Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />to the Board at its July meeting in order to determine if <br /> <br />other opportunities might be available. <br /> <br />There being no further business to come before the Board <br /> <br />with respect to Agenda Item 2 concerning applications for <br /> <br />feasibility studies, Mr. Kroeger asked Mr. McDonald to <br /> <br />proceed with Agenda Item 3 concerning the review of pending <br />a..t <br />Federal legislation. Mr. McDonald begtn by drawing the <br /> <br />Board's attention to his memorandum to them concerning the <br /> <br />Domenici-Moynihan bill (see Appendix 0), a copy of which bill <br />. <br />(5 621) was also distributed to the Board (see Appendix Pl. <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. McDonald briefly reviewed the history of the <br /> <br />Domenici-Moynihan block grant proposal as introduced in the <br /> <br />previous Congress. He noted that the present bill 5.621, was <br /> <br />essentially identical to the version introduced in the 96th <br /> <br />Congress. Mr. McDonald explained that the primary features <br /> <br />of the Domenici-Moynihan proposal were: <br /> <br />(1) The creation of a block grant program which would <br /> <br />provide funding directly to the State on a formula <br /> <br />basis in lieu of, in part, the traditional project-- <br /> <br />by-project authorization and appropriation <br /> <br />process, and <br /> <br />(2) A requirement that 25 percent of the construction <br />cost of a project be funded by non-Federal <br /> <br />entities. <br /> <br />Mr. McDonald indicated that the primary issue for Colorado <br /> <br />would be whether or not we would fare better under the <br /> <br />traditional project by project authorization and <br /> <br />) ./ <br />, 7 <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />v <br /> <br />l-- <br /> <br />.--- <br /> <br />L-- <br /> <br />t--- <br />