Laserfiche WebLink
$500 ,000 and it is the staff's recommendation that the Board finance <br /> 100 percent of the cost overrun with a service charge of 5 percent. <br /> After brief discussion, Mr. Getz moved, seconded by Mr. Gormley, that <br /> the staff's recommendation be accepted. There being no further dis- <br /> cussion, the motion passed on a voice vote, with Mr. Fetcher. abstaining. <br /> Mr. McDonald then reviewed the Winter Park Project, which was <br /> originally authorized in 1977 but which, due to the lack of funding, <br /> had not been put under construction. Now that funding is available, <br /> inflation has increased the cost estimate for the project by $300,000. <br /> The staff recommends that the Board finance 50 percent of the increase <br /> in the estimated cost with a 4 percent service charge for the entire <br /> amount financed by the Board. <br /> Mr. Stapleton then called upon Mr. Jack Buchheister, President of <br /> the Winter Park Sanitation District, who commented briefly upon the <br /> project. A discussion then ensued between Mr. Buchheister and members <br /> of the Board concerning the agreement which Winter Park needed to <br /> reach with the Denver Water Board concerning certain water rights which <br /> will underlie the project. Mr. Buchheister indicated that agreement <br /> had been reached with the staff of the Denver Water Board and that the <br /> agreement would be presented to the Denver Water Board proper at one <br /> of its meetings during December. Mr. Stapleton concluded by observing <br /> that the agreement between Winter Park and the Denver Water Board con- <br /> cerning the subject water rights would have to be completed and in <br /> hand before the Board forwarded its recommendation concerning this <br /> project to the Legislature in January of 1980 . <br /> There being no further discussion, Mr. Getz moved, seconded by <br /> Mr. Fetcher, that the staff's recommendation on this project be accepted. <br /> The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. <br /> The next project taken up by the Board was the Beaver Park Project. <br /> Mr. McDonald briefly reviewed the project for the Board. He noted that <br /> the Department of Local Affairs , in the context of the Governor's <br /> recently promulgated Human Settlement Policies, had raised questions <br /> about whether or not the water which would be recaptured by improving <br /> the efficiency of the irrigation system which is involved in this proj- <br /> ect would permanently go to the benefit of irrigated agriculture as <br /> I/ opposed to promoting additional subdivision in the area, which subdivi- <br /> sions would be contrary to the Human Settlement Policies . Mr. McDonald <br /> recommended to the Board that this was a matter which could be handled <br /> pursuant to contractual arrangements between the Board and the local <br /> sponsoring entity in consultation with the Department of Local Affairs . <br /> Mr. McDonald concluded by noting that it was the staff's recommendation <br /> that this project be approved in the amount of $315,000 (which is 50 <br /> percent of the total estimated project cost) with a service charge of <br /> -5- <br />