Get documents about "Capital Projects Prioritization - PDF - PDF
Description
Capital Projects Prioritization document sample
Document Sample
Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Procedure
Initiated May 8, 2009 for Fiscal Year 2011
Flood Control District of Maricopa County, 2801 West Durango Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85009 (602) 506-1501
Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Procedure
Purpose of the Procedure
In accordance with Flood Control District of Maricopa County (District) Resolution 88-08A, the
District evaluates and prioritizes potential Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects through
its annual CIP Prioritization Procedure.
The CIP Prioritization Procedure has three purposes:
• Using established and consistent published criteria, shape the District’s Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) through an objective evaluation of flood control and
regional drainage projects generated by District programs or requested by external
agencies;
• Provide a common frame of reference for project scoping and Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) negotiation processes; and
• Identify projects on an annual basis that would be eligible for potential inclusion and
prioritization in the District’s Five-Year CIP.
As its name implies, this procedure applies only to the allocation of CIP resources: funding for
final design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of flood control capital projects. The
District continues to seek input from the municipalities of Maricopa County regarding planning
study priorities; however, requests for District planning or floodplain delineation funding support
should be communicated by correspondence independent of this CIP Prioritization Procedure.
District staff listed under the “Points of Contact” section of this document will coordinate these
requests.
Additionally, the recommendation of a potential CIP project through the CIP Prioritization
Procedure does not guarantee District funding; funding follows the approval of pertinent
resolutions and inter-agency agreements and is at the discretion of the District’s Board of
Directors. District staff proposes its Five-Year CIP to its Flood Control Advisory Board (FCAB) in
February of each year, incorporating projects recommended through this prioritization process
where feasible. The District’s Planning Branch coordinates MOUs and agreements with
cooperating agencies for completing pre-design studies and serves as point of contact for
project status prior to inclusion in the CIP.
Sources of Potential Projects
CIP Prioritization Procedure submittals may originate from District staff or from other requesting
agencies. The term "agency" is defined as a municipality or other government organization,
such as a department of the Federal or State government operating in Maricopa County.
1
Potential capital project submittals are typically identified by locally-completed storm-water
master plans, Area Drainage Master Studies (ADMSs), Area Drainage Master Plans (ADMPs),
Watercourse Master Plans (WCMPs), floodplain delineations or dam safety programs. As
ADMSs, ADMPs and WCMPs are completed and adopted, the District anticipates project
submittals by affected partner agencies will follow. District staff will work with municipalities to
prepare the necessary documents and exhibits for the municipality to adopt completed ADMSs,
ADMPs and WCMPs for land use and drainage infrastructure planning.
Procedural Summary
The CIP Prioritization Procedure involves five steps:
• Project submittal by requesting agencies;
• Submittal review and evaluation for recommendation by the District’s Prioritization
Evaluation Committee (PEC);
• Recommendation by the District’s Chief Engineer and General Manager;
• Recommendation by the FCAB Program and Budget Committee; and
• Recommendation approval by the FCAB.
The PEC – comprised of senior representatives from the District’s Planning and Project
Management, Operations and Maintenance, Engineering, Floodplain Management and Services
and Real Estate Divisions – conducts initial assessments of all project submittals meeting the
minimum regulatory and administrative guidelines established by this procedure. The PEC may
make an absolute recommendation or a conditional recommendation. If the PEC determines
that additional information is required for a submitted capital project, it may recommend that a
Candidate Assessment Report (CAR) be performed prior to the pursuit of a project Resolution.
The CAR investigates and assesses the design, right-of-way, permitting, mitigation,
construction, and operations and maintenance requirements and costs associated with a project
submittal. This information then serves as the basis for project agreements and scheduling.
The PEC forwards its recommendations regarding flood control capital project submittals to the
District’s Chief Engineer and General Manager for concurrence, and by the first week of
October, District staff meets with the FCAB Program and Budget Committee to review staff
recommendations. Incorporating FCAB Program and Budget Committee guidance, the staff
presents its recommendations to the FCAB for informational purposes and distributes its
recommendations to participating agencies.
Staff recommendations, including any changes received since the October FCAB meeting, are
presented to the FCAB for approval at its regular December FCAB meeting. The final, scored
priority list is then published via the District’s public website.
2
The recommendation of a project through the CIP Prioritization Procedure precedes final project
approval by the District’s Board of Directors (in the form of a Resolution); however, this final
approval is not inevitable. Moreover, a recommendation under this procedure does not, at any
level, constitute agreement to cost share in a proposed project. Once a recommended project
is fundamentally ready to move forward, intergovernmental agreements are still subject to
approval by the District’s Board of Directors and project partners’ governing boards.
Project Submittal Process
The District sends requests for project submittals to appropriate agencies on the second Friday
of each May, and concurrently publishes the applicable CIP Prioritization Procedure (this
document).
Agencies must provide eight copies of each project submittal, including a signed letter of intent
(LOI) (per the template contained within this instruction) with each copy. Project submittals
should clearly address the project evaluation criteria listed herein and re-established annually
under this procedure. Maps and similar graphic aids demonstrating prospective project
elements are recommended. Additionally, where local (non-District) master plans are
referenced, copies of those master plans should be included for reference by District staff.
Where discrepancies exist between a LOI and the supporting submittal, the information
contained within the LOI is considered overriding. The LOI is not a legally binding document,
but it assists in establishing a common starting point for negotiating future project MOUs and
IGAs.
In addition to new projects, the District requests agencies resubmit projects that were
previously reviewed but have experienced notable changes since their initial submittal. This
may include, for example, significant cost changes, changes in project substance following a
CAR, changes in project priority to the submitting agency or changes in area benefited due to
development.
Previously submitted projects that have not experienced a material change should not be
resubmitted. However, within a cover letter accompanying their annual submittals, project
partners are encouraged to reconfirm their standing interest and priorities for projects that were
recommended by previous prioritization procedures but that have not yet entered formal MOU
or IGA processes.
Project submittals must be received no later than the third Friday in July. The District’s
CIP/Policy Branch serves as the District’s primary point of contact, receives all CIP project
proposals and prepares project summaries for use by the PEC.
3
Maintenance and Safety Improvements to Existing District Structures Not Previously
Prioritized
Necessary improvements to existing District structures occasionally take the form of capital
projects. Preserving the integrity of structures operated and maintained by the District is the
District’s responsibility and its highest priority; so evaluation of these projects by the PEC is
typically unnecessary. As such, the District’s Chief Engineer and General Manager may, at his
discretion, independently recommend these projects for inclusion in the Capital Improvement
Program. Projects recommended by this method will be documented as “recommended” under
the annual Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Procedure and, through the Resolution
review process, will ultimately be submitted to the FCAB for endorsement and to the District’s
Board of Directors for approval.
