Laserfiche WebLink
<br />": <br /> <br />. Agenda Item 29h <br />; October 21, 1994 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />0'1 \ <br /> <br /> <br />~QI~ <br />_ f'-w <br />~ <br />])8 <br /> <br /> <br />~t <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1:1- <br /> <br />Further, it appears, from the information in the report, that the current per capita rate of water use <br />is about 370 gallons per capita per day. It is the opinion of the staff that the feasibility study <br />should address the questions of metering and water conservation. <br /> <br />Costs <br /> <br />The total (one time) capital co?! of the project is estimated by WRC Engineering at $2,627,000 and <br />the annual cost is estimated at $248,000. The project firm yield is estimated to be 625 acre-feet <br />per year. Unit costs then, as estimated by the CWCB staff, would be about $4,200 per acre-foot <br />in capital costs and $400 per acre-foot per year in annual costs. Assuming 130 taps (400 residents <br />and 3 persons per tap), the costs per tap would amount to approximately $20,000 in capital costs <br />and $1,900 per year in annual costs. The unit costs are summarized in the foIlowing table. <br /> <br />MORRISON WATER SUPPLY PROJECT <br />ESTIMATED UNIT COSTS <br /> <br /> Capital Costs Annual Costs <br /> $ $ per year <br />Cost per acre-foot of yield $4,200 $400 <br />Cost per tap $20,000 $1,900 <br /> <br />Use of Proiect Water <br /> <br />The report indicates that the project would develop about 625 acre-feet of firm yield and that <br />present water use by Morrison is about 165 acre-feet per year. It is proposed that the excess 460 <br />acre- feet per year might be sold to other water suppliers in the metropolitan area or be used to <br />expand the Morrison service area and provide for growth. The supplement to the draft report <br />provides a discussion of this question but it is the opinion of the staff that some further resolution <br />would be helpful in arriving at a feasibility recommendation. <br /> <br />Alternatives <br /> <br />The draft report mentions alternatives to the project, such as service from the Denver Water system, <br />but does not provide cost estimates or sufficient analyses to allow an evaluation of alternatives. <br />If viable alternatives are, in fact, available they should be fully described and evaluated. <br /> <br />Tn view of the foregoing discussion, it appears as if further analyses as well as discussions by the staff <br />..ith the applicant are warranted before a feasibility recommendation is made for the entire project. <br />