Laserfiche WebLink
project should be reimbursed by the beneficiaries of a project. <br /> Before the Board proceeded to discuss this agenda item, Mr . Jackson <br /> requested that the Director also review the staff's recommendation on <br /> the service charges to be assessed project sponsors (agenda item 3) . <br /> With leave of the members of the Board, Mr. Stapleton directed Mr. <br /> McDonald to proceed with agenda item 3. <br /> Mr. McDonald proceeded to explain that the legislation authorizing <br /> the Board's construction fund provides not only for the recovery of <br /> capital costs but also for the recovery of a service charge on each <br /> project. In years past, the service charges which the Board recom- <br /> mended to the Legislature had varied from 0 to 5 percent. The rate had <br /> never exceeded 5 percent simply because that was the highest rate that <br /> had been and was being charged by the Farmers Home Administration, <br /> whose program with respect to municipal and industrial supplies is <br /> similar in purpose and scope to that of the Board's . Mr. McDonald <br /> pointed out that in the past the staff had taken a number of factors <br /> into account in arriving at the recommended service charge. These <br /> factors are set forth in the memorandum concerning agenda item 3, a <br /> copy of which is attached hereto. Mr.. McDonald noted that the staff <br /> had evaluated four alternatives for arriving at service charges , each <br /> of which is outlined in the subject memorandum. The staff concluded <br /> and recommended to the Board that there be a single service charge for <br /> each different kind of project purpose; to wit, 2 percent for flood <br /> control and recreation purposes , 3 percent on irrigated agricultural <br /> projects , and 4 percent on all other projects . Mr. McDonald further <br /> stated that it would be the staff's recommendation that for multiple <br /> purpose projects , the capital costs be allocated to the different <br /> purposes and the appropriate service charge applied for the different <br /> purposes served by the project. <br /> Mr. Stapleton then called upon a number of people from the audience <br /> who asked to speak to agenda items 3 and 4.. Ms . Nona Thayer, a. member <br /> of the Board of County Commissioners for Larimer County was the first <br /> to speak. Ms . Thayer's main concern was that the Board make available <br /> construction fund monies for flood control projects on a non-reimbursable <br /> basis . She gave a number of illustrations as to why she thought this <br /> was both necessary and appropriate, and also noted her disagreement with <br /> Mr. McDonald that the beneficiaries of flood control projects could be <br /> readily identified. <br /> Mr. Stapleton then called on Mr. Roy Bingham, Director of Engi- <br /> neering Services for the City of Fort Collins . Mr. Bingham also <br /> addressed himself to the issue of flood control projects and whether <br /> they should be reimbursable or non-reimbursable. He , like Ms . Thayer, <br /> observed the difficulties which local units of government have in <br /> -2- <br />