Recommendation Reversals
Previously-recommended projects that are not maturing into completed capital projects in a
timely manner may revert to a “not recommended” status. In conjunction with the District’s
annual May notice of intent mailing, the Chief Engineer and General Manager will formally notify
sponsor agencies of previously-recommended projects being considered for this action. This
notification is intended to initiate a dialog between the District's and partner agencies' staffs to
ensure viable projects do not revert in status. After gathering agencies' input, District staff will
present recommendations to the FCAB each October for informational purposes, and each
December for approval. Reasons for this status revision may include, but are not limited to:
• Lack of an IGA for project implementation five years after a project’s submittal;
• Lack of dedicated sponsor agency funding to initiate a project within five years of its
submittal;
• Failure of a bond election identified as a project’s intended funding source;
• Lack of community support for project implementation;
• Diminished regional flood control benefit following adoption of an updated drainage plan;
• Significantly increased cost projections; or
• Any evolution of the submitted project that would substantively (and negatively) affect
its score under the prioritization evaluation procedure.
Sponsor agencies are encouraged to resubmit such projects after addressing the District’s
identified concerns. Resubmitted project are re-scored under the most recently revised scoring
criteria.
4
Prioritization Criteria
Established prioritization criteria allow District staff to uniformly evaluate District-generated and
agency-requested CIP projects.
Project submittals that do not incorporate LOIs per the District’s template are disqualified from
consideration. Each request that meets the District’s minimum administrative standards will be
evaluated by District staff and scored on the PEC Project Priority Worksheet (copy attached).
Through the weighted criteria listed below, a maximum total of 100 points per project is
possible. If insufficient data is provided for a particular criterion, no points will be awarded in
that category. No set point threshold exists for determining the PEC’s recommendation
decisions; the threshold is established following evaluation of a given year’s submittals.
Evaluation criteria, maximum point value and associated submittal requirements are listed
below:
0. Project Description (0 Points)
A summary of the proposed project, including a location map and information concerning
project goals, problems to be addressed, anticipated project features, and relationships to any
other planned, ongoing or completed infrastructure projects.
1. Agency Priority (5 Points)
Rank in priority (from first to last) among the agency’s current fiscal year submittals. A number
of integrated projects required to improve a particular watershed may be consolidated and
classified as a single, phased project.
Project partners are encouraged to re-confirm their standing interest in projects that have been
previously recommended by the prioritization process but have not yet entered formal MOU or
IGA processes. This correspondence is most appropriately submitted, in letter form, in
conjunction with the agency’s new-year prioritization process submittal.
2. Flood Control / Drainage Master Plan Element (8 Points)
Relationship to existing or ongoing flood control, storm-water management or drainage master
plans. Points will be awarded on the basis of the project's relative significance or priority within
the overall plan. If the associated master plan was formally adopted (e.g., through council
action) by the submitting agency, this should be indicated on the LOI for the project submittal.
If the associated master plan was completed by an agency other than the District, then a copy
of the plan, or an executive summary, must be provided with the project submittal to receive
points in this category.
5
3. Flooding Threat (15 Points)
Existing threats to property (excluding roadways) that will be mitigated by the proposed project.
The submittal should answer some or all of these questions:
• Is the project intended to address an existing flooding hazard, or to contain flooding to
benefit future development?
• Has documented flooding of structures occurred that would be prevented or lessened in
the future by the project? If so, on how many occasions has documented flooding
occurred? What was the extent of the damage caused? If citizen flooding complaints
are available, copies should be included with the project submittal.
• Will the project mitigate flooding hazards in a delineated floodway/floodplain? If so, was
the floodway/floodplain delineated before or after development in the affected area?
• What are the peak discharges and frequency of flooding events?
• What are the depth, velocity and duration of storm-water flow?
• What are the characteristics of the contributing watershed (size, slope, land use, etc.)?
• Does an outfall exist? If so, is it undersized, at full capacity, or capable of handling
additional flows?
4. Level of Protection (10 Points)
Flood return frequency protection in comparison to protection under existing conditions.
Preference is given to projects offering higher flood return frequency (10-year to 100-year)
protection. When applicable, information regarding both the anticipated design level of
protection and the effective level of protection, such as that provided by storm drains combined
with curb and gutter roadways, should be provided.
5. Area Protected (30 Points)
Characteristics of the geographic area protected by the proposed project. The submittal should
answer these questions:
• What are the numbers and estimated values of benefitted residential, commercial and
industrial buildings that are located in delineated floodways or 100-year floodplains?
• What are the numbers and estimated values of benefitted residential, commercial and
industrial buildings that are not located in delineated floodplains?
• What is the number of benefitted public buildings (schools, libraries, churches, etc.)?
6
• What amount of infrastructure (roads, drainage/flood control or wastewater facilities,
etc.) would benefit or be enhanced (e.g., storm drain capacity increase from 2-10
years.)?
• What is the amount of benefitted cultivated acreage?
• What is the acreage of developed, agricultural and undeveloped land to be removed from
the 100-year floodplain?
• What population would directly and indirectly benefit from the project?
• What is the age of area development, and how long has the flooding problem existed?
• Would a floodway/floodplain be reduced and/or the community’s floodplain rating be
improved through project completion?
6. Ancillary Benefits (10 Points)
Non-flood control benefits of the submitted project. Benefits may include:
• Water quality implications (e.g., will storm-water be managed through basins or wetlands
prior to its discharge to the receiving waters?);
• Vegetation and wildlife habitat implications (e.g., will an existing wildlife corridor be
maintained/enhanced, or will new habitat areas be created through the provision of
dedicated drainage/open space areas?);
• Environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., designated wildlife areas or riparian corridors) to be
protected;
• Multiple-use features, benefits and contributions such as ground water enhancement
(either through groundwater percolation or direct recharge), support for alternative
forms of transportation such as trails and bike paths, support for recreation
opportunities, restoration of riparian and other habitats, and other open space uses and
activities;
• Contributions to the visual quality of the environment through preservation or
enhancement of the natural character of the landscapes of Maricopa County and/or
enhancement of local community character;
• Improvement of quality of life indicators such as preservation or enhancement of cultural
and historic resources, and opportunities for conservation education within the
community;
7
• Qualification for grant funding such as transportation enhancement funding, water
protection funding or wildlife habitat improvement funding.
7. Total Project Cost (5 Points)
Total design, land acquisition and construction cost. Submitting agencies should estimate these
costs and phase timelines.
