BOARD01372

• Board Meeting Date: 11/17/1976
• Description: Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

I

Mineral Leasing Fund, that we will get all of these projects funded.

There is no way to guarantee the funding. Mr. Sherman may be entirely
correct. We may only get half of.it. But I think we've got a better
chance this year than at any time I 'know of in the past.,

MR. STAPLETON: Well, I'm just new at this game. I don't understand it
at all. I can't understand - and maybe I'm missing thestype of project,
but how do you evaluate that, what weight do you give this?: We went.
through it briefly some time ago. I wasn't very happy with it then, but
we only had two or three projects at the time. Now, we've got twelve.
I think the motion was made in good faith that there was no real prob-
lem at this time. And if there is maybe we'd better face it.

MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, as far as the priorities that are before us
today, I suppose we could spend the rest of today and probably tomorrow
with personal preferences and things we would see: differently on it.
And I don't know whether we could rearrange it a great deal. I would
hope that we would 'spend a.good part of one of our next meetings with
studying some parameters that: we would say will be ,the considerations
for irrigation projects, for municipal projects. I am not in any way.
downgrading what Larry and the staff have done on their evaluation of
these projects. But I don't think we have a clear statement of what the
state of Colorado is going to have as a standard for a municif,ality to
come in here and say, '~e would like you to fund our project. I

Now whether it's the city's size" the inability to finance through a
bond issue, or whatever, I think we need to talk about those things.
I'm not clear on it. Maybe the rest of the Board is, but I'm certainly
not clear on it., I'm not sure what the cut off should be where we
should enter into the financing on one irrigation project as versus
another one.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we've got the time to do it in this
session. And if we don't and it's a critical thing before we determine
this priority, then perhaps we should establish that fi1'st. ,If not,
then I would let the motion stand that we accept these priorities on
these projects today with the clear understanding that we set some other
standards in the near future.

MR. STAPLETON: Any further discussion on the motion?

MR. LEINSDORF: I would like to say that my second was made at a time
when I was led to believe.thatthere would be sufficient funds for all
of these projects. And even though I would like to see us finish this
meeting in one day if we can, I would also be in favor.of reviewing .
these priorities if it appears that there is not necessarily going to
be the funding available for all of them.

, .

MR. ROBBINS: It seems to me, Mr. Jackson, my only quarrel would be,that
if all of these projects were to be funded, we would then be counting
upon the legislature to add additional money to the revolving fund
before any sort of a priority system settled upon by the Board would come
into play, because the six million dollars.is pretty much what we have

~55-