Need to compare apples to apples in treatment plant study

The fight goes on… the debate is vitiated by empty minds and thoughtless reason(s). Elmer City argues that Coulee has taken advantage by over-charges/invoicing by violating the 1975 agreement. On the other hand, Coulee Dam has lost some of the design and operational paradigms. Both agencies have lost their compasses.

“IF” Coulee Dam has taken invoicing advantages, so too is that Elmer City’s ignorance of the quarterly reviews! Both agencies have made errors. As to Coulee Dam, by its own volition in 2014, they self-audited the “agreement,” the procedures, and the pragmatic content(s). And there were errors. Coulee Dam made those repayments, adjustments, and corrections accordingly. As an “agreement,” Coulee Dam shares the “intent” to accurately invoice the costs. So, too, is that Elmer City has a requirement to self-audit (review the accuracy of invoicing before making payments). After 45 years of arguing, one would wonder the ignorance and self-aggrandizement.

With the/a clear understanding, and as with some of an expert of this matters, the calculus has been done. And, pragmatically, it is more cost-effective to remain married! If you can’t agree, get a counselor or move on to litigation as our electorates and utility customers care about user fee costs, the monthly utility bill. From city cash and/or from a funding agency, we care of the effectiveness of the project outcomes. The standard of reasonableness is to undertake (or review) a full “life-cycle” cost analysis. Without boring with the underlying details, the calculus includes: the cost for the value of the capital facility; the debt service (principal & interest); facility deprecation; protective reserves; and the O&M (operational costs); and, importantly, a time factor (usually 40 years). And in the end, a final cost/value as a use for decision. In order to make those determinations, the “assumptions” are important to the overall calculus. As an example, if you fail to properly impose the conditions (or assumptions), the errors will cause the debate for the wrong reasons!

The Star recently quoted that Elmer City stated: “That alternative, according to the study, would have an annual operating and maintenance cost of $86,202, compared to the $146,400 annual O&M costs of sharing a facility with Coulee Dam.” Although Coulee Dam books its O&M costs of about $140,000–160,000 annually. And based on the “actual treatment liquid flow,” Coulee Dam invoices Elmer City about $35,000 annually. In error, Elmer City has chosen to compare Elmer City’s O&M costs at $86,202 (for their proposed new Treatment Facility) and Coulee Dam’s O&M’s design-based costs will likely be about $140,000–160,000 (or less) annually. As a true apples-and-apples comparison, the new Coulee Dam facility will likely divide those O&M costs generally as $111,400 for Coulee Dam and $35,000 annually for Elmer City. With all other fiscal resolutions, who would be dumb enough to pay Elmer City at $86,202 to the invoiced by Coulee Dam at $35,000? Again, remember that ALL of the comparative factors need to be the same — if the grant/loan/cash financing to be the same — the same terms. You can’t assume for a 20-year loan to a 40-year term and you can’t “assume” an “80% forgivable loan.”

Coulee Dam needs to protect its investment and the impacts of unreasonable or illegal costs to benefit Elmer City. Both agencies need to be clear, open, and accurately presented.

Given that in this community (and that includes the USBR and Tribes) we already have four police departments, five fire departments, four ambulance providers, and three treatment facilities, five water providers, and other untold services that should be shared — why not add another sewer treatment facility! Or let’s plan for three pools? It’s entertainment … let’s sleep through the dysfunction?

Greg Wilder