Laserfiche WebLink
management and reduced energy usage compared to the current water system. It would <br /> also reduce or eliminate the need for physical meter reading by a DWS employee and <br /> • service vehicle. <br /> h. Cost Estimates <br /> Preliminary cost estimates for the project are as follows: <br /> Alternative 2: <br /> Construction Cost: $880,000.00 <br /> Other Costs: $105,000.00 <br /> $985,000.00 <br /> Alternative 3: <br /> Construction Cost: $880,000.00 <br /> Other Costs: $219,000.00 <br /> $1,099,000.00 <br /> Exhibit B includes the estimated annual operations and maintenance costs for both Alternatives 2 <br /> &3. Selecting Alternative 2 would place the burden of these operation and maintenance costs <br /> entirely on the Iki Place homeowners. <br /> 6. SELECTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE - <br /> a. Lfeecycle Cost Analysis <br /> Repairs and maintenance to the systems required for either Alternative 2 or 3 would essentially <br /> be the same,as both systems would require the same components laid out in the same <br /> arrangement. However,over the lifecycle of the proposed infrastructure, a county-dedicated <br /> system(Alternative 3)has a much lower lifecycle cost than a private system(Alternative 2) due <br /> to the simple fact that DWS is better trained and equipped to perform repairs and routine <br /> maintenance to underground water systems than the homeowners within the lki Place <br /> subdivision Alternative 3 is tttttherefor`e thehpreferre alterria ive from a lifecycle cost analysis <br /> ..R ux.Z:.A§.3 ,&.:..,:...,.,m �.,;_..._. 31�v.� .....,..x�„4. Y�£..�,. sl'+Sd.w"�':.,..:.'.. ...��..,X'�"KsY..�' <br /> perspective. <br /> b. Non-Monetary Factors <br /> The only practicable approach to supplying the Iki Place subdivision with a safe and reliable <br /> source of water is the construction of water lines, laterals,fire hydrants and appurtenances within <br /> existing roadways. Both alternatives 2 &3 accomplish this,however with limited funding by <br /> homeowners for a private system and limited resources for maintenance and repairs,Alternative <br /> 2 is not feasible. Funding assistance provided by the USDA RUS Loan and Grant Program <br /> (Alternative 3)to construct a county-dedicable water system is far more practical and repayment <br /> of the loan portion of the funding would be assured by an existing County Council-approved • <br /> Improvement District in accordance with Chapter 12, Improvements by Assessments of the <br /> Hawaii County Code. The creation of the improvement district also clearly demonstrates that <br /> Alternative 3 is preferred by the community. <br /> 13 <br />