HomeMy WebLinkAboutDay, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek Funding MechanismsAd
FUNDING MECHANISMS
FOR THE
DAY, ETIWANDA AND SAN SEVAINE
CREEK SYSTEM
DRAINAGE PLAN
di
By
Bill Mann & Associates
1814 Commercenter West, Suite A
San Bernardino, CA 92408
March, 1983
R
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
SECTION II. FINANCING MECHANISMS FOR FUNDING
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS
SECTION III. DISTRIBUTION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
APPENDIX - 1. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
Page
1
5
10
i
0
a
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
err A. GENERAL DISCUSSION
In November of 1981, Phase I of the Drainage Plan for the Day,
Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek System was completed. Phase I
was an overview of the drainage and flood problems associated
rr
with the Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek watershed, and
recommended methodology and the institutional framework for
i developing a Drainage Plan to resolve the drainage and flood
�* problems. The Phase I Report reviewed alternate methods of
a
improvement for the main channels, methods of financing con-
struction of the systems, water conservation, and established
a Technical Committee and Steering Committee to guide the
development of the Drainage Plan.
In February of 1982, Phase II of the Drainage Plan was initiated
under an agreement involving the San Bernardino County Flood
Wr
Control District and the Cities of Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga
and Fontana. The Riverside County Flood Control District
assisted in coordinating the development of the hydrology
criteria and developed that portion of the Drainage Plan for
San Sevaine Creek in Riverside County. The drainage plan for
the Day Creek System ties to and was coordinated with the River-
side County Flood Control District's drainage plan for Day
Creek at Riverside Drive, below the Pomona Freeway. Private
3 developer interests in San Bernardino County also had a major
role in the development of the Drainage Plan and participated
q in both the Technical and Steering Committees.
1
4
Phase II of the Drainage'Plan is now complete, and Volume I
(Report Text) and Volume II (Preliminary Plans) have been for-
warded to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District for
distribution. Task 5 of the Phase II Study included the re-
search of various means of financing flood control facilities
and a preliminary financial report outlining the various
methods, cost per acre, and jurisdictional breakdown of
facility costs for the various systems.
This report is a summary of•possible funding mechanisms, the
construction costs of the Drainage Plan as proposed, and the
cost per acre based on the estimated construction costs.
B. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
The construction cost estimates are provided in Section VI of
Volume I of the Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek Drainage
Plan Report, and is included in the Appendix of this report in
" its entirety.
The total estimated cost of the Day and San Sevaine Creek
Systems is $79,175,000. The Day Creek Channel System is esti-
mated at $38,300,000 and the San Sevaine Creek System is esti-
mated at $40,875,000. The Upper Etiwanda Creek is included in
the San Sevaine Creek System and Lower Etiwanda Creek is included
in the Day Creek System.
C. DISTRIBUTION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND COST PER ACRE
Throughout the development of the Drainage Plan, the Technical
Committee met on a monthly basis. During the meetings, one of
2
the major topics was the construction costs and possible methods
" of funding and distributing the costs. Section III provides the
estimated cost per acre for both systems, the approximate dis-
tribution of costs on a jurisdictional basis, and the approxi-
mate area of each jurisdiction within the drainage areas. While
oil there was no formal agreement to the method of allocating costs
.w to each jurisdiction, and the method of funding the overall
flood control facilities was not defined, there was a general
consensus on the breakdown of costs within each jurisdiction.
4W D. SUMMARY
OR
rrr This report provides a preliminary summary of possible methods
of financing the flood control and water conservation facilities
and attempts to outline past discussions and decisions made by.
the Technical Committee. A financial analysis will have to be
provided for each system once it is decided which method or
methods of financing will be pursued. The necessary financial
analysis is going on, in part, by actions taken by the various
cities in forming redevelopment projects and reviewing possible
*■! assessment districts. Additionally, as outlined in.Section II,
�+ funding by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation for the Day Creek
Channel System is presently being pursued.
The Technical Committee recommended the distribution of costs
by jurisdiction based on gross areas within the drainage areas.
This is discussed in,Section III. Based on gross acres, the
approximate cost per acre for funding the Day Creek Channel
System is-$3,500/acre, and the cost per acre for funding the
San Sevaine Channel System is $1,310 /acre. The large difference
in cost per acre between the two systems is due to the San Sevaine
Creek drainage area being approximately three times the Day Creek
drainage area.
