Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Leaned toward a mechanism which would require local "buying" - either token <br />cost share grants or less than lOO% loans, hereafter called allocations <br />o Strongly agreed to "local buy-in". Did not set an amount. Disagreed <br />with the use a "token" concept <br />o Thought some type of cost share should be included but flexible based <br />on ability to pay. Cost share could include upfront funding, partial <br />loan from other sources, repay if project constructed, in-kind services, <br />and any other method. <br />. Leaned toward CWCB providing that small allocations (<lOOK) can be granted at <br />any time. That larger allocations (> lOOK) can only be granted @ 6 month <br />intervals ( example: Jan & July) <br />o Agreed with concept. Thought the threshold should be less than <br /><lOOk. Suggested 25 to 50k. <br />. Leaned toward placing a cap on the amount allocated to anyone entity <br />o YES - definitely or in the alternative, "the need may determine the <br />cap" <br />o Providing a budget for each basin would address this concern. <br />. Suggested creating "threshold criteria" that every application would have to meet <br />- and then "priority criteria" that would guide CWCB, if there was not enough <br />money to fund all of the applications. For instance, a project that serves more <br />than one purpose might be given a higher priority than one that serves only one <br />purpose. Did NOT yet discuss preference of construction v planning / feasibility <br />o Seemed to agree with two criteria thresholds. <br />o CWCB should consider larger projects (greater than threshold above) <br />twice a year. Roundtable would consider projects whenever <br />submitted and transmit to CWCB appropriately. <br />o Timing should be changed to March & September to better <br />accommodate the construction season <br />o Agreed that funds could be used for construction, as well as planning <br />& feasibility <br />o Before CWCB rejects a project it should consult with appropriate <br />roundtable. As much authority and responsibility as possible should <br />be given to roundtables for deciding which projects should be funded. <br />If the roundtables see that their recommendations are not followed by <br />CWCB, the roundtable will not spend much time reviewing projects <br />but simply rubber stamp them and send to CWCB. <br />. Assumed that in many instances (specifically for M&I needs) the SWSI "needs <br />assessment" will suffice. In other instances (specifically for environmental / <br />recreational needs) additional "needs assessment will be required <br />o Did not agree that a needs assessment had to be completed I st. While <br />not clearly spoken, I think the intent was that the project should <br />generally fit the SWSI need. <br />o Responding to the idea that a multi-purpose project would have a <br />better chance of being funded, the concept that "packaging" several <br />specific diverse Basin projects could suffice was discussed at length. <br />I'm not sure a consensus was reached. <br /> <br />6 <br />