Laserfiche WebLink
- Ray - Eric wanted people to bounce ideas off — no group established as yet <br />- Status unclear on this <br />- Steve V - yes to first two questions <br />- Travis - working group is to get things going – will work with CWCB Board and <br />then the criteria will go back to IBCC as well <br />- Rio — suggested that there be eval and adjustment to criteria at given stages in <br />the four years so that they can be upda ted if needed <br />IBCC role beyond establishment of criteria and guidelines <br />- Ray - ability to have input on priorities <br />IBCC role in multiple RT projects? <br />YES! <br /> <br />Should CWCB have additional roles or responsibilities? <br />Travis — there was some concern about IBCC and CWCB relationship — additional <br />roles — note that CWCB has been in existence since 1937, have been good stewards, <br />thinks CWCB has an important role <br />Fred - thinks CWCB should have responsibility of monitoring outcomes of activities and <br />educating about how money spent and activities achieved <br />Discussion on this — don’t see that CWCB’s role is to have staff economists into <br />analysis <br />Fred — thinks there is no rational basis for decisions <br />Travis – results are that loans are paid back and fund is viable <br /> <br />Receiving Entities <br />Fred — thinks piss poor places should have a priority over Telluride ! <br />Travis — note d that this is state money generated from mining and should be put <br />back into an entity that benefits natural resources <br />Discussion about issue of private individuals receiving gr ants <br />Rio - would like to be sure that non - profits are included <br />Ray - can imagine that there will be situations with multiple interests where an <br />overarching entity must be the organizing entity for that <br /> Page 9 of 11 RGBRT <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> June 12 , 2006 <br />