Opinion ID: 2014857
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Financially Feasible

Text: The district court found, inter alia, that Gramercy had not met its burden of establishing that its project would remain financially feasible. This finding is amply supported by the record. The regulations state, The resources and proposed means of financing the proposed project must in fact be available. 182 Neb.Admin.Code, ch. 2, § 005.02C (1983). Additionally, [i]t must be reasonably certain that the proposed project will be financially feasible for the period of life of the assets. Id. In its order, the district court quoted Jacobs' testimony at the hearing before the Review Committee, stating that under at least one analysis, when taking the `capital in minus the lossesthe partners' capital accounts are negative.... There have been more losses than there has been cash contributed.' The district court concluded that the record reflects that if the certificate is granted, Gramercy's total debt will increase to approximately $10,000,000. The losses along with limited capital contributions and increased debt does not suggest financial soundness. A review of the record on appeal reveals that there is sufficient competent evidence to support the district court's finding that Gramercy's project would not remain financially feasible for the life of its assets. Therefore, the district court did not err in finding that Gramercy failed to meet the criteria for a CON set out in §§ 005.02A2 and 005.02C.