000 Construction Subtotal $ 38,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 81 000 TOTAL $ 46,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 ' "BID M "PRICE TOTAL 1 lRemove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Wall Blocks 14 EA $ 100.00 $ 1,400 3 Perimeter Fencing 6 ft Tall 500 LF $ 15.00 $ 7,500 4 Concrete Curb 8 CY $ 775.00 $ 6,200 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 16,000 Mobilization 10% $ 2,000 Contingency 10% $ 2,000 Construction Subtotal $ 20,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 4,000 $ ' TOTAL $ 24,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. F WIM # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 I Pavement Replacement 2,000 SY $ 30.00 $ 60,000 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 3 Wall Blocks 9 EA $ 100.00 $ 900 4 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 5 Concrete Curb 6 CY $ 775.00 $ 4,650 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 67,000 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 81,000 Engineering 20% $ 16,000 $ TOTAL $ 97,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. i 1 ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Wall Blocks 9 EA $ 100.00 $ 900 3 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 4 Concrete Curb 6 CY $ 775.00 $ 4,650 $ - Direct Construction Subtotal $ 6,900 Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 8,900 Engineering 20% $ 2,000 TOTAL $ 10,900 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 2,200 SY $ 30.00 $ 66,000 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 3 Wall Blocks 9 EA $ 100.00 $ 900 4 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 5 Concrete Curb 6 Cy $ 775.00 $ 4,650 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 73,000 Mobilization 10% S 7,000 Contingency 10% S 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 87,000 Engineering 20% $ 17,000 $ TOTAL $ 104,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. on i1# BID ITEM QTY UNITS jUNIT P RICE ' TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Wall Blocks 9 EA $ 100.00 $ 900 3 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 4 Concrete Curb 6 CY $ 775.00 $ 4,650 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 6,900 Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 8,900 Engineering 20% $ 2,000 $ TOTAL $ 10,900 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. i 1 1 1 SAFETY ALTERNATIVE #6 COST TABLES 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 i i - t ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 1,550 SY $ 30.00 $ 46,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS S 500.00 $ 500 ' 3 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 4 Concrete Wall Extension 22 CY $ 775.00 $ 17,050 ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 65,000 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 ' Construction Subtotal $ 79,000 Engineering 20% $ 16,000 $ TOTAL $ 95,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 MP' # MBID ITEM QTY UNITS PUNITPRICE1 OTOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 ' 3 Concrete Wall Extension 22 CY $ 775.00 $ 17,050 ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 18,000 Mobilization 10% $ 2,000 Contingency 10% $ 2,000 Construction Subtotal $ 22,000 Engineering 20% $ 4,000 $ TOTAL $ 26,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. t 0 1 # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL ' I Pavement Replacement 850 SY $ 30.00 $ 25,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 3 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 4 Concrete Wall Extension 18 CY $ 775.00 $ 13,950 $ ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 41,000 Mobilization 10% $ 4,000 ' Contingency 10% $ 4,000 Construction Subtotal $ 49,000 Engineering 20% $ 10,000 1 $ TOTAL $ 59,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. ' UN PRICE ITEM QTY UNITT ' TOTAL I Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Barrier Gates 10 foot length 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700 3 Concrete Wall Extension 18 CY $ 775.00 $ 13,950 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 15,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 2,000 Contingency 10% $ 2,000 ' Construction Subtotal $ 19,000 Engineering 20% $ 4,000 ' TOTAL $ 23,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 