0
3
.r
di
7
ar
rr
r
.�r
di
rw
di
The cost per jurisdiction provided in Section III provides a
negotiating point by which the various agencies can begin to
discuss an appropriate cost distribution and funding methods.
4
.ft
aw
SECTION II
FINANCING MECHANISMS FOR
FUNDING FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS
.r
An essential requirement of the implementation of any drainage and
flood control plan is the financing program. A major task in the
implementation of the Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek Drainage
Plan is to determine and establish a funding mechanism or combina-
tion of mechanisms to fund construction.
�+ Generally, it has been the practice and responsibility of Flood
Control Districts to plan and construct major flood control facili-
ties. However, in recent years, Flood Control District funds have
been drastically reduced. Recognizing this, other methods have
had to be explored to fund the major systems.
During the Phase I and Phase II periods of the Drainage Plan
development, a considerable amount of effort has been put forth
in reviewing possible methods of funding the Day, Etiwanda and San
Sevaine Creek Systems or parts thereof. The Technical Committee
has reviewed and discussed the merits of several possible funding
.ri mechanism combinations.
6r These possible sources of funding are summarized below, not neces-
sarily.in order of importance.
I
A. DRAINAGE FEES
Under the provisions of Section 66483 of the Government Code
(Subdivision Map Act) of the State of California, a local govern-
mental agency may adopt a program for the collection of drainage
art
fees. The Subdivision Map Act enables agencies to enact the
drainage fee program after certain prerequisites have been
satisfied. The requirements for the drainage fee program,
in part, include:
1. Adoption of a master drainage plan for each local drainage
area.
2. Certification of the master drainage plan by the legisla-
aw five body of the City, County and /or Special District
" having a City -wide, County -wide and /or District -wide
drainage plan.
am ..
w 3. Adoption of a fee structure based on the cost of the re-
quired facilities for each drainage area and equitably
proportioned to all affected properties.
OR
4. Establishment of a "planned local drainage facilities fund ".
Following adoption of appropriate local ordinances, drainage
fees can be collected from the developers as a condition of
•o approval of subdivision of acreage to be developed. Funds are
di then deposited in the appropriate "local drainage facilities
fund ". They may then be expended for engineering, administra-
tive, and construction costs of drainage facilities to be con -
structed within a particular drainage area.
B. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS
The basis of the power of special assessment is the special
benefit that the public improvement confers upon the assessed
lands. Most public works which improve the use or occupation
PI
i
0
of lands result in special benefit. Curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
paving, waterlines and sewers usually present clear cases of
benefit. However, in the case of drainage and flood control
+� projects, there is not always a clear, definable benefit.
The commonly used assessment acts applicable to drainage control
projects are the 1911 and 1913 Acts. The common bond acts are
the-1911 Act and the 1915 Act.
C. ASSEMBLY BILL 549
Under Assembly Bill 549 passed in 1979, flood control districts
are authorized to levy benefit assessments to help finance their
operations. AB 549 provides that the assessments be proportionate
0
F
In the interest of clarity, "assessment acts" should be dis-
t:inguished from "bond acts ". An assessment act specifies a
procedure for the formation of a district, the ordering and
making of an acquisition or improvement, and the levy and con-
�r
firmation of an assessment secured by liens on land. It is not
necessary for such acts to contain detailed bond provisions and
most do not. A bond act provides a procedure for the issuance
of.bonds to represent liens resulting from proceedings taken
under an assessment act. The Improvement Act of 1911 is both
an act for the creation of a lien against property and an act
which provides for the issuance of bonds. It contains all the
necessary provisions for initiating the proceedings, acquiring
jurisdiction, letting contracts for the work, assessing bene-
fited properties, collecting assessments, and issuing bonds
secured by unpaid assessments. All other commonly used acts
provide either for making the assessment or issuing the bonds,
*�
but not both.
The commonly used assessment acts applicable to drainage control
projects are the 1911 and 1913 Acts. The common bond acts are
the-1911 Act and the 1915 Act.
C. ASSEMBLY BILL 549
Under Assembly Bill 549 passed in 1979, flood control districts
are authorized to levy benefit assessments to help finance their
operations. AB 549 provides that the assessments be proportionate
0
F
to the runoff.from each parcel of property and that the levy
of such assessments be approved by a vote of the people being
assessed. The levying of a benefit assessment for flood con
�** trol services is authorized by Chapter 10 (commencing with
+ Section 60400), Division 2, Title 6, California Government Code.
The original bill has been.modified several times. The most
recent is Assembly Bill 630. The Cities of Rancho Cucamonga and
Ontario, and perhaps others, are presently pursuing a benefit
assessment program for drainage facilities.
am
"" D. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
., Assuming the legal requirements could be satisfied, certain
r areas within the overall Drainage Plan area could be designated
as a redevelopment project to make use of tax increment finan-
cing. In enacting the law (Community Development Law), the
Legislature found and declared that there exists in many com-
munities throughout the State "blighted areas" which constitute
either physical, social, or economic liabilities requiring re-
development in the interest of the health, safety, and general
dw welfare of the people of such communities.
The Cities of Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana have estab-
lished "Redevelopment Projects ". A certain portion of the tax
increment has been allocated to construction of portions of the
Day Creek and San Sevaine Creek Systems. Refer to the various
City Planning Departments for the boundaries and financial plans
of the redevelopment projects.
w
n
err
E. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION GRANT /LOAN UNDER THE SMALL RECLAMATION
PROJECTS ACT of
The County of San Bernardino, in conjunction with the Cities
of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario, and private developer inter-
ests, has filed a Notice of Intent with the Bureau of Reclama-
tion for long term loan and grant financing. The project filed
is the Day Creek Channel System from the proposed debris dam to
and including Riverside Basin. The project application report
and environmental statement are presently being prepared by
�+ Bill Mann and Associates.
F. OTHER POSSIBLE FINANCING METHODS
1. Lease - Leaseback Financing (Joint Powers Authority)
2. Lease - Leaseback Financing (Non - Profit Corporation)
3. Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 - AB 3564/SB 2001
IF
9
IN
In In general, a
small
project under the subject act may be a
multi- purpose
water
resource project. In the case of the Day
Creek project,
it is
for flood control and water conservation
purposes. The maximum loan and /or grant that may be obtained
is limited to
two - thirds of the maximum allowable estimated
total project
cost.
The maximum estimated total project cost
is indexed to
1971,
and for this fiscal year is approximately
$35,000,000.
F. OTHER POSSIBLE FINANCING METHODS
1. Lease - Leaseback Financing (Joint Powers Authority)
2. Lease - Leaseback Financing (Non - Profit Corporation)
3. Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 - AB 3564/SB 2001
IF
9
IN
F
SECTION III
DISTRIBUTION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
1 _
A.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The final construction cost estimate for the Day, Etiwanda and
San Sevaine Creek Drainage Plan is included in the Appendix of
this report for ready reference. The discussion of the various
reaches and construction costs are provided in detail in
Volume I of the Drainage Plan Report. The Day Creek Channel,
Lower Etiwanda Creek Channel and appurtenant facilities are
designated as the Day Creek Channel Systems. San Sevaine Creek,
Upper Etiwanda Creek and appurtenant facilities are known as
the San Sevaine Creek System.
The gross areas within each jurisdiction are provided below in
Tables I, II and III. It was decided at the Technical Committee
meeting on December 14, 1982, that the cost distribution per
jurisdiction within the drainage area would be computed on a
gross area basis rather than a net developable basis.
The construction costs of each system are summarized below in
Table IV. Based on the construction costs and the gross acres
in each jurisdiction, the cost per acre for each system is com-
puted. The cost per acre is provided for the Day Creek Channel
System and the San Sevaine Channel System separately and the two
systems combined.
The Technical Committee determined the financial, mechanisms
and cost per acre for each system should be reviewed and funded
separately. This was due to the unique differences inherent in
each system and the size of the total drainage area.
10
CI
Although the Technical Committee recommended the costs per
acre be analyzed on a gross basis, the net developable acreage
in each jurisdiction and each drainage area are given below
for reference purposes. The percentages are based on prior
information provided by the Cities, the County, and various
consultants involved in the study area.
B. SYSTEM COST PER GROSS ACRE
1. General
The cost'per gross acre for each system is provided and
the cost per jurisdiction for each system is also provided.
err
k�'
J
11
d
The gross areas within
each jurisdiction
is summarized
below in Tables I, II
and III. The gross
areas within
each jurisdiction were
computed from the
drainage plan
base map. Refer to the
base drainage map
for the juris-
dictional area within
the overall drainage
area and within
each drainage system.
