PROJ00396 App Letter - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ~ 12. Under "Alternative Evaluation Criteria" on page 7-2, paragraph 7.3.1 states that project output was not used for project evaluation. The economic evaluation later in the report utilizes the incremental difference in crop production with and without the project. 13. The ra1ionale for the selection of Alternative 1 at the bottom of page 7-3 isn't clear. It needs to be expanded to describe what the two sentences are intended to convey. The difference in cost is sufficient to warrant more explanation. 14. The economic evaluation on page 8-1 is inadequate and inconclusive. Attached is an economic analysis which the consultant may use if he feels it's appropriate. 15. In "Financial Evaluation" at the top of page 8-2, there is no discussion of the financial program in Table 8-1. The last column, "yearly assessment", in Table 8-1 should be compared with the net operating income for a period of years from the Labrouche ranches for a determination of financial feasibility. 16. The "Summary" at the bottom of page 8-2 mixes the concepts of economic and financial feasibility which need to be addressed separately. 17. In addition, a detailed description of collateral and a discussion ofthe amount of total costs eligible for Construction Fund financing should be provided in Section 8.0. In view of the proximity of the September Board meeting and your construction schedule, it would be advisable for the consultant to prepare a revised report in the shortest possible time. We will not be able to enter into a contract for this project until an acceptable feasibility report has been submitted and the loan terms have been approved by the Board. Sincerely, Willliam E. Green, P.E. Manager of Planning Project Planning and Construction Section Attachment cc. Section B Staff Linda Bassi, OAG John Sikora, Woodward - Clyde