Laserfiche WebLink
<br />fl :11 1"3 >~ <br /> <br />The power investment of $431355,000 including interest. during cons~ruc- <br />tion can be repaid, with interest at 2~ percent on the unp~d balance, In a <br />period of 44 years after a nine-year develoPQBnt period. Following repay- <br />ment of the power investment, net por,er revenues would be applied on' the <br />irrigation investmont for IB years, paying a total amount of ~27,B47JOOO. <br /> <br />The municipal water invostment of $34,31BIOOO including interest dur- <br />ing construction can be repaid, ~~th interest at 2~ percent, over a period <br />of 51 years following a 14 year development period. Follovang repayment <br />of the municipal water investment, net revenues would be applied to the irri- <br />gation debt for a period of 6 yoars, paying a total amount of $6,BB5,000. <br /> <br />That part of the irrigation investment borne by tho irrigation bene- <br />ficiaries amounting to ~43,540JoOO would be repaid .vithout intorest in a <br />period of 70 years. <br /> <br />The source and amount of annual irrigation and municipal v~tor reve- <br />nues showing the amounts of water delivered and the rate charged, are <br />shovm in tabulations at the bcttom of tho Financial Study.' The gross and <br />net annual revenue derived fram the'salo of electric pO";ler, the saleable <br />firm and secondary energy and rates, and the annual operation, maintenance <br />and replacement costs arc sho~n in table 5A, P~"er Systcnl Average Rate and <br />Repayment Study No.1-A. <br /> <br />4. (a) Question - In view of doubt expressed in project plarming re- <br />port as to whether municipal ~ater supply facilities would be constructed <br />and finanoed as a part of the project or v~uld be built and financed in- <br />dependontly by cities and towns, and the policy of the present administra- <br />tion favoring construction of public vrorks by non-Federal agencies where <br />able, what would be the effect on the financial feasibility and the <br />financial program of the proposod project if the municipal water supply <br />features were eliminated? <br /> <br />Answer - AssUl!ling that the municipal water supply facilities costin.: <br />$22,124,000 would be constructed and financed independently by the cities <br />and towns, the total estimted construction cost of the Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />Project would be S155,30B,000 based on October 1953 prices. Project v~ter <br />would be delivered to Pueblo and the valley tmms at Pueblo Reservoir in <br />the same amounts as envisioned in the planning report. Water to replace <br />increased diversions by Colorado Springs and other communities would be <br />purchased from the project. This service would share in the construction <br />cost of tho joint vator supply and storago facilities. The cost of those <br />joint facilities allocated to lllunicipal water would be ~:;ll,485,lOO includ- <br />ing intp;est during c<;msiruction and would be repaid by thQ municipal \'~tor <br />usors V/J. th J.nterest at c;J ~Grcont on the unpaid balance. The power. irri- <br />go.tion, flood control and ~ish o.nd wildlife irwestmonts ,:ould remain unchangGd. <br /> <br />The power investment would be repaid ,oath interest at 2~ percent in a <br />period of 44 years folloning a developmont period of nine yco.rs. Fol- <br />Im.1ng repayment of the~pm{er investmGnt net revenuos vouid be a2pliDd <br />on the irrigation debt ror 20 yeats paying a total of \;29,713,992. The <br />municipo.l \'later investment of ~;1l,485,100, would be repaid in the 62nd <br /> <br />- 3 - <br />