Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7 <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 />the Montrose request be deauthorized. John? <br /> <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: Bill, has any money been spent on <br /> <br /> <br />these projects in terms of feasibility reports? <br /> <br /> <br />HR. McDONP..LD: Nick, could you -- <br />MR. IOANNIDES: Yes. <br />!1R. !kDONALD: -- advise us please? <br />MR. IOANNIDES: There has been about -- I think abou <br />six to eight thousand dollars -- I'milot quite sure of the <br /> <br /> <br />figure -- that has already been spent on the project as <br /> <br /> <br />the State's share towards the feasibility study and it's <br /> <br /> <br />taken by CH2M-Hill. <br />MR. FETCHER: On which projects? <br /> <br /> <br />!'f.R. IOANNIDES: On the Montrose project. Now, on <br /> <br /> <br />the Keenesburg -- let me find which one. On the Brighton <br /> <br /> <br />project we have participated to the extent of $1,950 <br /> <br /> <br />and the" Keenesburg, I think we have participated to the <br /> <br />extent of about $3,000. I'm not quite sure of the figure. <br /> <br /> <br />MR. FETC~ER: I think that those costs are subject <br />to under agenda item. <br /> <br />MR. McDONALD: They are indeed, because this is a <br /> <br /> <br />good example of why that item is later on the agenda. <br /> <br />It's SA, John. We're beginning to run into this <br /> <br />circumstance where for a number of reasons a project in <br /> <br />whose feasibility study we have participated is not <br /> <br />constructed, or at least is not constructed with Board <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />