The following correspondence with the city's project engineer
documents an example of the extreme difficulty the public encounters, in trying
to obtain complete cost breakdowns of the three wastewater treatment options.
______________________________

The forcemain cost totals shown in the city's Annex "E" Table (below), do not appear to be anywhere close
to the total cost figures provided at the OMB Hearing, from expert witnesses and independent engineers.
__________________________________

The city ---to this day--- continues to withhold from the public, the full
breakdown (capital, operation and maintenance) costs of the forcemain.

 

(Chronology of the correspondence follows from top to bottom.)
To go to the most recent correspondence: CLICK HERE

 

-----Original Message-----

From:      benrich@sympatico.ca
Sent:       December 1, 2003 7:37 PM
To:          ryan.matthews@ottawa.ca
Cc:          Richmond Village Association
Subject:   Simple cost breakdowns requested for "Annex ‘E’", May 02-03 Staff Report.

December 1, 2003

Ryan Matthews, P.Eng, Senior Project Manager,
City of Ottawa, Construction Services Division
100 Constellation Crescent Ottawa, ON, K2G 6J8
Via Email: ryan.matthews@ottawa.ca

Tel: 613-2424 ext. 16211; Fax: 613-580-2587

Dear Mr. Matthews:

Enclosed, please find the "Annex ‘E’", "COST COMPARISON" chart, from the Report to: Environmental Services Committee and Council, 02 May 2003. on MUNSTER HAMLET WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY – RE-EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDED SOLUTION.

In order for me to acquire a better appreciation for the City’s exhaustive costing process, by way of reviewing the itemized input numbers which produced the final figures posted in Annex ‘E’, could you very kindly send same (by return email).

Specifically, what is needed, is the breakdown costs for each of the chart’s boxes, representing each of the alternatives (from Rows #1 to #7).

I’m sure that in order to arrive at the answers you have presented in Annex ‘E’, you must have a « Master Chart », somewhere, with all the itemized breakdowns in each box. That is what is needed.

It would be greatly appreciated if this small request could be emailed back by December 8th, 2003.

Thank you for your anticipated prompt attention to this small matter.

 

Richard Bendall
Email: benrich@sympatico.ca

Enc.: Annex ‘E’ (Page 2)


-page 2-

ANNEX ‘E’:

COST COMPARISON

No.

Cost Considerations

Alternative

 

 

Snowfluent® (Northern Watertek)

Pipeline

 

CMS
(Seprotech)

 

1.

Capital (per Dec 2002 RVA report)

 

$3.3 - $3.7 M

$6.6 - $7.6 M

$3.5 - $4.3 M

2.

20-year life cycle (per Dec 2002 RVA report)

 

$5.0 - $5.4 M

$7.6 - $8.6 M

$5.7 - $6.4 M

3.

Capital (updated following review of Dec 2002 RVA report)

 

$3.3 - $3.7 M

$6.1 - $7.1 M

$3.5 - $4.3 M

4.

20-year life cycle (updated following review of Dec 2002 RVA report)

 

$5.0 - $5.4 M

$7.1 - $8.1 M

$5.7 - $6.4 M

5.

Other costs:

(a) Technical requirements to complete EA, obtain C of A, etc.

 

(b) Additional hauling costs based on timing of implementation.

 

 

$0.8 M

 

 

$1.5 M

 

 

(included in above capital costs)

 

        
          $1.0 M

 

 

$0.08 - $0.1 M

 

 

$1.5 M

6.

Total anticipated Capital
cost (incl. other costs)

 

$5.6-$6.0 M

$7.1 - $8.1 M

$5.1 - $5.9 M

7.

Total life cycle costing (including other costs):

(a) 20-year life cycle

 

(b) 60-year life cycle

 

(c) 90-year life cycle

 

 


$7.3- $7.7 M

 

$9.4 - $9.8 M

 

$9.5 - $9.9 M

 


$8.1- $9.1 M

 

$9.2 - $10.0 M

 

$8.9 - $9.7 M

 


$7.3 - $8.0 M

 

$9.4 - $10.2 M

 

$9.5 - $10.3 M

 
 
 

 

-----Answer Received December 8, 2003-----

From:      "Matthews, Ryan"Ryan.Matthews@ottawa.ca
Date:       2003/12/08 Mon AM 08:37:05 EST
To:           benrich@sympatico.ca<benrich@sympatico.ca>
Subject:   FW: Simple cost breakdowns requested for "Annex ‘E’", May 02-03 Staff Report.

