HomeMy Public PortalAboutTBM 1985-05-20TOWN BOARD 410
May 20, 1985
Attendance at the meeting were Mayor Jensen Sue Buchheister,
Clif Clayton. All other board members are out of town and can not have
a meeting. Mayor Jensen did however ask for the reports from those
individuals that have been asked to attend this meeting.
Scott Robertson and Vicki Mattox representing the bonding Co.
Kirschner Moore. This Co. has represented the last two bonds
financing on the water project. Robertson reported that upon review
of the Town financial standing with regards to sales tax increases
as well as property tax increases he offered to refinance the bond
refunding issue thereby releasing the pledged sales tax committment,
and the $100,000 reserve fund requirements of the contract. The interest
rates are low at this point in time. Scott does not know if in fact
the town had any capital projects in mind to use or need this money or
futher bonding needs for other capital outlay projects. The refinancing
would result in a savings of over $62,500, however the present savings
value is $21,300. The main idea of this plan is to tap a good low interest
market at this time anddrelease the town from pledged monies to facilitate
needed capital project that need financing.
Peter Bock, the town police officer gave the April Stats. Boch reported
that he would monitor the hours spent in town by himself or other officers
as the board expressed an interest in these figures.
Stan Cazier and Ed Opitz report and reviewed the water rights and the
methods of planning for the growth planned and relation of well water
rights.
Cazier reviewed the minimum stream flow that are presently being discussed
at the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The town will first of all
need to make comment to these figures so that they are not to high, and
next to process any growth plans with relation to water rights,
file alternate points of diversion from the 2.28 cfs water rights to
the well sights Nos. 1 -9. Presently alternate points of diversion have
not been granted by the water court on these wells, and no decission
with the augumentation plan as yet. Need futher review on the most senior
water right, as to file a alternate point of diversion to these 1 thru 9
well sites. It has not yet been fully analyzed as to the 2.28 cfs
rights because the rights are junior to some downstream and may only
be able to use