PROJ01824 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,) . (5) Similarities or Differences with the Clinton Ditch and Reservoir Company It is proposed by the applicants that the contract with the Board would be structured in a manner very similar to the Board's present contract with the Clinton Ditch & Reservoir Company, The Board made a Construction Fund loan of about $4,7 million in August 1992 to allow the Clinton Ditch & Reservoir Company to acquire Clinton Gulch Reservoir. The shareholders of the Clinton Ditch & Reservoir Company are both municipalities and ski corporations in Summit County. The loan contract and two promissory notes (a "Municipal Note" and a "Ski Area Note") were executed by the Company. The loan was secured by shares of stock owned by the shareholders of the Company, each of whom executed separate security agreements, deeds of trust and stock assignments, Two shareholders of the Company, Summit County and the Town of Silverthorne, did not pledge their shares of stock as security for the loan. Presumably, these shareholders provided their own funds for their portions of the Clinton Reservoir Project because they did not participate in the loan from the CWCR The shareholders that did pledge their shares of stock are the Town of Breckenridge, the Town of Dillon and four ski corporations. . We were unable to locate any documentation for the Clinton loan that would allow us to make a direct financial comparison of the two projects, However, information submitted previously by the applicants included a total project cost of $8,9 million which would tend to indicate that Construction Fund financing amounted to about 53 percent of project costs. DISCUSSION The applicants maintain that their funding request of$8,5 million is for less than 75 percent of the total project cost taking into account Vail Associates' $3,0 million acquisition of the initial 500 acre-feet of firm yield. As discussed at the November 1996 Board meeting, Vail Associates is unwilling to pledge this portion of their ownership. If we accept the collateral analysis outlined here, however, that may not be significant for the Board's collateral position on the loan, The question is whether the Board is being asked to fund 75 percent of the total project costs or 100 percent of the applicants $8.5 million request. After considerable deliberation, we believe the latter is true, The applicants bring to the project assorted water rights that ensure the 1,500 acre- feet of firm yield but are not using any significant amount of their own funds to pay the cost of acquiring the reservoir. We therefore will recommend a Construction Fund loan for the Eagle Park Reservoir Project which allows the applicants some credit for the value of contributed water rights and for studies and investigations which have been undertaken but at the same time requires some direct financial participation by the applicants in the purchase of the Eagle Park Reservoir and that the . 4