My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00121
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00121
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:25:14 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:36:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153702
Contractor Name
Silt, Town of
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
39
County
Garfield
Bill Number
HB 95-1155
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 />" <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />.-- <br /> <br />Page 3 <br />July 7, 1995 <br /> <br />13. Under WATER OUALITY on page 11, no data is presented. The paragraph refers to "the <br />elevated soluble manganese and iron levels" but provides no documentation. <br /> <br />14. The FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES beginning on page 12 <br />does not include a set of comparable alternatives nor an analysis of alternatives. In fact, it's <br />not clear what the eight items listed on pages 12, 13 and 14 are supposed to represent other <br />than a list of suggested water system improvements with no indication of the relationships or <br />comparisons intended. At the very least, a comparison of the costs of the RWIS with the <br />costs of treatment plant expansion should have been provided. <br /> <br />15. On page 14, four justifications for project selection are given with practically no <br />supporting data or analyses-specifically: <br /> <br />. If the 800 gpd reduction in demand is not correct, per comment no. 8 above, <br />then reason no.2 in the report is incorrect. <br /> <br />. It's not clear what is meant in reason no. 3 referring to the Colorado River <br />system. <br /> <br />. Reason no. 4 refers to increasing costs of treatment, monitoring and constituent <br />control but gives no figures. <br /> <br />16. The FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES concludes on page 15 <br />with the statement that "The other alternatives evaluated ways to increase the quantity and <br />quality of treated potable water for the SWTF." Which alternatives are referred to and where <br />are they evaluated? <br /> <br />17. On page 15, it's very difficult to follow the description of System Operation without <br />some kind of map or drawing to show the location and layout of facilities. The feasibility <br />report should be a stand-alone document with adequate maps and drawings-not simply a cross <br />reference to plans and specs. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />18. In the Financial Program beginning on page 23, there is no discussion as to whether the <br />Town is establishing an "enterprise" for the project or whether it will use an existing fund. <br />Do the financial statements which were provided for 1992 and 1993 include information <br />pertaining to'the fund to be used for the project? No information is provided to describe the <br />current financial condition of the Town or current water system rates or assessments. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.