Folder_0047

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

a 3: Our response should be firm and to the point:

* We are upset with being blind-sided at the meeting.

* The Yorktown plant is an embarrassment to the County and a threat to its environment, as well as a problem for the City. The County should be just as eager as we to at least divert Yorktown out of watershed.

* We are only obligated, under the MOA, to make a capital contribution equal to our avoided upgrade costs (MOA, par. 140(l)). t * We are not that far off from the County on numbers - it looks like the City contribution for diverting Yorktown, under MOA 140(1), • will probably be in the $16 Million range

THEREFORE, Yorktown diversion is doable - if Peekskill isn't expanded (and it does NOT have to be), the cost of a project taking Yorktown to Peekskill drops to $10- 11 Million (County's numbers) - there should be more than enough $ to do this project, and still have some left over to give to Peekskill if the County decides to do so.

Moreover, under this scenario, the County doesn't even have to touch the $38 Million previously paid by the City.

* The City's bottom line is that we are only obligated to make a capital contribution equal to avoided upgrade costs; the Mayor is prepared to live by that obligation, but no further.

* While we think diversion is preferable, we are VERY confident of our ability to protect public health through upgrading, and our Croton filtration facility, if the County does not want to move ahead

* We think discussions should be refocused on Yorktown, as described above. If this is acceptable, we would be prepared to meet and move ahead quickly; if not, we should fold our tent and look at other ways to work together - there is little • time left before we (City) must elect whether to spend time and money on diversion (and persuade EPA that it is worth the wait), or simply move ahead with upgrades to the individual facilities, including Yorktown.

WCBULL.WPD

NYC-WTC 000137639