Slide 1

TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL (TAP) AND PUBLIC MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2013 SACRAMENTO Local Groundwater Assistance Grant Program Slide 2 Tentative Meeting Schedule TAP Meeting 10:00 Presentation TAP Discussion Lunch ~11:30 (Optional On your own) Public Comment Period TAP Recommendations Slide 3 Agenda TAP Reminders Overview of 2012 Solicitation Funding Considerations Public Comment Period TAP Funding Recommendations Slide 4 Desired Outcomes Solicit public input on grant reviews and possible award recommendations TAP develop draft funding recommendations for grant awards Slide 5 TAP Reminders Water Code Section 10795.16. (a) If a member of the Technical Advisory Panel, or a member of his or her immediate family, is employed by a grant applicant, the employer of a grant applicant, or a consultant or independent contractor employed by a grant applicant, the panel member shall make that disclosure to the other members of the panel and shall not participate in the review of the grant application of that applicant. (b) The Technical Advisory Panel shall operate on principles of collaboration. Panelists shall be appointed who are committed to working together with other interests for the long-term benefit of California groundwater resources and the people who rely on those resources. Slide 6 Overview of 2012 Solicitation Slide 7 2012 Solicitation Schedule May 4, 2012Release Final Guidelines & PSP June 5-11, 2012Applicant Workshops (4) July 13, 2012Applications Due February 15, 2013Scores & Reviews Released February 27, 2013TAP/Public Meeting March 6, 2013Comments Due May 2013Awards July 2013Execute Grant Agreements Slide 8 Grant Submittals 98 Complete Grant Applications Total Funds Available Approx. $4.7 million Total Funds Requested $23.6 million Total Project Costs - $32.3 million Slide 9 Applications Received Slide 10 Review/Selection Process Completeness & Eligibility Review Technical Review Region Office & HQ Staff Consensus/Senior Review Final Review & Score Management Briefing Public Comments TAP Makes Recommendations to Director Slide 11 Scoring Criteria Groundwater Management Plan or Program= 5 pts Technical Adequacy of Work= 35 pts Project Description Work Plan Budget Schedule Total Possible Score w/o Geographic Pts= 40 pts Geographic Balance = 5 pts Slide 12 Scoring Criteria 5 Points Fully addressed & well documented 4 Points Addressed but not thoroughly documented 3 Points Not fully addressed & incomplete or insufficient documentation 2 Points Marginally addressed & incomplete or insufficient documentation 1 Point Minimally addressed & not documented 0 Points Criterion is not addressed Slide 13 Scoring Criteria Adopted GWMP 5 Points Adopted by May 4, 2012 (Proof of adoption included) 3 Points No adopted GWMP but clearly developing or proposing to develop a GWMP 0 Points No GWMP in place & not developing or proposing to develop a GWMP Slide 14 Summary of Scores Scores ranged from 40 to 7 (out of 40) Geographic points have not been assigned Individual Proposal Summaries provided Many high quality proposals Highly competitive Slide 15 Funding Considerations Slide 16 Available Funding Total Funding Available = $4.7 million $4,682,489 to be precise Source Proposition 84 IRWM Interregional Funds Maximum Grant Amount - $250,000 No additional sources of funding No secured funding for future solicitations Slide 17 Funding Considerations Rank high to low No bright line scoring break No Geographic Balance Points Used Checkbook analysis Funding runs out in 38 pts block of applications 38 pts = 95% of total possible points Slide 18 Score versus # Applications Slide 19 Possible Funding Scenario 1 OPTION 1 Fully fund highest scores; partial funding @ cut line # AppsScoreTotal Request % of Request Resulting Grant $250,000 540$1,249,424100%$250,000 739$1,748,654100%$250,000 1238$2,919,91458%$145,000 Slide 20 Possible Funding Scenario 2 OPTION 2 Sliding Scale Partial Funding Score Total Request Option 2aOption 2bOption 2c % of Request Resulting Grant $250,000 % of Request Resulting Grant $250,000 % of Request Resulting Grant $250,000 40$1,249,424100% $250,00095%$237,50090% $225,000 39$1,748,65480% $200,00085%$212,50080% $200,000 38$2,919,91470% $174,16169%$172,50074% $184,859 Slide 21 Possible Funding Scenario 3 OPTION 3 Constant Rate Partial Funding # AppsScoreTotal Request % of Request 1) Resulting Grant ($250,000) 540$1,249,42479%$197,807 739$1,748,65479%$197,807 1238$2,919,91479%$197,807 1) 79.1229% Slide 22 Comparison of Scenarios #ScoreOption 1 Option 2 Option 3 2a2b2c 540100%$250,000100% $250,00095%$237,50090% $225,00079%$197,807 739100%$250,00080% $200,00085%$212,50080% $200,00079%$197,807 123858%$145,00070% $174,16169%$172,50074% $184,85979%$197,807 Slide 23 LGA Grant Applications Slide 24 Applications scored 38+ Slide 25 Scores of 38+ 1 - Alameda County Water District 10 - Consolidated Irrigation District 11 - Crescenta Valley Water District 19 - Folsom, City of 21 - Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District 31 - Kings Co. Water District 33 - Lassen, County of 39 - Modesto, City of 44 - Napa, County of 45 - Newhall County Water District 49 - Orange County Water District 55 - Rancho California Water District 58 - Roseville, City of 59 - Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority 60 - Sacramento Groundwater Authority 61 - Sacramento Suburban Water District 62 - San Bruno, City of 73 - Sonoma County Water Agency 74 - Soquel Creek Water District 78 - Squaw Valley Public Service District 80 - Three Valleys Municipal Water District 81 - Tranquility Irrigation District 83 - Turlock, City of 95 - Yuba County Water Agency Slide 26 Observations Adopted Plan 2 Point preference De facto must have CASGEM Not a scoring factor Impact on future grant eligibility Last source of compliance funding 26Proposals supported implementation of CASGEM 3 CASGEM Proposals @ 38+ Geographic Balance Points Use would complicate possible allocation options Most underserved Counties did not apply Slide 27 Past Awards by County Slide 28 Comparison Current Applications versus Past Awards Slide 29 SUBMIT TO: Email to: DWR_IRWM@water.ca.gov Preferred Word Compatible Mail to: Department of Water Resources Division of Integrated Regional Water Management Attn: Tom Lutterman P. O. Box 942836 Sacramento CA 94236-0001 Public Comment Period Comments due by March 6, 2013 Slide 30 DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS GEOGRAPHIC BALANCE POINTS OTHER ISSUES TAP Recommendations