Laserfiche WebLink
domestic water treatment and distributions systems not be • <br /> eligible for Board construction funds. This action was upheld by <br /> the General Assembly and thereby eliminated a source of Board <br /> funds for these purposes. <br /> Legislation introduced in the 1983 Session providing for <br /> State funds for municipal and domestic water projects failed to <br /> pass. During subsequent discussion it was emphasized that the <br /> need for such funds is urgent, totaling about $70 million last <br /> year. Irrespective of this need, no Board action was taken since <br /> legislation enacted in 1982 prohibits the Board from recommending <br /> funding for domestic water treatment and distribution systems <br /> from the construction fund. <br /> Agenda Item 13 - Construction Fund Procedures <br /> 1. Financial need as a prerequisite to funding <br /> Mr. McDonald discussed this item in his December 21, 1983 <br /> memorandum to the Board which raised two questions: (1) Should <br /> the Board recommend projects for funding from financially af- <br /> fluent applicants, and (2) Should the Board fund more than one <br /> project for the same entity. (Appendix G attached. ) <br /> Following discussion, Board members agreed that the staff <br /> should consider financial need when recommending projects for <br /> funding. Also by consensus, the Board instructed the staff to • <br /> give this issue further consideration and present ideas and pro- <br /> cedures to the Board at the March 1984 meeting. <br /> 2. Procedures for ensuring authority of an entity to con- <br /> tract with CWCB <br /> Mr. McDonald briefly discussed the memorandum from the <br /> Attorney General ' s office outlining steps to be taken by the City <br /> of Louisville and the Town of Larkspur before the state enters <br /> into a contract with them. (Appendix H attached) . <br /> The staff had determined that the procedures outlined should <br /> be used for all contracts and it recommends that the Attorney <br /> General ' s office require similar steps for all future CWCB con- <br /> tracts. <br /> Mr. Johnston moved, seconded by Mr. Robbins that the <br /> Attorney General ' s recommendation be accepted and that the <br /> conditions outlined in his memorandum be required from proponents <br /> of all projects . Motion adopted by unanimous voice vote. <br /> Agenda Item 14 - Review of Louisville (Harper) Reservoir <br /> Authorization <br /> As noted in Mr. McDonald' s December 20, 1983 memo to the <br /> Board, the enlargement of Harper Lake is a project of Louisville, • <br /> -14- <br />