Laserfiche WebLink
Page 3 <br /> Mr. Robert Marty <br /> RE: Community Service Area No. 31 <br /> February 8, 2001 <br /> I have also performed a cost analysis of each alternative. It turns out that Alternative No. 3 <br /> results in a$16,000 savings. Under Alternative No. 3, waiting until a bond is posted, the total <br /> costs will be as follows: <br /> 1. Engineering: $ 2,000 <br /> 2. LAFCO fee: 1,100 <br /> 3. State Board of Equalization: 250 <br /> 4. Hook-up fee: 30,000 <br /> 5. Legal fees: 5,000 <br /> Total $38.350 <br /> Under Alternative No. 1, purchasing excess capacity, the total costs will be as follows: <br /> 1. Engineering $ 2,000 <br /> 2. LAFCO fee 1,100 <br /> 3. Purchase Price 50,000 <br /> 4. Hook-up fee None <br /> 5. Transaction fee to <br /> Public Works 1,500 <br /> 6. Processing fee to <br /> Public Works 150 <br /> Total5$ 4,750 <br /> Unless I hear ot1'ervi:e, I •mill assume that you agree that my app-oach is the appropriate <br /> strategy. Perhaps we should discuss the feasibility of changing the approach to the purchase of <br /> additional capacity since we have no control over when and how a bond will be posted. <br /> Unfortunately, I don't know that there are any other viable alternatives than connecting to <br /> Community Service Area No. 31. I have been told by you that it is not feasible to provide for a <br /> new well on the site, given the contamination. <br />