8. Level of Partner Participation (10 Points)
Proposed cost-share contribution by the submitting agency or other non-District agencies. The
District typically requires a fifty-percent cost share contribution from its partners. Preference is
given to projects with maximum external agency participation. If a future bond election is
identified as a source of funding, this should be reported in the submittal. Forms of cost-share
participation may include:
• Direct agency funding (e.g., bonds, or property/sales tax revenues);
• Ad-valorem tax contributions to the District;
• Non-cash contributions (e.g., rights of way);
• Previously-acquired land required for the project (not to exceed 30% of an agency’s cost
share credit); and
• Third-party funding sources (e.g., federal funds or private contributions).
9. Operations and Maintenance Costs to the District (7 Points)
Total operations and maintenance costs to be borne by the District. Maximum ratings are
assigned to requests with minimal operations and maintenance costs to be borne by the
District.
Note: The information provided in criteria 7-9 above will be used to evaluate and rank the
requested projects and will be considered for negotiation of project partnering agreements.
However, specific partner responsibilities and cost-sharing amounts will be determined during
the IGA negotiation process with District staff on a project-by-project basis.
8
Points of Contact
Planning and Project Management Division Manager: Don Rerick, P.E., 602-506-4878
For questions concerning the Prioritization Procedure and capital project submittals:
Capital Improvement Program Supervisor: Christopher Fazio, 602-506-4489
Prioritization Evaluation Committee Chairman: Amir Motamedi, P.E., 602-506-4871
For questions concerning flood control studies, planning or floodplain delineation requests:
Planning Branch Manager: Doug Williams, 602-506-8743
Floodplain Delineations Branch Manager: Tim Murphy, P.E., 602-506-4605
9
Fiscal Year 2011 Prioritization Procedure Schedule
May 8, 2009 Agency Notices Mailed
July 17, 2009 Agency Proposals Submittal Deadline
August, 2009 Evaluation Committee Review and Evaluation
August, 2009 Evaluation Committee Recommendations to PPM Division Manager
August 26, 2009 Staff Recommendations to Chief Engineer and General Manager
August 27, 2009 Staff Recommendations Forwarded to Agencies
September 23, 2009 FCAB Program Budget Committee Review
October 28, 2009 Staff Recommendations Presented to the FCAB for Information
December 2, 2009 Final Staff Recommendations Presented to the FCAB for Action
December, 2009 Prioritization Procedure Results Published
February, 2010 Proposed FY 2011 - 2015 CIP Presented to FCAB
10
Prioritization Procedure Process Flowchart
PEC Review
PEC Develop Recommendations
Staff Finalize Recommendations Agency Notifications Sent
Agency Stop or
FCAB Approve
No Resubmit
Yes
Perform Candidate
Sufficient Data?
No Assessment
Yes
Develop and Sign MOU
Develop Resolution
Agency Stop or
BOD Approve
No Resubmit
Yes
Develop IGA IGA Required?
Yes
No
BOD Approve Alternative Analysis Needed? Perform Alternative Analysis
Yes Yes
No No
Agency Stop or Design, Acquire ROW, Relocate Utilities,
Resubmit Public Information
Develop IGA Construction IGA Required?
Yes
No
BOD Approve Construct Project
Yes
No
Agency Stop or
Capitalize, Operate and Maintain
Resubmit
11
Prioritization Procedure Distribution List
Name Position Agency
Mr. Larry Langer Asst. State Engineer, Valley Project Mgt. Arizona Department of Transportation
Mr. Larry Voyles Director Arizona Game and Fish Department
Mr. V. Ottozawa-Chatupron Hydrology Section Arizona State Land Department
Mr. David Fitzhugh Assistant City Manager City of Avondale
Mr. Scott Lowe Public Works Director Town of Buckeye
Mr. Steve Bales President Buckeye Water Cons. and Drainage District
Mr. Jonathan Pearson Town Administrator Town of Carefree
Mr. Wayne Anderson Town Engineer Town of Cave Creek
Mr. Kurt Krause City Engineer City of Chandler
Mr. Lance Calvert Public Works Director City of El Mirage
Dr. Clinton Mattea President Fort McDowell Indian Community
Mr. Tom Ward Public Works Director Town of Fountain Hills
Mr. Houshang Parsi Town Engineer Town of Gila Bend
Hon. William R. Rhodes Governor Gila River Indian Community
Mr. Lonnie Frost Public Works Director Town of Gilbert
Mr. Larry Broyles Engineering Director City of Glendale
Mr. David Ramirez Engineer City of Goodyear
Mr. Gino Turrubiartes Community Development Director Town of Guadalupe
Mr. Darryl Crossman City Manager City of Litchfield Park
Mr. John Hauskins Director Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Mr. Chuck Williams Capital Improvement Program Manager Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Mr. Mike Sabatini Planning Division Manager Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Mr. Warren Leek Director Maricopa County Dept. of Emergency Mgt.
Mr. R.J. Cardin Director Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Dept.
Mr. Fred Rustam Deputy Engineer-Design City of Mesa
Mr. David McKay State Conservationist Natural Resource Conservation Service
Mr. Andrew Cooper Public Works Director Town of Paradise Valley
Mr. Andrew Granger Engineering Director City of Peoria
Mr. Bill Mattingly Public Works Director City of Peoria
Mr. Hasan Mushtaq Floodplain Manager City of Phoenix
Mr. Dick Schaner Transportation Director Town of Queen Creek
Mr. Michael Leonard General Manager Roosevelt Water Conservation District
Mr. Paul Cherrington Manager, Water Engineering and Transportation Salt River Project
Mr. Brian Meyers Community Manager Salt River-Pima Indian Community
Mr. Ashley Couch Stormwater Management Director City of Scottsdale
Dr. Robert Maki City Engineer City of Surprise
Mr. Jim Bond Assistant City Engineer City of Tempe
Mr. Reyes Medrano City Manager City of Tolleson
Ms. Kathleen Bergmann Chief (Acting), Arizona Planning Office (Sec. C) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ms. Carol Erwin Area Manager United States Bureau of Reclamation
Mr. Gary Edwards Town Manager Town of Wickenburg
Mr. Douglas Nelson Attorney at Law Woolsey Flood Protection District
Mr. Jesse Mendez Public Works Director Town of Youngtown
12
Table 1: FY 2010/2011 Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Procedure Capital Project Requests
No. Project Name Sponsor Location Agency Funding Other District Est. Total Cost Summary
(Priority) Funding Cost Recommendation
District
1 SR-85 Channel SR-85, 1/2 mi. N of Baseline Rd. to Gila River $ 7,000,000 $ - $ 7,000,000 $ 14,000,000 Recommended
(1)
Skunk Creek Levee at New River Road Bridge District
2 Skunk Creek at New River Rd. N/A $ - $ 9,700,000 $ 9,700,000 Deferred
Crossing (2)
District
3 Iona Wash Floodplain Improvements Iona Wash, Black Mountain Rd. to Myers St. $ 1,890,000 $ 9,189,540 $ 3,210,300 $ 14,289,840 Not Recommended
(3)
Avondale
4 Van Buren Street Drainage Channel Improvements Van Buren St., 99th Ave. to Agua Fria River $ 2,900,000 $ - $ 2,900,000 $ 5,800,000 Recommended
(1)
El Mirage
5 Lower El Mirage Wash Lower El Mirage Wash, Dysart Rd. to Agua Fria River $ 1,617,200 $ - $ 2,425,800 $ 4,043,000 Rec. w/ Qualifications
(1)
Ftn. Hills
6 Ashbrook Wash Channelization Improvements Ashbrook Wash, Bayfield Dr. to Del Cambre Ave. $ 758,000 $ - $ 758,000 $ 1,516,000 Deferred
(1)
Peoria New River west bank, Fletcher Hts. 1A subdivision to Fletcher
7 New River West Bank Improvements $ 900,000 $ - $ 900,000 $ 1,800,000 Deferred
(1) Farms subdivision
Union Hills Drive and 107th Avenue Drainage Peoria Union Hills Dr., 107th Ave. to 111th Ave.; 107th Ave., Palm Tree
8 $ 1,065,600 $ 1,065,600 $ 1,065,600 $ 3,196,800 Deferred
Improvements (2) Ln. to Union Hills Dr.
