Laserfiche WebLink
<br />lef~. So it-seems to me if we are intending w~thin the next r,ear, , <br />barring the possibility the legislature will give us another 'X" million <br />dollars in the revolving ~und, .then I think we should have our discussion <br />prior to the-approval of these twe~ve. Because-if we are going.to apply <br />standards, I th~nk now is the time to do it. <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: Good point;. <br /> <br />MR. ,SHERMAN: One possibility is, 'and it seems to me the legislature: <br />wil~ probably take a number of months ~efore they get to.theseproj- <br />e~ts, I t~ink what we cou~d do is to submit all of the~e~p~ojects to <br />the legislature, indicating that we have approved the projects; and, <br />also indic~ting to them that we will attempt in our next meeting to set <br />a priority for these projects. I think we can do both. But notwith- <br />standing Larry's optimism-about the budgetary fiscal picture, I thi~ <br />it's:going to be unlikely, based on current budgetary projections of the <br />stat;e, that all of these projects will be funded. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: I feel that that's important. I don't think'we can <br />really,today or,tomorrow, if we devoted all the time to it.. come up with <br />meaningful ratios or n~bers. I think we ought.to make that'an order of <br />business, and probably the most.important-item of business in January, <br />with some input 'as:to what the factors are,:how they 'assign fifteen to <br />one in type of project and four to another., I agree that this shouldn't <br />be a race to get your projects finished and before ,the Board. - Some <br />weight must be given it, but I presume Montrose is entitled to something <br />more than a zero rate for date of applicationi ' : <br /> <br />On the other hand I - for one:- Would~want' to know .why Montrose, .'Delta'- <br />and Brighton didn't have some capability that some of t4ese smaller <br />places will never have to, help fund these p,roj ects. 'And it was my <br />understanding originally that we were going to help communit;ies that <br />never could get a project off the ground without our help. And the <br />cities I mentioned, I -might now know all the :facts, but, I thiI}k it's <br />one of the things I'd want to kn,~ in terms of priority, if we qad to <br />come,up with.it. <br /> <br />I t~ink other Board members might have other factors that I ,might think <br />are equally as)important or more important.. But do I hear it that the <br />consensus of this meeting is that we ask that the motion be withdrawn and <br />come up with enough background that we can derive our prop'osed prior~ties <br />system for the January meeting, and if that were so, I would appoint <br />within a few days a committee of three of the Board to Come up with their <br />Board recommendations for the January meeting. <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very adequate proposal and <br />I would 'withdraw the previous motion. <br /> <br />MR. LEINSDORF: And I, as the person who seconded the motion, consent <br />to the withdrawal. <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Stapleton, I would support that with the 'proviso that <br />the action of the Board as to approval of the projects be submitted <br />forthwith to the legislature. <br /> <br />-56- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />