FLOOD00189

• County: Denver
• Community: Denver, Lakewood
• Stream Name: Weir Gulch Tributaries
• Title: Major Drainageway Planning
• Date: 7/1/1978
• Prepared For: Denver County
• Prepared By: UDFCD
• Contract/PO #: &&
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Floodplain Report/Masterplan

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

CHN'TER V
COST OF IMPROVEMeNTS

Cost sharing based on benefits received appears as a reasonable
approach hut does not address the problem of upstream runoff causing
oossible downstream damage, or in a different way, that construction
needed in the downs tream area to prevent damage may really be caused
by runoff from the upstream area.
Cost sharing in proportion to contributing flows, which are calculated
by multiplying the contributory area by its runoff coefficient appears to
be an equitable l'lay of sharing improvePlent costs. However, this method
cannot account for the historic flO\~s the downstream municipality might
be requi red to accommodatl'. Consi deri ng that the suh,iect drai nage bas i n
are relatively flat upstream and its historic usage assurled agricultural,
this method is the most equitable of all three discusser!. It is recommended
that the historic flm./s are calculated hefore the final cost sharing is
di scussed.

A. GENERAL
The estimated construction costs in this c"apter are hasec' on the
unit prices of Table V-l. The unit prices are developed from similar
projects recently completed in the ~enver area. Land acquisition costs
are based on a real estate appraisal.
Inflation and detai led analysis are the reasons for the 11igher total
costs in the Phase B Report as compared to the Phase A cost estirlate.
The total project costs shown in Tables V-2 thru V-4 are estimated
for the following categories:
1. Cons tructi on cos ts.
2. Engineering and contingencies: 25~:, of (1).
3. Fiscal, legal and administrative costs: ,1~: of (1) + (2)
4. Right-of-Way costs.
5. Operation and maintenance costs.

B. COST S:IARI NG
To aid the sponsoring municipalities in finding an equitahle way to
share the costs for the proposed improvements, three ways of cost distrihu-
tion were assumed, based on:
1. Locati on of faci 1 i ti es ,
2. Proportion of benefits received, and
3. Proportion to contributory flow.
Cost sharing based on location of facilities assumes that the
municipality in which the improvements are constructed pays the costs.
This method does not account for damage occuring in the downstream community

from runoff generated by development in the ups tream communi ty.

V-l