Phoenix
9 Arcadia Drive Storm Drain Project Arcadia Dr., Camelback Rd. to Old Crosscut Canal $ 1,500,000 $ - $ 3,400,000 $ 4,900,000 Recommended
(1)
Phoenix
10 43rd Avenue Storm Drain Project 43rd Ave., Broadway Rd. to the Salt River $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Not Recommended
(2)
Phoenix Central Ave., Grovers Ave. to Greenway Pkwy.; Grovers Ave.,
11 Central Avenue Storm Drain Project $ 1,500,000 $ - $ 1,500,000 $ 3,000,000 Deferred
(3) Central Ave. to 4th Pl.
Drainage Improvement Project at Tatum Blvd and Phoenix
12 Intersection of Tatum Blvd. and Pinnacle Peak Rd. $ 4,000,000 $ - $ 4,000,000 $ 8,000,000 Not Recommended
Pinnacle Peak Rd (4)
Phoenix
13 East Fork Cave Creek Drainage Improvement Project East Fork Cave Creek Wash at 7th Ave. $ 375,000 $ - $ 825,000 $ 1,200,000 Not Recommended
(5)
Sonoran Boulevard (Channelization & Bank Phoenix
14 Proposed Sonoran Blvd. wash crossings $ 8,400,000 $ - $ 19,600,000 $ 28,000,000 Not Recommended
Protection) (6)
67th Avenue Bridge/Salt River (Channelization & Phoenix
15 Salt River at 67th Ave. $ 2,000,000 $ - $ 8,000,000 $ 10,000,000 Not Recommended
Bank Protection) (7)
Phoenix Area bounded by Pinnacle Peak Rd. (N), CAP (S), 64th St.
16 Palisene-Paradise Ridge Drainage Project $ 10,000,000 $ - $ 10,000,000 $ 20,000,000 Not Recommended
(8) alignment (W), Scottsdale Rd. (E)
$ 44,905,800 $ 10,255,140 $ 76,284,700 $ 131,445,640
10/19/2009 Table 1
Table Two: FY 2010/2011 Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Procedure Results
Table 2A: Projects Recommended for Inclusion in the District's Capital Improvement Program
No. Project Name Sponsor (Priority) PEC Ave. Score District Cost Est. Total Cost PEC Recommendation
5 Lower El Mirage Wash El Mirage (1) 78 $ 2,425,800 $ 4,043,000 Recommended w/ Qualifications
1 SR-85 Channel District (1) 74 $ 7,000,000 $ 14,000,000 Recommended
4 Van Buren Street Drainage Channel Improvements Avondale (1) 74 $ 2,900,000 $ 5,800,000 Recommended
9 Arcadia Drive Storm Drain Project Phoenix (1) 70 $ 3,400,000 $ 4,900,000 Recommended
$ 15,725,800 $ 28,743,000
Table 2B: Projects Not Recommended for Inclusion in the District's Capital Improvement Program
No. Project Name Sponsor (Priority) PEC Ave. Score District Cost Est. Total Cost PEC Recommendation
3 Iona Wash Floodplain Improvements District (3) 56 $ 3,210,300 $ 14,289,840 Not Recommended
10 43rd Avenue Storm Drain Project Phoenix (2) 54 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Not Recommended
15 67th Avenue Bridge/Salt River (Channelization & Bank Protection) Phoenix (7) 49 $ 8,000,000 $ 10,000,000 Not Recommended
16 Palisene-Paradise Ridge Drainage Project Phoenix (8) 49 $ 10,000,000 $ 20,000,000 Not Recommended
13 East Fork Cave Creek Drainage Improvement Project Phoenix (5) 48 $ 825,000 $ 1,200,000 Not Recommended
12 Drainage Improvement Project at Tatum Blvd and Pinnacle Peak Rd Phoenix (4) 46 $ 4,000,000 $ 8,000,000 Not Recommended
14 Sonoran Boulevard (Channelization & Bank Protection) Phoenix (6) 39 $ 19,600,000 $ 28,000,000 Not Recommended
$ 46,635,300 $ 83,489,840
Table 2C: Projects Deferred for Further Analysis
No. Project Name Sponsor PEC Ave. Score District Cost Est. Total Cost PEC Recommendation
2 Skunk Creek Levee at New River Road Bridge Crossing District (2) 68 $ 9,700,000 $ 9,700,000 District resubmit after alternative analysis
6 Ashbrook Wash Channelization Improvements Ftn. Hills (1) 68 $ 758,000 $ 1,516,000 Ftn. Hills resubmit after hazd. confirmed by delin.