The cost'per gross acre for each system is provided and
the cost per jurisdiction for each system is also provided.
err
k�'
J
11
d
TABLE I
Gross Areas Within Day Creek System
Jurisdiction Acres Percentage
Unincorporated Area 950 9.9
Rancho Cucamonga 4,930 51.1
Ontario 3,760 39.0
Fontana 0 0
TOTAL 9,640 100.0
TABLE II
Gross Areas Within San Sevaine Creek System
IN
Jurisdiction Acres Percentage
Unincorporated Area 12,470 39.8
Fontana 15,850 50.5
Rancho Cucamonga 3,040 9.
Ontario 0 0
TOTAL 31,360 100.0
12
TABLE III
Gross Areas Within the Day Creek and
San Sevaine Creek Systems
Jurisdiction
Acres
Percentage
Unincorporated Area
13,420
32.7
Rancho Cucamonga
7,970
19.4
Ontario
3,760
9.2
Fontana
15,850
38.7
TOTAL
41,000
100.0
a
13
.r�
.r
rr
di
I"
'■r
an
no
am
TABLE IV
Cost of Day and San Sevaine Creek Systems
Dav Creek System
Debris Dam $ 2,375,000
Channel System 19,200,000
Day Creek Spreading Grounds 1,100,000
Day Creek Basin 2,500,000
Wineville Basin 2,650,000
Riverside Basin 5,850,000
Subtotal $33,675,000
San Sevaine Creek System
Etiwanda Creek Debris Dam $ 1,950,000
San Sevaine Basin and Lower
San Sevaine Basin 9,950,000
Jurupa Basin 5,950,000
Channel System 23,025,000
Subtotal $40,875,000
TOTAL $74,550,000
14
2. Cost per Gross Acre
a) Day Creek System
$33,675,000/ 9,640 acre = $ 3,493 /acre
USE 3,500 /acre
b) San Sevaine Creek System
$40,875,000/31,360 acre = 1,304 /acre
USE 1,310 /acre
c) Day and San Sevaine Creek Systems
$74,550,000/41,000 acre = 1,818 /acre
USE 1,825 /acre
3. Cost per Jurisdiction
a) Day Creek System
Ontario
$33,675,000 x 0.39
Rancho Cucamonga
$33,675,000 x 0.511
Unincorporated Area
$33,675,000 x 0.099
13,133,250
17,207,925
3,333,825
TOTAL = 33,675,000
15
b) San Sevaine Creek System
Fontana
$40,875,000 x 0.505 = $20,641,875
Rancho Cucamonga
$40,875,000 x 0.097 = 3,964,875
Unincorporated Area
$40,875,000 x 0.398 = 16,268,250
TOTAL = 40,875,000
4. Net Developable Areas
The net developable area (percentages) are provided below
for reference purposes.
The developable area in the City of Ontario was estimated
at 75 %. The developable area in the City of Fontana was
estimated at 75% also. The developable area in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga was estimated at 75% in the Day Creek
watershed and 60% in the San Sevaine Creek watershed. The
developable area in the unincorporated area was estimated
at 100% in the Day Creek watershed and 45% in the San Sevaine
Creek watershed.
The net developable areas can be obtained by applying the
above percentages by areas (acres) provided in Tables I,
II and III.
16
1-
rb
N
c �
E
W
l.�
�
O
H
U
2
�
W
O
P4
•�
w
+�
�
u
o
U
1-
SECTION VI
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
1. GENERAL
The cost estimates provided below are separated into the two
basic channel systems. The Day Creek Channel System includes
Lower Etiwanda Creek, and the San Sevaine Creek Channel System
includes Upper Etiwanda Creek. The cost estimate is broken
down into reaches within each system, corresponding to the
reaches shown on the hydrology map and described in Section V
on plan discussion.
The unit prices used in the construction cost estimates are listed
below. The unit prices are based on best information
derived from
recent or present ongoing construction projects,
including Corps
of Engineers' projects and Flood Control District
projects.
