Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />$650,000. In addition, the utility expects to collect payments from the Larimer and Weld <br />Irrigation Company (lrrigation Company) for loan repayment corresponding to 1/2 of the <br />cost of the pipeline, as well as system investment fees on new development and interest <br />income on the utility's own reserve fund. Annual funding from these sources is projected <br />to average approximately $296,000 during the rcpayment period. The utility's projccted <br />combined revenues can easily service the debt as demonstrated by a coverage ratio of <br />1.25, including anticipated utility expenditures on other capital projects. The funding for <br />the project will not be sought if the revenue stream is not implemented. <br /> <br />Eventually the Selected Project will be developed from the elements of the four storage <br />and diversion alternatives presented herein. The Project will be constructed, operated and <br />maintained by a combined joint effort of the City and County. The County is taking the <br />lead in the construction of the project, in accordance with the terms of the Inter- <br />Governmental Agreement (lGA). The City is taking the lead in the maintenance of the <br />facilities after they are constructed. <br /> <br />The hydrology used in sizing the flood control facilities is based on new rainfall <br />intensities recently adapted by the City. This work (performed by URS) is based on the <br />results of past hydrologic studies performed for Dry Creek basin. This information is <br />appropriate for the alternatives analysis performed for this report. <br /> <br />This report identifies and discusses the feasibility of alternative stormwater methods of <br />reducing the flood threat within the Dry Creek basin. Ultimately the Larimer County <br />Board of Commissioners and the Fort Collins City Council will identifY the preferred or <br />selected alternative. The objective for the Selected Alternative will be to eliminate the <br />flood threat to approximately 800 structures within the Lower Dry Creek basin during <br />storms up to the 100-year event and removc the requirement of thc enforcement of <br />floodplain regulations. <br /> <br />Initially three feasible alternatives for flood control were identified and compared as part <br />of this study. These alternatives are: <br /> <br />I) Divert peak flows of approximately 5,000-cfs at the Larimer -Weld Canal <br />around the Lower Basin to the west and eventually into the Cache la Poudre <br />River (Poudre River)_ This alternative was eliminated due to high cost, <br />excessive environmental and permitting challenges, and the potential impact to <br />water rights. <br /> <br />2) Temporarily store rnuch of the lOa-year flood runoff in a flood detention <br />reservoir and reduce the peak flow through the drainage basin to a safe <br />discharge rate, or <br /> <br />3) A combination of temporarily storage and diversion facilities to minimize <br />flooding in the Lower Basin of the Dry Creek Lower Basin. <br /> <br />Alternatives 2 and 3, but especially the third alternative, could utilize the proposed <br />diversion of flood flow through the L-W Canal to the Cache la Poudre River. The <br />diversion could be accomplished via a ncwly constructed flood control channel as an <br />extension of the cxisting canal and then terminating at existing Dry Creek. This new <br />extension diversion canal is referred to as the East Vine Diversion Canal. <br /> <br />6 <br />