C150319 Feasibility Study

• Contract/PO #: C150319
• Contract/PO #: CT2015-043
• Contractor Name: Fisher Ditch Company
• Contract Type: Loan
• County: Denver
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

FEASIBILITY STUDY FISHER DITCH VARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS Prepared for/by: The Fisher Ditch Company 1800 Larimer Street, Suite 1300 Denver, CO 80202 June 2011 Supporting a construction
loan application to the Colorado Water Conservation Board
Fisher Ditch Company Officers Rich Belt, President Ken Gavito, Vice President Amy Willhite, Secretary/Treasurer Larry Fiore, Director Mike Paulino, Director Ditch Superintendent Gene
Brienza Attorney for Fisher Ditch Company Gib Marchand 2737 Mapleton Avenue, Ste 202 Boulder, Colorado 80304 The feasibility study hereinafter was prepared by the Fisher Ditch Company
Board of Directors, under the supervision of Richard L. Belt, P.E., P.H., and with the assistance of Director Amy Willhite, Director Larry Fiore, and Ditch Superintendent Gene Brienza.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction and Background..............
............................................................................................. 2 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................
................................ 2 Service Area Description............................................................................................................. 2 Project Sponsor
............................................................................................................................... 2 Company History......................................................
.................................................................. 2 Board of Directors ...............................................................................................................
........ 2 Current Shareholders .................................................................................................................. 2 Financial Status..................................
........................................................................................ 4 Physical Assets and Water Rights ...........................................................................
................... 4 Alternative 1 ............................................................................................................................... 6 Alternative 2 and
Cost Opinions.................................................................................................. 8 Preferred Alternative and Cost Opinions..............................................
...................................... 9 Implementation Schedule.......................................................................................................... 14 Social,
Economic, and Physical Impacts....................................................................................... 15 Institutional Feasibility ....................................................
............................................................... 15 Permitting .........................................................................................................................
........ 15 Financial Feasibility Analysis......................................................................................................... 15 Loan Amount and Financing Sources...............
........................................................................ 15 Financial Analysis.........................................................................................................
............. 16 Collateral .................................................................................................................................. 16 Conclusion ..........................
.......................................................................................................... 16 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Fisher Ditch Financial Reports........................
.............................................. 4 Table 2: Summary of Fisher Ditch Water Rights ............................................................................. 4 Table 3:
Summary of Annual and Monthly Diversions to Fisher Ditch (units=acre-feet) ................ 5 Table 4: Alternative Summary Matrix .....................................................................
......................... 6 Table 5: Alternative 2 Cost Opinion Summary ................................................................................ 9 Table 6: Preferred Alternative
Cost Opinion Summary ................................................................. 14 Table 7: Preferred alternative cost opinion and loan summary.................................................
