My name is William Shanor. I have spoken to the council 3 times concerning piping the canal. At the recent study session I spoke first. Frankly, the more I discover, the more concerned I become.
I live at 955 Penny Dr. and was informed that there will be some repair work occurring on the ditch. The work begins at the Starlight monitoring station and continues over the next 400 feet for a total of $49,900. My wife and I took a look at the ditch lining over the weekend and did note a hole in the bottom of the concrete liner as well as some cracking low on one of the side walls. We will be monitoring the work that will be taking place over the course of the next few days.
I’ve been doing a little math in order to compare what the cost of repair work over the two mile stretch of canal would be to the cost of the piping project. If you expand what is being done to the 400 feet of canal to the two projected miles in question the cost would be $1,317,360.00 compared to $3,095,000.00. Fixing the canal is a bargain!
My wife and I have also been going over some of the notes from past AWAC meetings and would like to have the following addressed.
1) In a June 21st 2016 Council Communication Mike Faught commented that the fiscal impact of using TAP water before TID water during drought conditions will increase by an estimated $31,600. This estimate assumes using 2.13 mgd per day of TAP water for 60 days.” Staff recommended that the City Council approve staff recommended 2016 water supply strategy and using TAP water before TID water to supplement Ashland’s water supply if needed .”
Looking at the Ashland Canal piping Project Alternatives, the difference of $31,600 a year to use TAP water vs TID irrigation, I have outlined the years it will take to see a return of tax-payer investment. (Alternative(s) cost/$31,600 = yrs to return investment)
Alternative 1: $3.4ml or 108 yrs
Alternative 2: $4.3ml or 136 yrs
Alternative 3: $4.3ml or 136 yrs
Alternative 4: $3ml or 95 yrs
(Alternatives #1-3 do not include costs to date of $238,000, an EIR and or track internal costs for the project)
It has been suggested that the cost of using TAP water is just too expensive yet Mike Faught showed it isn’t cost prohibitive at all. E.Coli and seepage being separate issues, from a cost recovery perspective outlined above, why does it make sense to undergo this huge CIP piping project when from a cost/benefit perspective TAP appears to be the better alternative.
2) Additionally in the meeting notes of an August 29th 2016 AWAC meeting (page 3) Mike Faught said the following:
“Faught says we were using TID first, and then we used TAP and that is the way it’s set up now. Acklin says we need flexibility in managing the water supply. Faught said the advantage in using TAP first is that it’s treated. The argument he had with council is that when we’re using TID first, the fluctuation in treatment is constant. We have 4 people that work in treatment, and they have to work all summer long because with any adjustment to the system they have to manage that. It’s constant monitoring and as only a 4 person crew, it wears them out. Due to this and the fact to not having a large enough crew, Faught is now recommending going to TAP first because it’s treated. From that standpoint, it’s about $16k more a year, but it’s invaluable to start there. Then only turn the TID on for backup if needed, this way the staff on drought years isn’t on duty all summer long.”
Paula, in any financial performance analysis where people are trying to understand the true costs of a project the city would need to take into considering the internal costs (time/cost of ALL personal involved) to determine the “real costs”. Those internal costs can’t be zero because everyone involved is getting paid a salary. Internal costs are relevant to the total cost of any project unless of course people are volunteering their time for free. So as Mike Faught said when you add the cost of the people associated with the TID water project, outlined above, the true cost becomes easier to understand. I think the narrative needs to be changed. It can be argued that to use TAP rather undertake this TID project would actually be cheaper as staff could be doing other tasks instead of dealing with TID water.
Paula if you could address from a cost perspective points #1 and #2 that would be much appreciated.
Thank you for your time,