1 f - t , ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 550 SY $ 30.00 $ 16,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 3 Perimeter Fencing 6 ft Tall 500 LF $ 15.00 $ 7,500 4 Concrete Wall Extension 8 CY $ 775.00 $ 6,200 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 31,000 Mobilization 10% $ 3,000 ' Contingency 10% $ 3,000 Construction Subtotal $ 37,000 Engineering 20% $ 7,000 ' $ TOTAL $ 44,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Perimeter Fencing 6 ft Tall 500 LF $ 15.00 $ 7,500 ' 3 Concrete Wall Extension 8 CY $ 775.00 $ 6,200 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 14,000 Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 16,000 Engineering 20% $ 3,000 $ ' TOTAL $ 19,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 2,000 SY $ 30.00 $ 60,000 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 3 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 4 lConcrete Wall Extension 6 CY $ 775.00 $ 4,650 ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 66,000 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 80,000 Engineering 20% $ 16,000 $ - TOTAL $ 96,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 3 Concrete Wall Extension 6 CY $ 775.00 $ 4,650 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 6,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 8,000 Engineering 20% $ 2,000 ' TOTAL $ 10,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 2,200 SY $ 30.00 $ 66,000 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 3 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA S 400.00 $ 800 4 Concrete Wall Extension 6 CY $ 775.00 $ 4,650 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 72,000 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 86,000 Engineering 20% $ 17,000 $ TOTAL $ 103,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Barrier Gates 14 foot length 2 EA $ 400.00 $ 800 3 Concrete Wall Extension 6 CY $ 775.00 $ 4,650 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 6,000 Mobilization 10% S 1,000 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 8,000 Engineering 20% $ 2,000 $ TOTAL $ 10,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. i 1 1 1 1 i 1 SAFETY ALTERNATIVE #7 � COST TABLES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 it i RBID# ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL ' 1 Pavement Replacement 1,550 SY $ 30.00 $ 46,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 3 Barrier Gates 8 foot length 14 EA $ 325.00 $ 4,550 4 Concrete Wall Extension 13 CY $ 775.00 $ 10,075 ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 62,000 Mobilization 10% $ 6,000 Contingency 10% $ 6,000 ' Construction Subtotal $ 74,000 Engineering 20% $ 15,000 $ TOTAL $ 89,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 # BID ITEM ililplQTYPUNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Barrier Gates 8 foot length 14 EA $ 325.00 $ 4,550 3 Concrete Wall Extension 13 CY $ 775.00 $ 10,075 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 15,000 ' Mobilization 10% S 2,000 Contingency 10% $ 2,000 Construction Subtotal $ 19,000 Engineering 20% $ 4,000 ' TOTAL $ 23,000 1 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. t ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 850 SY $ 30.00 $ 25,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 3 Barrier Gates 8 foot length 12 EA $ 325.00 $ 3,900 4 Concrete Wall Extension 11 CY $ 775.00 $ 8,525 $ ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 38,000 Mobilization 10% $ 4,000 ' Contingency 10% $ 4,000 Construction Subtotal $ 46,000 Engineering 20% $ 9,000 $ TOTAL $ 55,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS I UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Barrier Gates 8 foot length 12 EA $ 325.00 $ 3,900 ' 3 Concrete Wall Extension 11 CY $ 775.00 $ 8,525 $ ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 13,000 Mobilization 10% $ 500 Contingency 10% $ 500 t Construction Subtotal $ 14,000 Engineering 20% $ 3,000 $ TOTAL $ 17,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 t 1 s # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 550 SY $ 30.00 $ 16,500 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 3 Perimeter Fencing 6 ft Tall 500 LF $ 15.00 $ 7,500 4 Barrier Gates 8 foot length 4 EA $ 325.00 $ 1,300 5 Concrete Wall Extension 5 Cy $ 775.00 $ 3,875 