BOARD01372

• Board Meeting Date: 11/17/1976
• Description: Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

MR. SPARKS: We're obligated to kee~the fund whole. We're going to
lose some money. We've already lost some money. That comes about
because some. projects thatweconduct,theafeasibilitycinv~stigagion~~~,
on are not constructed. So we lose that money. We are making charges
that we consider more than sufficient to keep the fund,:whole.

The way those charges are computed is based upon ,the ability to pay.
We work backwards. That is, we put, a limit on what we think people can
afford to pay' fo~water. Let's say in the Allensp,ark area, where there
is mos,tly ,an elderly retired community, we said, 'We don" t think those '
people can afford to pay more than twelve dollars a month for water."

.
We ,- 'therefore, worked backw{1rds from that figure, to arrive at'the
charges that, we made against them. And we did the 'same way down at
Greetville. That's a community where the average income is about, two
thousand dollars' 'a year. They are mostly retired coal miners and di.s-
advantaged people. - We' computed the' rate that the maximum they could p'ay
,was about five dollars a month for water. We' 'based our amortization '
charges working backwards from that point. We think that's the only way
we can do it.- The rate will vary depending on what we', consider the-
ability to pay for any given project. ' That's a judgment factor' but we
go pretty deeply into the 'economics of any given area - the outstanding
bond indebtedness, and the average income per capita of that area and
other factors upon which we base a judgment as to the financial ability
to ,pay. '

While you have before you, just brief summaries of these projects, we have
the full voluminous reports containing the complete economic and,finan-
cial data on all of these proj~cts. ,They go into,great detail on the
economics and the ability to pa~ in the community,involved. '

So we assess a higher rate, for instance, in Gunnison than we did at
Greetville or,Allenspark, just as an example. '

MR. FETCHER: I have a question. . In explaining the two amendments that
were passed at the last session of Congress, I think you said,in the
second amendment, which appears to be the governing one, that the funds
were restricted to energy impacted areas. Is that correct?

.
MR. SPARKS: No, not restricted,. The law merely says, "giving priority
to, the energy impacted areas," which means that that is completely then
within the discretion of the state legislature.
, ,

MR. FETCHER: Oka~.
MR. STAPLETON: Mr. Moses.

MR. MOSES ::' In response to Mr. Kroeger I s ques tion about the limitation
of ten million dollars, I know that Wyoming and Utah have had similar
kinds of funds that have existed for a,considerable period of time, and
they have been so successful that the legislature has periodically
raised the ceiling on the funds available. I would suspect that if :it
turns out equally successful in Colorado, that Colo=ado would have the
same kind of reaction from the legislature.

-8-

I

I