Laserfiche WebLink
<br />fu:Jected Alternative <br /> <br />!fk~' ;II'L-{J <br />t' ;J24-v'C /', ~". <br />, <br /> <br />/(/, I'~' ,,:;,/, (' <br />,-~' .....' --, ..~'". <br />" ' <br /> <br />/": <br />/~-,-~~~ <br /> <br />, <br />-, /, / <br />t:-: //'~/' / <br /> <br />~-'<:',~"{' <br /> <br />/'-.., " }I' <br />,~=->::::: ('-";;;".!,>.,.-,.,, <br /> <br />" <br />-) <br /> <br />,/ <br /> <br />A conceptual design for each of the alternative m,uor project elements was complc,ted in sufficient <br />detail to determine construction quantities and cost estimates. All of the projects we:re then reviewed <br />and studied in order to develop a project selection matrix. Several fac:tors were used to evaluate and <br />prioritize the projects and their components. Each Alternative was ranked from 1 through 6 with the <br />highest ranked alternative receiving the most points. Eac:h factor was given a weighting factor based <br />upon the relative importance of the factor. The higher 1Jle weighting factor, the more points scored. <br />TIle total weighting factors are 100. Thus if an alternative: was ranked first in every category it would <br />receive a total of 600 points (100 weight factors times a rank of 6). The factors used to establish the <br />project prioritization list and their relative weights are discussed below: <br /> <br />FACTOR DESCRlPTI( <br />[ I. I Does the project provide immedi <br /> weight of 15 out of I 00 is assigne <br />Weight majority of the impacted popula <br /> 15 sustained flood damage as a result <br />[ 2. I Does the project provide immedl <br /> Pawnee Creek? A weight of 10 <br />Weight estimated that as much as 13,000 . <br /> 10 with crop damage and damage to t: <br />[ 3. I Does the project provide immedi <br /> Atwood? This consideration dra <br />Weight portion of the town was inundated <br /> 10 <br />[ 4. I Does this alternative have commu <br /> this factor. <br />Weight <br /> 15 <br />[ 5. I Ranking of project with respect t <br /> This factor is weighted 10 out 0 <br />Weight requirements would likely not be <br /> 10 mitigation. <br />L 6. I Ranking of project with respect to <br /> of 100 is given to this factor, <br />Weight <br /> 15 <br />[ 7. I Is there sufficient fUnding availa <br /> relatively high (15 out of 100) be <br />Weight affordable and implemented as a st <br /> 15 <br /> <br />Tabl,e 6. Alternative Evaluation Factors <br />)N OF FACTOR AND WEIGHT <br />ate flood control beneflts to the City of <br />d to this factor. This is an important lac <br />tion resides in Sterling. An estimate <br />of tile 1997 storm. <br /> <br />Sterling? A <br />tor in that the <br />d 414 homes <br />ac{jacent to <br />since it was <br />le 1997 storm <br />7 of Town of <br />a significant <br />is assigned to <br />plementation. <br />at regulatory <br />lative cost of <br />ight of 15 out <br />r is weighted <br />oject must be <br /> <br />'ate flood control benefits to farmland <br />out of 100 is assigned to this factor <br />acres of crop land were damaged from tt <br />arnling property of $2.5 million. <br /> <br />ate ,flood control benefits to the Towl <br />ws a weight of 10 out of 100 since such <br />during tht: 1997 storm. <br /> <br />nity support? A weight of 15 out of 100 <br /> <br />o ease of environmental permitting/I'm <br />f 100. No points given in the event th <br />obtained. Points assigned based on re <br /> <br />estimated costs versus benefits. A we <br /> <br />ble to complete the project? This facto <br />cause of grant requirements that the Ipr <br />and alone: project. <br /> <br />1II-14 <br />