.... 16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Fisher Ditch Vicinity and Service Area Map..................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Fisher Ditch Improvement
Projects .................................................................................. 7 Figure 3: Project 1 and 3 Site Map.......................................................................
......................... 11 Figure 4: Project 2 Site Map .......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 5: Project
4 Site Map .......................................................................................................... 13 APPENDICES Appendix A – Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws
Appendix B – List of Stockholders Appendix C – Financial Reports for 2009, 2010, and YTD 2011 Appendix D – Loan Financial Analysis iii
Feasibility Study for Various Infrastructure Improvements Fisher Ditch Company Executive Summary The Fisher Ditch is operated by the Fisher Ditch Company, which is responsible for diverting
and delivering water from Clear Creek to shareholders along the ditch and appurtenant laterals. The Fisher Ditch Company (Fisher) has identified a number of critical infrastructure projects
along the ditch which need to be addressed to maintain reliable water yields and deliveries to shareholders while maintaining affordable share assessments. The projects identified herein
are intended to address aging/failing infrastructure and operations/maintenance issues along the ditch. Fisher currently (and historically) derives the majority of its operating revenue
from shareholders via share assessments. Other minor revenue sources include interest on savings accounts, crossing agreements, and other sources. Financial reports for fiscal years
2009, 2010, and 2011 year-to-date are summarized in Table 1. Complete reports are provided in Appendix C. There are four separate projects to repair aging/failing infrastructure contemplated
in this application (Figure 2). The projects are listed in order of importance to the continued efficient, reliable, and safe functioning of the ditch system. This feasibility study
evaluated three alternatives for each project, with the basic parameters summarized below. Alte nativ nativ nativ rnative Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Notes Alter e 1 No Action
$0 No Action $0 No Action $0 No Action $0 Anticipated to result in infrastructure failure and/or company liability Alter e 2 New gate, hoist and actuator $57,500 New 36-inch PE pipeline
$127,680 Rehab. existing spillway $56,875 Fencing along top of slope $73,125 Alternative infeasible or more expensive than preferred alternative Alter e 3 Rehabilitate gate $14,950 New
38-inch X 24-inch RCPE pipeline $142,440 New sand-out, gates and outlet pipe $105,625 New 1500-foot 48-inch PE pipeline $242,125 Preferred alternatives address issues while providing
most value to shareholders The preferred alternative for all projects is one that the Fisher believes addresses the underlying infrastructure or maintenance concern while providing the
most value to the ditch company. Cost opinions for the preferred alternatives for each project are summarized below. Project ID Total Cost ($) Loan Amount ($) Project 1 -Headgate rehabilitation
$14,950 $13,455 Project 2 -Broadway piping $142,440 $128,196 Project 3 -Sand-out gate $105,625 $95,063 Project 4 -Federal piping $242,125 $217,913 Total $505,140 $454,626 A conservative
financial analysis has been prepared to show the projected revenue and expenses for the company over the loan period (Appendix D). This analysis demonstrates that Fisher Ditch shareholders
can repay the anticipated loan through reasonable special assessments. The projects identified by Fisher Ditch as a part of this loan application are necessary to ensure the continued
reliable delivery of the company’s water rights, preservation of reasonable operating and maintenance assessments, and safety of its system for users and others. The projects proposed
are reasonably priced and can be completed in a straight-forward, workmanlike manner by a qualified contractor. The Fisher Ditch company is in suitable financial condition to responsibly
accept the loan obligation sought in this application and will be able to repay the loan without overburdening its shareholders. 1
Introduction and Background Purpose and Need The Fisher Ditch is operated by the Fisher Ditch Company, which is responsible for diverting and delivering water from Clear Creek to shareholders
along the ditch and appurtenant laterals. The Fisher Ditch Company (Fisher) has identified a number of critical infrastructure projects along the ditch which need to be addressed to
maintain reliable water yields and deliveries to shareholders while maintaining affordable share assessments. The projects identified herein are intended to address aging/failing infrastructure