7 New River West Bank Improvements Peoria (1) 68 $ 900,000 $ 1,800,000 Peoria resubmit after hazard confirmed
11 Central Avenue Storm Drain Project Phoenix (3) 60 $ 1,500,000 $ 3,000,000 Phoenix resubmit with study or joint DCR
8 Union Hills Drive and 107th Avenue Drainage Improvements Peoria (2) 59 $ 1,065,600 $ 3,196,800 Peoria form partnership for DCR and resubmit
$ 4,223,600 $ 9,512,800
10/19/2009 Table Two
Table Three: Previously-Recommended Projects Beyond the District's 5-Year Capital Improvement Program
Year Project Name Sponsor Status PEC Ave. District Cost* Est. Total Cost*
Score
2000 Meridian North and South Channels Mesa ADMP Update in progress. 60 $ 1,800,000 $ 2,400,000
2001 Arcadia Area Drainage Project Phoenix Awaiting Phoenix bond election. 68 $ 6,000,000 $ 12,000,000
2001 Waddell Rd. Drainage Improvements Surprise CAR completed 2009. 78 $ 255,600 $ 771,984
2002 Bethany Home Rd. Storm Drain (59th-51st Ave.) Glendale Awaiting Glendale funding. 67 $ 1,575,000 $ 3,150,000
2002 Sand Tank Wash Flood Control Improvements Gila Bend Awaiting partner funding. 66 $ 10,534,000 $ 11,707,000
2002 South Gila Bend Drainage Improvements Gila Bend Awaiting partner funding. 60 $ 283,000 $ 283,000
2006 Gila River Channel at Cotton Lane MCDOT Planning. 70 $ 900,000 $ 15,360,000
2006 43rd Ave. and Baseline Rd. Detention Basin Phoenix Awaiting Phoenix bond election. 67 $ 1,800,000 $ 3,600,000
2006 27th Ave. and South Mountain Detention Basin Phoenix Awaiting Phoenix bond election. 71 $ 1,800,000 $ 3,600,000
2006 Highline / Western Canal Storm Drain Improvements Tempe Planning. 75 $ 1,720,000 $ 3,440,000
2007 Skunk Creek Levees at CAP District Planning. 75 $ 2,670,000 $ 8,900,000
2007 Skunk Creek Channel at Pinnacle Peak Rd. and 35th Ave. Phoenix Awaiting Phoenix bond election. 70 $ 4,250,000 $ 8,500,000
2008 Agua Fria Boulevard Scour Protection Grade Control Structure MCDOT Design concept report in progress. 75 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000
2008 AT&SF Channel MCDOT CAR completed 2009. 66 $ 3,189,000 $ 6,377,000
2008 Ellsworth Rd. Detention Basin System & Upper Ellsworth Rd. Storm Drain Sys. Mesa Awaiting Mesa funding. 65 $ 2,320,000 $ 3,560,000
2008 Pecos North and South Detention Basins Mesa ADMP Update in progress. 64 $ 11,625,000 $ 15,500,000
2008 Pecos Rd. Channel Mesa ADMP Update in progress. 58 $ 10,500,000 $ 14,000,000
2009 Northern Pkwy. and Dysart Rd. Channels MCDOT CAR completed 2009. 60 $ 2,717,000 $ 5,433,000
2009 20th Ave. and Turney Ave. Detention Basin Phoenix Awaiting Phoenix bond election. 58 $ 6,500,000 $ 13,000,000
2010 Berneil Channel Drainage Improvements Par Valley Awaiting partner funding. 76 $ 5,500,000 $ 11,000,000
2010 Jefferson St. and I-17 Storm Drain Phoenix Planning. 70 $ 1,550,000 $ 3,100,000
2010 Martin Acres Surprise Planning. 72 $ 2,285,000 $ 4,571,000
2010 Happy Valley Channel Surprise Design concept report in progress. 69 $ 1,130,000 $ 2,260,000
*Costs are estimates from original submittals. $ 81,903,600 $ 154,512,984
Table Four: Maintenance and Safety-Related Modifications to District Structures Recommended by the
Chief Engineer and General Manager of the District
Year Project Name Summary Resolution
2011 Arizona Canal Diversion Channel Storm Drain Improvements Investigate and repair/improve cracked storm drain lateral pipes. FCD 2008R016
2011 Cave Buttes Dam Modifications Mitigate internal seepage and seepage along abutments. FCD 2009R009
2011 Cave Buttes Dam Southwest Access Rights Acquire roadway easement from ASLD for southwest access to Cave Buttes Dam. FCD 2009R002
2011 East Maricopa Floodway Low Flow Channel Design and construct low flow improvements to mitigate ponding issues. Pending
2011 Powerline, Vineyard, Rittenhouse Rehabilitation or Replacement Rehabilitation or replacement of PVR structures. FCD 2008R019
2011 Saddleback FRS Modifications Mitigate erosion and cracking along centerline of dam crest. FCD 2009R008
2011 Sossaman Channel Improvements Mitigate Sossaman Channel deficiencies between Baseline Rd. and Guadalupe Rd. FCD 2009R005
8/18/2009 Tables Three and Four
Project Name: SR-85 Channel
Requested By: Flood Control District Staff
Project Description: Co-locate the outlet for the District's Oglesby system outfall with ADOT's SR-85
Channel. This involves the up-sizing of ADOT's channel from a 50-year event capacity
to a 100-year event capacity.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 5
0 1-4 5
One of three.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 7
0-4 5-6 7-8
Outfall for the Oglesby system recommended by the District's Buckeye ADMP.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 10
0-5 6-12 13-15
Alleviates flooding condition that has caused overtopping of irrigation canals and railroads. Will serve as outfall
for future system protecting future residential, commercial and industrial development. Mitigates flooding associated
with a FEMA delineated floodplain. Will serve as only watershed outfall. Mitigates 600 cfs flows for 100-yr event.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 9
0 3-7 8-10
Provides 100-year system where no level of protection currently exists.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 17
0-9 10-24 25-30
Combined with future upstream project, protects 10 square miles of cultivated acreage planned for future residential,
commercial and industrial uses (4/5/1 square miles, respectively). Protects 3 miles of SR-85, 3 miles of the RID canal,
1.5 miles of the BWCDD Canal, and 1.5 miles of the UPRR rail line. Reduces a FEMA floodplain and improves
Buckeye's flood rating.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 7
0-3 4-7 8-10
Increases planned level of protection for 3 miles of SR-85 from 50-year to 100-year, affecting an estimated 50,000
vehicles daily (projected to 2030). Includes a water quality basin upstream of the Gila River.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 2
0 1-4 5
$14,000,000.
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 10
0-5 10
≥50%.
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None.
TOTAL 74
Recommended
Project Name: Skunk Creek Levee at New River Road Bridge Crossing
Requested By: Flood Control District Staff
Project Description: Construct new levees along Skunk Creek upstream and downstream of the New River
bridge crossing.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 5
0 1-4 5
Two of three.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 7
0-4 5-6 7-8
Recommended by the District's Adobe Dam-Desert Hills ADMP.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 12
0-5 6-12 13-15
Alleviates flooding conditions that have inundated New River Road and resulted in several residences flooding.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 10
0 3-7 8-10
Provides 100-year protection.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 22
0-9 10-24 25-30
All residences will be removed from the floodway. New River Road will become an all weather access during 100-year events.
