|
Mr. Michael Grochala
<br />May 19, 2016
<br />Page 4
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />COST ANLYSIS
<br />
<br />In order to quickly evaluate the relative costs of the many alternatives, the options were compared
<br />solely based on the area benefitted, the length of new pipe, land acquisition necessary for easements,
<br />and any unique costs associated with that option. Unique costs include the use of bentonite for options
<br />with alignments through existing wetlands (Options 3 and 4), and the reconstruction of Peltier Lake
<br />Drive (Option 3). The summary of the relative costs is shown below:
<br />
<br />Area
<br />Served
<br />[ac]
<br />Relative Cost
<br />[$]
<br />Envision™
<br />Score
<br />Cost per Acre
<br />Served
<br />Cost per Envision™
<br />Point Awarded
<br />Option 1A 1256 $ - - $ - $ -
<br />Option 1B 710 $ 1,049,000 - $ 1,477 $ -
<br />Option 1C 1197 $ 1,260,000 67 $ 1,053 $ 18,800
<br />Option 1D 1382 $ 1,945,000 67 $ 1,407 $ 29,000
<br />Option 1E 1382 $ 1,988,000 67 $ 1,438 $ 29,700
<br />Option 2A 1325 $ 1,552,000 95 $ 1,171 $ 16,300
<br />Option 2B 1325 $ 2,128,000 67 $ 1,606 $ 31,800
<br />Option 3 1382 $ 1,697,000 67 $ 1,228 $ 25,300
<br />Option 4 1382 $ 1,429,000 67 $ 1,034 $ 21,300
<br />Option 5 1382 $ 1,086,000 67 $ 786 $ 16,200
<br />Option 6 1382 $ 502,000 95 $ 363 $ 5,300
<br />
<br />The most expensive alternative is Option 2B, due to the length of new pipe and because this location has
<br />naturally high ground. The pipe will be fairly deep below the ground elevation, which will require a
<br />greater easement and associated cost.
<br />
<br />Based on this analysis Option 6, the central outfall with open channel, is the most cost‐effective and
<br />sustainable option for the City of Lino Lakes. It serves the most land, scored highest in Envision™, and
<br />the relative cost of pipe versus easement acquisition is the least of all alternatives considered.
|