and operations/maintenance issues along the ditch. Service Area Description The Fisher Ditch diverts water from Clear Creek in the vicinity of intersection of Lowell Boulevard and Interstate
76, where Lowell Boulevard crosses Clear Creek (Figure 1). This location is further described as being within Section 17, Township 3 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. The diversion
turns water into an earthen ditch which conveys water generally northeasterly toward the South Platte River. Historically, the ditch was used to irrigate small truck farms which provided
produce to the Denver market. Currently, water diverted under the ditch is used to irrigate small acreages under the ditch, as well as to provide augmentation and industrial water to
north Metro municipalities and commercial interests. Project Sponsor Company History The Fisher Ditch Company is a Colorado Mutual Ditch Company and a non-profit Corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Colorado. Fisher was incorporated in 1921, although the ditch has been in existence since 1861, when its earliest water right was appropriated (Appendix
A). Fisher has the following powers and authorities: 1. Eminent domain (reference CRS Section 38-2-101). 2. Taxing or assessing authority (reference CRS Section 7-42-104). Fisher’s bylaws
further permit it to foreclose on shareholders for non-payment of assessments. 3. Contracting authority (CRS 7-40-102). Board of Directors The Fisher Board of Directors consists of five
members. Each director serves a one-year term and is elected at the annual stockholders meeting. Board officers are elected by the directors and perform all administrative and financial
tasks. Legal and engineering services are performed by independent consultants, as needed. Fisher has one employee, a ditch superintendent, who conducts the day-to-day operations and
maintenance of the ditch. Current Shareholders There are a total of 1344 outstanding Fisher shares held by stockholders and zero treasury shares (Appendix B). 2
Figure 1: Fisher Ditch Vicinity and Service Area Map Fisher Ditch Diversion Copeland Reservoir Clear Creek S. Platte River United Water Co. Service Area Fisher Ditch Co. Service Area
Legend Fisher Ditch Fisher Ditch Diversion/Terminus Fisher Ditch Service Area United Water Co. Service Area Service Areas approximate Not to Scale N
Financial Status Fisher currently (and historically) derives the majority of its operating revenue from shareholders via share assessments. Other minor revenue sources include interest
on savings accounts, crossing agreements, and other sources. Financial reports for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011 year-to-date are summarized in Table 1. Complete reports are provided
in Appendix C. Fisher strives to operate with a small reserve in case of unforeseen expenditures during the year. Additionally, Fisher maintains an emergency reserve to offset major
expenditures. The Board decides annually the appropriate annual assessment, operating reserve, and emergency reserve levels. Table 1: Summary of Fisher Ditch Financial Reports 2009 2010
2011 to-date Total Assets $ 17,943 $ 36,735 $ 45,135 Liabilities $ 48 $ 48 $ 144 Capital Stock $ 67,200 $ 67,200 $ 67,200 Total Operating Revenue $ 49,413 $ 49,979 $ 56,399 Total Operating
Expenses $ 56,300 $ 31,187 $ 41,289 Net Income (Deficit) $ (6,887) $ 18,792 $ 15,110 Physical Assets and Water Rights Fisher owns a diversion dam and headworks on Clear Creek and approximately
8.2 miles of earthen canal, pipeline, and appurtenant structures. The Fisher Ditch delivers water to a second mutual ditch company, United Water Company, at the downstream extent of
the ditch at Copeland Reservoir. United Water Company is a Fisher shareholder, but also maintains separate facilities which are not assets of Fisher. The approximate dividing line between
company facilities is the Interstate 25 corridor. The decreed water rights of the Fisher are summarized in Table 2, while monthly and annual diversions are summarized in Table 3. Annual
diversion have ranged from 3,509 acre-feet to 12,418 acre-feet annually, with an average yield of 7,623 acre-feet. Fisher shares have been the subject of numerous changes of use cases
over the years which have quantified the consumptive yield and return flow obligations associated with these shares. Return flow obligations for a number of users are met at the Fisher
Ditch augmentation station, located just downstream of the measurement flume in the upper portion of the ditch system. Table 2: Summary of Fisher Ditch Water Rights Appropriation Date
Adjudication Date Administration No. Decreed Rate (cfs) 6/29/1861 10/04/1884 4198.00000 34.7 3/30/1898 5/13/1936 17621.00000 35.0 4
Table 3: Summary of Annual and Monthly Diversions to Fisher Ditch (units=acre-feet) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 1950 0 0 0 694 724 1,099 1,619 1,365 559 545
