Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The cunduit uncer Prince would follo~ a new ~lignment to <br />the South Platte. The ne\-; alignment would be as shown on <br />the schematic drawing, just south of the restaurant <br />between Santa fe and Prince_ This alignment is mere f:1vor- <br />able {rom a cor.struction :1nd cost <.Jspect than follo'.dng the <br />existiI1g alignment to the north. <br /> <br />TABLi: V <br /> <br />,\LTl;P;-.;ATE ):0. 1 - COST flREAKDO\\'!\ <br /> <br />~'IAI.'l STIHcA\1 <br /> <br />S. lRll\UTi\RY <br /> <br />ITEY <br /> <br />The laost economi<.:al culvert design frequency appears to be <br />a S-year storm event. Provision would be made for over- <br />topping ne roac for storm events greater than the 5-year <br />culvert cap":lcity. Channel improvements upstream of the <br />culvert would be complctcd for the lOO-year storm event. <br />This i"'provenent could be made un 110 less thall a cost <br />sharing basis with the developer. <br />T];e areas above the railro"d tracks \,'ould be flood plain <br />zoned under this alternate. With the flood plain <br />ordinance of H.e city, this are;) would be totally under <br />the regulation of the city relative to new bllilding <br />permits, property improvements and land use revisions l\"itllin <br />flood plain are,,-. This ;,"ould leac to minilT:izing potential <br />flGod damage, if not total elimin;!tion, ovcr a period of <br />tim'.1. The ecor.oraic benefit is thus long ccrm but the <br />short and tong tcrm cost is I.\inimal. Delineating the <br />other flood plains ,,'ithin the city "'o\.:ld qualify the city <br />for Fe(ler"lly s\\bsidizcd flood insurar.ce undcr the <br />.':?tieaal Flood 1rsurance j'rognlffi. Tbi~ ",ffort woulJ <br />provide thl,) O;'l'ot'tunit}, for property owners in the flu()J <br />h8-zJrc~ a1"CaS to insure their il1t<Jrcs ts ugainst flooding. <br />Tho nCh' ;ates f(jr 5 i ngle fam i ly resider.clls is $ ~.:';O p("r <br />$lOO ccvcraf'.e on structures valued from S17,500 to $35,000. <br />.\:..,ximum CDve..q;c un oth,-,r residential structures i~ <br />$tI1],OIJU. Content" cQvernge Hould be available for $0.40 <br />per $10(\ of cQverage at a maximllm Unit of SS,UUO. These <br />costs 1;"ould be' borne by the property o,,'ner and not the <br />city. <br /> <br />Channel Improv",ment <br /> <br />$ lC,OOO <br />158,000 <br />o <br />5168,000 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />Street Crcssinf.s <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />Right-of-Way <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />The costs and resulting bellofits for this alternate an' <br />shown in Figure 7. AnticiV:ited costs <lrQ apiHoximCltely <br />$16R,000 \'ihile Qcncfi t.s ~:ill range from $215,000 to <br />$1,680,000. Over:\ll benefLt-cost ratio for the alternate <br />r:'!1g,"~ from 1.28 to lG.O. Co~ts inch:de ant icipated <br />cons ~l'uction costs reftcct! ng possible uti 1 i ty ccnf1icts <br />and a 3()~ c()ntil~sency cost. N() right-of -".ay (O~ts were <br />considered as the nre;! is presently ,,'ithin city O\;nershi.p. <br />Interme,oiate costs ..""j benefits for any H,acll can be d"t"r- <br />~ined frct:! the cl~art" T"ble V ,;ho,,'5 the nt irrated cost <br />j, reaI-.Jo'"n ~o" tr.t' Al t" ~natc. l'e r comV:lrisoE p\lrpo~es, flood <br />pIal!] ~enlng i.o cC)n~iJ.('n-,d tv 11~' 1\ IlU cost itl'i~ as the <br />improveme:lt i.s J1'.ade a! no ~njor t'xj",n"'_' t!J the city. <br /> <br />-l~ - <br /> <br />-2C- <br />