Laserfiche WebLink
<br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />MAY 8, 1984 <br /> <br />the City's sewage, in order to gain additional capacity in the City's <br />plant. <br /> <br />P.S.A. 's Latest Proposal <br /> <br />P.S.A.'s April 24 offer shapes up like this for us: <br /> <br /> Item Total Cost (0 Ci ty City Cost <br />DIGESTER/ODOR CONTROL $1,399,700 66.7 $ 936,900 <br />JONES CREEK DIV. FACILITIES 386,000 50.0 193,000 <br />BUY-IN EXISTING P.S .A. PLANT 4,484,737 25.0 1,122,434 <br />SOLIDS HANDLING FAC. P.S.A. PLANT 300,000 25.0 75,000 <br /> TOTAL $2,327,334 <br /> <br />This proposition would cost $443,217 more up-front than the approach <br />upon which our letter of request (April 11) was based. <br /> <br />If we roll 0 & M considerations into the picture and compare this pro- <br />posal, as before, with the cost of expanding our plant, the results are <br />shown on Attachment #2. What this shows is that is we assume incre- <br />mental diversion on the part of both the City and P.S.A., this latest <br />diversion idea still looks pretty good the first year, but the compari- <br />son will turn negative in about 5 or 6 years and get steadily worse. <br /> <br />There are other problems/inequities inherent in this counter-proposal <br />by P.S.A., as follows: <br /> <br />-, <br /> <br />1. We would only effectively be gaining 0.75 MGD, while <br />being asked to pay for a 1.0 MGD "allocation" in the <br />Koehler plant. This is so, because the P.S.A. will <br />have paid for and control the right to divert the <br />other 0.75 MGO in the Jones Creek Interceptor. We <br />would, thus. not even be in a position to handle <br />Pannill's near-term plans confortably without going <br />to P.S.A. with hat in hand to secure a larger share <br />of the right to divert. <br /> <br />2. Our ability to meet the City's projected 20-year <br />need for capacity assumes our ability to divert at <br />least 1.60 MGD of City sewage to Koehler eventually. <br />If we allow P.S.A. to divert one-half (or any size- <br />able amount) of the sewage in Jones Creek and there- <br />by gain capacity in our plant, we don't have 1.60 <br />MGD to divert. The certain result will be the need <br />to (a) expand our plant beyond the proposed 8.0 MGD; <br />or (b) join in the third-plant idea, sure enough. <br /> <br />'J, t~ <br />tJ". <br />