Argo Dam

From the Stantec Study:
Retrofit Cost = $4,350,000
Total KwHr Generated = 2,000,000
Cost/KwHr = $0.0835
Value of Electricity = $167,000
Operational Costs = $(70,000)
Annual Return on Investment = $97,000
Payback in Years = 45

From the Potential Community Partner Initial Review:
Retrofit Cost = $3,045,000 (30% less than Stantec estimate due to bid environment and no need for toe drain repair if mill race is closed and drained)
Total KwHr Generated = 2,000,000
Cost/KwHr = $0.1528 (20 year average cost based on base year cost of $.06/kwh and inflation rate of 8.5%, which assumes current utility cost trends and carbon tax implementation)
Value of Electricity = $305,600
Operational Costs = $(70,000)
ROI = $235,600
Payback in Years = 13

Please note that the HRIMP study (link to HRIMP Report), the alternatives analysis includes the cost of toe drain repairs, which is not needed if the mill race gate is simply closed, and the annual costs for vegetation management, which is currently done by the rowing community. The study also lists $1.8 million for dredging if the dam stays and there has been no need for dredging in the 40 years the current dam has been in place. The alternatives analysis also includes $2.8 million for the value of the land created if the dam is removed. The value of the land seems to have been pulled out of thin air.

The haphazard used to compile the HRIMP cost matrix is extremely troubling to me.

If the cost of construction is inflated by 30%, as suspect by some potential community partners, due to the current bid environment in SE Michigan, the payback will be reduced even further.

Finally, there is no way to account for the cost of a future carbon tax on electricity rates, but many experts believe (as do the community partners in discussions with the city about retrofitting the dams) the 20 year average cost of electricity will nearly double, making the payback less than 10 years.

The argument needs to work both ways.

If the city is required to pay for the upkeep of the dam and is obligated to keep the dam to support the rowing community, then yes this is a city facility.

If you want to argue that the river is a public resource (not owned) then the city should be able to remove the dam (which they own) and the rowing community can put up their own dam in the public river to create their pond.

However, correct me if I am mistaken.

The city/PAC charges organized groups a fee for using the baseball fields soccor fields pools etc. Why can’t the city/PAC charge a fee for the rowing groups.

The public schools charge fees for groups to use their facilities, so I see nothoing wrong with the city charging the school groups(high school, uofm, other)fees for using city facilities.

I am not a rower, but I think I pay quite enough in city property taxes to not be singled out for more taxes if I decide I want to boat on the Huron. Who made this statement?

And, the idea to generate clean, locally funded electricity is a GREAT idea. The price of energy isn’t going to increase over the coming decades? It would be unfortunate if this issue were turned into an rich elitist rowers vs. the angels of light environmentalists. It’s not at all.

Hopefully this isn’t yet another issue the City Council has already decided behind closed doors.

I think that the value used in the calculations is reasonable. I also expect prices to rise, but they also track the economy to some extent, so projecting them is difficult.