CT2016-2040 Approval Letter - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Brighton Ditch Company Agenda Item 22a September 15-17,2015 Board Meeting(Updated September 18, 2015) Page 3 of 4 would not take any immediate action to repair the breach. This was considered unacceptable to the Company since it would be unable to deliver water to its shareholders until the breach was repaired. Alternative 2 - Install Temporary Cofferdam Upstream of City of Brighton's Headgate: After consultation with Brighton, this was the original selected alternative and would have provided immediate relief to the Company, though would not have provided a permanent solution. This alternative could have potentially helped Brighton by dewatering Brighton's damaged headgate structure but was ultimately found unacceptable by Brighton. Alternative 3 - No Repair on Brighton Property, Place Trench Along the West Bank: This alternative was proposed by Brighton as a way for the Company to avoid construction on Brighton's property by attempting to direct river water to the headgate by removing an upstream sand bar. This alternative was found to be not feasible because the depth of the breach would still not allow sufficient head at the diversion regardless if more water was flowing towards the structure. Selected Alternative 4 -Install Cofferdam Behind Brighton's Headgate: This alternative was the construction of a cofferdam in the place of the breached river bank which is just downstream of Brighton's headgate. The river face of the cofferdam was constructed of Type VH Et L mix riprap with a supporting center layer of Type VL riprap and a back layer of Zone 2 fill material. Fill protection was placed along the breach side of the wing wall island to prevent further loss of land at the east wing wall of the diversion dam. CWCB staff was involved in the construction process to ensure construction occurred in compliance with the pending CWCB loan application. While Brighton understood the Company's need for a quick repair, it was cautious because of the possibility that the Company's construction activity could adversely affect Brighton's headgate. The two entities agreed to hold good faith negotiations on whether this cofferdam could permanently remain. A contingency has been included in this loan request should Brighton determine the berm must be removed or modified because of negative impacts to Brighton's headgate structure. The costs associated with this alternative are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2: PROJECT COST Task COST Design Engineering $9,000 Legal Review and Consultations $14,000 Construction $402,000 Contingency $105,000 TOTAL $530,000 Permitting: Construction was exempt from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permitting. Floodway permits were obtained from Brighton and Adams County and a license agreement was entered into with Brighton for permission to access the site. Schedule: Construction began on July 6, 2015 and was completed on July 21, 2015. Brighton and the Company will determine by April 2016 if the cofferdam must be removed or modified. Financial Analysis The Company qualifies for a blended interest rate of 2.55% for a 30-year term (Ownership: 36% Agricultural, 53%Mid Municipal, 5% High Municipal, 5% Commercial). Table 3 provides a summary of the Project's financial aspects. FEMA reimbursement covering repairs due to the 2015 flooding are not anticipated. The Company raised its contribution through its 2015 assessments.