Mr. Bendall,

Thanks for your email. Details regarding the breakdown costs for each item are included in Annex ‘A’ to the same May 2, 2003 staff report. Annex ‘A’ is the Technical Memorandum prepared by RV Anderson, reviewed the implications of implementation of the three options under consideration, and provided estimates of the cost of proceeding with each option. Additional information regarding the basis for the initial cost estimates is contained in the Appendices to the December 2002 RV Anderson report titled "Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility Re-evaluation of Alternatives, Final Report. The staff report is available on the City Internet site at http:\\Ottawa.ca by following the links to the "City Hall" section, and then to City Council and Committee Agendas and Minutes". The December 2002 RV Anderson report is available in the Munster and Richmond branches of the Public Library.

Thank you.

Ryan R. Matthews, M.Sc., P.Eng.

Senior Project Manager
City of Ottawa
Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department
Infrastructure Services Branch
100 Constellation Crescent
Ottawa, Ontario K2G 6J8

Office: 613.580.2424 Ext. 16211
Fax: 613.580.2587


 

(Follow-up to above letter)

December 19, 2003

Ryan Matthews, P.Eng, Senior Project Manager,
City of Ottawa, Construction Services Division
100 Constellation Crescent Ottawa, ON, K2G 6J8

Via Email: ryan.matthews@ottawa.ca, and Fax

Tel: 613-2424 ext. 16211; Fax: 613-580-2587

Dear Mr. Matthews:

Enclosed, please find a copy of my December 1, 2003, letter to you, requesting elemental break down costs which provide the totals expressed in Annex ‘E’ of the Rosemarie Leclair-authored Staff Report of May 2, 2003.

Your December 8th reply (enclosed), did not include the requested information, but instead, referred to documents you claimed would provide that information.

As I pointed out at the December 9th, 2003, Public Meeting in Richmond, the documents you referred me to did not give the complete information that was requested, (only partial). You replied to me, at the Public Meeting, that you would supply me the complete figures, however, as of this date, they still have not arrived.

To restate the request, very kindly send me the complete broken-down list of input costs which yielded the totals presented in Annex ‘E’, including the component numbers for the Operation and Maintenence Costs (i.e.: Labour breakdowns, Chemicals, Repairs and Replacements, etc.), as well.

Surely, in order to have produced Annex ‘E’, all of the component cost (making up the totals), would be at your finger tips …in some sort of table. That’s all I am asking for.

And surely, if the City is prepared to stand by its numbers, such that you are confident the forcemain is the least expensive option, (Capital and O&M combined), then you should be able to proudly show ratepayers how you arrived at the final numbers.

Since my original request was December 1st, it would be immensely appreciated if you could email me the information in the next couple of days.

Thank you,

Richard Bendall
Email: benrich@sympatico.ca

cc: Rosemarie Leclair, General Manager of Transportation, Utilities and Public Works


 
 
From R. Matthews - January 14, 2004
                             
"Re: Repeat request for unfurnished detailed costs"

Reply to Ryan Matthews  - February 4. 2004:
              "Futile attempts to obtain honest cost breakdowns from city staff "

 


Additional request from the Richmond Village Association, to the city, for cost information:

December 29, 2003

Subject: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Ryan:

To confirm my telephone message of earlier today, please provide me with a
copy of the Work Breakdown Structure and the budget allocations to cost
accounts for the Munster wastewater treatment program. Please include the
work breakdown for city management, prime contractor(s) and all first and
second tier subcontractors.  I thank you in advance for your anticipated
assistance in this matter.


R.A. Harvey Snyder, P.Eng.
VP Richmond Village Association

(RVA is still waiting for a reply...)


 

___________________________________________________________________________

 CLOSE PAGE