My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ02023
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
PROJ02023
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:39 AM
Creation date
7/9/2007 1:37:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
FS0044FX
Contractor Name
Larimer County, Board of County Commissioners
Contract Type
Miscellaneous
Water District
0
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Approval Letter
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />\ <br /> <br />7. The information beginning with the second paragraph under Scope of Work on page <br />three should be in a separate section dealing with Study Area. <br /> <br />8. Suggest deleting the heading Scope of Work. <br /> <br />9. Are the proposed improvements intended primarily for the benefit of the lower basin? <br /> <br />10. On page 3, what is the date of the median household income figures and from what <br />source were thy obtained? Where is the figure for the census tracts? <br /> <br />11. The descriptions of the project alternatives on pages six and seven need considerably <br />more detail as well as maps, drawings and itemized cost estimates. Options that were <br />considered within each alternative should also be described. <br /> <br />12. An analysis of alternatives comparing the costs, technical aspects, impacts, and <br />institutional considerations (permits, contracts, court actions required, etc.) for each <br />alternative and a comparative evaluation of alternatives should be provided. A matrix <br />evaluation is the usual method of comparison. See Appendix B of the Guidelines. <br /> <br />13. A detailed description of the selected alternative should be provided to include <br />[mancial feasibility. <br /> <br />14. In the second paragraph on page seven, what is the existing mode of operation of the <br />Larimer- Weld system with respect to Douglas Reservoir? <br /> <br />15. On page nine, how do the amounts in Table 1 relate to the amounts in the text above? <br /> <br />16. Do not understand the two sentences in the last paragraph of page 10~ <br /> <br />17. How were the damage estimates and annual damages in the next to the last paragraph <br />on page 11 derived? <br /> <br />18. The discussion of project funding alternatives on pages 12-14 could be reduced, as <br />could the description of the selected funding alternative on pages 15 and 16. <br /> <br />19. In the last paragraph on page 16, more information is needed regarding the properties <br />to be acquired for the project. How much land is needed and what are the estimated <br />costs? <br /> <br />20. Under Larimer County and the State of Colorado on page 18, it should be explained <br />that the County will request a loan of up to $3.9 million from the Severance Tax Trust <br />Fund administered by the CWCB and that the City and County will relinquish the <br />existing Construction Fund authorization of $920,000. Is the West Vine Stormwater <br />Utility the entity with which the CWCB would contract for a loan? <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.