Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-. <br /> <br />'~ <br /> <br />Mr. Brian Zick <br />July 28, 1994 <br />Page -2- <br /> <br />7. In the Risk Comparison on page 4-VII, we would suggest that the analysis could <br />have been carried at least one step further by comparing annual capital costs (or <br />incremental costs) for each alternative with an annual expected value of damages <br />based on the probability of occurrence. This type of comparison would provide <br />a quantative basis for estimating the economic benefits of each alternative; <br /> <br />8. On Tables VIII-I, VIII-2 and VIII-3, the note at the bottom of each table states <br />"O&M COST NOT INCREASED 5% PER YEAR FOR INFLATION". This does <br />not appear to be the case; <br /> <br />9. It should be noted for the financial analysis that a reserve fund equivalent to one <br />annual payment to the CWCB could be accumulated over a period of several years <br />rather than a single year; <br /> <br />10. On page 3- VIII under B.2 and B.3, there are references to an existing CWCB loan <br />and to a loan for Mountain Home Reservoir. Both appear to be incorrect; and, <br /> <br />II. The next to the last paragraph on page 4- VIII talks abqut differences between <br />alternatives in terms of costs per share which are not included in the (unnumbered) <br />table on the preceding page apparently referred to as Table VIII-4. <br /> <br />Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these comments. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />William E. Green, P.E. <br />Project Planning and Construction <br /> <br />WEG:sls <br />cc: Bill Stanton <br />Mike Serlet <br /> <br />SLS66,L lR <br />