PROJ02040

• Contract/PO #: CT2015-034
• Contract/PO #: C150206
• Contractor Name: Overland Ditch and Reservoir Company
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 0
• County: Delta
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Financial Summary:

Following is a financial summary for the CWCB participation in the project:

Table 5 - Financial Summary

Project Cost
CWCB Loan Amount (90% of Project Cost)
CWCB Loan Payment Amount, Including 10% Loan Fteserve
Number of Shareholders
Number of Shares of Stoclc
Current Assessment Per Share
Future Assessment Per Share
Annual Project Shareholder Cost Per Acre-Foot
(Average Annual Diversions = 17,000 acre-feet)

$1,254,550
$1,130,000
$59,388
120
10,000
$12.78
$21.13
$12.43

CREDIT WORTHINESS:

ODFtC shareholders annually set assessments (second weelc in February) based on the projected
operating costs, debt service and other costs for the year. If it is evident that there will be surplus
funds at the end of the fiscal year (December 31), the Board of Directors allows shareholders to apply
the refund to the next year's assessment. If expenses exceed the projected amount, ODFtC malces a
supplemental assessment. The loan amounts are included in the next year's projected expenses and
paid when the first assessments are received. This method of operation results in Operating Ftatios of
100 percent. Based on last year's assessment, the average annual cost per project acre-foot was
$7.52. The proposed project will increase that unit cost to $12.43/acre-foot.

ODFtC has two outstanding loans with the CWCB dating to 1979. With the exception of mutually
afPreed loan payment deferrals for the periods of 1994,1996, and 1997, and 2002, ODFtC has made all
scheduled payments on both of these loans. Following is a discussion of the reasons for the payment
deferrals. All deferrals were supported by the CWCB staff and recommended for approval:

1. 1994 deferral requested due to excessive litigation expenses related to contesting minimum
by-pass flow release requirements by the Forest Service as a condition of obtaining a
construction peIlIlit to rehabilitate the dam.

2. 1996 deferral requested due to dry conditions and continued litigation regarding by-pass flow
requirements imposed by the Forest Service

3. 1997 deferral requested due to legal expenses associated with by-pass flow requirements
imposed by the Forest Service.

4. 2002 deferral requested due to "unexpected financial difficulties in the fOIlIl of severe aild
extended drought".

Appendix H includes copies of correspondence related to the deferrals.

9