Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> rights-of -way. The projected water demands (in LUEs) were then <br /> allocated spatially to various demand locations in each of the three water <br /> pressure planes. (See Figure 1 of the letter report from Freese and Nichols, <br /> Inc.) <br /> The seventh step was the preparation of a preliminary faci1ity design <br /> for the water system, with consideration given to cost-effectiveness and <br /> phasing of the facilities over the 20-year planning period. A computer-based <br /> water system model was used by Freese and Nichols, Inc. to determine the <br /> necessary minimum line sizes, well and pump capacities, ground and elevated <br /> storage capacities and their locations and to ensure safe operating pressures <br /> and flows throughout the system. <br /> The eighth and final step was the determination of cost estimates and <br /> the allocation of costs to the City and two proposed MUDs. Cost estimates <br /> were prepared based on unit costs for facility components in 1985 dollars. <br /> Contingencies of 15% and engineering costs of 10% of construct ion were <br /> \ncluded. Cost shares for the City and the proposed MUDs were determined on <br /> a pro rata basis for each of the three planning periods, based on a series of <br /> formulas which are presented in the attached letter report. The total <br /> construction costs are presented in Table 4. <br /> Table 4. Estimated T otDI Construction Costs <br /> 1990 1995 2005 Tota1 <br /> <br /> Rivergate MUD 1,433,840 2,144,540 4, 1 1 1 ,340 7,689,720 <br /> Highridge MUD 1,752,660 1,760,460 643,430 4,156,550 <br /> San Marcos 646,700 1,649,610 3,312,140 5,608,450 <br /> <br /> TOT Al 3,833,200 5,544,6' o 8,066,9' o 17,454,720 <br /> * AIJ costs are in 1985 dolJars <br />