January 10, 1994City of Okeechobee
55 S.E. Third Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 34974 2932.813/763 -3372
January 10, 1994
Deighan Appraisal Associates, Inc.
2000 S.E. Port St. Lucie Boulevard
Suite A
Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952
ATTN: Mr. Jack Crahan
RE: Appraisal
Dear Mr. Crahan:
Thank you for your January 7th response to our December 17th letter. We would
like to make the following observations.
1. You have indicated disagreement with our statement regarding the remaining
useful life computation not being scientifically supportable. However, later
in the letter it is indicated that the approach is an art not a science. Further,
the methods used by your engineer are acknowledged to be highly subjective
and based on experience rather than physical testing.
Both of these items appear to support our original conclusion that the remaining
useful life has not been established in a fashion which is scientifically supportable. We do
not mean to imply that the method is either right, wrong, improper, inadequate, acceptable
or unacceptable. We simply observe that it,does not appear to be supportable in a scientific
fashion.
2. With regard to specific tests and procedures, we have suggested on numerous
previous occasions that pipeline C factors be used as a basis for identifying
carrying capacity; and pump /motor efficiencies can also be computed. We
have suggested that this information be compiled and used as input for a
mutually acceptable algorithm to establish remaining life. There may be also
other measurable items and it is clear that such data cannot be blindly and
uniformly applied. If memory serves me correctly, I believe your engineer
had suggested that the physical measurement of external points on pipelines
also be considered. Our understanding from our last meeting, however, was
that there are not sufficient funds to perform this work in a way which
generates a suitable amount of meaningful data. Please do not take offense
Deighan Appraisal Associates
Mr. Jack Crahan
RE: City of Okeechobee
Page 2
at our December 17 letter. Our intention was not to attack the results but
simply to be clear on their limitations, based on the limitations of input.
If you feel we still do not have a clear understanding of this, perhaps we should
schedule another session. Thanks.
9 ere1y,
r
n J. 'ity/
0
inistrator