Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SECTIO.FIVE <br /> <br />Alternatives for Improved Stormwater Management <br /> <br />When considering all the activities that are required to provide adequate stormwater service <br />throughout the Orand Valley, the Steering Committee came to the conclusion that the five <br />entities themselves are best suited to provide the services that are restricted to within their <br />boundaries and abilities as discussed above. Therefore, it was recognized that the selection of <br />just one of the above alternatives would not meet the needs of the project. Selection of <br />Alternative A or B in conjunction with one ofthe C alternatives would be necessary. <br /> <br />Alternative B, "Municipalities takeover all drainage activities and the Orand Junction Drainage <br />District is abolished", was eliminated because the Steering Committee felt that it would not be <br />wise to lose the expertise and funding of the District. The District provides an efficient and <br />valuable service within all of the other jurisdictions and is funded by a property tax that <br />generates about $1.2 million per year. Following the elimination of Alternative B, and the <br />recognition that the status quo was appropriate for local activities, the Steering Committee began <br />to focus on the "C" alternatives for the unified valley-wide effort. <br /> <br />The five unified valley-wide alternatives listed above were presented in TM 3, Legal Analysis, <br />and in a follow-up legal and organizational question and answer document. <br /> <br />The Water Activity Enterprise shown with each alternative is in essence a stormwater utility. it <br />should be viewed as an additional layer of income-generating authority that can be added to the <br />organization that is ultimately selected by the Steering Committee. A description of the Water <br />Activity Enterprise is included in the Funding Alternatives section (Section 7.6) below. <br /> <br />Following study and discussion, the Steering Committee eliminated alternatives C3, C4, and C5 <br />for the following reasons: . <br /> <br />. C3, Regional Water Authority, was eliminated because it required inclusion of the entire <br />county and the Steering Committee did not want to expand the scope of the project outside <br />the valley. <br /> <br />. C4, Mesa County, was eliminated because Mesa County could, as a single entity, form a <br />Water Activity Enterprise, however, the enterprise could only consist of Mesa County and <br />none of the other four entities could be a part of such enterprise. The Steering Committee <br />felt the required public support and resolution required to create a Water Activity Enterprise <br />under Mesa County would be difficult to obtain. <br /> <br />C5, lOA was eliminated because altemative Cl was essentially an lOA created specifically to <br />address drainage and flood control issues like the ones facing the Orand Valley and there was no <br />need to have another lOA alternative. <br /> <br />URSn <br />T:\PROJECTS\22236022_GRAND_VALlEY\SUB_OO\6.Q_PROJ_DELlV\F\NAl REPOR1\FINAl REPT REV 4.DOC\9-JUl-03\\ 5~4 <br />