Laserfiche WebLink
information on the extent and type of the harm, such as the number of individuals or <br />entities affected. <br />2. Explanation of why a capital expenditure is appropriate: Recipients should provide an <br />independent assessment demonstrating why a capital expenditure is appropriate to <br />address the specified harm or need. This should include an explanation of why existing <br />capital equipment, property, or facilities would be inadequate to addressing the harm or <br />need and why policy changes or additional funding to pertinent programs or services <br />would be insufficient without the corresponding capital expenditures. Recipients are not <br />required to demonstrate that the harm or need would be irremediable but for the <br />additional capital expenditure; rather, they may show that other interventions would be <br />inefficient, costly, or otherwise not reasonably designed to remedy the harm without <br />additional capital expenditure. <br />3. Comparison of the proposed capital expenditure against alternative capital expenditures: <br />Recipients should provide an objective comparison of the proposed capital expenditure <br />against at least two alternative capital expenditures and demonstrate why their proposed <br />capital expenditure is superior to alternative capital expenditures that could be made. <br />Specifically, recipients should assess the proposed capital expenditure against at least two <br />alternative types or sizes of capital expenditures that are potentially effective and <br />reasonably feasible. Where relevant, recipients should compare the proposal against the <br />alternative of improving existing capital assets already owned or leasing other capital <br />assets. Recipients should use quantitative data when available, although they are <br />encouraged to supplement with qualitative information and narrative description. <br />197 <br />