Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />VI BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />An analysis was made of the benefits and costs associated with <br /> <br /> <br />different alternatives evaluated in the Phase A report, prepared <br /> <br /> <br />by McCall-Ellingson & Morrill, Inc; and in the Addendum to the <br /> <br /> <br />Phase A report, prepared by Sellards & Grigg, Inc. The values <br /> <br /> <br />determined in those reports were pre&iminary and presumed to be <br /> <br /> <br />accurate enough to allow comparisons between alternatives. The <br /> <br /> <br />values, benefits and costs of the present Phase B report have <br /> <br /> <br />been greatly refined and updated to July, 1979. The estimated <br /> <br /> <br />costs of and benefits to be derived from the construction of the <br /> <br /> <br />master plan are presented in this report. While the details of <br /> <br /> <br />the original Phase A Benefit-Cost analysis are not repeated here, <br /> <br /> <br />a brief discussion of the elements of the analysis is presented. <br /> <br />reduced. The proposed Master Plan for Lakewood Gulch incor- <br /> <br /> <br />porates predominantly construction of facilities capable of <br /> <br /> <br />conveying a 100-year flood without damage to property. In <br /> <br /> <br />order to evaluate the full. spectrum of damages before and <br /> <br /> <br />after construction of the Master Plan, the anticipated <br /> <br /> <br />financial losses are converted to average annual damages. <br /> <br /> <br />Column 2 of Table VI-l illustrates these averoge annual <br /> <br /> <br />damages. Column 2 of Table VI-1 illustrates these average <br /> <br /> <br />annual damages in each Reach. The average annual benefit to <br /> <br /> <br />be derived from the facilities is the difference between the <br /> <br /> <br />average annual flood damages without improvements and the <br /> <br /> <br />average annual damages with improvements. Table VI-l illus- <br /> <br /> <br />trates (Columns 2 and 3) that the entire basin is subject to <br /> <br /> <br />average annual damages without improvements of $248,684. These <br /> <br /> <br />damages could be reduced to $63,360 by implementation of the <br /> <br /> <br />first construction phase of the Master Plan. Benefits derived <br /> <br /> <br />from prevention of flooding of major arterials, like Sheridan <br /> <br /> <br />Boulevard and Wadsworth Boulevard and from a properly maintained <br /> <br /> <br />drainageway were not quantified for this report. <br /> <br />Detemination of Flood Damages <br />An estimate was made of the dollar value of the damages which <br />would be caused by each of the 5-year, 10-year and lOO-year <br />floods, under fully developed watershed conditions and without <br />channel improvement. This was achieved by evaluating the <br />anticipated flooding depths which would occur at each building <br />site. <br /> <br />Evaluation of Costs <br /> <br /> <br />The costs of the Master Plan include land acquisition, facilities <br /> <br /> <br />construction, operation and maintenance, and engineering and <br /> <br /> <br />legal fees. A contingency allowance of 20% is also applied to <br /> <br /> <br />construction and land costs. Columns 5 and 6 in Table VI-1 <br /> <br />Determination of Benefits <br />The construction of drainage facilities results in benefits to <br />the public to the extent that damages caused by flooding are <br />