The floodplain and floodway will be reduced and contained within Skunk Creek.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 7
0-3 4-7 8-10
The New River Road at Skunk Creek crossing will increase from a 10-year system to a 100-year system. Will provide
opportunity to link to proposed regional trail.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 3
0 1-4 5
$9,700,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 2
0-5 10
0%. MCDOT a possible partner.
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 0
0 1-6 7
100%
TOTAL 68
Recommended
Project Name: Iona Wash Floodplain Improvements
Requested By: Flood Control District Staff
Project Description: Channelization and associated drainage infrastructure to mitigate breakout and split
flows associated with 2.4 miles on Iona Wash.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 3
0 1-4 5
Three of three.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 6
0-4 5-6 7-8
Identified in the District's Wittmann Area Drainage Master Plan Update.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 4
0-5 6-12 13-15
Alleviates flooding conditions causing breakouts of approximately 2500 cfs which cause a floodplain over hundreds of
acres of state land. Depths of sheet flow range from 0.25 to 3 feet.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 9
0 3-7 8-10
Provides 100-year, 24-hour protection.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 14
0-9 10-24 25-30
Provide protection to approximately 2000 acres of property including the Broadstone Ranch development, private
properties and State Trust Land. Future development planned includes residential, commercial and a school.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 5
0-3 4-7 8-10
Enhances/preserves a natural watercourse and wildlife corridor. Trail improvements along wash corridors and provides
linkages to planned future development. Eliminates an abandoned stock tank that results in a double floodway and
floodplain in the area.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 2
0 1-4 5
$14,300,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 10
0-5 10
77%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 3
0 1-6 7
District to maintain outfall; upstream portions maintained by others.
TOTAL 56
Not Recommended
Project Name: Van Buren Street Drainage Channel Improvements
Requested By: City of Avondale
Project Description: Design and construct a drainage channel between the Agua Fria River and 99th Avenue
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 5
0 1-4 5
One of one.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 6
0-4 5-6 7-8
Modification of the District's Durango ADMP, intended to mimic ADMP functionality.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 9
0-5 6-12 13-15
Mitigate existing flooding occurring around 99th Avenue, Van Buren Street and the delineated floodplain at the
Union Pacific Railroad south of Van Buren Street.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 8
0 3-7 8-10
Preference of 100-year protection, but 10-year system also under consideration.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 19
0-9 10-24 25-30
Intercept flows from drainage basins which flow across Van Buren. Protect areas in and around Van Buren Street and 99th
Avenue and areas south of Van Buren Street.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 6
0-3 4-7 8-10
Would incorporate BMPs and natural landscaping for additional water quality protection. Proposed as open landscaped
channel . Provide trail connection for cities of Avondale and Tolleson to Agua Fria River and the Agua Fria River
recreation corridor.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 4
0 1-4 5
$5,800,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 10
0-5 10
50%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None.
TOTAL 74
Recommended
Project Name: Lower El Mirage Wash
Requested By: City of El Mirage
Project Description: Provide a regional solution for current roadway and property flooding issues.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 5
0 1-4 5
One of one.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 6
0-4 5-6 7-8
Included in the District's Waddell Road CAR.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 12
0-5 6-12 13-15
Mitigates existing threats to property. Corrects existing hazards including the removal of private homes from floodplain.
Contains flooding to benefit future development upstream and downstream of El Mirage Road. Will mitigate hazards
in a delineated floodplain/floodway with a FEMA LOMR expected as part of project. **NOTE: Area hydrology update
completed by the District subsequent to submittal demonstrates substantially reduced flow rates.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 10
0 3-7 8-10
Provides 100-year system, utilizing existing facilities.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 22
0-9 10-24 25-30
Remove from floodplain 25 residences at estimated value of $1.12 million. 3 major arterial roads (Dysart, Cactus and El
Mirage roads) will benefit from 100-year culvert crossings. Removal of approximately 16 acres from floodplain. Will
benefit over 40,000 people by providing a multiuse recreational corridor and regional drainage outfall. **NOTE: Area
hydrology update completed by District subsequent to submittal demonstrates substantially reduced flow rates.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 7
0-3 4-7 8-10
Existing wash vegetation and wildlife corridor enhancement in accordance with District standards. A detention basin to
improve water quality to downstream receiving waters. A multiuse recreational and/or bike path with appropriate
recreation opportunities is included.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 5
0 1-4 5
$4,043,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 4
0-5 10
40%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None
TOTAL 78
Recommended with Qualifications
Project Name: Ashbrook Wash Channelization Improvements
Requested By: Town of Fountain Hills
Project Description: Improve channel to convey increased flow due to year 2000 Dam Safety Improvements
to Golden Eagle Park Dam.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 5
0 1-4 5
One of one.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 3
0-4 5-6 7-8
Area is within the District's Fountain Hills ADMP. Project was not an ADMP recommendation.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 8
0-5 6-12 13-15
13-21 residences may possibly be within the floodplain based on the re-delineation of Ashbrook Wash to account for
impact of Golden Eagle Park Dam modifications.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 9
0 3-7 8-10
Will provide 100-year protection.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 15
0-9 10-24 25-30
13-21 residences potentially to be removed/kept out of the 100-year floodplain. Increasing the culverts' waterway and
improving the culvert approach/departure will provide roadway access to the northeast quadrant of Fountain Hills during
substantially higher storm events than currently conditional allow.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 6
0-3 4-7 8-10
Ashbrook Wash is a known wildlife corridor. The larger roadway culverts will accommodate wildlife under-crossings.
Reach of Ashbrook Wash has large stand of cottonwood trees - channelization will prevent their under-scouring in
large storms. Project will remove stagnant pools of mosquito breeding areas.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 5
0 1-4 5
$1,516,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 10
0-5 10
50%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None
TOTAL 68
Deferred
Project Name: New River West Bank Improvements
Requested By: City of Peoria
Project Description: Approximately 1600 feet of channel and structural bank improvements along the west
side of New River, between the Fletcher Hts 1A and Fletch Farms subdivisions.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 5
0 1-4 5
One of two.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 7
0-4 5-6 7-8
Recommended by the District's Middle New River Watercourse Master Plan. Final reach within jurisdiction of recommended
improvements.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 8
0-5 6-12 13-15
Channelization currently stops on both sides of the proposed project allowing 100-year events to overtop the river channel
and pose a threat to development. The gap causes a weak spot allowing for possible lateral erosion and failure of existing
bank protection. Will provide erosion protection from sediment at downstream locations.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 9
0 3-7 8-10
Provides 100-year protection, plus a freeboard for flow conveyance.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 12
0-9 10-24 25-30
Provides protection to existing adjacent residential developments. Removes 5 acres of property from the floodplain.
