Laserfiche WebLink
objection, Mr. Don Luster, Chairman of the Fountain Creek Commission in <br /> Pueblo, proceeded to describe the project. A flood control reservoir <br /> was intially approved by Congress , but never funded. Subsequently, an <br /> alternative was identified which would channelize the Creek to handle a <br /> flow of 72,000 cfs . This alternative has the advantage of not requiring <br /> major bridge reconstruction and the cost-benefit ratio is superior. <br /> The Corps of Engineers proposes to recommend the channelization project <br /> to Congress for inclusion in the federal FY 81 budget. <br /> I/ <br /> Mr. Luster noted that there had been extensive public discussion <br /> and that a concensus had been reached in support of the project. Mr. <br /> Jackson confirmed the public interest in the project and expressed his <br /> support. He moved adoption of a resolution of support (attachment J) , <br /> which motion was seconded by Mr. Kroeger. There being no further dis- <br /> cussion, the motion was approved on a unanimous voice vote. <br /> Chairman Stapleton then asked for a report on the status of Board <br /> projects . Mr. McDonald discussed the Meadow Creek project (attachment <br /> K) , a reservoir project with irrigation and municipal water supply <br /> purposes in North Park, south of Walden. Mr. McDonald expressed con- <br /> cern that there would be a potential for private "windfall" profits <br /> from land development around the reservoir since it is located on private <br /> land. The staff recommendation is that the Board should not support <br /> projects where such circumstances are possible. He proposed that the <br /> staff be instructed to work with the local sponsor to resolve the issue. <br /> After considerable discussion, Mr. Kroeger moved that the Board <br /> accept the Director's recommendation that the staff be instructed to <br /> work with the local sponsor. Mr. Gormley seconded the motion. There <br /> being no further discussion, the motion passed on a unanimous voice <br /> vote. <br /> Mr. McDonald then discussed five projects previously authorized <br /> (attachment L) . He reported that the Keenesburg and Brighton projects , <br /> authorized in 1977, had been constructed and completed with funding <br /> from other sources . He recommended that the Board request the General <br /> Assembly to de-authorize those two projects so that the funds can be <br /> made available for other projects . Mr. Vandemoer so moved, seconded <br /> by Mr. Kroeger. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. <br /> Mr. McDonald then pointed out that three other projects , Hotchkiss , <br /> Montrose, and. Bennett, were inactive and had been deferred on several <br /> occasions. The staff recommended that these three entities be informed <br /> that unless they were under contract by November, 1980 , to initiate <br /> construction, then the Board would give consideration to recommending <br /> their de-authorization. Mr. Getz moved that the staff so proceed. Mr. <br /> Gormley seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the <br /> -4- <br />