Laserfiche WebLink
<br />36 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br /> <br />to a long term, five-year program that will tie up one <br /> <br />point two million dollars on the books that may never <br /> <br />come to pass, I would recommend that what we want to do <br /> <br />is what I think your second motion was, and that was <br /> <br />participate only in the first stage. <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: Yes. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. McDONALD: If they come back for the second <br /> <br />stage, we'll have to bring the project back and make <br /> <br />a successive recommendation -- <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: Can you put better words to it? That's <br /> <br />what I want to do. <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: Do we have some wording that we might <br /> <br />could -- <br /> <br />MR. GORMLEY: Could I ask a question? Because we <br /> <br />have money which was not in this system at all before, <br /> <br />I gather, are we by accepting this prioritizing -- this <br /> <br />project now so that if you come back in another year <br /> <br />are you go~ng to have to put them through the priority <br /> <br />process? <br /> <br />I think you've got a two stage deal. You're approvin <br /> <br />the Highland Lake project, but when they come back in <br /> <br />future years do they come back in in a favored position <br /> <br />on the priority list? <br />MR. McDONALD: I think if the recommendation we make, <br /> <br />Pat, is to authorize stage 1 of the Highland Lake Ditch <br />