CCP 02-09-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDA nONS I The proposed project has merit based upon the inherent interest of the City to simplify existing I infrastructure systems wherever possible. The proposed Alternatives B and C both accomplish this goal by allowing the City to eliminate Lift Station #11 and thereby reducing recurring maintenance expenses for the City. In addition, Altematives Band C reduce potential City I liability to sewage backup damages which may result from pump failures. The elimination of Lift Station #11 would likely reduce the cost of a future SCADA system programmed to be installed for all lift stations in the City. I Based upon the Capitalized Cost Analysis, the existing condition (Alternative A) appears to be significantly less expensive than either Alternative B or Alternative C. It should be noted I however, that the Capitalized Cost Analysis incorporates the time value of money by assigning an interest rate for funds over time which has the effect of diminishing future City costs relative to the present day costs. Based upon an assumed annual interest rate of 4%, the present day I costs for Alternatives B and C are approximately $160,000.00 greater than the present day cost for Altemative A. As the interest rate approaches zero, the present day cost for Alternative A exceeds that of Altematives B and C When no interest rate is factored into the analysis I Alternatives Band C become cost effective after approximately 47 years of the design life. ,. The Capitalized Cost Analysis should not be the only vantage point from which with the alternatives are compared especially if the City would accomplish the project without utilizing financing vehicles. The City Council must weigh the benefits of a simpler infrastructure with the Capital expenditure required to achieve it. I Recommended Alternative I If the City Council elected to proceed with the project, the recommended alignmcnt would be that of Altcrnative B. I Rationale I Although the estimated construction costs of the two gravity sewer alternatives are essentially equal, Alternative B would not require new easements to be dedicated by property owners in the Gateway Business District or by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Maintenance Access for I Alternative B would also be easier than that for Altemative C. Alternative B would not impact the wooded areas along the west shore of Round Lake whereas Alternative C would require significant amounts of Clearing in order to construct the sewer. Erosion control measures would I also need to be much more intensive for Alternative C in order to protect Round Lake. . I ,e 8 I