Laserfiche WebLink
Table 5- Milton Spillway Alternative 3 Cost Opinion <br />~t~,,, U,•,it ~uantit~ ~~a,st cost ~ubtota~ <br />.'.L: tO IYTr~8CY2~r ~ _UG C ~'3` ='4'~t`'~ b.'''~: '~ ~C~.t,°G'~.;~ <br />D~r~clit~ar~ _~ t~~~ 5~i^~ L 1,:,:~CJ ~C ; _;v.Cr,.:~ <br />Str"cpir,~ _4n~c ~~ir 1 ;~ ~.~G~ ~3G 5 3 ~~GO.~~v~ <br />~a°~ceet~ R~rs»a~al E_U~ C 9~~f-.°. SC $ ~~_C~C $ 5C4_~~ <br />F;=inf:rced :_c~:~e:~ ~=uLiic ~`a~c 3~~;J `s ?C~ vC r ~,727 ~+~ ~;1 <br />F.~a_?~se S.:.aa•eYards :.3C~ S 7.~G S 91C~.~~ <br />N.a^~r ig _~ n~ 5~m '1 ~ I7,OC~~ L'C ~ .:D,~JC~~.L~ <br />~=eds~~g and F.eclar~at'ci~ Acr~ 1~ ~ 1,~~'.:~ ,~C ~ =~,L~C~ ~~.~ <br />C~nstra~rticsn Subtatal $ 3,i35,60d~.00 <br />t~.~~v'li.at cn i~y~ c# ca,~tru~t~cn ~ub.~tali _c. np ~ 33r 1 5 ~5.7_? ~.~C 5 ~5;'_2 ~:~ <br />:~°~k:,eg~ecy;l.i~~:,fcars-ruci_~~s.Ehto*.a„ .,~~~~~rr 1 r ?33,`6a~r~~ S "=3,5E•~.~:.:~ <br />P•.~i~terials T~s#~ng ~l?b ~r' c~nst~.,:~ cn s..G:a~31~ ., r~~, 5.~m 1 3'~ ?~b u-C ; 3? 35ti C~~ <br />~.nst=u~t.en fv9gnt t3ge ef e~nst~uc c~~ Jtiot~talj _e.~r~~s ~arr 1 5 1J,~,~eS ~~~~ 5 iCJ.O~e ~'~ <br />F'I'OJ?4C TC+{'dI ~ 3,HF?~29b,~10 <br />The cost for this alternative is expected to be approximately $2.9 million more than the cost of <br />alternative #2. The benefit achieved for this additional cost is that no maintenance is expected to be <br />required in the channel after the 75% PMP given alternative #3. Because the design storm has such a <br />miniscule potential of occurring, FRICO does not believe that the added cost justifies the minor benefit. <br />Selected Alternative <br />FRICO has chosen Alternative No. 2 as the desired alternative. FRICO has determined this alternative to <br />be the best of the three proposed alternatives as it meets their objectives of continued safe operations <br />of the dam, it complies with the SEO's directive that the spiliway be enlarged and it will allow FRICO to <br />continue to store its maximum decreed water volume. Alternative #2 was selected over alternative #3, <br />which also met the project objectives, because the additional benefits of alternative #3 do not justify the <br />incremental cost difference between the two alternatives. <br />A copy of the current design plans for the selected alternative is provided as Appendix D. <br />IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE <br />The following schedule is proposed for implementation of the project: <br />22 <br />