Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Agenda Item 4 <br />September 13, 1991 <br /> <br />supply among the various interests cannot be made at this time and is one of the <br />elements of the investigation; however, some of the supply will be allocated to <br />irrigation, which may adversely affect project financial feasibility. The major potential <br />source of revenue is from municipal use by the Ute Conservancy District, but that <br />district would not be able to commit to financing a project at this time without <br />considering other alternatives for its system expansion. <br /> <br />Consequently, the proposed scope of work is divided into two phases. The first <br />phase would be an appraisal level of analysis that should result in sufficient data to <br />deteIDline the financial feasibility of the project before proceeding with the more <br />detailed engineering analyses. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />The proposed financial contribution by the Board is a relatively modest one <br />and the effort to be pursued is enlightened and technically sound. The dilemma which <br />arises over the endangered fish impacts is tempered by the willingness of the <br />proponents to consider allocating some storage capacity for fish releases. The effect <br />of that on project economics can only be determined by proceeding with the analysis. <br />Likewise the willingness of the Ute Conservancy District to commit to development <br />of potential municipal use cannot be determined without the analysis. I am <br />disappointed that the contribution of the Ute District is so small in relation to its <br />potential interest in the ultimate project. This Board is being asked to provide a large <br />sum in relation to that being provided by potential beneficiaries. <br /> <br />I support a contribution by the Board to the feasibility study but I believe the <br />Board should discuss the appropriate level of that contribution in relation to the other <br />parties. There should be clarifications sought from the proponents about the potential <br />for repayment of the Board's contribution under our normal procedures since that is <br />not identified in the materials provided. <br /> <br />If the Board decides to support the feasibility study I suggest that the <br />contribution be offered in two parts, one being to the initial Phase I and the <br />remainder for Phase II should Phase II proceed. My suggestion is based on a belief <br />that the results of Phase I may be unfavorable and that the Board should not commit <br />its funds to the overall effort without a confirmation of the desirability to undertake <br />the entire study. <br /> <br />-2- <br />