Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r <br /> <br />0022~9 <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />the sum of two and a half million dollars should therefore be included <br />in the total estimated project cost. <br />Based upon this recomputation, a more realistic cost figure for <br />the project is $19,454,000. This compares to a cost of $12,500,000 <br />shown in the report. <br />As a reduced alternative to the recotnrnended plan, the project <br />report presents cost estimates reflecting a reduction of reservoir <br />capacity from 17,500 acre-feet to 12,000 acre-feet. The report esti- <br />mates that this would reduce the total cost by $1,854,000. The extent <br />of this reduction is somewhat doubtful, although certainly a lower cost <br />would result. A reduction in capacity will cause an increase in spill- <br />way capacity which does not appear to be computed in the lower cost <br />estimate. <br />This same alternate also provides for constructing the treatment <br />plant in phases and thereby reduces the initial capital investment. <br />This is a logical procedure. However, since the additional phases must <br />be constructed during the amortization period, the total cost of the <br />project is not reduced. It is the opinion of the board staff that the <br />total cost of the project as presented will approximate $20,000,000 <br />under any circumstances. However, as a water supply project for a <br />population of 50,000 people, this cost is well within the realm of <br />economic feasibility. <br />While the entire project formulation study is well presented and <br />is complete in most aspects, the uncertainties already discussed must <br />be resolved before a final course of action can be selected. These <br />issues are as follows: <br /> <br />-6- <br />