Laserfiche WebLink
&A45 <br />Kennedy[Jenks Consultants <br />Memorandum <br />Peter Ingram, City of Redwood City <br />21 February 2003 <br />Page 4 <br />Table 2: Alternative D and E Supply Comparison <br />Service Area I Alternative <br />D E <br />Redwood Shores I 1,246 861 <br />Greater Bayfront I 709 709 <br />Central Redwood City I 0 I 376 <br />Total I 1,955 1,946 <br />Figures 3 and 4 show schematics of the recycled water systems for Alternatives D and E, <br />respectively. Alternative E requires extending the recycled water distribution system across <br />Bayshore Highway 101 into Central Redwood City to offset the lost supply in the Redwood <br />Shores area. <br />Ramifications on Project Cost <br />The large HOAs in Redwood Shores are the most cost- effective recycled water customers in the <br />entire project area under any alternative, because they are the largest users and are closest to <br />SBSA and the transmission pipelines. When they are eliminated from the project, the capital <br />cost of any alternative increases. These large HOAs are about 6 to 7 times more cost - effective <br />than the other users on the west side of Bayshore Highway 101. Therefore, re- establishing the <br />lost 385 AF /yr supply under Alternative E significantly increases the cost of the overall ( -1,950 <br />AF /yr) project by about 18.5 %. Table 3 below provides an outline of the cost differences <br />between Alternatives D and E. <br />Table 3: Alternative D and E Cost Comparison <br />Alternative D <br />I Alternative E <br />Recycled Water Supply 1,955 AF /yr <br />1,946 AF /yr <br />Total Capital Cost $36.8 Million <br />I $43.6 Million <br />Cost Efficiency 518,800 /AF <br />$22,400/AF <br />O'W`Wp1200Z9MOM WM1 MW appal LO. NUM 02 N PONb*= k*W&b11n*mII1111gNW -Ibhm iW. t <br />