Laserfiche WebLink
<br />has to be approved by each roundtable before going to the CWCB. The question remains <br />as to whether there is a role for the IBCC in this process, and most agreed that there <br />probably wasn't, except when two basins are involved in a project. Then the IBCC may <br />be of assistance because HB 1177 allows for the crossing of basins. Other remarks made <br />during this discussion stressed that larger projects need to be granted on some kind of set <br />schedule, like a summertime construction schedule. Concern was expressed that a cap <br />should be placed on the amount of money granted in order to keep a big need from taking <br />all the money. Threshold criteria must be established, and every applicant must meet the <br />criteria. The question arose as to how you prioritize those applications if there are more <br />applications than money? Do projects that serve two or three purposes get a higher <br />priority? It was noted that no preference be given construction over feasibility studies. <br />When discussion turned to needs assessments, members were reminded that the SWSI <br />report provided a good base for domestic and ag needs and much better than for <br />environmental and recreational needs. When members were asked what we absolutely do <br />not want to see in the 179 criteria, most were in agreement that no money should go to <br />East Slope municipalities. <br /> <br />Steve added that one goal of Sen. Jim Isgar in drafting the legislation was to provide for <br />small rural entities, which usually need something upfront to get a project going. (See <br />attached memo from Harris) Many members of the roundtable expressed a desire to see <br />some form of cost-sharing included with any proposed project, and felt that cost-sharing <br />would become a critical issue. Don Schwindt again stressed the need for some type of <br />meaningful local buy-in. He added that projects that serve multiple uses have a better <br />chance to cost share, and a particular project ought to have a cap. Gary Kennedy noted <br />that projects need to demonstrate the ability to repay, quite possibly in some version of <br />cost-sharing or in-kind efforts. The question was asked how a loan works for an <br />environmental project versus a municipal project. Loans versus a grant usually keep <br />more money in the pot that can then be used by other applicants. Carrie Campbell <br />suggested that any criteria be set on the purpose of the project. One set of criteria for a <br />multi-purpose project and a different set for a single purpose project. Hope was <br />expressed that this roundtable might find ways to bring balance in terms of multi-purpose <br />versus single purpose. Multi-purpose projects are important but not required, and the <br />roundtable may be able to "package" multiple projects from this basin. Stand alone <br />projects don't have to go alone. Another suggestion was to draw a line between <br />recreation and environment projects because they are not necessarily the same or will <br />have the same criteria and requirements. <br /> <br />Discussion turned to the administration of proposed projects. Should projects be viewed <br />on a quarterly basis before sending them to the CWCB? Which raises the question as to <br />the timing of combining projects, which could become difficult? Another question was <br />whether the roundtable needs to take projects on a current basis, as they are submitted. <br />One suggestion was to look at smaller requests anytime and larger ones differently. <br />Chuck Wanner warned that all the money will be used and then this process becomes <br />competitive. Whatever timeline for submittal is established is important. Members were <br />told that CWCB grants are awarded only once a year. Another suggestion was that the <br />"pot" should be split 50/50 between loans/grants. Another member remarked that if an <br /> <br />2 <br />