Laserfiche WebLink
k I c t z Jr.41 associates <br />There are a variety of pros and cons in the use of regional detention as an alternative to on -site <br />detention for runoff control from future development: On -site development costs are the sole <br />responsibility of the developer but potentially taxable land is lost because of pond development. <br />On -site detention is easily implemented, while regional detention requires more coordination of <br />interests to develop. Regional detention allows multiple uses of the detention and consequent <br />multiple sources for funding, but land must be available in sufficient amount in proper locations. <br />A prime concern for any detention facility is land acquisition; availability of land can often be a <br />significant limitation in regional detention pond development. On=site mitigation does not <br />require the single large tracts of land for a pond that a regional pond requires. <br />Regional detention ponds lend themselves to a variety of different funding mechanisms. Costs, <br />all or in part, for regional detention could be borne by the City, by developers through payments <br />to the City, or some combination of City and developer funds. if the detention system serves <br />regional purposes beyond just mitigation of land development projects, Harris County Flood <br />Control District (HCFCD) may participate in the detention pond development and the costs of its <br />construction. Estimated costs for construction of the various detention facilities are given in <br />Table ES-3. As an aid (only) for assessing these costs, a cost per acre of developable land is <br />also listed. <br />The potential regional detention facilities are ordered according to estimated total cost for full <br />development of the detention site. Phasing of pond construction to match detention needs as <br />they develop could be used to spread costs over time. What regional facilities are actually built <br />first will depend upon how city development patterns evolve over time, costs of on -site vs. <br />regional detention for specific land development projects, and what detention needs other than <br />mitigation of development runoff may be served by the pond. The listing of Table ES-3 is not <br />intended to define which regional detention facilities should be built or which should be built <br />first. <br />E 14 <br />Klotz Associates Project No. 0127.008.000 La Porte Citywide Drainage Study <br />January 2009 City of La Porte <br />