Laserfiche WebLink
Baseline Comparison Costs <br />(In 2004 Dollars) <br />MWMC SDC charges = $2,880,239 <br />Eugene SDC charges = $1,038,000 <br />Other charges = $0 <br />Total connection costs = $3,918,239 <br /> <br />Scenario One <br />This scenario applies the MWMC SDC methodology using the assumption that there is no <br />available physical capacity, and is based on using the “unit cost of new capacity” that is charged <br />to new users requiring some increment of new system capacity to meet their demand. This <br />partially accounts for the fact that Coburg lies entirely outside the planned service area. The <br />methodology distributes the costs of the MWMC Facilities Plan 20-Year Project List according <br />to whether additional capacity was gained by a physical expansion of capacity or whether new <br />capacity was gained by improving a process. One-hundred percent of the cost of new physical <br />capacity is passed on to new users, whereas existing users share in the cost of capacity gained by <br />performance improvements on a prorata basis (such that 11% to 28% is charged to new users). <br /> <br />Scenario One Costs <br />(In 2004 Dollars) <br />MWMC SDC charges = $4,590,000 <br />Eugene SDC charges = $1,038,000 <br />Support Facilities = $ 106,000 <br />Past Planning Studies = $ 12,000 <br />Decision Processing = $ 300,000 <br />Total connection costs = $6,048,758 <br /> <br />Scenario Two <br />Scenario Two is similar to Scenario One, in that it is based on using the “unit cost of new <br />capacity” charged to new users requiring some increment of new system capacity to meet their <br />demand. However, in Scenario Two, the new user is charged for the total project costs of new <br />capacity (rather than charging a portion of the new capacity gained by performance improvement <br />projects to existing users). This scenario more closely estimates the actual cost of capacity that <br />Coburg would consume if connected to the regional system, because it applies the full <br />incremental costs of projects needed to meet, as examples, the recent, more stringent <br />environmental requirements on temperature (which will be met by projects that divert effluent <br />out of the river) and ammonia (which will be met by projects built to improve the environmental <br />performance of the existing facilities). <br /> <br /> Page 9 <br /> <br />