Table VI -1
Cost Estimate Unit Prices
Debris Dams
Clear site and remove obstructions (LS)
$200,000
Excavation
2.50 /CY
Embankment
2.50 /CY
Spillways (LS)
250,000
Miscellaneous (LS)
50,000
20% construction contingency
-
Geotechnical and soils investigation
35,000
Construction design (ASCE Curve) - Day Creek
150,000
Construction design (ASCE Curve) - Etiwanda Creek
107,000
Channel Construction
Clearing and removal
14,000 /MI
Channel excavation
2.25/CY
Channel concrete (slope paving)
120 /CY
Channel concrete (rectangular channel)
225/CY
Reinforcement steel
0.40 /LB
Channel cutoff wall (longitudinal)
4.00 /LF
7.00 /LF
Chain link fence
Bridges, RCB's, Transitions, etc.
Class "A" concrete
225/CY
Structure excavation
7.50 /CY
Structure backfill
10 /CY
86
A. Day Creek Channel System
1) Day Creek Debris Basin (Height = 55')
* Subtotal
20% Contingency
Subtotal
Geotechnical /Soils Investigation & Report
Engineering,Inspection & Administration
Estimated Total
U §E
87
$ 1,827,655
365.531
2,193,186
35,000
150.000
2,378,186
2,375,000
0
The unit prices and estimates are based on November, 1982 prices
when the ENR Index was 4533. To update them, multiply by the
ratio of the current ENR Index to 4533. The construction con -
tingency factor used for concrete lined channel and structure
construction was 10 %. The contingency factor includes such
items as necessary utility relocations, side drain connections,
necessary subdrainage facilities, minor paving and earthwork at
�.
the channel crossings, and other miscellaneous or unknown items.
6W
The cost estimates include channel fencing with a 6 -foot chain
link fence with appropriate gating.
A construction contingency factor of 20% was used in estimating
the cost of the debris dams. The construction design estimate
for the debris dams was based on the ASCE Curves. The geotechnical
and soils investigation cost estimate for the debris dams was
based on an analysis and estimate by a reputable geotechnical-
engineering firm.
A. Day Creek Channel System
1) Day Creek Debris Basin (Height = 55')
* Subtotal
20% Contingency
Subtotal
Geotechnical /Soils Investigation & Report
Engineering,Inspection & Administration
Estimated Total
U §E
87
$ 1,827,655
365.531
2,193,186
35,000
150.000
2,378,186
2,375,000
0
2) Debris Basin to Highland Avenue (L = 14,400')
a�
Subtotal $ 5,009,742
5% Contingency 250,487
Subtotal 5,260,229
" 15% Engineering, Inspection & Administration 789,034
+ Estimated Total 6,049,263
USE 6,050,000
* Includes Inspection & Administration
of debris basin construction.
3) Highland Avenue to Arrow Route (L = 13,400')
++� Subtotal $ 2,525,383
10% Contingency 252,538
Subtotal 2,777,921
15% Engineering, Inspection & Administration 416,688
Estimated Total 3,194,609
do
USE 3,200,000
4) Arrow Route to San Bernardino Freeway (L = 11,280')
�+± Subtotal $ 2,302,738
10% Contingency 230,274
Subtotal 2,533,012
.r 15% Engineering, Inspection & Administration 379,952
Estimated Total 2,912,964
USE 2,925,000
5) San Bernardino Freeway to Wineville Basin (L = 8,515')
Subtotal $ 2,513,468
10% Contingency 251,347
Subtotal 2,764,815
15% Engineering, Inspection & Administration 414,722
Estimated Total 3,179,537
USE 3,200,000
88
�i
6) Wineville Basin to Riverside Basin (L = 2,620')
Subtotal $ 694,082
10% Contingency 69,408
Subtotal 763,490
15% Engineering,Inspection & Administration 114,523
Estimated Total 878,014
USE 875,000
7) Riverside Basin to Riverside Avenue (L = 6,555')
Subtotal $ 3,640,516
10% Contingency 364,052
Subtotal 4,004,568
15% Engineering,Inspection & Administration 600,685
Estimated Total 4,605,253
USE 4,625,000
8) Etiwanda Creek Channel - Wineville Basin to
