Laserfiche WebLink
The proposed project does appear to meet a critical need for the city as identified in the Statewide Water <br />Supply Initiative Water Management Objectives from a treated water perspective; specifically sustainably <br />meeting municipal and industrial demands. However, more information is needed regarding the <br />sustainability of existing raw water supplies. <br /> <br />The applicant does not make a strong case for funding from the statewide account; only a few evaluation <br />criteria are met by the proposed project. <br /> <br />Issues/Additional Needs: <br /> <br />? <br /> <br />Please clarify the total cost estimates for the project. In one section of the application it states total <br />costs as $2.472 million and in another section it states $2.222 million. <br />? <br /> <br />Please verify the status of all source of funding. Have they all been secured? If not then how will the <br />project be funded? Also please specify the source of the $400,000 “local commitment”. <br />? <br /> <br />Please verify and provide detail regarding the Cities water conservation plan; especially in regard to <br />system metering (what is and is not metered within the system?). <br />? <br /> <br />As described the water supply nexus of this proposed project is not strong. Please provide more <br />information on system losses and expected improved yield (see also discussion section above). <br />? <br /> <br />Please provide additional detail on the capacity/yield of the Cities raw water supply wells in relation <br />to the 2030 water demands. This should be provided based on both aquifer production and pumping <br />capacity provided in Table 5. Please also clarify the status of wells. <br />? <br /> <br />The application mentions the City has 11 wells. The City appears to use 7 and states that two of <br />seven need replaced but then states that only one will be redrilled. Please clarify. <br />? <br /> <br />Please provide detail on how this project fits with the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit and the <br />status of the Cities participation in the proposed Conduit project. <br />? <br /> <br />The description of the Tabor issues is unclear. Clarify the status of the Enterprise and the 10% fund <br />threshold of water supply reserve account money that is mentioned. <br />? <br /> <br />The current scope of work, budget and schedule are insufficient. They lack sufficient detail and <br />specificity describing the tasks, work elements, how they will be accomplished, and the expected <br />deliverables/products. The budget is not detailed and the tasks must be consistent with the scope of <br />work tasks. There is not back-up information that provides the basis for the estimated costs. The <br />state does not fund unspecified contingency line items. If funds are needed for possible change <br />conditions please specify the conditions that are being planned for and the proposed billing rates. <br />? <br /> <br />The scope, budget and schedule does not detail those work elements that will be paid for by the <br />WSRA. <br />? <br /> <br />Please clarify the drinking water and waste water compliance status with Colorado Department of <br />Public Health and the Environment. Also please clarify how any compliance issues will be <br />exacerbated and how they will be addressed by the proposed project. <br />? <br /> <br />The application does not adequately address the evaluation criteria. <br />? <br /> <br />Please provide a location of water supply features; especially water wells. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: <br /> <br />Staff recommends funding of up to $100,000 of basin funds contingent on successful resolution of the items <br />in the discussion and issues/addition needs section. As currently submitted staff does not recommend <br />approval of the requested $200,000 of statewide funds. The project does not strongly meet many of the <br />evaluation criteria. The lack of quantification of water supply improvements for a single purpose project and <br /> 4 <br />