Laserfiche WebLink
motion and Mr. Vandemoer withdrew his second. <br /> Mr. Fetcher then moved, seconded by Mr. Gormley, that service <br /> charges be assessed as follows : 2 percent for flood control projects , <br /> 3 percent for agricultural and recreation projects , 4 percent for all <br /> other projects , and 5 percent on any project which experiences cost <br /> overruns and must therefore request additional assistance from the <br /> Board. There being no further discussion, the motion was adopted by a <br /> unanimous voice vote. <br /> Mr. Kroeger then moved, seconded by Mr. Jackson, that the Board <br /> adopt the policy that flood control projects be reimbursable as are <br /> all other project purposes . There was no further discussion. The <br /> motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. <br /> Mr. Stapleton then directed the Board's attention to agenda item <br /> 2, concerning proposed construction projects for FY 1980-81. The first <br /> project which the Board took up was the Rangely Project. Mr. McDonald <br /> briefly reviewed the project, noting that it was a project which had <br /> already received $600 ,000 from the construction fund. However, as <br /> constructed, it is not functioning as efficiently as it should and it <br /> appears that repairs will be necessary. In this regard, Mr.. McDonald <br /> noted that the project had not gone through the routine procedures of <br /> staff analysis and Board review, but rather had been added directly to <br /> the authorizing legislation through the sponsorship of state senators <br /> and representatives . Thus , the manner in which the project has been <br /> constructed was largely beyond the control of the Board's staff. Due <br /> to the problems with the project, it is estimated that an additional <br /> $150 ,000 would be required for the necessary repairs . The staff <br /> recommended that the Board incur the entire $150 ,000 cost at a service <br /> charge of 5 percent, said conditions to be added by way of amendment <br /> to the existing contract with the period for repayment being extended <br /> from 40 years to 43 years . The reason for the three-year extension in <br /> the repayment period was to provide Rangely the opportunity to forego <br /> its first three payments in light of the cash flow problems which the <br /> project has created since it is not operating properly. Mr. Stapleton <br /> then called on Mr. Burkley Brannan, Town Manager of Rangely, who spoke <br /> briefly about the proposed project. Mr. Fetcher then moved, seconded <br /> by Mr. Gormley, that the staff's recommendation be accepted and the <br /> project recommended to the Legislature accordingly. There being no <br /> further discussion, the motion was passed on a unanimous voice vote . <br /> Mr. McDonald then briefly reviewed the Yamcolo Project, which I/ <br /> project had previously received funding from the construction fund in <br /> the amount of $1 million. The project, which is under construction, <br /> has incurred cost overruns which are completely beyond the control of <br /> the local sponsoring district. This cost overrun is estimated to be <br /> -4- <br />