Addison County watershed committee weighs scoring changes, votes not to require applicants’ attendance

The Addison County Watershed Implementation Committee (WIC) discussed proposed changes to its project-scoring system for phosphorus-reduction grants and voted to keep applicant attendance optional at project-review meetings.

The committee’s staff presenter, Mike (staff member), told members the current scoring allocates 70% of points to phosphorus reduction, 10% to likelihood of success and 20% to co-benefits. Mike said, “our current project scoring is 70% of the score goes to phosphorus reduction, 10% goes to likelihood of success, and 20% goes to co benefits.” He proposed tightening the phosphorus-cost tiers, adding a hard cap, and increasing the weight for likelihood of success so reviewers can better favor projects that are feasible to implement.

Why it matters: WIC distributes state funding that is explicitly intended to reduce phosphorus loads. The scoring system determines which projects receive funds and how limited dollars are allocated across types of projects and stages (preliminary design, final design, implementation).

Discussion and proposals

Committee members raised three main topics: (1) whether to set a dollar-per-kilogram cap to limit funding for projects with high estimated cost per kilogram of phosphorus removed, (2) whether to shift some weight from the DEC-calculated phosphorus metric into likelihood-of-success scoring, and (3) whether to simplify and reweight co-benefit categories so applicants can more easily target the points they can earn.

Mike described existing practice: projects that meet or beat the DEC formula grant cost-efficiency get full phosphorus points and progressively fewer points as the cost-per-kilogram rises. He said some other basin programs use caps (examples discussed in the meeting included $30,000 per kilogram for some natural-resources projects and $50,000 per kilogram in another basin) and suggested WIC consider a comparable cap or tier adjustments.

Members gave mixed views. One member said lowering phosphorus’s share too far risks funding projects with little phosphorus benefit; Mike agreed a cap would help prevent that. Several members, including Ellen and Adam (WIC members), signaled support for shifting some percentage points from phosphorus to likelihood of success so the committee can prioritize projects that are both effective and likely to be completed. Katie Stiles, chair and with Rutland Natural Resources Conservation District, said she supports keeping the phosphorus focus while allowing more points for feasibility: “I think it is important to maintain that focus on phosphorus reduction. I do appreciate the idea of, moving some of that weight into likelihood of success.”

On co-benefits (flood resilience, education, ecosystem improvement, local pollution control, community support/recreation, environmental justice and other benefits), members recommended simplifying the present weighted/decimal system and using whole-number point values that are clearer to applicants. Several members suggested keeping ecosystem improvement as a relatively higher-scoring category but making the matrix easier to read and to apply.

Application process, screening, and applicant engagement

Mike reviewed the application materials WIC currently requests (cover page, project description, map, timeline, budget, phosphorus-reduction calculations, letters of support, natural-resources screening form, demonstration of capacity). He said the natural-resources screening form is intended to flag permits and suggested WIC clarify whether applicants must document responses from relevant permitting agencies before WIC votes.

Several members raised concerns that incomplete screening forms or missing agency responses have delayed decisions in past rounds. Kate (WIC member) and others said applicants frequently do not complete the screening form or attach responses. Committee members asked staff to clarify with DEC whether applicants must include agency replies in Appendix A before an application is considered final.

Attendance policy vote

After discussion about whether applicants should be expected to attend the public review meeting, a member moved that applicants not be required or encouraged to appear and that WIC provide questions to applicants one week before meetings and give applicants one week to respond. The motion (text recorded in the meeting) stated WIC would “do not require nor encourage applicants to appear before the WIC” and require that WIC have questions one week in advance and allow one week for responses. The motion was seconded and carried; the meeting recorder announced the motion carried and reported a final tally of 5 yes and 3 no.

Bylaws subcommittee

Members agreed to form a bylaw review subcommittee to consider whether WIC’s current practice (advancing projects individually) should be revised to align with the bylaws’ requirement for voting on ranked packages when money is limited. Ellen moved to form a bylaw committee consisting of Ellen, Kate and Arabella (ex officio); Barbara seconded and the motion passed without recorded opposition.

Process and next steps

Mike said he will prepare a proposed scoring revision and a recommended cap for phosphorus-cost tiers and bring a proposal back to the committee. In the near term, the committee agreed the next application round will be scored under the current policy; any changes would be proposed and adopted before subsequent rounds. Mike also said he will send applicants an initial notice the day after the application deadline, prepare a two-week memo evaluating incoming projects, then allow one week for committee questions and one week for staff responses before the review meeting. The committee scheduled its next meeting for July 23.

Ending

WIC members asked staff to (1) draft a concrete revision to the scoring matrix that uses whole-number percentages and clearer co-benefit point definitions; (2) clarify the screening-form requirements with DEC; and (3) return with a proposed dollar-per-kilogram cap and revised tiering for phosphorus scoring before new project reviews proceed under revised policy.