My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
March 11 08 South Platte Basin Roundtable Meet
CWCB
>
Basin Roundtables
>
DayForward
>
March 11 08 South Platte Basin Roundtable Meet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 4:57:05 PM
Creation date
3/24/2008 3:41:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Basin Roundtables
Basin Roundtable
South Platte
Title
March 08 Minutes
Date
3/11/2008
Basin Roundtables - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Jerke: Votuig members, please move to table. <br />RE: Strategy: vote on prioritize these to begin with. <br />Shimmin: Review of Bylaws: Motion needs 60% of those voting; votes by voice <br />or hand show unless secret ballot requested; no substitute or proxy for absent <br />member. <br />Tom Iseman: Do we need to reuse or abstain? <br />Jerke: That is personal decision. <br />Shimmin: Nothing in bylaws. <br />Harold Evans: part of authorizing statute, each roundtable must have needs <br />assessment; Upper Mtn Counties do not have a needs assessment; should have <br />separate discussion. <br />Bruce Gerk: Agrees with focus on needs assessment. <br />Fred Walker: Perhaps should discuss this first <br />Jerke: Focus on process: two tiered voting; to see if anything is thrown out and <br />where strengths lie. <br />Shimmin: Perhaps that we should start with first priority, and vote first, then to <br />see what is left. Needs assessment is not optional; we are charged to complete a <br />needs assessment; we have identified this as a basic needs and need to do this <br />independent of anythung else. <br />MOTION: <br />Shimmin: Move that we approve Upper Mtn County Needs Assessment. <br />Jim Yahn: Second to approve plan of study of Upper Mountain Counties for <br />$130,753 <br />Sasha Charney: I agree; also agree that the project is something that would be <br />usefiil not only here but throughout the state. <br />Fred Walker: Only problem, is that there is no cash coming from these particular <br />counties; therefore, not supportive of funding 100%; <br />Harold: Counter that all other counties have had their needs assessment with state <br />funds; <br />Tom Iseman: There were other hinds available for those counties, yes? <br />Jerke: If this is accepted, $265,000 left. <br />John Stencil: Agree with Fred, perhaps a lesser amount would be better, and thus <br />we could fund others. Thus would like to amend motion that Upper Mtn County <br />would be reduced to an even $100,000 <br />Fred Walker: Seconds <br />Jerke: This would be a substitute motion. <br />Jolm Tighe: Don't l~1ow if this is enough to complete that study, thus perhaps <br />study would need to be withdrawn. <br />Shimmin: Other basins are using lots more money for needs assessment and have <br />received other money from state wide account; my understanding is that other <br />basins have not received money from counties; seem like we are behind the curve <br />here: la7ow that Gunnison needs assessment is complicated; it will take 6 months <br />to do this study. We need to complete this piece of our needs assessment; <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.