Laserfiche WebLink
available — problems every year when leg islature is in session — looks like the next <br />amount could get adjusted down to $6 mill — but as part of proposal could add another <br />year – larger total spread over more years <br /> <br />Apo logized if application was confusing — will be working to try to make it more “menu <br />driven” --- trying to bring more from criteria and guidelines into the application – <br />especially re scope of work — was reluctant to do it so people could approach as they <br />wanted to but will have to structure more <br />1) break down into discreet tasks <br />2) what and how going to do that task — what methodology? <br />3) what is product? - deliverable <br /> <br />Budget should match that — and connects back to the task — will put together examples <br />of budget shee ts <br /> <br />Then will develop into task order and contract with state. <br /> <br />John Shawcroft — seems that we have to be pretty advanced in a project in order to get <br />$? <br /> <br />Rick — do need a good concept — need to breakdown activities and all aspects of project <br />in order to determi ne if feasible — have to get the concept together enough to articulate <br />what you want to use the money for — may draw on local resources to get this <br />developed enough to have a proposal <br /> <br />Mike G — pointed out that on a local level, we are working largely with volun teers and <br />local people who are here at their own expense and may not have capacity to have <br />professional grant writers, etc. <br /> <br />Rick — looking at opportunities to provide more support for community and possible for <br />recorders’ time — applications will be made mor e menu driven and have examples on <br />the web — challenge — everything from education to structural projects etc. <br /> <br />Asked about Sherman Harris’s position on R ound T able ’s — said he wanted to take time <br />to learn about the process - 60 days — just wanted to gather info — s ome conclusions are <br />he’s very supportive of R ound T able ’s and not sure what IBCC can do and what to <br />focus their energy on — had a good meeting on that and how to be more programmatic <br />vs cross basin issu es — still sees a pattern of sort in g through role of R ound T able in <br />relationship to water right s holder s — when first came to Valley , the last thing anyone <br />wanted was the State telling water rights holders what to do with their water! Deals that <br />get made are between the water right holder and whomever else. Ex — C olorado R ound <br />T able has issues with potential diversions — Denver during drought wanted to <br />negotiate — can do so WITHOUT R ound T able approval <br /> <br />Challenges ahead: <br /> Page 6 of 7 RGBRT Minutes <br /> <br /> April 10, 2007 <br />