Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ECONOMIC Ai~i:\L YSIS <br />-_.._-~~_.-._'- ---.~.... <br /> <br />General <br /> <br />A benefit/cost ana lys is was completed for the selected Flood Contro 1 <br /> <br />PI an on Montrose Arroyo and Cedar Creek. '-T-h-i's""afi'a.+-y~i,liC-:as:&.iIIleQ..a:'-'50-~a-r <br />&. <br />'1WQo.~""t~l4~:fo.J:.:.:dr:a:iMgl!:;.f.aCiHt+es:: an d a, financ la-l'"l ene.i'l\~"ra'te of, <br /> <br />]k~~~~f~rfiil..;e::.1:1 ),., <br /> <br />The benefit/cost (b/c) ratio is u:,ed to compare the benefits provided <br /> <br />by the project against the cost of bui'lding it. If the benefits exceed <br />the costs (b/c>I), then the project is economically feasible. If the <br />b/c ratio is slightly less than one, the project may also be justified if <br /> <br />the nuisance and inconvenience of repeated flooding make the project desir- <br /> <br />able to the community. <br />&reiAll' ~,^v..1 ~<-f.t3 <br />,,''-'-me pY'OJect benefits are considered to be the reduction in flood <br /> <br />da~ (both direct and indirect) associatE'd with each plan. pr:ject <br />" ~ Iwuh.o '" <br />costs ar0~J\cost~of the project financed over the 50'-year }ife of the <br /> <br />projectcwJ, ~~~ c-1 v..w.iM/.o,N1,"",.'f (",,,1-0: , <br />'~~ .-.. /V"v' <br />Benefits and 'co&.!:s are compared on an annual bas}'3J. The average <br />-', \ <br />benefits experienced durmg any given year of thEY pr6ject 1 He are com- <br />"', "J .(, <br />pa red with the fi nanced cost of.,the proj ect f~l'/ tha t year. \C '7 <br /> <br />The flood control plan se1ectEi'cLfO~?f)1b'~I~'rose Arroyo has a total cost <br /> <br />of $2,289,000, which 'f/$~'13~ko an.1Ual~~ for 50-years, The benefits are <br />" '~u <br /> <br />$198,000 reducti on in aye\"age annual damages dnd $4,678 annua lly in ad- <br /> <br />vanced replacement penefijl:,,'Ac!VanCed replacement benefits are derived <br /> <br />because some of, the etJ".s--tinq culverts are old and would need to be replaced <br />(/' - <br />in a few years. ~ Flood Control Plan would provide ,Ill new structures <br /> <br />~) <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />\ \, <br />r\'(} ;~r' <br /> <br />which would have a lifespan of 50-years. The cos'~ of IJpgrading the existing <br /> <br />system in order to last 50 years would not be encountered if the proposed <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />- 34 ' <br />