My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00451
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00451
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:50:14 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:38:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/31/1979
Description
Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Construction Fund would do is to reduce the surplus, and that is all. <br />That is attractive then toa great many of the legislators. <br /> <br />, <br />The problem w~ll be before the Appropriations Committees of the House <br />and Senate. You will notice the bill was first sent to the Committee on <br />Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Energy. That committee considered <br />the bill and adopted some amendments to it, actually. increasing the <br />amount of projects that we had in there, and reported it out unanimously. <br />It now goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee, and that will be the <br />big hurdle in the Senate, although we do not anticipate any great <br />prOblem with the Senate Appropriations Committee. <br /> <br />We have not yet had a date set for the hearings before the Appropriations <br />Committee. That committee is swamped with a great volume of work, and <br />we don't know when they will take it up. I have been trying to urge the <br />Senate to take it up at the earliest possible date, because it would be <br />very advantageous to us to have some decision on this bill by the time <br />of the hearings this year in Congress on the Public Works Appropriations. <br />Those hearings will be held in early April. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Is there a necessity or is it desirable that we have an <br />expression from this board now as to this particular bill, or should we <br />wait until the other bills crystallize in the Legislature? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: I think this is going to be it. The other bills are much <br />smaller in scope; S.B. 325 is the only qne .that"has a number. of sponsors. <br />The other bills only have one or two sponsors. I think this is the bill <br />that we should go with, and it is in accordance with the Governor's <br />recommendation to the General Assembly. The Governor was not in favor <br />of taking a portion of the severance tax. <br /> <br />MR. VANDEMOER: Mr. Chairman, I would move then that we support this <br />bill. <br /> <br />MR. GORMLEY: I second that. <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: I.have a question. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Yes, Mr. Fetcher. <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: I note in reading the bill that the Legislature has <br />reserved the right to approve the individual projects. Is there any <br />possibility that that authorization might be delegated to this board? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: I think not. No matter what we do it requires <br />appropriation. I think that is a good provision, actually~ <br />created no problem for us whatsoever. <br /> <br />an annual <br />It has <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: The only prOblem it creates is about a year's. delay in any <br />project, isn't it? I mean, if we recommend a project, let's say in the <br />fall, you don't get authorization for it until spring. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: . That's true. But, generally, that is not much of a delay, <br />because we are in a nonworking season anyway. We can't work on these <br /> <br />-5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.