Cesario Corporation

5501 N. Kedzie Ave

Chicago, Illinois 60625
December 14, 2014
City Manager
River City Office
706 SE. MLK Blvd
Portland, Oregon
Dear City Manager:
You have come to me to find a way to allocate the land 550 acres of land bestowed upon River
City and satisfy the demands of those who wanted to work more on development and others who
wanted to work more on recreation for the lowest cost. The final result lead me to the result that
225 acres of Mr. Goodfellows farm land would go to recreational use and 75 acres of Mr.
Goodfellows farm land would go to developmental use. 25 acres of army base would be used
recreationally and 75 acres would be used for developmental use.
Also all the mining land would be used for developmental use. This
leads to a total cost of $353,750. To try to fit them into the lowest
cost, I made constraints with the different circumstances given to
me. I believe I have found the cheapest solution to this predicament.
As you can see to the left is a box full of constraints. These were
derived through the compromises surrounding River Citys problem
and how they will be splitting up army base land (A), mining land
(M), and Mr. Goodfellows farm land (G). Each of these lands are
also split between recreational ( R and developmental (
D aspects. The business community was able to secure at least
300 acres of land for development. 200 acres of the arming base and
mining land could go for recreation. Also the amount of army base
land used for recreation and the amount of farmland used for
development together had to be exactly 100 acres. This is the basis
on how constraints 1 through 6 were made. Constraints 7 through
12 explain that none of the final amounts of land should be
negative.
Since we are looking for the cheapest price for River City, the price
of the improvement costs per acre is also very important.
Improvement costs per acre for recreation (GR ) in Mr.

Goodfellows farmland is $50 and $500 when the land is improved for development (GD ) .
When the army base land is improved for development ( A D ) , it is $2,000. Army base land
improved for recreation ( A R) is $200. Finally the mining land when improved for recreation
(M R ) , it is $100 and when it is used for development ( M D ) it is $1,000. With this
information I made an equation that I used to find out the total improvement costs for the city.
Basically the equation is 500 GD +50 G R +2000 A D + 200 A R +1000 M D +100 M R=the total cost .
Parcel

Improvement costs per acre

of recreation

Improvement costs per acre

of development

Mr. Goodfellows farm land

$50

$500

Army land

$200

$2,000

Mining land

$100

$1,000

Next, I made combinations of six constraints since we have six variables to be considered. In
total, we have about 28 combinations. 28 combinations is a lot, but fortunately we are able to
eliminate many of them since we know that GD , G R , M D , A D cannot be 0.
Why GD cannot be 0

If GD were to be 0 and plugged into constraint 4, it would turn

up like this
GD + A D + M D 300
0+ A D + M D 300
But in constraint 2
( A R + A D=100
A D cannot be greater than 100 however and in constraint 3
( M R + M D=150
M D cannot be over 150.
If M D =150, A D =100, and GD =0; then constraint 4 would
be violated.
0+100+150=300
250 300

Why GR cannot be 0

If GR were to be 0 and plugged into constraint 1, then GD

would be equal to 300.
GR +G D =300
0+G D=300
This means that GD is equal to 300 which violates constraint 6.
A R +GD =100
A R +300 100

Why

A D cannot be 0

If A D were to equal 0 and plugged into constraint 2, then A R

would be equal to 100.
A R + A D=100
A R +0=100
A
=100
When
, then it would violate constraint 6 since we
R
previously figured out that GD cannot be 0. When A R is
plugged into constraint 6, then GD has to be 0 which would not
work. Constraint 6
A R +GD =100
0+G D=100

Why

M D cannot be 0

If M D were to be equal to 0, it would violate constraint 4

( GD + A D + M D 300 ). This is because in constraint 6
( A R +GD =100 ), GD could be 100 at most. Also in constraint
2 ( A R + A D=100) , A D could be 100 at most as well.
GD + A D + M D 300
100+100+0 300
200 300

Now we are certain we cannot use the constraints 7, 10, 12, and 11. That means we could remove
the the combinations that use the constraints 7, 10, 12, and 11 to easily cut
down the amount of work we have to do and get closer to our solution. As
you can see in the graph below, I crossed out the ones that use the
constraints 7, 10, 12, and 11. I also highlighted in yellow the combinations
we were able to use. We are now left with 6 combinations instead of the
initial 28.
Matrix inverse seemed to be the option to solve for the 6 combinations we
were left with. How our process went started with a matrix. A matrix is an
ordered arrangement of numbers placed into rows and columns. It is used
to organize a set of data. In our case, it would be our 6 combinations.
When using matrices, you could do basically almost very basic
mathematical function except to divide. Instead of dividing, we use the
inverse of the matrix. Basically it is flipping the reciprocals like fractions.
When we multiply that, you will get the same outcome as division
basically. Our first matrix, I will call it A, is the 1st combination of
constraints. The rows of the matrix stand for each of the individual
constraints in that specific combination. The columns stand for
GR , A R , M R ,G D , A D , M D . It is specifically in that order. If you have a
constraint that has the variable in it, you add a 1 in the matrix. If it doesnt,

you put a 0 into the matrix. This would be matrix A1 . We would then create a matrix I will
label matrix X. Matrix X is basically a matrix that includes all the variables. We would
multiply these matrices to get matrix B. This is the product of each individual constraint used
in combination 1. The matrix equation used is A X=B . We were given A and B but we still
need to find X. Normally, we would use division, but we have to use inverse matrices. The
equation to find it would be A1 B=C . Matrix C would be our answer to our first
combination. We will be using this to find the answer to the rest of our combinations. In the
following pages, you could see the work we used to figure out the answer and come to a
conclusion of how the land should be divided and the price. If you would like to speak about this
more in-depth, please do not hesitate to message me via email or fax. We hope to see you again
in the future!
Sincerely,

Lorraine Cesario