Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />The preference of one method over another is primarily dependent on the site specific <br />conditions and goals of the project. There are also sound institutional or political aspects <br />to the question. The perceived benefits and drawbacks of each method will be unique to <br />a particular project and thus should be weighed accordingly. The purpose of this section <br />is to examine some of the issues associated with metering or not metering secondary <br />supply systems. <br /> <br />Some benefits to metering include: <br /> <br />· The cost per unit of water is the same for all customers and is perceived as <br />equitable, if the affordability of water is not an issue among different customer <br />income levels. <br />· A flat rate for water (no meters) subsidizes those who use more water by <br />providing a cheaper cost per unit of water (cost per unit of water is higher for <br />those who conserve). <br />· The direct connection between the amount of water used and the cost of the <br />water provides an incentive for customers to conserve water. <br />· Metering can provide a benchmark for comparative water use over the long-term. <br />· The ability to meter water use provides a drought mechanism tool that can be <br />used with tiered pricing (e.g. the more you use, the more you pay assuming such <br />an approach is desirable). <br /> <br />Some benefits to not metering include: <br /> <br />· Meter failure, the cost of the meters, and the expense associated with reading, <br />maintaining, and upgrading meters is not an issue if meters are not used. <br />· A flat water rate may encourage outdoor water use (thus growth in community <br />aesthetics) for low income customers, who otherwise may not be able to afford <br />the increasing rates associated with metering. <br />· Metering tends to ignore the cost of water relative to the income level of the <br />users and therefore may not be equitable (those with lower incomes will pay <br />more per unit of water relative to those with higher incomes). <br /> <br />Qpinion of Probable Construction Costs <br /> <br />The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost was developed using unit prices based on <br />currently available information from similar projects, equipment manufacturer input, and <br />local contractor input. The costs presented here are based upon the conceptual design <br />described in this feasibility study. Any changes to the concept will affect these costs. <br />Note that metering of water has not been included in the cost estimate except for <br />primary metering at pump stations and other key points in the pipe network as would be <br />used for overall management purposes. <br /> <br />Table 8 shows the items, equipment, and costs anticipated for this project. <br /> <br />The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost includes assumptions and estimates as <br />stated previously in this report. Changes in locations, sizes, and concept approach will <br />affect the costs shown in the following table. These costs may be used to determine if <br />the project is feasible. Final design and construction documents should be used to <br /> <br />Aqua Engineering, Inc. <br />June 7,2004 <br /> <br />Canal Modernization Feasibility Study <br />- 17 - <br />