My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00961
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD00961
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:56:18 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:47:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/22/2003
Description
Flood Section - Probable Maximum Precipitation Site-Specific Study for the Cherry Creek Reservoir-Study Findings and Recommendations
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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 />SEma.SIX <br /> <br />Final Two Organizational Alternatives <br /> <br />Table 7 <br />Comparison of Stand Alone Grand Junction Drainage District and Drainage Authority <br />with the Grand Junction Drainage District as an Operational Arm <br /> <br /> Cl C2 <br />Issue Drainage Authority with Grand Grand Junction Drainage Comments <br /> Junction Drain32,e District District <br />I. Additional Funding The Drainage Authority would The District would implement a If the District implemented a Water Activity <br /> implement a water activity water activity enterprise and a Enterprise service fee within its boundaries, it may <br /> enterprise and a service fee on all service fee on all properties not be political1y acceptable to the other <br /> properties within an area agreed within its current boundaries by jurisdictions. <br /> upon by the 5 entities in a formal action of the Board of Directors. Implementation of a Water Activity Enterprise <br /> contract. service fee by a Drainage Authority may be more <br /> politicaJly acceptable because the 5 entities would <br /> have to agree by contract on the fee. <br />2. Allocation of portion of This would be accomplished by This would be accomplished by Similar except that the study area outside the <br />additional funding back having each jurisdiction set-up a having each jurisdiction set-up a District would be difficult to obtain funding from <br />to each of 5 jurisdictions Water Activity Enterprise. The Water Activity Enterprise. The under C2. <br />for use on local activities Drainage Authority's Water District's Water Activity <br />(if desired) Activity Enterprise could then Enterprise could then allocate <br /> allocate funds back to each Water funds back to each Water Activity <br /> Activity Enterprise without Enterprise without impacting <br /> impacting TABOR. TABOR. <br />3. Board of Directors Composition would be decided by Current board of three elected A better representation of the interests of the 5 <br />Composition the 5 entities and stated in a people from within the District entities would he under a Drainage Authority <br /> Drainage Authority Contract. boundaries or create new board board as it could be designed in the contract to <br /> by legislation. provide such representation. <br />4. Control of Funding The board of a Drainage The existing District board would See answer to Issue 1. <br />Decisions Authority would have control of have control of the funds <br /> the funds collected within its collected within its boundaries. <br /> boundaries. <br /> . <br /> <br />T:\PROJECTS\222J60n_ GRAND_ VAllEY'.SUB_ OO\6.0_PROJ_DElIV\FINAL REPORT\f'INAL REPT REV 4.DOC\9.JUL..Q3\\ 6- 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.