Laserfiche WebLink
financing flood control and drainage projects . He , too, was of the <br /> opinion that there is no simple , straightforward way of recovering the . <br /> costs of flood control projects from the beneficiaries of those proj- <br /> ects . Therefore, he noted that it is appropriate to finance flood <br /> control projects by using general tax monies and he urged the Board, in <br /> that context, to consider using construction fund monies on a non- <br /> reimbursable basis for flood control projects . <br /> Mr. Stapleton then called on Mr. Jim Ringe, Director of Community <br /> Development for the City of Colorado Springs . Mr. Ringe also addressed <br /> himself to the issue of whether or not flood control projects should <br /> be made reimbursable or non-reimbursable . Mr. Ringe pointed out that <br /> it probably was not possible, due to the City's charter, to accept a <br /> loan, a point to which he had Mr. Martin Thrasher of the Colorado <br /> Springs City Attorney's Office speak. As Mr. Thrasher pointed out, it <br /> would not be possible for the City to accept a loan unless the question <br /> were put to the vote of the electorate in a general election. He <br /> pointed out that such an election presented problems in that it was <br /> unlikely that the electorate would approve of loans for flood control <br /> projects . In summary, Mr. Martin also urged the Board to make con- <br /> struction fund monies available for flood control projects on a grant <br /> basis . <br /> Mr. Stapleton then called on Mr. Scott Tucker, Executive Director <br /> of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District in the metropolitan <br /> Denver area. Mr. Tucker generally echoed the comments of the three <br /> previous speakers and urged the Board to make construction . fund monies <br /> available on a non-reimbursable basis for flood control projects . Mr. <br /> Tucker also pointed out that he disagreed with Mr. McDonald on the <br /> extent to which the beneficiaries of flood control projects can be <br /> readily identified and, in turn, made to pay for the benefits which <br /> they receive. <br /> Considerable discussion then ensued among the members of the Board <br /> concerning the question of whether or not flood control projects should <br /> be non-reimbursable and concerning the question of the service charge <br /> to be assessed different projects . Part way through the discussion, <br /> Mr. Jackson moved, seconded by Mr. Vandemoer, that the service charge <br /> rates for 1980 be as follows : 3 percent for water storage projects , <br /> I/ <br /> 5 percent for flood control, irrigation, recreation, and other projects , <br /> and 50 percent more than either the 3 percent or 5 percent rate for <br /> projects which experience cost overruns and require additional assis- <br /> tance from the Board. Additional discussion ensued during which it <br /> was observed that Mr. Jackson's motion, in addressing water storage on <br /> the one hand and other project purposes on the other hand, was over- <br /> looking the fact that many different purposes can be served by water <br /> storage projects . In light of this fact, Mr. Jackson withdrew his <br /> -3- <br />