Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />1.65:1 is significantly better than that for the Bureau project <br />which is below unity. <br /> <br />Mr. Pascoe then summarized the various proposals. One group <br />includes traditional construction fund requests, A second <br />applies a new concept of federal cost-sharing with a state <br />front-end contribution to gain leverage in federal funding. A <br />third includes state purchase of storage capacity in a darn repair <br />project. A fourth group would increase the proportion of state <br />involvement, and a related group would require a grant because of <br />very limited repayment capacity, Further the five-year capital <br />investment information item portrays the the longer range <br />implications of decisions to begin construction now and to pursue <br />some water development objectives previously identified by the <br />Board, <br /> <br />One question was raised over what protection the state would <br />receive against an extension of a repayment period and against a <br />more significant contribution required for some proposals. The <br />Board then ceased that discussion with continuation on Friday, <br /> <br />The Board turned to agenda item 9, a request by the Town of <br />Parachute to amend its projects. There being no representative <br />of the community present, the matter received no further <br />consideration, <br /> <br />The Board then considered agenda item 11, Mr. Walker <br />referred the members to the background memorandum on the item <br />which describes a shortcoming in the existing guidance on the <br />economic, environmental, and financial elements of feasibility <br />assessment, With the increasing size and complexity of projects, <br />additional parameters are needed to assure that adequate analysis <br />is performed for specific projects and for comparison of projects <br />for priority ranking. <br /> <br />In the discussion, the members observed that additional <br />analysis would have been helpful in the preceding presentations, <br />In particular, more thorough review of water rights yields is <br />essential. At the conclusion, Mr, Furneaux moved that the staff <br />be authorized to contract under regular state bidding procedures <br />for an analysis of project evaluation elements to complement the <br />existing technical guidance and that funding shall be from the <br />construction fund. Mr. Kroeger seconded the motion, The motion <br />carried by unanimous voice vote. <br /> <br />The status of S.B. 439 feasibility studies was then <br />described by Mr, Walker. He reported that contracts have been <br />approved for the Una project and are ready for execution next <br />week for the Yellow Jacket and Cache la poudre studies. The <br />Hardin contract is also nearly ready for processing. The <br />organization of advisory groups and other activities was <br />described, by Mr. Dan Law, project manager for the Una and Yellow <br /> <br />-7- <br />