Criteria, Minimum Score, Funding Decisions

370 views

Published on

Overview of CWMTF criteria and scoring, use of score in funding recommendations and decisions, observations of current process and potential changes to current process

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
370
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 9
  • Criteria, Minimum Score, Funding Decisions

    1. 1. Criteria, Minimum Score and Funding Decisions <br /><ul><li>Bern Schumak
    2. 2. Tom Massie
    3. 3. Damon Tatem
    4. 4. Will Summer
    5. 5. Nancy Guthrie
    6. 6. Larry Horton
    7. 7. Kevin Boyer
    8. 8. Tom Jones
    9. 9. Beth McGee</li></ul>February 14, 2010<br />
    10. 10. Topics<br /><ul><li>Overview of criteria and scoring
    11. 11. Historical scores
    12. 12. Use of scores in funding recommendations and decisions
    13. 13. Observation of current process
    14. 14. Potential considerations for modifying </li></li></ul><li>Legislation<br /><ul><li>§ 113A‑254.  Grant requirements.
    15. 15. (a1)     Criteria. – The criteria developed by the Trustees under G.S. 113A‑256 apply to grants made under this Article.
    16. 16. The common criteria for water projects set in G.S. 159G‑23 and the criteria set out in this section also apply to wastewater collection system projects, wastewater treatment works projects, and stormwater quality projects. </li></li></ul><li>CWMTF Criteria<br />Core Criteria = 120 Points<br />Category Specific = 45 Points<br />Total Available = 165 Points<br />
    17. 17. Core Criteria<br /><ul><li>Core criteria – all categories (120)
    18. 18. Targeted Areas – 10
    19. 19. Significance of water body – 20
    20. 20. Waters w/ special uses - 5
    21. 21. Ecological network – 5
    22. 22. DWQ Basinwide Plan – 15
    23. 23. Measurable & enduring outcomes – 15
    24. 24. Innovative procedure or technology – 5
    25. 25. Riparian greenways development – 10
    26. 26. Provides public education - 5
    27. 27. Matching resources - 20
    28. 28. Applicant qualifications - 10</li></li></ul><li>Category Specific Criteria<br />Restoration of degraded waters or protection of unpolluted waters (0-45)<br /><ul><li>based on detailed information specific to each project category such as: unit cost ($/ac, $/linear ft.), ww reuse, value-added, local ordinances, etc.</li></li></ul><li>History<br /><ul><li>165 points available in the evaluation criteria
    29. 29. Highest score ever – 141 (2001B cycle)
    30. 30. 2007-08 ranges:
    31. 31. Maximum - 127
    32. 32. Minimum – 51
    33. 33. Median:
    34. 34. Acq. – 91
    35. 35. R/S – 94
    36. 36. WW - 86</li></li></ul><li>Common Criteria<br /><ul><li>G.S. 159G-23 Common Criteria Water Infrastructure
    37. 37. Public necessity
    38. 38. Effect on impaired waters
    39. 39. Efficiency
    40. 40. Flood hazard ordinance
    41. 41. Sound management
    42. 42. Capital improvement plan
    43. 43. Coastal habitat protection (CHPP)
    44. 44. Economic distress (WW)</li></li></ul><li>What’s the Score?<br /><ul><li>What it is:
    45. 45. A system for ranking applications, based on water quality benefits and responsible use of public funds
    46. 46. One of the tools for making funding recommendations & decisions
    47. 47. Evolution to greater dependence on CW score through inability to discuss each application during Board reviews (volume of applications)</li></li></ul><li>What it doesn’t do:<br /><ul><li>Substitute for other Board considerations
    48. 48. Directly provide staff recommendations
    49. 49. Override other “gates” to funding: HUC, economic distress, failing WW systems, etc</li></li></ul><li>Observation of Current Process<br />The table shows scores of projects approved for funding with the Committees’ initial allocation during the Aug-Oct meetings (not reserve funds)<br />
    50. 50. Potential Changes to the Process<br /><ul><li>Establish a low score threshold?
    51. 51. Increase reserve amount for November?
    52. 52. Do not allocate reserve funds to committees in November?</li></li></ul><li>Establish Low Score Threshold?<br />Apply to decisions made at Aug-Oct meetings<br /><ul><li>Delay approval of applications with scores less than minimum threshold until November meeting
    53. 53. Threshold unique to each committee</li></li></ul><li>Low score threshold example<br />
    54. 54. Increase Reserve Amount?<br /><ul><li> Decrease committee allocation so approvals do not reach applications with low scores
    55. 55. Fund best of the remaining in November</li></li></ul><li>Do Not Allocate Reserve Funds To Committees In November?<br /><ul><li> Potentially merge remaining applications for the November meeting
    56. 56. Calculate regional and programmatic distributions for Aug-Oct awards
    57. 57. Board selects applications to fund based on their priorities</li></li></ul><li>Options today <br /><ul><li> Leave process as is; or
    58. 58. Further explore a change in process with Criteria Committee in spring 2010
    59. 59. Continue discussion with Board in June</li></li></ul><li>Board Discussion<br />

    ×