Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> 4 percent. Mr. Hugh King, Assistant City Manager for Manitou Springs , <br /> was then called upon to speak about the project. After a few questions <br /> of Mr. King from the Board, it was moved by Mr. Kroeger, seconded by <br /> Mr. Jackson, that the Board accept the staff's recommendation for this <br /> project. There being no further discussion, the motion was passed on <br /> a unanimous voice vote. <br /> I/ <br /> The next project which the Board considered was the proposed Ute <br /> Water Conservancy District Project. Mr. Ioannides introduced the <br /> project noting that the total estimated cost of the project is about <br /> $13 million. He went on to state that the staff had made preliminary <br /> contacts with a variety of agencies that may be able to assist in <br /> funding the project, but as of yet nothing definitive had been arranged. <br /> He reported that the staff recommendation was to fund $1 million of <br /> the proposed project at a service charge of 4 percent. <br /> Mr. Stapleton then called upon Mr. Wayne Weathers , Manager of the <br /> Ute Water Conservancy District, who addressed himself at some length <br /> to the domestic water system which the District manages in the Grand <br /> Valley outside of the City of Grand Junction. Considerable discussion <br /> ensued among the Board members and Mr. Weathers concerning the <br /> possible sources of funding for the entire estimated cost of the proj- <br /> ect and the contingencies available to the District should other <br /> funding sources not become available. In general, a number of Board <br /> members expressed concerns about being in a position where the Board had <br /> advanced $1 million to the District to construct some portion of the <br /> total project only to discover that the District could not then obtain <br /> the balance of the funds needed to complete the project. <br /> In the course of the discussion about the proposed Ute Water. <br /> Conservancy District Project, the Board focused attention on the <br /> broader question of the period of time over which the State's offer of <br /> financial assistance should stand. As a result of that discussion, <br /> Mr. Jackson moved, seconded by Mr. Getz, that when the Board recommends <br /> projects to the Legislature it also recommend that the authority for <br /> any given project be terminated as of October 1 of the next succeeding <br /> year should the local sponsoring entity not be able to obtain the <br /> matching monies which it has represented it will use in completing <br /> construction of the project. Said motion was duly passed on a <br /> I/ unanimous voice vote. <br /> The Board then returned to the particulars of the proposed Ute <br /> Water Conservancy District Project. Mr. Vandemoer moved, seconded by <br /> Mr. Jackson, that the staff's recommendation on this project be <br /> accepted by the Board. There being no further discussion, the motion <br /> was passed on a unanimous voice vote. <br /> -9- <br />