My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.4 ERMUSR 10-11-2005
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Utilities Commission
>
Packets
>
2003-2013
>
2005
>
10-11-2005
>
5.4 ERMUSR 10-11-2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2019 1:12:08 PM
Creation date
8/6/2018 11:25:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
ERMUSR
date
10/11/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
16 <br /> Elk River <br /> ' Municipal Utilities <br /> 13069 Orono Parkway phone: 763.441.2020 <br /> Elk River,MN 55330 Fax.763.441.8099 <br /> October 5, 2005 <br /> ' To: Elk River Municipal Utilities Commission <br /> Jerry Takle <br /> John Dietz <br /> ' Jim Tralle <br /> From: Bryan Adams <br /> Subject: Target Data Center update <br /> ' Your staff and city attorney Peter Beck has had several meetings with Target concerning <br /> their proposed project in Elk River. Originally Target was adamant about having two <br /> independent sources of feed to their facility. I presented to them our 75% ratchet <br /> 11110 provision as a minimum bill which provided us the revenue to pay for their requested <br /> intrastructure regardless of their actual power and energy needs. Target ultimately <br /> decided that if they were to pay for redundant electrical feed, they would only require one <br /> ' electric feed. Attached for your review is the final electrical service agreement. <br /> Part of Targets initial request was two feeders from two different substations. Substation <br /> ' west and a new bay at station 14. We are currently upgrading the west substation to meet <br /> our normal system growth along with Target. This transformer was purchased last <br /> month. The station 14 substation upgrade was originally scheduled for the 2010 time <br /> ' frame, but was moved up to satisfy Targets initial request of 2 feeds. Now that Target <br /> only requests 1 feed, do we still go ahead with station 14 upgrade at an approximate cost <br /> of$80,000? Because Great River Energy is now allowing us to upgrade station 14 staff <br /> ' recommends we still proceed. <br /> ' Also attached is a proposed construction schedule for the substation and Target feed <br /> projects. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.