Board Meeting 11/03/1983

• Board Meeting Date: 11/3/1983
• Description: Minutes, Agenda, Memorandums November 03,04, 1983
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

Mr. Jencsok briefly explained the case and recommended
approval of the proposed stipulation. •
Motion was made to accept staff recommendation, however,
Mr. Robbins requested that the 3rd paragraph be revised to permit
applicant to divert when flow is greater than 20 cfs .
Motion by: Mr. Jackson
Seconded by: Mr. Furneaux
Approved: Unanimously
10f. Informational Item
Mr. Jencsok briefly outlined the informational items
described in the memo the Board. No action was required on this
item.
Agenda Item 11 - Review of Construction Fund Procedures
Chairman Vandemoer asked Mr. McDonald to discuss this item.
Mr. McDonald indicated that this item relates to Board
considerations at the May 3, 1983 meeting at which construction
fund legal issues were discussed. Following the May meeting,
Mr. McDonald discussed the question, "Title to Project Features"
with the Attorney General and members of his staff but because of
the many legal ramifications involved, no final decision had been •
reached prior to the July 7, 1983 Board meeting. At that meeting
the Board members requested that Mr. McDonald follow up on this
question and seek an opinion from the Attorney General.
Mr. Paddock reported that he had done considerable research
on this question prior to and after the July Board meeting but to
date has been unable to reach any firm conclusions . The
legislation creating the construction fund is restrictive in the
manner in which the Board can take a security interest in the
program because some of the language suggests that the Board
itself is to be the contractor or the party who can construct the
projects . For example, Section 37-60-120 of the statutes states
that the State shall have the ownership and control of such
portions of the project as will assure repayment of funds made
available under Section 37-60-119. This language is multiplicate
in that contemplates taking an ownership interest, but at the
same time it implies that the Board take such interest to repay
or secure repayment of the moneys made available. Similar
language problems arise in Section 37-60-122 which directs the
Board to construct projects in the order of priorities
established by the General Assembly.
Following further discussion, it was the consensus of the
members that the staff together with Mr. Paddock prepare possible
language changes to correct the ambiguities in the statute for •
-8-