FLOOD06961 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ENGINEERS. PlANNER5. SCIENTISTS. SURVEYORS Construction observation / testing: 10% Legal/ administration: 5% I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I 0\. Massey Draw and SJCD Update Project Meeting Minutes June 9, 2004 Page 2 of 2 OLSSON ASSOCIATES 143 Union Blvd. Suite 700 Lakewood, CO 80228720-962-6072 4, Regarding land acquisition costs, Paula will check into appropriate costs for the area. MEETING MINUTES 5, The alternatives under consideration for each reach as presented in the alternatives matrix were discussed. Comments made during the discussion will be considered or evaluated and incorporated into the draft Phase A report. 6, OA will complete the draft Phase A report and submit it in two weeks. OA will conduct the survey upstream of Wadsworth on Massey Draw and continue to refine the FHAD mapping, Massey Draw and SJCD (South) Update OA Project No. 02-2003-1321 June 9, 2004 Attendees: Alecia Cope - Jefferson County Bob Deeds - City of Littleton Paula Lundquist - Jefferson County Ben Urbonas - Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Sean Warren - Ken-Caryl Ranch Bruce Buttner - Olsson Associates (OA) David Krickbaum - Olsson Associates Deb Ohlinger - Olsson Associates 7. The next meeting will be held approximately one month after the submittal of the draft Phase A report, The date will be set later. 1. A map showing areas of additional mapping needs for the Flood Hazard Area Delineation (FHAD) was submitted to Ben. Ben noted that an addendum for OA to do a small amount of additional surveying upstream of Wadsworth on Massey Draw should arrive today. Paula will facilitate contact with the landowners in that area for access to the properties. cc: Attendees via e-mail Tim Carey via e-mail Melissa Chew via e-mail Russ Clayshulte via e-mail Scott Franklin via e-mail Bill Kieck via e-mail Larry Lang via e-mail John Liou Rick McLoud via e-mail Larry Mugler via e-mail Gene Reetz Justin Werdel via e-mail Kent Wiley Paul Winkle Minutes Additions/Corrections: None Items Distributed: . Alternatives evaluation criteria . Updated alternatives matrix Discussion Items: 2. During discussion of the evaluation criteria, Ben noted that the costs must be weighed against the benefits in terms of flood reduction, flood frequency and road overtopping reduction, comparison with average annual damages, etc. David raised the question of criteria for sizing sediment basins, Ben commented that we might want to consider a basin on Massey for bedload control. He also said that a basin should only be considered for a given location if it will fit and provide some benefit. 3, Soft costs to be included in the cost of alternatives in the Phase A report were as follows. It is anticipated that the contingencies can be reduced to 15% for the Phase B report. Contingencies: Engineering: 25% 15%