Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ewCB, Members <br />September 3, 1980 <br />Page two <br /> <br />The Board has, as required by statute, been submitting a list of <br />recommended projects to the legislature each year with an indication of the <br />prioritization of those projects. The priorities were established on a yearly <br />basis with no effort being made to re-prioritize pending projects as new ones <br />came in. As a corollary, no effort has been made in the past to give preference <br />to one kind of project over another (say, for example, by reserving a certain <br />percentage of the available monies for agricultural versus rural domestic water <br />supply projects). <br /> <br />Furthermore, with only limited funds available prior to the passage of <br />SB 537 (1979 session), the process has been rather self-selecting in that appli- <br />cations were generally received only for projects which were rather restricted <br />in scope. In turn, this has meant a preponderance of small municipal projects <br />(see attached "Status Report"). <br /> <br />ISSUES <br /> <br />Following enactment of Senate Bill 537 (1979 session) and Senate Bill 149 <br />(1980 session), we have had a surge of new applications. Unlike previous applica- <br />tions, a number of the proposed projects would require substantial amounts of <br />Board funds for both feasibility investigations and actual construction. Some <br />legislators have also raised questions about the kinds of projects in which the <br />Board is or should be participating. These events and other factors have raised <br />a number of issues which need to be addressed: <br /> <br />1. Should criteria and factors other than those employed to date be used <br />in screening applications for acceptance or rejection? Should the <br />decision to reject an application be left with the staff or referred <br />to the Board with a staff recommendation? <br /> <br />2. What criteria should be employed in determinig the terms of Board <br />participation in projects? <br /> <br />3. Should preference be given in the allocation of funding to one kind <br />of project over another? If so, is that a determination which should <br />be made before or after a feasibility study is conducted? <br /> <br />1. Procedures and Criteria for Accepting or Reiectinq Applications <br /> <br />The issue here essentially revolves around the fact that we are now <br />receiving applications for projects which the Board would not ultimately care <br />to recommend to the legislature. Examples include: <br /> <br />(a) applications for projects that apparently would benefit but one family, <br /> <br />(b) applications for projects so large that the entirety of available funds <br />could be expended on but one project, and <br />