Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Implementation Plan <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />We have outlined the following tasks as part of our implementation strategy "evaluate options, <br />recommend action(s) by 1/2K:" <br /> <br />. Develop and evaluate several options. <br /> <br />. Review options with the appropriate constituencies, including the Colorado Municipal <br />League, the Special Districts Association, the Colorado Water Congress and Colorado <br />Counties, Inc. <br /> <br />. Present options for consideration by the Board and interested constituencies. <br /> <br />. Present Board recommendations to the General Assembly by January I, 2000. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Staff has previously recognized the value of credit reports to evaluate collateral and ability to pay. <br />In 1992, the CWCB staff developed two financial matrices for evaluating municipal projects [see <br />Guidelines, Appendix A]. <br /> <br />In August 1993, we engaged the Division of Local Government (DOLG) to evaluate the credit of <br />a local governmental applicant (Town of Erie) on a trial basis. The idea was to see if we could <br />develop the capability to prepare credit reports for local government applicants on a routine basis. <br />The DOLG prepares such reports for the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development . <br />Authority which administers the Colorado Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund. It was <br />estimated at the time that it would take approximately 0.5 FTE at DOLG to prepare the reports for <br />the local governmental applicants, and DOLG did not possess the institutional knowledge to prepare <br />credit reports for private sector applicants. <br /> <br />We also contacted Dun & Bradstreet Analytical Services to estimate the cost to prepare credit reports <br />on other types ofloan applicants (districts, associations, ditch & reservoir companies, etc.). Once <br />you become a subscriber (for a fee), the cost for a credit report in one of several standard formats <br />ranged from $20 to $90 depending on the level of detail, but the Construction Fund Loan Program <br />needs would probably require a special report at additional expense. These efforts did not proceed <br />because the loan program did not have the FTEs or any readily available way to pay for the services <br />of a private company. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />I recommend that the Board provide feedback to the staff on the issue of evaluating the relative <br />credit worthiness and financial need of applicants either during a brief discussion at the November <br />meeting and/or through written comments and continued discussion at the January meeting. <br /> <br />L:\BOARDMEM\NOV98\12c - Credit.doc <br /> <br />. <br />