Laserfiche WebLink
<br />k lot z 4~. ass 0 C I ate s <br /> <br />drawbacks of channel lining have already been noted. Consequently, as an alternate to <br />channel lining, diversion of flood waters was considered. Diversion alternatives are <br />listed in Table 5-2 and. 5-3. To be noted is the relative high cost of the diversion <br /> <br />alternatives. <br /> <br />In making all cost estimates, a conservative but realistic approach (i.e., estimated costs <br />were purposely overestimated rather than being underestimated) was taken because of the <br />preliminary nature of the projects for which costs were being estimated and the fact <br />considerable time may likely pass before actual construction of proposed improvements. <br /> <br />Table 5-5 presents project costs with a breakdown according to actual construction of <br />major cost components of channel improvements (which is predominately excavation <br />costs), detention storage, and land acquisition. Table 5-6 shows this same breakdown as <br />a percentage. It is to be noted that detention storage, whether for mitigation or diversions <br />to address current flooding problems, is a significant component of total cost. <br /> <br />Cost for regional detention to address future drainage concerns arising from development <br />are, likewise, quite significant. It is recognized, however, that while detention for <br />mitigation or diversion purposes would typically be a cost to be borne by the City, costs <br />for regional detention to address future drainage concerns arising from development <br />would tyPically not be borne by the City; such costs would be typically recovered by sale <br />of detention storage to developers seeking detention to mitigation excess site runoff. <br /> <br />5.1.2 Establishing Priorities for Constructing Improvement Projects <br /> <br />Because of the recognized significant magnitude of the estimated costs of the various <br />improvements, particularly the infrastructure improvements to address existing drainage <br />and flooding problems, it is preferable that potential priorities be identified to help <br />decision makers distinguish between CIP projects for near term construction and those <br /> <br />5-2 <br /> <br />Klotz Associates Project No. 0127.008.000 <br />January 2009 <br /> <br />La Porte Citywide Drainage Study <br />City of La Porte <br />