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 30,000 Mobilization 10% $ 3,000 Contingency 10% $ 3,000 Construction Subtotal $ 36,000 1 Engineering 20% $ 7,000 $ TOTAL $ 43,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 2 Perimeter Fencing 6 ft Tall 500 LF $ 15.00 $ 7,500 3 Barrier Gates 8 foot length 4 EA $ 325.00 $ 1,300 4 Concrete Wall Extension 5 CY $ 775.00 $ 3,875 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 13,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 15,000 Engineering 20% $ 3,000 $ ' TOTAL $ 18,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL ' 1 Pavement Replacement 2,000 SY $ 30.00 $ 60,000 2 Remove Drop Gates I LS $ 500.00 $ 500 3 Barrier Gates 8 foot length 6 EA $ 325.00 $ 1,950 4 Concrete Wall Extension 4 CY $ 775.00 $ 3,100 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 66,000 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 ' Construction Subtotal $ 80,000 Engineering 20% $ 16,000 $ TOTAL $ 96,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS U 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Barrier Gates 8 foot length 6 EA $ 325.00 $ 1,950 ' 3 Concrete Wall Extension 4 CY $ 775.00 $ 3,100 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 5,600 ' Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 7,600 Engineering 20% $ 2,000 TOTAL $ 9,600 1 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. i N ; ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 2,200 SY $ 30.00 $ 66,000 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 i 3 Barrier Gates 8 foot length 4 EA $ 325.00 $ 1,300 4 Concrete Wall Extension 5 CY $ 775.00 $ 31875 i Direct Construction Subtotal $ 72,000 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 iConstruction Subtotal $ $6,000 Engineering 20% $ 17,000 $ TOTAL $ 103,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # ITEM UNIT P 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Barrier Gates 8 foot length 4 EA $ 325.00 $ 1,300 i3 Concrete Wall Extension 5 CY $ 775.00 $ 3,875 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 5,700 Mobilization 10% $ 1,000 Contingency 10% $ 1,000 Construction Subtotal $ 7,700 Engineering 20% $ 2,000 $ TOTAL $ 9,700 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 smineizi mis 1 9 XIaN3ddd 1 1 1 � 1 ; 1 � 1 �6 At WING WALL ! ' ! f � ! a k f ! ! f f w r i c S ARE VIN HEIGHT AND 10" ' w HICK 3 0 N O t aO (J V Figure #1 €€ Montana City Container Site 25 w GreatWest o scnLe 8 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT LL engineering® CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 WING WALL *#,lift N 1 ! 1 ' l ! 1 o ; 14 Ln 0 I 1 / 1 / NOTE: • OALLS ARE V IN HEIGHT AND 10" o o _ I 1 U 1 Figure #2 /Greatte-si' €€ Clancy Container Site 25 50 o 8 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT SCALE IN FEET engineering® CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS ' WING WALL R ' o m ■ WING WALL I 4,r �f Y N O I ' / 9 U 1 / NOTE: • WALLS ARE 9' IN HEIGHT AND 10" ' THICK 3 ' d 0 0 1 S / V w Figure #3 Jefferson City Container Site GreatWest SCALE IN FEU � FF JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT engineering® CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS i 1 F ! 14' �rrr■ ■ r r r i ■ r 1a• ■ r i r s IN a m a 4 14' n i i P 1 - U O ' W O I a °c v i U ' O 0 w w Figure #4 Boulder Container Site 1 GreatWest �° / �,� JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT engineering& CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS M * j 14 { s ♦ ♦ jog i r � U N I I N O NOTE: • WALLS ARE 10' IN HEIGHT AND 10" THICK 3 m 0 e N N e a a O Figure #5 0 5 ao Whitehall Container Site Greaftst �SCALE IN EEEi JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT j o engineering® CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS i S321nou S3AIIVNI:1311 V AAA VS f 3 XIaN3ddV 1 1 1 E\1-05154—JEFCo—GoCOII\CADD 1-05154—TO#60—SorA Waste Container\Exhibits\Container E.vol\l-05154—OTL—ALT1—Wall Aoahor.ewg 14'-0' EXISTING GROUND i REMOVE EXISTING MATERIAL nNISHED ..... ..... ------------- _ GROUND —_-- m NEW ANCHOR CABLE 2°x2°xB' CONCRETE WALL ANCHOR EVERY 10' j ALONG WALL EXISTING 1 TIE RACK) TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SLAB EXISTING J N1 CONCRETE � ..