Laserfiche WebLink
- di rected that IBCC work with CWCB to develop criteria and guideline s for how to <br />allocate funds <br />- Committee members include: Melinda K assen of Trout Unlimited and John Porter from <br />SW Harold ______ – Barbara Biggs - City and County of Denver <br /> <br />rd <br />Have had 2 mee tings and generated a 3 draft for review by IBCC tomorrow <br />Have had a good committee and discussions on how to allocate funds and how to <br />prevent RT’s from feeling cut out or mistreated - equal opportunity for all the basins - <br />draft has to be reviewed and/ or modified by IBCC before sending out to RT’s <br /> <br />Thinking behind criteria: <br />1) pool of $40 mill <br />2) fear that one or two big projects could take all that money <br />3) in order to avoid above , rec ommended that a certain amount be available <br />competitively statewide and some earmarked for each basin – up to $1 mill that <br />would have to be committed to projects approved by each RT by 2009 <br /> - for ex on North Platte don’t have a lot of projects imminent — so if funds <br />not used, they go back into competitive fund <br />4) Non - competitive grants for RTs would be “front loaded” so that by next summer <br />there would be $1 million available - creates an interesting dynamic because <br />most areas probably have many times that amount in need, so knowing that “ x ” <br />amount is available requi res the RTs to work o ut priorities <br />5) The statewide grants can be accessed by any RT through application and <br />competitive process <br />6) Desire of both the IBCC and CWCB that these funds not be spent foolishly on <br />projects that have been eliminated from consideration many times before or do <br />not have broad level of support in the B asin - so the threshold criteria would be <br />(per 179) ap proval by RT in given basin as well as a require d level of support and <br />gauge of the political will to carry a project forward and attempt to insure that <br />funds are spent on things that will have positive results <br />7) Evaluation criteria that CWCB will use - ( see Section 3 of Report ) - include things <br />like promoting collaboration and cooperation - to what degree does the water <br />activity address multiple needs and issues , can it happen quickly, what is <br />financial need, etc. – March and Sept meeting - non - comp etitive funds can be <br />acted on at any CWCB meeting with 60 day lead time <br />8) Program can be grants, loans (as low as 0%) or combination – discussed that <br />there should be g ra nts - cost share, partnerships <br /> <br />Expects that by Sept meeting there will be a proposed set of criteria and guidelines <br />available to RTs for input and ultimately to approved <br /> <br />Re 1400 -- should be adequate for needs assessment for RTs – possible that SB 179 <br />fund s could supplement this if needed <br /> <br /> Page 4 of 5 RGBRT Minutes <br /> <br /> August 8 , 2006 <br />