Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />increase that amount. Looking ahead by about fifteen years, I think <br />we are talking about a fund that will grow to somewhere between, '.fty <br />and a hundred million dollars. At the present time, we have not <br />expended the authorized amount. There is no point in going to the <br />legislature at this time to ask for any increase. Utah charges no <br />interest rate for state funds. However, under the revolving fund <br />concept it appears that it is the responsibility of this board to keep <br />that ten million dollars intact. We will have some losses. Our present <br />policy is to contribute up to fifty percent of the cost of the feasi- <br />bility investigation. That will run anywhere from two thousand to <br />thirty thousand dollars, depending upon the magnitude of the study. It <br />is a certainty that all of the projects that we investigate will not <br />prove to be financially feasible. When that is the case, we lose the <br />money that we put into the feasibility study. We feel that there is <br />some requirement to charge at least a minimum amount of interest in <br />order to recoup the losses that the funo' will have. <br /> <br />This year the Governor prepared a budg~t and directed'that the agencies <br />of the executive department adhere to that budget. Under the reorga- <br />nization act, this board became an agency of the executive department. <br />The Governor allocated for our construction fund this year the sum of <br />$1,200,000. When I met with the Governor I explained to him that the <br />estimate that we made six months ago was an estimate only. We actually <br />requested two million dollars in our original budget. As a result of <br />the completed feasibility reports, our fund estimate is $1,450,000. <br />As I understand, the Governor has no serious objection to this amount. <br />We have to present that budget to the Joint Budget Committee this <br />coming Tuesday. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Based upon the facts that we have at this time and the available finan- <br />cing, we have recommended the construction of three projects, Allens- <br />park, Meeker, and Gunnison in that order of priority. Under the <br />legislative act, we are required to attach priorities to each funding <br />request. <br /> <br />A summary of the Allenspark project is before you. (See Appendix B). <br />Allenspark is a small community in Boulder county, about thirteen miles <br />south of Estes Park. There is no community water system in that area <br />at this time. Water is obtained from a system of individual pipelines, <br />garden hoses, and what have you, and some shallow wells along Willow <br />Creek, which flow through Allenspark. In the winter time, most of the <br />lines freeze and the permanent inhabitants depend on shallow wells. <br />In some cases, these wells are in close proximity to septic tanks. It <br />is a situation which we believe should be remedied. We believe that <br />the development of adequate and safe domestic water supplies should have <br />first priority. <br /> <br />The project designed for Allenspark will meet health standards and we <br />think it is critically needed by the inhabitants of that area. With <br />that, I will close on Allenspark. There may be someone here, Mr. <br />Chairman, who wishes to speak to this project. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Is there anyone here that would like to speak to <br />Allenspark'{ <br /> <br />-28- <br />