Add new comment

Some very rough costs for the new alternatives

I have attached the latest version of our internal calculations for three of the West Bench upgrade options (status quo, bulk water, new UV).  These are still very rough and pre-design.  However, they should give you some sense for the relative costs of the different alternatives.  They are also the numbers used in the July 22, 2011, newsletter and FAQ sent to all West Bench residents.

Update 24 July, 2011:  We did not include the Extraterritorial Service from Pentiction option in the July, 2011, newsletter.  This is the alternative that was rejected by West Bench ratepayers in the 2010 water upgrade referendum.  We have repriced it with the information provided by Focus Engineering as of late 2010 and will be including it in the July 28th Open House as Option 4.  The reason we are including it (even though it has already been voted down) is that—er—it looks to be the cheapest...

We are focusing at this point on a single measure: Total present value of all capital and operating costs net of grants.  We have to use present value calculations because the alternatives have very different cash flow patterns over time (e.g., the Penticton alternatives have higher on-going costs whereas a new UV treatment plant incurs higher costs upfront).  Also, each alternative is eligible for differing amounts of grant funding.

Once we are happy with the accuracy of our numbers, we will make a per-household estimate available.  These are bound to be estimates because water consumption on the West Bench varies dramatically by parcel size and use.  The introduction of metering means that the new rates will be based in part on actual water consumption, so "average per household" will only be a meaningful number if your consumption is average.

Either way, by way of warning: You will not like the per-household numbers. This is an old system that is in need of significant upgrades.  But remember that grants could be covering up to $16,300 of the cost for each household, and that is nothing to sneeze at.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.  The whole point of putting this rough numbers out there is to encourage people to spot errors and issues.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Registered users of this site do not have to do this.