Laserfiche WebLink
<br />., <br /> <br />a) Develop Updated Mitigation Master Plans that emphasize nonstructural measures, increase opportunities to <br />realize beneficial functions in floodplains and seek cost-effective solutions that minimize major construction <br />efforts. <br />b) Reevaluate Priorities for Mitigation Efforts by: <br />· Addressing bottlenecks (bridges, culverts and roads) at critical locations. <br />· Acquiring floodplain lands to avoid channel improvements and eliminate hazardous uses. <br />· Performing non-structural overbank grading to increase conveyance and flood storage. The 1992 Boulder <br />Creek Project at Boulder High School involved acquisition and removal of 169 residential units in the high <br />hazard zone and non-structural overbank grading north of Boulder Creek to create the current open <br />recreational fields. The $3 million project also removed the Goss-Grove neighborhood from the high hazard <br />zone by increasing conveyance near the creek and opened up the community-valued Boulder Creek greenway <br />corridor. <br />· Targeting limited flood protection improvements for specific locations and working on restricted <br />drainageway reaches to eliminate high hazards zone conditions and satisfy multiple objectives. <br />· Researching alternative mitigation approaches and improvements that may be completed for mid-stream <br />reaches that don't require extensive downstream drainageway construction first to avoid adverse impacts <br />from upstream modifications. <br />c) Carefully Consider the Need for Structural Improvements by adequately assessing the alternatives that may <br />be applied to avoid and minimize structural improvements, such as flood proofing, acquisition and relocation, <br />and obtaining or supplementing flood insurance. These alternatives may involve acquisition and removal of <br />structures, possibly affecting and relocating residents. Relocation of residents is a sensitive matter and concern <br />must always be considered for the emotional distress such activities may create. However in some cases, <br />acquisition and relocation of high hazard structures may offer greater long-term benefits, immediately eliminates <br />the hazard to people and may be more cost-effective (thereby offering greater opportunities for relocation <br />compensation) than constructing very structural and narrow channel improvements to avoid existing structures. <br />d) Focus on High Hazard Mitigation by primarily pursuing improvements in citywide locations that will reduce <br />high hazard areas to the greatest extent possible. <br />e) Implement Mitigation Efforts Citywide to ensure that the most high-risk floodplain occupants are given <br />priority and avoid putting all efforts into one or two drainage systems that consume significant funds for long <br />periods. <br /> <br />In order to achieve these objectives, specific actions and resources are needed in each and all areas. Currently, <br />storm water and flood management utility operating and-non-operating revenues total about $5 million annually <br />(without UDFCD contributions and bond proceeds). Of these funds, approximately $1.8 million is applied to <br />operating expenses and $1.5 - $2 million is applied to capital improvements (including specific projects, <br />Tributary Greenways and pre-flood acquisition). The remaining revenues go to debt service and interagency <br />fund transfers. <br /> <br />Possible readjustments to update local floodplain management policies to balance program objectives would <br />require a funding reallocation of approximately $400,000 annually. An estimated $150,000 annually could be <br />funded to establish a Floodplain Management Office with additional staffing (based on two positions) and <br />$250,000 annually to fund flood preparedness and education activities, materials and products. The funds may <br />be reapportioned from the existing capital improvements program and could be implemented without requiring <br />a rate increase. This would shift $400,000 in capital improvement projects to operating funds. <br /> <br />Specific capital projects that could be delayed or eliminated by considering this reapportionment include: <br />Elmer's Two Mile Creek (Valmont to Goose Creek) and Wonderland Creek underpass at the Diagonal in 2003, <br />and Goose Creek Improvements (9th Street to Folsom), Mapleton Hill drainage improvements and Fourmile <br />Canyon Creek improvements in 2004-2007. This funding reapportionment should be considered and reviewed <br />in the CDUMP Update for 2002, with final recommendations reflected in the annual budget process. <br /> <br />13 <br />