{ ANCHOR Alternative 1 Wall Anchor Detail Great West JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT engineering�, CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS F'\I-06154-JEFCc-Oncm1\CADO 1-06154 TO#60-Solid Waste Container\Exnlbits\Container Evol\l-O5154-DT1E-ALT2-Concrete Bavier Roil.awg 10'-0' 6' MM. CONCRETE BARRIER RAE PER MDT STD DWG #606-60 CONCRETE HARRIER ° " ° • .. - , RAIL PER MOT STD OWC #606-60 m • _ " , -, " ° i #{ BARS fi' O.C. . - EXISTING ° ° •° " " ° #4 BARS 18' O.C. CONCRETE •° " FILL TO TOP OF CONCRETE CURB CAST IN PLACE 1{' #{' BARS 46 O.0 l - /< BARS 6'.0 C LTOP OF EXISTING CONCRETE WALL CONCRETE CURB —— EXISTING GROUND p• EXISTING _. - - - - CONCRETE - .. WALL BARRIER RAIL TYPICAL SECTION BARRIER RAIL TYPICAL ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE Alternative 2 & 2A Barrier Rail Details GreatWest JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT engineering® CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS 10' TO 14' ' DEPENDING ON BAY WIDTH STEEL A36 TUBING FASTEN WIRE MESH TO FROM SIDE OF GATE POSTT STEEL PLAN VIEW FASTEN WIRE MESH TO GATE TO BE CHAINED S" FRONT SIDE OF GATE AND LOCKED. OPENED 4" CAP ONLY BY ATTENDANT -�{ (� STEEL A36 TUBING (TYP.) 0 I WI POST ANCHOR PER DETAIL THIS SHEET 6'-0" ' CUT DOWN IN CONCRETE LIP EXISTING TOP OF CONCRETE WALL CONCRETE WALL PANT TOP OF WALL AND EXPOSED FACE OF WALL FACING PUBLIC TIPPING HINGE POST AREA WITH SAFETY YELLOW. ADD a ABRASNE GRIT TO PANT NOTE: PAINT GATE EXTERIOR ENAMEL. PE 1, SAFETY YELLOW. ELEVATION VIEW GATE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 1 32" TALL GATE PER SPEC o e AND DETAIL THIS SHEET E. 6' GAILY, POST c FOR GATES SLOTTED HOLE 6" 2 1/2' (TYP.) o 1 1/2' x 3/4' (TYPJ TFOR WELD POST TO B ASE PLATE ANCHOR POST PER DETAL THIS SHEET 1/2" STEEL PLATE O 0 E STEEL BASE PLATE GATE POST SIMLL BE a 12", WITH POST t/Y Dw. DRAM HOLE 10 TERED ON BASE PLATE IN PLATE FOR GALVA112ING EXISTING CONCRETE WALL 3 STEEL GA TE TENPOSTEBASE PLA ' BARRIER WALL GATE POST TYPCAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE I Alternative 3 & 3A ° Barrier Wall Gate Details ' Greatwcst JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT LL engineering® CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS m m m r m m m m r m r m m r m m m m m E\1-05154-JFFCO-CnCall\CADD 1-05154-TO#60-Solid W.N, Contoioer\Exhibits\COnfatner Eaal\1-05154-0TL-ALT3-Wall Gentlng.awg CONTINUOUS 1 1/4' STEEL PIPE RAILING WELDED PER An STANDARD 1/2' STEEL BASE PLATE CENTER POST ON WALL SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET HEAW NICK NO WITH WASHER CROU T IF/EIM4 MIW NIX �Y \ \ � f ' t MU,W/WRNER � � � 4' $TEFL PIPE POST 0 48' O.C. +/- 5/8' DIA RESIN BONDED J-BOLT (4) E. a NOTE: GNAW LINK POSTS TO BE 4' DIA �� V v \ ,/ GATE POSTS TO BE 6' D0. ) 'T v < `. /�/✓� J��y / )v � Y ✓ CHAIN LINK CHAIN LINK AND GATE POST ANCHOR DETAIL v Y `� N07 TO SCALE g��( POST ANCHOR PLUMB ALL P053 AND BALUSTERS BARRIER WALL CHAIN LINK TYPICAL ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE NOTE: NEW GATES SHALL BE SWINGING GATES 48' HIGH BY 10' TO 14' LONG WITH GALVANIZED CHAIN LINK FABRIC. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY DIMENSIONS. CHAIN LINK PER SPEC. 4' GALV. POST FOR FENCING pp •l C ANCHOR POST SLOTTED HOLE 3 PER DETAIL THIS SHEET 1 1/2' x 3/4' (ttP.) WELD POST TO BABE PLATE EXISTING 112' STEEL PLATE CONCRETE WALL O 0 NOTE: STEEL BASE PLATE � � FOR GATE POST SHALL BE 1/2' DIA DRAIN HOLE I"—�I 10' x WITH POST IN PLATE FOR GALVANIZING CENTEREED D ON BASE PLATE 5 STEEL POST BASE PLATE BARRIER WALL CHAIN LINK TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE Alternative 3 & 3A Barrier Wall Fencing Details GreatWest JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT engineering® CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS M M M M M M M r � M M M M r M M M M r E\1-05150—JEFCo—OnCaI\CARD I-05154—TOp60—solid Waste C.,m,ev\Ewdlbite\COntainer E,aI\l--05154—DTL—Perimeter Fennng.dw, BRACE RAIL OOUOUBRACE SINGLE PANEL 1 m ll u WIRE u -3' I l 1 LINE POST PANEL POST BRACE RAIL cull - u u-III_r=. d d m�� Fyle l=.