Approximately 9 residences and 3 vacant parcels will be protected.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 5
0-3 4-7 8-10
Improved water quality from removal of sediment resource. Landscaping at top of bank improvements will provide for
habitat and visual aesthetics.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 5
0 1-4 5
$1,800,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 10
0-5 10
50%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None
TOTAL 68
Deferred
Project Name: Union Hills Drive and 107th Avenue Drainage Improvements
Requested By: City of Peoria.
Project Description: Storm drain, laterals and catch basins along Union Hills Drive, from 107th Avenue to
111th Avenue and 107th Ave, from Palm Tree Lane to Union Hills Drive.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 5
0 1-4 5
Two of two.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 3
0-4 5-6 7-8
Area within Glendale-Peoria ADMP Update, but no specific drainage improvements recommended for location.
MCDOT CAR completed for Union Hills Drive; improvements proposed but not included in submittal.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 9
0-5 6-12 13-15
Along 107th Avenue, several small drainage openings discharge to an undersized swale, which results in overtopping of the
roadway. Documented flooding has occurred in surrounding residential and commercial areas.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 4
0 3-7 8-10
Provide 10-year protection at minimum, 100-year if cost effective and possible.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 12
0-9 10-24 25-30
Provides protection to existing residential developments within the area. The protected watershed is .5 square miles in
Maricopa County limits and .5 square miles within Peoria limits. Will provide for emergency access along Union Hills
Drive and 107th Avenue.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 4
0-3 4-7 8-10
Mitigation of airborne dust/particulates by containing the drainage within storm drains and channels, so there will be less
debris and silt entering the roadway and becoming airborne. Use of BMPs will provide higher water quality level.
Landscaped buffer areas improve scenic quality.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 5
0 1-4 5
$3,200,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 10
0-5 10
66.66%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None.
TOTAL 59
Deferred
Project Name: Arcadia Drive Storm Drain Project
Requested By: City of Phoenix
Project Description: 10-year storm drain system including trunk and lateral storm drains and an
undercrossing at the Arizona Canal.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 5
0 1-4 5
One of eight.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 8
0-4 5-6 7-8
Recommended in Metro Area Drainage Master Plan.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 13
0-5 6-12 13-15
The Arcadia area has no significant outlet capacity and storm runoff ponds on the north side of the canal. Significant
flooding has occurred and monetary damages have been paid under NFIP. Approximately 135 acres of land in the area
are within the 100-year floodplain.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 4
0 3-7 8-10
Provides 10-year protection.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 21
0-9 10-24 25-30
The area protected is bounded by the Arizona Canal, Camelback Mountain, 40th Street and 64th Street with a contributing
watershed of approximately 5.5 square miles. The area is mainly residential, with commercial at major intersections. The
phases of the Arcadia Area Drainage Improvement Project will reduce or eliminate approximate "A" Zone floodplain
delineated on the north side of the Arizona Canal.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 4
0-3 4-7 8-10
The area benefitted is located between 40th and 64th Streets from the Arizona Canal to Camelback Mountain. Flooding
problems in the area and flood damage to existing homes will be greatly reduced. Several homes within the area have been
flooded during recent storm events.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 5
0 1-4 5
$4,900,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 3
0-5 10
30%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None.
TOTAL 70
Recommended
Project Name: 43rd Avenue Storm Drain Project
Requested By: City of Phoenix
Project Description: The project will replace a siphon outfall through a box culvert with a bleed off pipe to
drain flood waters and provide positive outfall to the Salt River.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 4
0 1-4 5
Two of eight.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 5
0-4 5-6 7-8
The area is within the South Phoenix/Laveen Area Drainage Master Plan. This project is not an ADMP recommendation.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 4
0-5 6-12 13-15
The 43rd Avenue Storm Drain receives flood waters from several flood control elements within the South Phoenix/Laveen
ADMP including the 43rd Ave & Southern Detention Basin and the Baseline Road Storm Drain. Currently, storm water
is forced to siphon out of the pipe or be aided by a pump station. The proposed project will eliminate the pump and
station.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 5
0 3-7 8-10
The South Phoenix/Laveen ADMP was designed for 100-year protection to be augmented by the proposed project.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 8
0-9 10-24 25-30
The South Phoenix/Laveen area watershed will benefit from the construction of a positive outfall system.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 6
0-3 4-7 8-10
Will provide a positive outfall into the Salt River while reducing the potential for local flooding within the area. Localized
flooding is a major concern since there is no positive outfall for the existing system. Currently storm water is forced to
siphon out of the pipe or must be aided by a pump station.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 5
0 1-4 5
$2,000,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 10
0-5 10
50%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None.
TOTAL 54
Not Recommended
Project Name: Central Avenue Storm Drain Project
Requested By: City of Phoenix
Project Description: A storm drain along Grovers Avenue from 4th Place to Central, and along Central from
Grovers Avenue south to the Greenway Parkway Channel.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 3
0 1-4 5
Three of eight.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 4
0-4 5-6 7-8
City of Phoenix drainge study.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 9
0-5 6-12 13-15
Drainage from the area concentrate around the intersection of Central and Bell Road resulting in numerous locations
flooding. The 100-year peak discharge is approximately 760 cfs.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 4
0 3-7 8-10
Provides 10-year protection
Low Med. High
Area Protected 14
0-9 10-24 25-30
Residential areas bounded by Bell Road, Central, Union Hills Drive and 7th Street will be most benefitted by mitigating
the potential flooding hazard.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 4
0-3 4-7 8-10
Provides better conveyance to the flood waters after storm events though the neighborhood. Reduces flooding risks to
local streets and properties within the area.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 5
0 1-4 5
$3,000,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 10
0-5 10
50%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None.
TOTAL 60
Deferred
Project Name: Drainage Improvement Project at Tatum Blvd and Pinnacle Peak Rd
Requested By: City of Phoenix
Project Description: Eliminate the at-grade crossing by building a drainage culvert in conjunction with the
proposed major street improvement project.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 2
0 1-4 5
Four of eight.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 4
0-4 5-6 7-8
Included in the Arizona State Land Department's Tatum East-West Master Drainage Report.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 2
0-5 6-12 13-15
Several studies have evaluated the 100-year discharge in the area. The final design will select the appropriate 100-year
discharge for design.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 8
0 3-7 8-10
Provide 100-year protection.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 6
0-9 10-24 25-30
Will provide 100-year conveyance of Wash No. 12 across the intersection of Tatum Blvd. and Pinnacle Peak Rd. It is one of
several major drainage structures within the watershed area. The street project will provide enhanced connection in both
north-south and east-west directions.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 4
0-3 4-7 8-10
Protects natural wash corridors and riparian habitat corridors. Provides 100-year conveyance of Wash No. 12 across
intersection. Will provide the public with a high capacity regional route in the north-south and east-west directions and
relieve anticipated traffic and congestion on the Loop 101 freeway to the south.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 3
0 1-4 5
$8,000,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 10
0-5 10
50%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None.
