Laserfiche WebLink
<br />entity can afford a loan it doesn't need this money, and can go to CWCB for funding. <br />How will a revenue producing project compare to a non-revenue project? The type of <br />project should be viable, and whether the project is a match, in-kind contribution or cost- <br />sharing, there cannot be discrimination against any type of project. It was mentioned that <br />179 funding is meant to fill the "grant" void, and initial funding is needed to get projects <br />started, up to the point where they can get additional funding elsewhere. "Seed money" <br />is badly needed, particularly in smaller, more mral areas. This roundtable must send <br />projects to CWCB that will get attention, but we must leave some flexibility based on <br />merit. Going back to the earlier discussion about when to submit applications to the <br />CWCB, the suggestion was made that in order to be competitive, applications should be <br />turned in at any time to match the schedule of the state. After much discussion as to what <br />"cap" to put on what project requests, and when those different "capped" projects should <br />be submitted, this roundtable will accept projects anytime and submit them to the CWCB <br />according to their schedule. <br /> <br />Another opinion expressed was that the $10 million is in one big pot, and this basin is <br />competing with other basins. There is some concern that the Front Range could eat the <br />whole pot up. Discussion continued about prioritization of projects on a local basis as <br />well as on a statewide basis. The suggestion was made that this roundtable should access <br />the SWSI report for potential projects. And other members said that it would be nice to <br />have a rough idea of our bank account. What is our share of the pot? It can't exceed a <br />million per basin. Everyone agreed that there is no need to msh a bad project through <br />just to get the money. Going back to the $10 million, a number of members want to <br />know some level of budget we are going to be working with, and whether the funds are to <br />be distributed according to geographical consideration. Members stmggled with <br />differentiating between what dollar amount to put on large (over $500,000) versus small <br />($25,0000 $100,000) projects. <br /> <br />The roundtable then turned its attention to setting priorities, and the following questions <br />were asked? When applying for funds, is the activity ready to use funds as available? Is <br />the applicant an active organization, or entity or individual eligible to receive funds? Do <br />we actually want to set priorities for projects, or is everything a top priority? If some <br />prioritization is going to be necessary, and if CWCB can't fund everything, does a <br />request get returned to the basin for reprioritization? Should a needs assessment be <br />completed before a request be submitted for 179 funding? And, should a conflict of <br />interest arise when a project is submitted, should the presenter recuse himself? And, is <br />approval of applications done by consensus? Or voting? The suggestion was made that <br />at the next meeting perhaps members can suggest projects which in turn would help the <br />roundtable firm up the discussion of criteria and guidelines. <br /> <br />The following memo was developed by John Porter, Jenny Russell, and Steve Harris for <br />John to communicate to the IBCC/CWCB task committee to develop criteria. The memo <br />is believed to express the feelings of our Roundtable as best could be determined from <br />the discussion as described above. <br /> <br />3 <br />