=m I. mb� m u�Jl�6 J1Il II Z, II BRACE WIRE II ENO, CORNER OR CATE II II it POST (METAL GATE POST), I LINE POST 16'-6'+ i r 1 MIN 16" DIA. CONCRETE FOOTING FOR GATE POSTS k CORNER POSTS NOTE& ALL WIRE TO BE PLACED ON SIDE OF POSE OPPOSITE FACILRY ENCLOSED EXCEPT ON CURVES; WIRE TO BE PLACED ON OUTSIDE OF CURVES. STRAIGHT RUNS OF 33-330 FEET SHALL HAVE ONE SINGLE PANEL LOCATED AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE RUN. RUNS OF 330-660 FEET SHALL HAVE ONE DOUBLE PANEL LOCATED AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE RUN. RUNS LONGER THAN 660 FEET SHALL HAVE DOUBLE PANELS SPACED AT DISTANCES NO GREATER THAN 330 FEET. SLOPE TOP OF CONCRETE FOOTING TO DRAIN AWAY FROM POST. REPLACE ONE WOOD LINE POST WITH A STEEL POST IN EACH RUN OF FENCE AND AT INTERVALS OF 500 FT. ON LONG RUNS TO SERVE AS LIGHTNING PROTECTION. INSTAL WIRE STAYS MIDWAY BETWEEN LINE POST. PERIMETER FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE Perimeter Fencing Details GreatWest JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT engineering® CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS r m r s m m m m r m r m m m r m m m m F:\1-05154—JEFC.-0nCs11\CADD 1-05154—TOp 60—Solid Waste Container\Exhibits\Container Eval\1-05154—DTL—Al T5—Concrete Wall Block.d.g 6' 5' 6'-0" MAX.. 6'-0' NA%. 2'x2'.6' CONCRETE WALL BLOCKS ok #4 BAR DOWEL SET ^ - IN EPDXY - Y 18" O.C. .. . 2 :. p4 BARS 18' O.C. J4 BARS 6. O.C. ° HORIZONTAL " " d ° NEW CAST IN PUCE CONCRETE ,. LURE p9 BARS 18' O.L. 16• i ^, _ ' ° HORIZONTAL 24' TOP OF EXISTING CONCRETE WALL _ N4 BARS 18' O.0 EXISTING p4 BARS 6. O.C. HORIZONTAL GROUND EXISTING CONCRETE WALL EXISTING - - — - CONCRETE WALL - - WALL BLOCK TYPICAL SECTION WALL BLOCK TYPICAL ELEVATION NOT To SCALE NOT TO SCAt1 Alternative 5 & 5A Wall Block Details Great West JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT engineering® CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS m � m m ■Nt m m � gy m » m m r m r m m m r\1-05154—JEFCc—OnCOII\CAOD 1-05154—TOX60—Solid Waste Container\Exhibits\Container Ev6\1-05154-01L—ALTS—Concrete Wall.dwg /4 BARS 12" O.C. 11 1 /5 W DOWEL SET IN EPDXY 12" O.C. 1 NEW CAST IN PLACE - - a w CONCRETE WALL EXTENSION z BAR °• DOWEL EL SET .. a IN EPDXY ^. • • -• 12" O.C. 44 BARS 12. O.C. - HORIZONTAL \\\\\ TOP OF EXISTING CONCRETE WALL \\--EXISTING GROUND - EXISTING CONCRETE - - ' WALL EXISTING CONCRETE WALL CONCRETE WALL EXTENSION TYPICAL SECTION CONCRETE WALL EXTENSION TYPICAL ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE /� Alternative 6 & 6A Gre/ atW Concrete Wall Extension Details JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT engineering® CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS 6.6I1V.$lE[L PJSi I V S IW BIl6 12.0.G.. 1 W a wN RI NrM ME9 y'w,E sF£IIEiMS T16 vqE Ai NRF xFM WY w vIACE s• +r oc caR:NErt Wwl zxnvsna x•W. u•o.c. ear as x P1FCC � l caxcncrt wxl uznn,ox Haws u•G.c. •k.' X ,,.� xwe¢pW F " v GMU19 YOV Ef p6iNG FOHCREIE..MOLL ' P.aslpR PEFf5E SEE 'C ptnNcE CONLREIC Wl �"'_�1fL F CONCRETE WALL EXTENSION CONCRETE WALL EXTENSION WITH GATES TYPICAL SECTION - NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL ELEVATION 5 g{ B' £ C¢NCREIE Mw1 OnWIW VEEL AM"IK *V2]2'LVL w1E PER SPEL E45,EN WE Y m,RPM!w OE GALE 40nF0 HOLE V WV.POST 1 1/2•v 3/i•".) PLAN VIEW w2u ws ro rsc"NON pOS, P/SIQ1 y vER wlE ro BE tllV1ED 1`���y 1/r p MR EvuiE EGR Wv.W¢ CM,Y GP AR- - - w1e 51EEL 1a PuiM STEEL GATE POST BASE PLATE amyw NR wR POSE SxY1 BE LGOCI Well NI UTMSDN S.M C v 12, N F 4E OEIYLS LHI$$HEEi CENrtRFD ON MSE P4EE $ eLOEL 910EL RESE PUIE NR w1 POSE SNNL RE io•v 122'. vqT � CFMERm ON 9ASE vuEE BARRIER WALL GATE POST TYPICAL SECTION -NOT TO SCALE 0. wl ,M ooxR x roHCRE,F uP NG E - — — - .oP OF rN.CNE71 w Alternative 7 &7A HINGE POET vA"n wEE"^"Ex1mwR vuul 1DP Or wul u+o EX 000 [NMIEI.11PE'.wm YE'1tRV' FNE M WuL FI NG PU.L nPPING Concrete Wall Extension With Gates ELEVATION VIEW MEA WON WE1V YELLOW. .GO IBR ^ S w Gxx TO PAM Details GreatWest GATE DETAIL JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT erglneering® xo*10 sWE CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS 1 APPENDIX D 1 PAYT COST TABLES AND FIGURES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,�m..?.