Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l' <br /> <br />(3) That if construction on the proposed project <br /> <br />commences within 20 years of the completion of the <br /> <br />feasibility study using monies from some source <br /> <br />other than the construction fund, then the <br /> <br />entities would be required to repay to the Board <br /> <br />the Board's contribution toward the feasibillty <br /> <br />study. <br /> <br />There being no further discuision, the motion was passed on <br /> <br />an unanimous voice vote. <br /> <br />Mr. Ioannides then provided the Board a review of the <br /> <br />proposed Cedar Mesa project (see Appendix D). He noted that <br /> <br />the proposed project had been incorporated into S.B. 439 for <br /> <br />authorization by the General Assembly, which meant that there <br /> <br />would be no need to conduct a formal feasibillty study should <br /> <br />that bill become law. Under those circumstances, Mr. Pascoe <br /> <br />moved, seconded by Mr. Robbins, that the Board discharge its <br /> <br />obligations to check and approve the engineering for the <br />I <br />proposed project and determine the entity~ability to repay <br /> <br />, / <br />/\ <br /> <br />the Board's investment should the project be authorized by <br /> <br />the General Assembly or, failing that, that the Board proceed <br /> <br />to do a feasibility study subject to the terms and conditions <br /> <br />included in the motion for the Beeman project. There being <br /> <br />no further discussion, the motion was passed on an unanimous <br /> <br />voice vote. <br /> <br />Mr. McDonald then introduced the proposed Canal <br /> <br />~ining project for the Town of Olathe, which project is to be <br /> <br />carried out in conjunction with the Uncompahgre Vallei1~ <br />4~ <br />Associatlon (see Appendix E) ~ Mr. McDonald noted that the <br /> <br />/' <br />) <br />