Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the contract, we then convey that 'state ownership to the local sponsor. <br />But if funds are appropr;i.ated through this fund, they must be returned., <br />That is completely within the discretion of the legislature. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br />But to answ,er your question more specifically: Yes" the state legisla- <br />ture could direct that some of these projects be funded through direct <br />grants. However, in most cases, we are getting direct grants for these <br />projects from the federal government. In almost every. case, we are <br />getting some type of grant from the federal government. So in very few <br />cases, would the project sponsor have to pay back the entire cost. <br /> <br />. <br />MR. KROEGER: Should all of these projects be funded through, the twelve <br />you have outlined today, we essentially eat ~p, use up, our entire ten <br />million dollar commitment that the legislature made in 1971, or whatever <br />it was, and we then would not be able to fund any more'projects until <br />the revolving fund - and you ,call it not a loan ~ and technically I <br />don't know the difference, but we would not be able to. do anything more <br />then until that has revolved back and we have some funds again available. <br /> <br />It would seem like the Mineral Leasing Act would provide money over and <br />above the ten million dollars that was committed to us by the state. I <br />am asking if we have to use it that way, because we are limiting our <br />potential development. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: We are operating under the only statutory authority t:hat <br />we have. We have no other statutory authority to construct projects <br />other than what's contained in the present law. ~ <br /> <br />We still have monies coming back in, ~tarting next year as lease money <br />for projects we have already constructed. That money then can in turn <br />be put right out again to construct other projects. <br /> <br />However, I am of the firm opinion that the ten million dollar limitation <br />is too low. As soon as we get ten million dollars committed, I think <br />we ask the legislature to raise that to twenty million dollars. Ten <br />million dollars is peanuts any more. <br /> <br />But there is no point in asking. that until we get fully committed on <br />the ten million. I think the legislature is sympathetic to this problem. <br />They enacted this law in the first place,. I have talked to a good many <br />legislators about it and they have said, '~en you have demonstrated to <br />us that you have already utilized your full appropriation, come back and <br />we'll consider raising that." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. ' <br />Just because it's a limitation today, I don't think it's necessarily a <br />limitation next year. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Any other questions before.we begin consideration of the <br />projects? <br /> <br />MR. BENTON: I understand that we're not loaning any money, but I see <br />that the repayment schedules h?ve an amortization rate there. What rate <br />is used? <br /> <br />-7- <br />