Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CWCB, Members <br />September 3, 1980 <br />Page five <br /> <br />Municipal and Domestic Water - 4 percent <br />Overruns of cost ceiling 5 percent <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />1. Limitation on State funds for anyone project. <br /> <br />From applications received since enactment of Senate Bills 537 and 149, <br />it is obvious that future proposed projects will require substantially increased <br />funding. In order to meet the needs for financial assistance for the larger and more <br />complex projects, the staff recommends that the Board's financial participation be <br />increased to fifty-percent of the cost of a proposed project but not to exceed <br />$5,000,000 for each project. <br /> <br />2. Service Charges. <br /> <br />The staff recommends that the service charges adopted at the December, <br />1979 Board meeting be retained. We have received one application for the construction <br />of a low-head hydroelectric energy facility. We anticipate more applications of this <br />nature and should such project or projects proceed to construction with Board funds, <br />the staff recommends a five percent service charge for this type of project. with <br />the emphasis on energy development, we may receive applications for development of <br />industrial water supplies along with other project purposes. In such cases, we <br />recommend a five percent service charge for industrial water supplies. <br /> <br />3. Preference in Allocation of Fundinq for Pro;ects. <br /> <br />The staff does not advocate the pro-rating of available construction funds <br />to specific project purposes. We foresee situations during certain years where this <br />could result in under-utilization of funds. For example, if a higher percentage of <br />funds were dedicated to irrigation projects and a lesser percentage to municipal and <br />domestic water supply projects, this disparity in the percentage allocation could <br />foreclose, for that year, the availability of funds for needed municipal and domestic <br />water supply projects. We recommend, other things being equal, that multi-purpose <br />projects be given priority within the available funds. Secondly, we recommend that, <br />priorities be established for feasible projects for a given year. If sufficient funds <br />do not become available to construct all projects, we suggest re-prioritizing all <br />projects, including carry-over and new projects the following year. This would eliminate <br />the situation where previously prioritized projects would be accorded a higher priority <br />than new projects. With funds available for this year, this does not present a problem. <br />If in future years, funds become more limited, the staff will develop recommendations <br />to resolve this issue at that time. <br /> <br />JWM: pm <br />