— R�� �l VPt:B� NH B €� �f F"�1' tl'Y�M� xt ± ,� #,•,: $246,000 $205,000 $241,000 $181,000 $95,200 $95,000 $190,0001 $96,300 $71,000 $185,000 U 4Xa§t'��' 5 i}eie,'r v=�z` •M �� _ 111 $617,00 1 ' r I I $675,000 p z u{rd 5 # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 1,550 SY $ 30.00 $ 46,500 ' 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 3 Truck Scales 2 EA $ 47,000.00 $ 94,000 4 Card Readers 2 EA $ 1,050.00 $ 2,100 5 Badges 2,900 EA $ 5.25 $ 15,225 6 Structural Fill/Excavation 500 CY $ 10.00 $ 5,000 7 Tracking Software/Computers I EA $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000 Scale House (By Owner) $ ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 171,000 Mobilization 10% $ 17,000 Contingency 10% $ 17,000 Construction Subtotal $ 205,000 Engineering 20% $ 41,000 $ TOTAL $ 246,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates I LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Truck Scales 2 EA $ 47,000.00 $ 94,000 3 Card Readers 2 EA $ 1,050.00 $ 2,100 ' 4 Badges 2,900 EA $ 5.25 $ 15,225 5 Structural FilVExcavation 500 CY $ 10.00 $ 5,000 6 Pavement 600 SY $ 30.00 $ 18,000 ' 7 Tracking Software/Computers 1 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000 Scale House(By Owner) ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 143,000 Mobilization 10% $ 14,000 ' Contingency 10% $ 14,000 Construction Subtotal $ 171,000 Engineering 20% $ 34,000 t $ TOTAL $ 205,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 2,000 SY $ 30.00 $ 60,000 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 3 Truck Scales 1 EA $ 47,000.00 $ 47,000 4 Card Readers 2 EA $ 1,050.00 $ 2,100 5 Badges 1,450 EA $ 5.25 $ 7,613 ' 6 Tracking Software/Computers 1 I EA $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000 Scale House (By Owner) $ - Direct Construction Subtotal $ 125,000 Mobilization 10% $ 13,000 Contingency 10% $ 13,000 Construction Subtotal $ 151,000 Engineering 20% $ 30,000 TOTAL $ 1811000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS U 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Truck Scales 1 EA $ 47,000.00 $ 47,000 ' 3 Card Readers 2 EA $ 1,050.00 $ 2,100 4 Badges 1,450 EA $ 5.25 $ 7,613 ' 5 Tracking Software/Computers I EA $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000 Scale House (By Owner) Direct Construction Subtotal $ 65,200 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 I Contingency 10% $ 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 79,200 Engineering 20% $ 16,000 $ TOTAL $ 95,200 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Pavement Replacement 2,200 SY $ 30.00 $ 66,000 2 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 ' 3 Truck Scales 1 EA $ 47,000.00 $ 47,000 4 Card Readers 2 EA $ 1,050.00 $ 2,100 5 Badges 1,450 EA $ 5.25 $ 7,613 6 Structural Fill/Excavation 110 CY $ 10.00 $ 1,100 7 Tracking Software/Computers 1 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000 Scale House(By Owner) 1 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 132,000 Mobilization 10% $ 13,000 Contingency 10% $ 13,000 Construction Subtotal $ 158,000 ' Engineering 20% $ 32,000 $ TOTAL $ 190,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Remove Drop Gates 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500 2 Truck Scales 1 EA $ 47,000.00 $ 47,000 3 Card Readers 2 EA $ 1,050.00 $ 2,100 4 Badges 1,450 EA $ 5.25 $ 7,613 5 Structural Fill/Excavation 110 CY $ 10.00 $ 1,100 6 Tracking Software/Computers 1 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000 Scale House(By Owner) Direct Construction Subtotal $ 66,300 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 80,300 ' Engineering 20% $ 16,000 $ TOTAL $ 96,300 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. T-„ lei # JBID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Floor Scale(With Concrete Slab) 18 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 90,000 2 Hoppers 18 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 32,400 3 Badges 2,900 EA $ 5.25 $ 15,225 4 Card Readers 18 EA $ 1,050.00 $ 18,900 1 5 Tracking Software/Computers 1 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 167,000 Mobilization 10% $ 17,000 Contingency 10% $ 17,000 t Construction Subtotal $ 201,000 Engineering 20% $ 40,000 $ TOTAL $ 241,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Floor Scale(With Concrete Slab) 6 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 30,000 2 Hoppers 6 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 10,800 3 Badges 1,450 EA $ 5.25 $ 7,613 4 Card Readers 6 EA $ 1,050.00 $ 6,300 5 Tracking Software/Computers 1 1 1 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 $ ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 65,000 Mobilization 10% $ 7,000 Contingency 10% $ 7,000 Construction Subtotal $ 79,000 Engineering 20% $ 16,000 $ - ' TOTAL $ 95,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Floor Scale (With Concrete Slab) 4 