Laserfiche WebLink
Discussion: <br /> <br />The proposed project is very ambitious and seeks to address both current and emerging needs in the rural <br />areas of La Plata County. The applicant did a very good job of addressing the evaluation criteria and Board <br />members should review the full application to review this information. <br /> <br />The current scope of work is unclear in terms of the specific tasks and deliverables which would be <br />funded/produced using the water supply reserve account; both statewide and basin funds. The scope of work <br />is too general and does not follow the requested information in the application and criteria and guidelines. <br />Therefore, it was difficult for staff to fully evaluate the merits of the funding request in relation to the <br />products produced. <br /> <br />There are several potential project beneficiaries that do not appear to be contributing significantly to the <br />project. This includes most of the potential participants. It would be useful to have an explanation of the <br />reasons for the modest and/or lack of participation. Also please discuss why Lake Durango Water Authority <br />and other potential participants were excluded and/or were not included and any implementation issues such <br />as delivery issues associated with the Upper La Plata Water Users Associations potential deliveries to New <br />Mexico. <br /> <br />The application and project does not address full use of the ALP water allocations. However, there appears <br />to be an opportunity to identify potential users and users for the entire ALP pool a portion of which has been <br />offered to the State of Colorado with no identified market. Design and construction of withdrawal on <br />conveyance facilities could be done in a way that would maximize utilization of the ALP project and <br />encourage broader cooperation and collaboration. The applicant should discuss their reasons for not taking <br />this approach and why the proposed approach is best for the applicant AND the area AND ALP. <br /> <br />The overall project costs appear to be estimated at $96.4 million dollars. The applicant does not discuss how <br />this project may ultimately come to fruition and does not provide a justification for the project should future <br />funding not materialize. In other words, what value would the $1,000,000 state and $100,000 basin account <br />investments bring in the absence of being awarded other grants and subsidies? <br /> <br />Issues/Additional Needs: <br /> <br />? <br /> <br />A more specific and detailed scope of work, schedule and deliverables for the water supply reserve <br />see <br />account funds must be provided (this must include rates, unit costs and level of effort by task <br />application and criteria and guidelines <br />). In addition, it is unclear what the statewide versus basin <br />funds would be used to complete. This must be specifically detailed and related to tasks, deliverables <br />and costs. <br />? <br /> <br />The scope of work and budget need to clearly delineate the uses/purposes of basin versus statewide <br />funds. <br />? <br /> <br />Several tasks are already complete. Past cost can not be reimbursed. The revised scope must identify <br />sources of funds for tasks which are or will be undertaken prior to potential state funding. <br />? <br /> <br />Part B.2.4 of the application does not link to the Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) or other <br />appropriate sources which would justify the use of water supply reserve account to meet critical basin <br />needs and why there are critical basin needs. However, the application does do a good job of <br />outlining this in other supporting documents. <br /> 9 <br />