Laserfiche WebLink
<br />II. Discuss process for letters of support <br />Question at last meeting arose "whether or not and how our Roundtable <br />endorses or approves projects." See hard copy of email from Tom Iseman, <br />Nature Conservancy: letter details concerns ofIseman's as to the idea of <br />producing letters of support. <br />Jerke: What would be the process and criteria that we would embrace to <br />support a given project? <br /> <br />Bob Streeter: Looked at legislation; legislation is moot on this point; does not <br />appear that the Roundtable is specifically empowered to do this nor is it <br />disallowed. <br /> <br />Walt Knudsen: What would be the pros and cons of endorsing any of these <br />projects? <br /> <br />Jerke: We have heard proposals from projects on which we might be <br />supportive. <br /> <br />Fred Walker: Agrees with Iseman's point about the fact that if we are going <br />to support a project, our support should be "conceptual" in nature because as <br />the project moves along, these might change. <br /> <br />McVicker: Agrees with Iseman's last point that "if we are going to use the <br />super-majority in agreement with a proposal, we should include a minority <br />report. This should be attached directly to the roundtable's endorsement, so <br />the full views of the roundtable are known." <br /> <br />Jerke: Need for subcommittee? <br /> <br />Sasha Charney: Nominate Tom Iseman as he has had the insight to articulate <br />concerns and concepts. <br /> <br />Jerke: This summer seems to be a time that we need to be ready for the <br />process for making suggestions to proposals; volunteers: Jim Yahn as Vice <br />Chair and Mike Applegate. <br />Subcommittee therefore: Tom Iseman, Jim Yahn, and Mike Applegate; <br />Charge would be to come back with language with how we would, as a <br />roundtable, agree on support or opposition to projects. <br /> <br />III. Frank Jaeger and Parker Water and Sanitation Proposal <br />Concepts for a Rural/Urban Water Farm Model <br />Project objective: to develop and investigate cropping system options for <br />meeting growing urban water needs while at the same time sustaining vital be <br />economic returns to the agricultural and mral communities. <br />Project length: 3 years <br />Project cost: $1,059,000 pledged by parker Water and Sanitation District; <br /> <br />2 <br />