|
SOLID WASTE FUND
<br /> VOLUME 8 RECYCLING PROJECTION
<br /> 3,060,000
<br /> ' 2,560,000
<br /> 2,060,000
<br /> 1,560,000 ~
<br /> i
<br /> 1 060,000
<br /> 560,000
<br /> 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 2006 2009 2010
<br /> Effective recycling programs (Miscellaneous Contract Services and Glass Recycling Programs) should positively
<br /> impact volume, labor, OT, etc.
<br /> 1. Green Waste renamed to Organic Waste? If so, funding to it increased by 73%.
<br /> 2. Volume of Refuse from Communication 511 does not reconcile to volumes in budget.
<br />
<br /> 3. Is funding for recycling programs effectively slowing the growth of or decreasing volume?
<br /> 4. With expectations of increased funding for recycling programs, is a new division behrg considered?
<br /> 5604.52-115 Miscellaneous Contract Services
<br /> 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-OS
<br /> DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ~ ACTDAL BUDGET BUDGET
<br /> IIS MISC.CONTRACI'SERVICES 4,04Q,375 4,114,001 4,182,000 4,386,123 4,416,000 5,242,000
<br /> A. ANDFILL TONNAGE COST 4,145,000 4,339,000 4,925,0110
<br /> B. Pi ADJUSTMENT 30,000 S 155,000
<br /> C. LITTER PICKING-W HI L/F 5,000 50,1100 160,OW
<br /> D. LAUNDRY SERVICE 2,000 2,000 2,000
<br /> E. LUMP SUM 4,040,375 4,114,001 4,386,123
<br /> Per Operating Budge[ Proposals
<br />
<br /> $4,454,389 expended and encumbered (less Prior Ycar CP) as of 1/31 /04
<br /> TABLE 10
<br /> I. Why is CPI Adjustment so high?
<br />
<br /> 2. What is involved with Litter Picking now that was not being done before?
<br /> 12 Exhibit F.
<br /> Page 12
<br />
<br />
|