0 0 6,605 1951 0 0 0 421 1,061 1,033 1,698 1,148 1,107 474 0 0 6,942 1952 0 0 0 541 994 1,617 1,654 1,615 1,353 988 0 0 8,761 1953 0 0 232 813 1,097 1,341 1,297 1,710 1,152 688 28 0
8,358 1954 0 0 101 579 1,480 1,829 1,648 908 438 674 0 0 7,658 1955 0 0 0 355 1,121 1,383 1,523 1,129 1,004 742 0 0 7,256 1956 0 0 0 587 1,135 1,517 1,666 1,377 809 595 0 0 7,686 1957
0 0 113 480 541 1,164 1,424 978 1,077 845 42 0 6,665 1958 0 0 0 504 857 1,311 1,234 1,452 772 540 18 0 6,686 1959 0 0 0 200 843 1,232 1,299 1,537 853 0 16 0 5,980 1960 0 0 0 819 1,059
1,252 1,454 1,535 1,023 492 0 0 7,634 1961 0 0 0 63 651 781 1,305 1,170 851 651 0 0 5,472 1962 0 0 0 430 978 1,125 1,476 1,446 958 696 0 0 7,109 1963 0 0 28 494 1,109 1,148 1,412 1,164
688 889 198 0 7,131 1964 0 0 0 345 1,016 1,515 1,708 1,918 803 668 0 0 7,974 1965 0 0 0 543 1,634 1,299 1,676 1,730 1,456 930 278 0 9,547 1966 0 0 0 547 1,398 1,672 1,857 1,985 1,075
855 0 0 9,390 1967 0 0 248 502 968 764 1,063 1,716 1,623 1,446 89 0 8,418 1968 0 0 0 579 1,131 1,987 2,065 1,912 1,777 1,539 63 0 11,054 1969 349 278 317 561 1,059 1,365 2,010 1,949
1,574 866 506 250 11,084 1970 357 327 8 278 1,242 1,222 1,745 1,982 1,702 1,156 631 490 11,139 1971 344 383 97 593 1,085 1,599 1,769 2,180 1,460 783 551 472 11,316 1972 0 0 367 524 755
1,145 1,708 1,758 1,825 1,390 139 4 9,614 1973 0 0 0 0 694 1,042 1,700 1,714 1,775 1,536 803 79 9,344 1974 277 250 277 532 1,369 1,328 1,338 1,527 1,309 1,389 390 237 10,222 1975 498
472 244 882 1,330 1,579 1,602 1,380 1,623 952 298 585 11,444 1976 822 357 553 987 1,585 1,203 1,386 1,409 1,409 953 763 990 12,418 1977 400 361 400 673 958 956 954 647 317 569 387 400
7,022 1978 371 331 40 571 583 889 986 1,129 659 530 452 371 6,911 1979 313 335 129 454 637 811 1,107 716 805 668 506 218 6,700 1980 123 48 0 284 357 875 944 1,012 740 456 177 123 5,137
1981 204 274 466 474 540 910 891 978 956 504 175 264 6,635 1982 123 111 206 510 567 403 865 803 778 524 119 175 5,183 1983 284 212 89 135 204 369 787 797 627 553 250 246 4,554 1984 226
367 393 409 444 748 946 770 728 286 292 113 5,720 1985 179 105 133 428 853 690 799 811 696 718 222 139 5,774 1986 296 103 151 32 327 327 518 565 371 192 353 274 3,509 1987 246 222 246
238 395 387 599 424 514 294 119 274 3,957 1988 0 0 294 573 516 908 1,117 972 962 668 107 0 6,117 1989 0 0 0 472 533 754 712 715 621 651 0 0 4,459 1990 0 0 0 291 815 910 799 830 553 432
33 0 4,664 1991 0 0 0 609 845 708 720 606 603 597 26 0 4,713 1992 271 80 180 589 633 502 673 618 638 639 456 384 5,662 1993 0 0 0 620 942 609 828 835 764 533 0 0 5,130 1994 0 0 0 418
721 719 834 1,067 822 763 0 0 5,344 1995 217 148 178 470 370 488 752 1,186 802 615 161 233 5,622 1996 122 171 229 457 996 1,086 1,320 1,355 1,088 821 160 100 7,905 1997 401 173 322 505
636 735 1,144 1,158 1,099 836 538 582 8,130 1998 385 388 49 755 1,061 1,116 1,458 1,376 1,249 1,022 361 373 9,593 1999 432 389 256 391 922 1,318 1,179 1,141 1,008 886 197 429 8,549 2000
684 496 494 903 1,241 1,281 1,252 1,140 1,029 603 570 657 10,351 2001 474 413 327 1,136 1,341 1,274 1,338 1,071 1,133 972 436 199 10,114 2002 733 709 697 853 964 970 600 494 464 778
502 549 8,314 2003 301 301 301 574 789 1,060 1,331 1,203 1,054 832 416 275 8,438 2004 0 0 0 816 982 969 1,156 1,148 938 605 40 0 6,654 2005 0 0 0 644 977 1,088 1,269 1,251 986 970 45
0 7,229 2006 573 413 32 1,128 1,710 1,834 1,906 1,895 911 589 614 440 12,043 2007 570 539 483 531 685 897 1,292 1,233 1,121 1,040 538 430 9,359 2008 481 721 312 545 749 1,023 1,168 1,068
972 825 429 395 8,688 2009 530 274 194 363 652 709 1,014 877 719 489 483 500 6,806 2010 622 587 419 476 573 730 885 1,026 939 536 2 307 7,102 Average 200 169 157 528 892 1,059 1,254
1,223 979 742 229 189 7,623 Max 822 721 697 1,136 1,710 1,987 2,065 2,180 1,825 1,539 803 990 16,474 Min 0 0 0 0 204 327 518 424 317 0 0 0 1,791 Note that diversion records include diversion
for all water rights, including foreign water and non-Fisher exchanges. 5
Project Description and Alternatives There are four separate projects to repair aging/failing infrastructure contemplated in this application (Figure 2). The projects are listed in order
of importance to the continued efficient, reliable, and safe functioning of the ditch system. Project 1 – Repair of the Diversion Headgate. The existing radial gate in the diversion
headworks is estimated to date from the early 1900’s. The lower quarter of the gate has been subject to corrosion, erosion by suspended sediment, and debris impact over those years and
has decayed to the point where failure may be imminent. Project 2 – Replacement of existing pipeline along Broadway. The ditch is conveyed in a 42-inch by 29-inch corrugated metal pipeline
in the Broadway right-of-way, generally between the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and north boundary of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Presently, the pipe crown has fatigued
