My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00003
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2010 3:55:23 PM
Creation date
9/30/2006 9:58:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
1982
Title
Construction Fund Annual Report 1982
CWCB Section
Finance
Author
CWCB
Description
Construction Fund Annual Report 1982
Publications - Doc Type
CF Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />(2) Repairs and rehabilitation: <br /> <br />Rio Grande <br />Overland <br />Waneka <br />Groundhog <br />cossil Creek <br />Beeman <br /> <br />$ 1,135,000 <br />858,000 <br />619,000 <br />125,000 <br />2,057,000 <br />110,000 <br />~4,904,000 <br /> <br />$42,374,000 <br /> <br />TOTAL <br /> <br />The Overland and Waneka projects are listed under both categories <br />because they encompass the repair of existing dams as well as <br />provision for new capacity at those reservoirs. Thus, total <br />construction costs have been allocated between the two functions. <br /> <br />Recommendations <br /> <br />1. With respect to the Erie, Craig, Waneka Reservoir, <br />Groundhog Reservoir, Fossil Creek Reservoir, and 'Beeman <br />IrrIgation Company projects, all of which are proposed for <br />authorization on a 50 percent cost-sharing basis, the staff <br />recommends that these projects be recommended to the General <br />Assembly for authorization under the terms set forth in the <br />summary for each project. <br /> <br />2. With respect to the Fruitland-Mesa, Rio Grande <br />Reservoir, and Overland Reservoir projects, whose sponsors are <br />proposing financing terms not presently authorized by statute, it <br />would appear that the Board has several options open to It: <br /> <br />d. Decline to recommend the projects at all. <br /> <br />b. Recommend the projects for 50 percent financing, <br />with repayment of the Board's investment to be <br />made (as presently required by statute). <br /> <br />c. Recommend the projects for more than 50 percent <br />financing, with repayment of the Board's investment <br />to be made (possible under present law). <br /> <br />d. Recommend the projects for 50 to 100 percent <br />financing, with some portion of the Board's <br />investment being non-reimburable. <br /> <br />e. Forward the projects to the General Assembly for <br />Its consideration without any recommendation from <br />the Board. <br /> <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.