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 20,000 ' 2 Hoppers 4 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 7,200 3 Badges 1,450 EA $ 5.25 $ 7,613 4 Card Readers 4 EA $ 1,050.00 $ 4,200 ' 5 Tracking Software/Computers 1 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 49,000 Mobilization 10% $ 5,000 Contingency 10% $ 5,000 Construction Subtotal $ 59,000 Engineering 20% $ 12,000 1 $ TOTAL $ 71,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. ° # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Floor Scale (With Concrete Slab) 15 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 75,000 2 Hoppers 15 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 27,000 3 Card Readers 15 EA $ 1,050.00 $ 15,750 4 Tracking Software/Computers 1 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 128,000 Mobilization 10% $ 13,000 Contingency 10% $ 13,000 Construction Subtotal $ 154,000 Engineering 20% $ 31,000 $ TOTAL $ 185,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. r if # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Floor Scale (With Concrete Slab) 6 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 30,000 2 Hoppers 6 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 10,800 3 Card Readers 6 EA $ 1,050.00 $ 6,300 4 Tracking Software/Computers 1 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 1 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 57,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 6,000 Contingency 10% $ 6,000 Construction Subtotal $ 69,000 r Engineering 20% $ 14,000 $ TOTAL $ 83,000 rEstimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. r r 1 r 1 r r r 1 F:\1-05154—JEFCc—OnCcll\CADD 1-051 54—r0Bs0—solid waste Cootoioe.\e.nmas\Contomer evoi\1-05154—Fg-6—M1 city Sale Loyout.dwg �J fO re �- ® 1\ 4 F o yeti c � F \ TO ,`� 18 z o 0 - ! a $ A N~ C C Z , IP Z m cD y0 � E i LAINER WALL v 100 ■ ama0,6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a SCALE HOUSE m jog %■■w o o scALE U 3 y. a � � N I ' O a n N O Figure #7 s Boulder Container Site Scale Layout 15 w ' Great'W st o Sa�c� JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT engineedrg® CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS ,. r s I ' a s x a a ¢ . - wo*% a 4 wry � CALE HOUSE ,�qt 9 SCALE saw s 3 N 0 s / w ' U ' 3 O N N O QG Figure #8 ' Whitehall Container Site / Scale Layout 25 o GreatWest ALE W E JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT engineering® CONTAINER SITE EVALUATIONS ' Steel Fabricators "Since 1915" Roura Material Handling Clinton Twp., MI Holly Springs, MS 800/968-9070 800/654-9147 HoDDers@RouraMH.com Hoaaers2@RouraMH.com STANDARD RUGGED DUTY HOPPER ' WITH STANDARD FORK ENTRY BASE, 7 GAUGE PLATE BODY, REINFORCED TOP ' MODEL 3T-3/16-540, 2 Cubic Yard CONSTRUCTION: 7 gauge plate body, reinforced around the top with angle iron. 5/16"formed plate base. Ductile iron handle, std. stop. Painted safety green. DIMENSIONS: 64-1/2"L X 57-1/2"W X 46-1/2"H MAX LOAD CAP: 6,000# (depends on fork truck capacity). ' FORK OPENING: 2-1/2"X 29-1/2" FINISH: Bright Safety Green enamel paint for better visibility and appearance. Other Optional colors are available at additional cost. ' WEIGHT: 900# (950#with casters) ' WWW.RouraMH.com STEEL HOPPER COVER TYPES %y 14 GA.HINGED \";; 4 FIXED j 14 GA.HINGED \ SECTION �/ � SECTION / SECTION 14 GA.HINGED \ SECTION TYPE - B COVER CENTER HINGE OPENS IN FRONT HALF ONLY TYPE - A COVER CENTER HINGE OPENS FRONT 9 BACK `• BASIC MODEL WITH SEGMENTED HINGES (NO GASKET) •' WATER TIGHT MODEL WITH CONTINOUS HINGE AND 1/4' GASKET & `• BASIC MODEL WITH SEGMENTED HINGES (NO GASKET) '• CENTER DRAIN CHANNEL •• •` WATER TIGHT MODEL WITH CONTINOUS HINGE AND 114" GASKET 8 •• RECOMENDED FOR MODEL 680 HOPPERS AND ABOVE •' CENTER DRAIN CHANNEL •• •• NOT RECOMENDED FOR MODEL 680 HOPPERS AND ABOVE •` 14 GA. HINGED 4 GA. FIXED SECTION- 4 GA. FIXED 14 GA.HINGED SECTION - SECTION SECTION / 4 GA. HINGED SECTION TYPE - C COVER OPENS AT NOSE ONLY •' BASIC MODEL WITH SEGMENTED HINGES (NO GASKET) •' TYPE - D COVER CENTER HINGE OPENS IN FRONT HALF ONLY •• WATER TIGHT MODEL WITH CONTINOUS HINGE AND 1/4" GASKET •' •• AVAILABLE ON ALL HOPPER MODELS "` `• BASIC MODEL WITH SEGMENTED HINGES (NO GASKET) " NOTE: GASKET MATERIAL IS I/4' x I" NEOPRENE. " WATER TIGHT MODEL WITH CONTINOUS HINGE AND 1/4" GASKET '• RECOMENDED FOR MODEL 680 HOPPERS AND ABOVE •• I RUGGED 