AgdaPkt 2002-11-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

implementation, determining a financing strategy, and In developing an initial rate and revenue plan. Refer to Figure ES-1 for a schematic plan of Alternative D. The prima~y reason for recommending Altematlve D is that it is the most cost-effective project configuration that provides an adequate water supply (1,955 AF/yr) to: 1. Reduce existing demands on the San Francisco Hetch Hetchy regional water system to be within the City's contractual supply assurance. 2. Provide a source of future water supply for potential new developments within the City. Aitemative D also provides significant flexibility for the future, so the City can continue to explore the benefits of additional water conservation measures, overall water supply reliability and drought tolerance issues, water transfers and other water supply managemant options. Ifthe City requires additional recycled water supply in ~ne futu~- the pipei~?~' provided under Alternative D are oversized to allow the system to expan..: across B=.~-~ore Highway 101 into Central Redwood City for a City-wide project (3,172 AF/yr as in AitemaUve B). The system could also support expansion into adjacent communities to meet future needs if the City were to negotiate agreements for transmission of water from SBSA to other retail water suppliers. Additional benef'~ and considerations associated with recommending Alternative D are included in Section 5 of this report. The total estimate of probable capital cost, including facilities construction, sen/ica connections and site retrofits, engineering, construction management, administration and a 20% project contingency is approximately $36,819,000. The portion of this cost associated with providing oversized pipelines for future flexibility is approximately $4,891,000. Alternative D capital costs are summarized in Table ES-1. Water Recycling Feasibil~y Study for Redwood City vii