Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t <br /> <br />I <br />"l <br /> <br />-- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />June 14,2002 <br /> <br />!RECEIVED <br />~UN 1 Q 2002 <br /> <br />Board of Directors <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />1313 Sherman Street, Rm, 720 <br />Denver, CO 80203 GvIomilOWaterConservatlon Board <br />, RECEIVED <br />RE: MOU between the Authonty and CWCB dated December 5, 1997 <br />JUN 1 8 2002 <br /> <br />Lady and Gentlemen: <br /> <br />CGlomdo Water ConservaUon Board <br />As you may know, in January of2002, at the Colorado Water Congress annual meeting in <br />Northglenn, Dan Law, the Executive Director of the Colorado Water Resources and Power <br />Development Authority ("Authority"), and I met with Harold Miskel and Rod Kuharich of the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB") to discuss the possible termination of the <br />existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOD) between the Authority and the CWCB, dated <br />December 5, 1997. A copy of that MOU is enclosed with this letter. The MOU addressed <br />limitations on the Authority with respect to planning studies, as well as cooperation between the <br />Authority and the CWCB in considering financing of water infrastructure projects of <br />governmental agencies to ensure that, as required by statute, all other means of fmancing be <br />explored before use is made of CWCB Construction Fund monies for such projects. Specifically, <br />the MOU set forth a procedure for determining whether fmancing for a project might be feasible <br />through the Authority's bond programs, which leverage public funds with private capital for <br />credit-worthy entities at a multiple of from 3: 1 to more than 10:.1, instead of through the CWCB_ <br />Construction Fund, which does not leverage the public funds, <br /> <br />We further discussed at that Northglenn meeting the potential effect of the CWCB's <br />Construction Fund bill, HB02-1152, then pending in the General Assembly, and whether, should <br />that legislation pass, termination of the MOU would be appropriate. At that time it was agreed <br />among the 4 participants that nothing would be done further on the issue until the final <br />disposition of the legislation. <br /> <br />Since HB02-1152 has now been enacted, thereby removing the statutOl)' requirement that <br />all other means of financing be explored before use is made of CWCB Construction Fund <br />monies, the Board of Directors of the Authority again reviewed the MOU at its June 7 and 8, <br />2002 meeting and retreat in Pueblo, It is the Authority Board's view that Sections 5, 6 and 7 of <br />the MOU are not being followed by the CWCB and Authority. Equally, it is also the view of the <br />Authority Board that the MOU, and the prior version of the MOU originally executed in 1990, <br />served a useful purpose at the time of signing, but in light of the actual practices of the CWCB <br />and the Authority, and in view of the legislative change referred to above, the MOU has virtually <br />