TOTAL 46
Not Recommended
Project Name: East Fork Cave Creek Drainage Improvement Project
Requested By: City of Phoenix
Project Description: Design and build a box culvert across the East Fork Cave Creek Wash at 7th Avenue.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 1
0 1-4 5
Five of eight.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 5
0-4 5-6 7-8
Alternatives included in the North Mountain Dam No. 7 Outlet Channel Alternatives Analysis and Response Capability
Study by the District and the City of Phoenix.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 5
0-5 6-12 13-15
The contributing watershed area at the 7th avenue crossing is approximately 14.1 square miles with a 100-year discharge of
9400 cfs. FEMA has delineated a 100-year floodplain and floodway through the East Fork Cave Creek Wash.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 5
0 3-7 8-10
Recommended design is to pass a total of 500 cfs flow before overtopping the roadway.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 13
0-9 10-24 25-30
Area benefitted is along 7th Avenue between Greenway Parkway and Coral Gables Drive. Will potentially remove 12
or more downstream residences from the floodplain. Residents will have all weather access. Schools will have dry access.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 4
0-3 4-7 8-10
Will provide conveyance for the 100-year flood discharge of the wash at the 7th Avenue alignment. The current at grade
crossing is flooded and barricaded off during frequent storm events and poses a flooding hazard.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 5
0 1-4 5
$1,200,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 3
0-5 10
30%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None.
TOTAL 48
Not Recommended
Project Name: Sonoran Boulevard (Channelization & Bank Protection)
Requested By: City of Phoenix
Project Description: Provide channelization, bank protection and scour protection at the wash crossings
along the new Sonoran Boulevard.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 1
0 1-4 5
Six of eight.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 4
0-4 5-6 7-8
Area included in the District's Skunk Creek WCMP and the Adobe Dam/Desert Hills ADMP.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 4
0-5 6-12 13-15
Contributing watershed to Skunk Creek Wash, apache Wash and cave Creek Wash have been studied several times and
estimated 100-year discharge is available.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 9
0 3-7 8-10
Provides 100-year protection
Low Med. High
Area Protected 6
0-9 10-24 25-30
Will provide 100-year access in the east-west direction between I-17 and Cave Creek Road. Construction of new drainage
facilities may warrant a revision to the current floodplain delineation, possibly eliminating portions of the current
floodplain.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 5
0-3 4-7 8-10
Will protect the Sonoran Preserve area. Provides 100-year conveyances of all washes crossing its alignment. Will provide a
safe and enhanced route between I-17 and Cave Creek Road where there are no other planned arterial streets for a distance
of six miles. The Sonoran Boulevard will relieve anticipated traffic and congestion on the Carefree Highway.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 0
0 1-4 5
$28,000,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 3
0-5 10
30%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None
TOTAL 39
Not Recommended
Project Name: 67th Avenue Bridge/Salt River (Channelization & Bank Protection)
Requested By: City of Phoenix
Project Description: Provide channelization, bank protection and scour protection at the proposed 67th
Avenue Bridge over the Salt River.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 0
0 1-4 5
Seven of eight.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 3
0-4 5-6 7-8
Area included in the District's Salt/Gila Flood Delineation Study.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 6
0-5 6-12 13-15
The 100-year discharge at 67th avenue is 164,000 cfs, according to a US Army Corps of Engineers study. Current delineation
shows the 100-year flood is extended beyond Southern avenue to the south and beyond Roeser Road to the north.
The all weather crossing would allow for the possible removal of properties from the floodplain after re-delineation.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 9
0 3-7 8-10
Provides 100-year protection.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 12
0-9 10-24 25-30
Will potentially remove approximately 100 acres from the current floodplain on the north and south sides of the river
after the floodplain map revision process. Revised floodplain will remove approximately 700 residential properties from
the existing floodplain.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 7
0-3 4-7 8-10
Will enhance access to the rapidly developing southwestern part of the city. Will allow a large area (approx. 100 acres) to be
removed from the current FEMA delineated floodplain. Will remove approximately 700 residential properties from the
existing floodplain. Provides the public with an all weather crossing of the Salt River and a safe route to the southwestern
part of the city when the river is flowing.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 3
0 1-4 5
$10,000,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 2
0-5 10
20%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None
TOTAL 49
Not Recommended
Project Name: Palisene-Paradise Ridge Drainage Project
Requested By: City of Phoenix
Project Description: A system of drainage features to provide protection to future planned developments
within the area.
Factor Range PEC Points
Low Med. High
Agency Priority 0
0 1-4 5
Eight of eight.
Low Med. High
Flood Control/Drainage Master Plan Element 5
0-4 5-6 7-8
Included in the Arizona State Lands Department's Palisene-Paradise Ridge Drainage Plan Report.
Low Med. High
Flooding Threat 5
0-5 6-12 13-15
The watershed has undergone extensive development during the past 20 years. Planning studies have been completed, but
no regional plans have been fully constructed. The Rawhide Wash watershed, a primary contributor of runoff into
Palisene-Paradise Ridge is currently unregulated with the exception of some minor diversion berms along lower reaches.
<10 yr 10-50 yr >50 yr
Level of Protection 9
0 3-7 8-10
Designed based on 100-year, 24-hour peak discharges.
Low Med. High
Area Protected 7
0-9 10-24 25-30
The watershed is impacted by flood waters traveling from east of Scottsdale Road. Protection would be provided to the
future planned developments within the Palisene-Paradise Ridge Planned Community District.
Low Med. High
Ancillary Benefits 5
0-3 4-7 8-10
According to the Master Drainage Plan Report, several drainage features will be designed to include multiuse functions,
including trails, landscape and aesthetics. The entire development will be blended with natural riparian habitat and
appropriate landscape aesthetics.
>$20M $5-$20M <$5M
Total Project Cost 1
0 1-4 5
$20,000,000
<50% ≥50%
Level of Partner(s) Participation 10
0-5 10
50%
High Low None
O&M Costs to the District 7
0 1-6 7
None.
TOTAL 49
Not Recommended
Related docs