S an Bernardino Freeway - ,
Subtotal $ 2,317,394
10% Contingency 231,739
Subtotal 2,549,133
15% Engineering,Inspection & Administration 382,370
Estimated Total 2,931,503
USE 2,950,000
9) Day Creek Spreading Grounds
Subtotal $ 1,000,001
5% Construction Contingency 50,000
5% Engineering, Inspection & Administration 52,500
Estimated Total 1,102,501
USE 1,100,000
89
10) Day Creek Basin
Subtotal $ 2,264,000
5% Construction Contingency 113,200
5% Engineering, Inspection & Administration 118,860
Estimated Total 2,496,060
USE 2,500,000
11.) Wineville Basin
Subtotal $ 2,395,573
5% Construction Contingency 119,779
5% Engineering, Inspection & Administration 125,768
Estimated Total 2,641,121
USE 2,650,000
12) Riverside Basin
Subtotal $ 5,309,793
5% Construction Contingency 265,490
5% Engineering, Inspection & Administration 278,764
Estimated Total 5,854,047
USE 5,850,000
DAY CREEK SYSTEM TOTAL $38,300,000
C. San Sevaine Channel System
1) Upstream End to Summit Avenue (L = 6,105')
Subtotal $ 1,120,017
5% Contingency 56,001
Subtotal 1,176,018
15% Engineering,Inspection & Administration 176,403
Estimated Total 1,352,421
USE 1,350,000
W
0
2) Devore Freeway to Baseline (L = 2,085')
Subtotal $ 881,202
10% Contingency 88,120
Subtotal 969,322
15% Engineering,Inspection & Administration 145,398
Estimated Total 1,114,720
USE 1,125,000
3) Baseline to West Fontana Channel (L = 11,346')
Subtotal
10% Contingency
Subtotal
15% Engineering,Inspection & Administration
Estimated Total
USE
4) West Fontana Channel to San Bernardino
Freeway kL = ,
Subtotal
10% Contingency
Subtotal
15% Engineering,Inspection & Administration
Estimated Total
USE
$ 4,272,734
427.273
4,700,007
705.001
5,405,008
5,425,000
$ 3,780,779
378.078
4,158,857
623.828
4,782,685
4,800,000
5) San Bernardino Freeway to Jurupa Basin (L = 4,275')
Subtotal $ 1,741,782'
10% Contingency 174,178
Subtotal 1,915,960
15% Engineering,Inspection & Administration 287,394
Estimated Total 2,203,354
USE 2,200,000
91
6) Juru a Basin to Riverside -San Bernardino
County Line L = ,
9) Etiwanda Creek Channel - Summit Avenue to
Devore Freeway -L = ,
Subtotal $ 1,113,942
10% Contingency 111,394
Subtotal 1,225,336
15% Engineering,Inspection & Administration 183,800
Estimated Total 1,409,137
USE 1,425,000
92
Subtotal
$ 3,028,8
di
10% Contingency
302,882
*�
Subtotal
3,331,698
15% Engineering,Inspection & Administration
499,754
Estimated Total
3,831,452
USE
3,850,000
7) Etiwanda Creek Debris Dam (Height = 45' )
Subtotal
$ 1,498,993
20%. Contingency
299,799
Subtotal
1,798,792
'
Geotechnical /Soils Investigation & Report
35,000
Engineering, Inspection & Administration
107,000
Estimated Total
1,940,791
USE
1,950,000
8) Etiwanda Creek - Debris Dam to Summit Avenue
(L = 7,775')
f
Subtotal
$ 2
10% Contingency
224,548
Subtotal
2,470,023
15% Engineering,Inspection & Administration
_370,503
Estimated Total
2,840,526
USE
2,850,000
9) Etiwanda Creek Channel - Summit Avenue to
Devore Freeway -L = ,
Subtotal $ 1,113,942
10% Contingency 111,394
Subtotal 1,225,336
15% Engineering,Inspection & Administration 183,800
Estimated Total 1,409,137
USE 1,425,000
92
3
10) San Sevaine Basins 1 thru 4 and Lower San
Sevai.ne Basin
Subtotal $ 9,010,800
5% Construction Contingency 450,540
5% Engineering, Inspection & Administration 473,067
Estimated Total 9,934,407
USE 9,950,000
11) Jurupa Basin
Subtotal $ 5,380,270
5% Construction Contingency 269,014
5% Engineering, Inspection & Administration 282,464
Estimated Total 5,931,749
USE 5,950,000
SAN SEVAINE SYSTEM TOTAL
DAY CREEK SYSTEM TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
$40,875,000
38,300,000
$79,175,000
93