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 facility 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, we11 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 a11ocation of costs to the City and two proposed MUDs. Cost estimates <br /> were prepared based on unit costs for facility components in 1985 dol1ars. <br /> Contingencies of 15% and engineering costs of 10% of construction were <br /> included. 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 Total Construction Costs <br /> 1990 1995 2005 Total <br /> <br /> Rivergate MUD , ,433,840 2.' 44.540 4. \ 11.340 7.689.720 <br /> H j ghri dge 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 5.544.610 8.066.910 17.454.720 <br /> * AI1 costs are in 1985 dol1ars <br />