PROJ01754

• Contract/PO #: FS0043X
• Contractor Name: Colorado Department of Corrections
• Contract Type: Miscellaneous
• Water District: 0
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Application

f~
.--;;;,- -,

Page 1 of 4

Van Sciver, John

To: 'John Gillogley'

Cc: 'Kent Nelson '; 'Terry Yergensen'; 'Lee Norgaard'; 'Lynn B. Obernyer'; 'Jennifer Lindahl'; 'Roger
Sams @ GMS'; 'Greg Monley/Kumar'; Bassi, Linda; Serlet, Mike; McAuliffe, Dan; Kuharich, Rod;
Haynes, Mark; Boyer, Doug; paul sanzo

Subject: RE: CWCB Loan to the DOC to Rehabilitate the RCC Reservoir #1

6/20/03

John;

Based on information from the Attorney General's Office (Paul Sanzo), stating that the CWCB can not loan to the
DOC, I have deactivated your loan application concerning the RCC Reservoir NO.1. I recommend that you
discontinue work on the CWCB loan application / Feasibility Study for this project, and obtain financing elsewhere.

John o/an Sciver

CWCB Marketing and Applications
[phone] (DESK); [phone] (Reception); [phone] (FAX), [phone] (Home)
(Address: Colorado Water Conservation Board, Water Supply Planning and Finance Section, 1580 Logan
Street, Suite 750, Denver, CO, 80203.)

We are in the process of attempting to meet the concerns you raised in your 06-11-03 E-mailing while being
sensitive to your timing needs. The following is a brief status.
1. AG review of CDOC contracting authorities: the initial review by the CDOC First Assistant AG was
not positive at all. Before we entirely give up on the option of a CWCB loan, we are going to have our
CDOC Contracts Officer furthef review the specifics of the issue with the State Controller's AG and go
from there. We believe this can be resolved in the next several weeks; however, the parties that
need to be involved are in the busiest portion of the State fiscal year, resulting in this delay. It may be
that this delay cannot be tolerated - that is your decision.
2. DSB/SEO review and approval: I have sent a brief verbal description of the anticipated maintenance
work for RCC Reservoir No. 1 to Mark Haynes and his initial response was that the project will
require SEO review and approval, Le., that this work is not maintenance. I may not have done a very
good job, in this regard, and will be sending him additional information as it comes in. For now,
obviously, any action on the part of the CWCB would have to be contingent on resolving this issue
with the DSB/SEO.
3. Feasibility Study: all the support documentation, from CDOC consultants, I believe is requiTed to
assembly at least a reasonable feasibility study has been feceived in the last 24 hours. I plan on
incorporating it into the study and FAX'ing you a product tomorrow. It nothing else, it will allow the
DSB/SEO to better undefstand the maintenance work being proposed.

I understand that you clearly advised that each of these issues be addressed in the linear sequence you
identified, so that no unnecessary or wasted efforts were made on either of our parts. I appreciate that advice
and have taken it to heart. However, it has been my experience, in government, that waiting on the resolution of
the many concerns and issues, associated with anything outside the norm, leads to delays that sometimes simply
cannot be tolerated and still serve the best interest of the State. I believe this may be one of those cases and
understand I am running the risk of having "wasted" my time and apologize to you to the extent this decision may
also impact you.

6/20/2003