Laserfiche WebLink
qS <br /> evacuated to reduce flood damage in the affected areas, but this solution would <br /> be costly, would displace residents, and would reduce the tax base. Providing • <br /> a new outlet for the drainage area appears prohibitively expensive, but it will <br /> not require property acquisition and relocation, or reduce the tax base. <br /> Flood protection, discussed in Section IIA of this report, seems to be the <br /> preferred alternative. No detailed analysis of affected properties has been <br /> made, but the properties for which flood protection should be considered are <br /> shown on Figure 2. <br /> A combination of diversions and stormwater ponds is also possible, but such <br /> a project would require more capital investment by the City. This option would <br /> reduce street flooding and assure access to the flooded areas by emergency <br /> vehicles. Providing ponding areas and diversions for runoff is also more <br /> expensive than flood protection. Finding locations for the ponds will be <br /> difficult; displacing a City park, and possibly residents, under this option <br /> t <br /> ! appears unavoidable. <br /> Table 6 provides a summary of estimated costs for comparison of the • <br /> preferred alternatives. The costs are 'ballpark' figures because the detailed <br /> design necessary to produce more accurate cost estimates is beyond the scope of <br /> this report. <br /> TABLE 6 <br /> ESTIMATED COST OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES <br /> Option Improvement Property Relocation Subtotal <br /> i <br /> Cost Acquisition Cost <br /> Flood Protection $750,000 0 0 $750,000 <br /> i <br /> Diversions and $3,500,000 2,200,000 0 $5,700,000 <br /> Stormwater Ponds <br /> r <br /> 23\27\467\STANSWMA.WP\YMH 15 <br />