R94-63 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR NORTH WATER TREATMENT PLANT FEASIBILITY STUDY

Home Browse Search

. � - ,s. BLACK & VEATCH I� 8400 Ward Parkway,PO.Box No.8405,Kansas City,Missouri 64114,(913)339-2000 June 23, 1994 Mr. Bruce A. McNabb Director of Public Works City of Decatur Civic Center #1 Gary K. Anderson Plaza Decatur, Illinois 62523 Dear Mr. McNabb: We are pleased to have the opportunity to present our proposed scope of services in providing comparative financial studies relating to alternatives for the North Water Treatment Plant (WTP). This letter meets two objectives: (i) to demonstrate our understanding of the project and introduce you to the financial consulting services available through our the Management Consulting Division, and (ii) to provide a proposal to conduct your required studies. The North Water Treatment Plant, which was placed in service in 1975, treats surface water from the upper end of Lake Decatur. The plant was designed for a capacity of 12 mgd (million gallons per day), and expansion to 24 mgd was anticipated. The 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the subsequent enactment of the Surface Water Treatment Rules (SWTR) caused the city to retain Black & Veatch to investigate the impacts of these regulations and provide recommendations. The preliminary report of these �ndings was delivered in 1990, and the final report in January 1991. Since the 1991 report, the City has been reviewing various options for the North WTP, including its full upgrade, partial upgrade to meet the process water quality requirements of Archer Daniels Midland ADM which uses water in excess of the 12 m d ca acit of the , , � ) � g P Y North WTP), and sale of the plant to ADM. To meet the two objectives mentioned above, this letter contains sections regarding our scope of services, qualifications, and compensation to provide financial feasibility analysis of alternatives associated with maintaining or disposing of the North WTP. The analysis will compare life cycle costs, discuss non-financial advantages and disadvantages, and present the net impacts on water revenues of the various alternatives.