Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MR. LEINSDORF: I second the motion. <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: Mr. ~hairman, I want to comment on this thing before we <br />go too far. First of all on the assumption that all twelve of these <br />projects will be funded and there is no money problem, I find nothing <br />objectionable to having Montrose be number twelve and Dove Creek be <br />number one or vice versa. But if, in fact, we end up with one project I <br />like we did in 1974, and two projects like we did in 1975, then, I <br />think we would want-to give ,some consideration:to these. I'm going to <br />make somebody mad 1'm sure, but it would seem to me that the urgency <br />thing over here 'with Delta, Brighton; and Montrose should not take a <br />priority over these little bitty towns that cannot do it on their own <br />go. <br /> <br />So I do think we have a very serious thing. So if in fact we do have <br />adequate funding, there is no problem. Then, I can find no objection. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: I think there could very well .be some problem on the <br />funding. We have no assurances at: all that we are going to get the <br />amount. There is a good chance that.we will get it or at:least a <br />substantial portion of it, but there certainly is .no guarantee. <br /> <br />full <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: I may have misunderstood my own question and your own <br />answer originally, But I thought there was no problem on it. . <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: Let me second what Freddie just said. It seems to me, <br />based on experience that we have had with theseRprojects, and this <br />revolving fund over the past two years, that there is likely to be a <br />problem. <br /> <br />The :Governor's budget did, I think, provide for three or.four projects. <br />I don't really. recollect what the cut off was. I think it was some- <br />where around two to three million dollars. . I think it's unlikely that <br />the legislature is going to fund all of these projects. I think the <br />legislature will look to this Board for the priorities which we attach. <br />I think they're going to give that a great deal of importance. 'So I <br />think that to some extent we ought to take the prior.ities seriously if <br />we want to carry out our job of adequately advising the legislature as <br />to what we feel is important. I . wish they would fund all: of the proj- <br />ects, but I think we're really deceiving ourselves if we think that's ' <br />going to happen. <br /> <br />. <br />MR. ~TAPLETON: Harris, just before you came this morning, I thought we <br />had a clear representation, maybe I'm wrong, Larry, that all of these <br />projects would be funded. And therefore this priority system was. not <br />that important. I take it now that my recollection is not ,correct of <br />your position. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br />. ~. . <br />MR. SPARKS: I'm not as pessimistic as Mr. .sherman about the funding for <br />these projects'. I have had some conversations with various legislators <br />who are vitally interested in this construction program -principally <br />Senator Noble, who was here earlier, :and also Senator Anderson, who is <br />President of the Senate. There are people equally interested in the <br />House. I think there is a chance, a pretty good chance, based upon this <br /> <br />-54- <br />