and failed in a number of locations, allowing stormwater, sediment, and other debris to enter the pipeline. When the pipeline was constructed, it was not installed with adequate cover
over the top of the pipe. During the intervening years, buses and cars have pulled onto the shoulder along Broadway and on-top-of or across this pipeline, weakening the pipe crown and
resulting in its current condition. The pipeline, in its current condition, may also present a liability concern for the company. Project 3 – Provide a sand-out structure downstream
of the Clear Creek diversion. The ditch company does not currently have an operable river return in the upper segment of the ditch, other than an augmentation station. The purpose of
this project would be to provide a means of flushing diverted sediment and other debris back to the river and out of the ditch system. This facility is an important maintenance reduction
measure due to the volume of debris and sediment diverted, and the number of piped sections along the ditch. Project 4 – Pipe approximately 1500 feet of ditch upstream of Federal Boulevard.
The Fisher ditch is an open, earthen ditch located at the bottom of a bluff upstream of Federal Boulevard. Over the years, the residents at the top of the bluff have dumped tremendous
quantities of miscellaneous debris at the top of the bluff, including furniture, building materials, yard waste, etc. Over time, this material slides into the ditch at the bottom of
the bluff, creating significant operational challenges and additional maintenance costs. A summary table of the alternatives for each project is provided in Table 4. Table 4: Alternative
Summary Matrix Alternative Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Notes Alternative 1 No Action $0 No Action $0 No Action $0 No Action $0 Anticipated to result in infrastructure failure
and/or company liability Alternative 2 New gate, hoist and actuator $57,500 New 36-inch PE pipeline $127,680 Rehab. existing spillway $56,875 Fencing along top of slope $73,125 Alternative
infeasible or more expensive than preferred alternative Alternative 3 Rehabilitate gate $14,950 New 38-inch X 24-inch RCPE pipeline $142,440 New sand-out, gates and outlet pipe $105,625
New 1500-foot 48-inch PE pipeline $242,125 Preferred alternatives address issues while providing most value to shareholders Alternative 1 Alternative 1 – No Action on any project. The
No Action alternative would have potentially serious consequences to the ditch company, particularly in the cases of Projects 1 and 2. Continued neglect of the headworks diversion gate
will lead to failure, possibly preventing the ditch from being shut down during high water or some other critical time. This scenario could lead to overtopping and/or breaching of the
ditch banks and flooding of urbanized areas located along and below the ditch, resulting in catastrophic liability to the company and its shareholders. Project 2 is similarly critical
to ditch operations and avoidance of liability. Further deterioration of 6
Figure 2: Fisher Ditch Improvement Projects Fisher Ditch Diversion Copeland Reservoir Clear Creek S. Platte River Legend Fisher Ditch Fisher Ditch Diversion/Terminus Proposed Projects
Project 2 Project 4 Project 1&3 Not to Scale N
this pipeline along Broadway could result in a hazard to both motorists and pedestrians who use this corridor. Projects 3 and 4 could be deferred indefinitely, resulting in maintenance
of current ditch operations, operations and maintenance expenditures, and water delivery reliability. Alternative 2 and Cost Opinions Alternative 2 – Project 1. Replace Diversion Headgate.
Alternative 2 would require removal of the existing gate and replacement with a new 8-foot by 14-foot radial gate, which would be placed into the footprint of the existing headworks
structure. This alternative would also require replacement of the existing hoist and actuator, which are currently serviceable, due to incompatibilities with the new gate. Alternative
2 at the headgate was rejected in favor of Alternative 3 because the majority of the gate structure is in adequate condition and the lower quarter-to-third of the gate can be repaired
more affordably than providing a new radial gate. Alternative 2 – Project 2. Replacement of Existing pipeline along Broadway. Alternative 2 would replace the existing, failed corrugated
metal pipeline with a 36-inch diameter polyethylene pipeline (PE) and would replace the entire failed segment along Broadway. As discussed in the project introduction, there is currently
not adequate cover along this segment to install a PE pipeline with adequate cover, so an inverted siphon would be constructed to allow the pipe invert to be lowered. Additionally, Fisher
would work with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to allow the importation of additional fill to raise the Broadway shoulder area to provide an additional margin of safety.
Alternative 2 was rejected because providing a siphon in this area will increase the potential to trap debris and sediment, potentially increasing the maintenance costs for this reach.
Further, Fisher ditch is uncertain that sufficient cover can be obtained, depending on the outcome of the discussion with CDOT. Finally, Fisher believes that Alternative 3, while initially
more expensive, will provide a longer-term solution to the Broadway pipeline problem. Alternative 2 – Project 3. Provide a sand-out structure downstream of Clear Creek diversion. Alternative
2 would repair an existing, but abandoned, spillway structure to serve at the sand-out. The structure is located in the upper canal reach, approximately 1,000 feet downstream of the
headgate and downstream of the measurement flume. Repair of this structure would include replacement of the spillway structure, including addition of a new slide gate, installation of
a new check structure in the canal, and rehabilitation of the outlet channel including tree removal. Alternative 2 was rejected for several reasons: 1. Rehabilitation of the spillway
is anticipated to be more expensive than constructing a new outlet structure. 2. The existing spillway is located too far down the ditch to serve its intended purpose. 3. The spillway
is located below the ditch measurement flume and could complicate preparation of diversion records for the ditch while the sand-out is in use. 4. Tree removal along the outlet would
likely be controversial to park users. Alternative 2 – Project 4. Ditch piping upstream of Federal Boulevard. Fisher has examined a number of alternatives to address the dumping issue
in this reach of the ditch, including meeting with the mobile home park management, constructing a fence along the mobile home park boundary, and removing the debris as it is dumped.
Fisher would prefer that the mobile home park (with Fisher participation) install a more substantial fence at the mobile home park boundary to prevent dumping. While this alternative
could address the problem in a less expensive and more effective manner, the mobile home park management has been unwilling to maintain the existing fencing in adequate repair to prevent
dumping or enforce a no dumping policy with its residents. As such, Alternative 2 was rejected an ineffective in solving the issue. Cost opinions for each project considered under Alternative
2 are summarized in Table 5. 8
Table 5: Alternative 2 Cost Opinion Summary Project 1 -Diversion Headgate replacement Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost ($) Extended Cost ($) Replace headgate 1 LS 50,000 $50,000
Subtotal $50,000 Contingency (15%) $7,500 Total $57,500 Project 2 -Broadway pipeline replacement Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost ($) Extended Cost ($) Mobilization 1 LS $9,000
$9,000 Demolish existing pipe/structures 1 LS $6,500 $6,500 5-ft dia manhole 1 LS $8,000 $8,000 New diversion structure 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 5-ft dia manhole w/formed invert 1 LS $9,000
$9,000 36-inch PE 650 LF $80 $52,000 Repair driveways 600 SF $2 $1,200 Provide/place fill in right-of-way 120 CY $10 $1,200 Traffic control 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Railroad flagging/permits
1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Incidental removal/replacement (signs, delineators, etc.) 1 LS $1,500 $1,500 Subtotal $106,400 Contingency (20%) $21,280 Total $127,680 Project 3 -Rehabilitate existing
spillway Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost ($) Extended Cost ($) Mobilization 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 Demolish existing pipe/structures/vegetation 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Rehabilitate
existing channel 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Concrete headwall 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Slide Gates 1 EA $9,000 $9,000 Subtotal $45,500 Contingency (25%) $11,375 Total $56,875 Project 4 -New fence
along mobile home park Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost ($) Extended Cost ($) Mobilization 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Clearing and grubbing 1 LS $3,500 $3,500 Chain-link fencing -8-foot
2000 LF $25 $50,000 Subtotal $58,500 Contingency (25%) $14,625 Total $73,125 9
Preferred Alternative and Cost Opinions The preferred alternative for all projects is one that the Fisher believes addresses the underlying infrastructure or maintenance concern while
providing the most value to the ditch company. Cost opinions for the preferred alternatives for each project are summarized in Table 6. Preferred Alternative – Project 1. Rehabilitate