Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mark Williams: ground water focus on sustainability <br />Dollar request: $240,000 <br />Mike Shimmin: how much budget is attributable to consumptive use part of the <br />study? <br />Mark Williams: metering of water wells, in hydrologic study <br />Mike Shimmin: per 15% in kind contribution; indirect rate: l8%...net negative <br />value from local cost share.. .please address <br />Mark: 18.4% is indirect cost for agency to manage the grant <br />Indirect rate is derived from bare bones cost; state audit; <br />Harold Evans: To go back to guidelines and criteria: eligibility requirements: <br />threshold criteria: specific evaluation requirements: this seems to be a waste water <br />treatment issue; these are septic tanks that are creating the problems; small part is <br />consumptive use; being that this is 25% of our in-basin money, and yet this is <br />mostly quality study; per specific criteria: why is this not a Boulder County issue: <br />this is not a consumptive use problem; don't think this is ready to mn up to the <br />state wide fund. <br /> <br />Bob Streeter: Agree for the most part on this one; this study should be very <br />interesting, I think the hydrologic part of this study would be the most interesting <br />for this group (how much water actually gets back to the river); match... this is not <br />really a sizeable match; would consider a partial match for hydrologic match. <br /> <br />Fred Walker reads email from Philo Shelton (who is in DC receiving award) <br />email: RE: Boulder County Project: concerned on amount of project; in-kind <br />match small; overhead charge of 18.4% on project, negates the amount of in-kind <br />match; concerned about using 1/4th of our project; would recommend funding <br />$50,000 and ask Metro to match; remainder to state. <br />Fred Walker: Do not see that this study lends itself to creating wet water <br />especially in light of our conversations of funding our needs assessment <br />Sasha: Could you look at the specific consumptive use portion of this and come <br />back to group? <br />Mark: Granted that this will not produce water or store water. . . <br />Ralph Topper: applicant is a public health department; not a hydrologic study; <br />focus of proposal is contaminants; water quality waste water issue; not a water <br />supply issue. <br />McVicker: look for other funding sources, maybe come to us for partial funding. <br />Fred Walker: As you asked for our recommendations, would you like to go <br />forward with a vote or would you like to withdraw and come back to us. <br />Harold Evans: Motion that the application from Boulder County be denied. <br />Les Williams: Do we have a quomm? <br />Bylaws: page 5, Section 7: 1/3rd of voting members: 18 <br />Bmce Gerke seconds motion: <br />Discussion: <br />Motion carries. <br /> <br />14 <br />