3T-3/16-540 641/4 _ 573/16 LENGTH WIDTH i 11 1/4 46 1/2 HEI 3HT v FWD 8 2 1/2 P l� 291/2 21/2 FORK OPENING BACK VIEW SIDE VIEW 1 1 1 APPENDIX E i 1 HAULING ANALYSIS COST TABLES 1 i i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 # M U N 1 Purchase Stationary Compactors 2 EA $ 37,500.00 $ 75,000 2 Compactor Installation 2 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000 3 Hopper Construction 2 EA $ 7,000.00 $ 14,000 4 Electrical 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000 5 Extension of Three Phase Power 1 LS $100,000.00 $ 100,000 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 201,000 ' Mobilization 10% $ 20,000 Contingency 10% $ 20,000 Construction Subtotal $ 241,000 Engineering 5% $ 12,000 Compactor Containers (4) $ 610,000 TOTAL $ 313,000 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 1 1 # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Purchase Stationary Compactors 2 EA $ 37,500.00 $ 75,000 2 Compactor Installation 2 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000 3 Hopper Construction 2 EA $ 7,000.00 $ 14,000 ' 4 Electrical 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000 5 Diesel Powered Generator 1 LS $40,000.00 $ 40,000 $ ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 141,000 Mobilization 10% $ 14,000 Contingency 10% $ 14,000 ' Construction Subtotal $ 169,000 Engineering 10% $ 17,000 Compactor Containers (4) $ 60,000 TOTAL $ 246,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. i i i i APPENDIX F i i DROP GATE COST ESTIMATES i i i i i i i i 1 i r i ' # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 1 Remove Existing Drop Gates 1 Bay $ 200.00 $ 200 ' 2 Install New Drop Gates 1 Bay $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000 3 Install Rail System to Protect Wall 1.0 Bay $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 4,000 Mobilization 10% $ 400 ' Contingency 10% $ 400 Construction Subtotal $ 4,800 Engineering 10% $ 500 ' $ TOTAL $ 5,300 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 1 1 1 ' # BID ITEM NN"QTYRUNITST 1 Remove Existing Drop Gates 3 Bay $ 200.00 $ 600 ' 2 Install New Drop Gates 3 Bay $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000 3 Install Rail System to Protect Wall 3.0 Bay $ 1,000.00 $ 3,000 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 13,000 Mobilization 10% $ 1,300 Contingency 10% $ 1,300 Construction Subtotal $ 15,600 Engineering 10% $ 2,000 TOTAL $ 17,629JI Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 1 # BID ITEM 1EqQOTYUNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Remove Existing Drop Gates 2 Bay $ 200.00 $ 400 2 Install New Drop Gates 2 Bay $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000 3 Install Rail System to Protect Wall 2.0 Bay $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000 ' Direct Construction Subtotal $ 8,000 Mobilization 10% $ 800 ' Contingency 10% $ 800 Construction Subtotal $ 9,600 Engineering 10% $ 1,000 1 $ TOTAL $ 10,600 ' Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. t 'L1 1 1 1 # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Remove Existing Drop Gates 8 Bay $ 200.00 $ 1,600 1 2 Install New Drop Gates 8 Bay $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000 3 Install Rail System to Protect Wall 8.0 Bay $ 1,000.00 $ 8,000 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 34,000 ■ Mobilization 10% $ 3,400 1 Contingency 10% $ 3,400 Construction Subtotal $ 40,800 Engineering 10% $ 4,000 1 TOTAL $ $ 44,800 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 ' # BID ITEM QTPUNITS NI T PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Remove Existing Drop Gates 6 Bay $ 200.00 $ 1,200 2 Install New Drop Gates 6 Bay $ 3,000.00 $ 18,000 3 Install Rail System to Protect Wall 6.0 Bay $ 1,000.00 $ 6,000 $ Direct Construction Subtotal $ 25,000 Mobilization 10% $ 2,500 Contingency 10% $ 2,500 Construction Subtotal $ 30,000 Engineering 10% $ 3,000 $ TOTAL $ 33,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. # BID ITEM PQTYPUNITST 1 Remove Existing Drop Gates 20 Bay $ 200.00 $ 4,000 2 Install Rail System to Protect Wall 20 Bay $ 1,000.00 $ 20,000 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 24,000 Mobilization 10% $ 2,500 Contingency 10% $ 2,500 Construction Subtotal $ 29,000 Engineering 10% $ 3,000 $ TOTAL $ 32,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. i 1 1 t 1 1 1