Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Program Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DEC guidance will fold operations and maintenance into project approvals, council told
Summary
Council staff and DEC representatives told the Otter Creek Basin Water Quality Council that Department of Environmental Conservation guidance treats operations and maintenance (O&M) as part of project approvals; O&M funding is currently drawn from the same project fund and will be refined as the Clean Water Initiative Program builds cost data.
Program staff and DEC representatives told the Otter Creek Basin Water Quality Council that, under recent guidance, approval of a watershed project will include funding for operations and maintenance (O&M) for the life of the project and that the council will not need to separately approve O&M funding for projects after initial approval.
Mike, program staff, said the guidance being provided by DEC is that "once you approve a project, then that project approval also includes O and M for the life of the project," and that the council would not have to reauthorize O&M funding for each project. Staff said the details about how O&M will be budgeted are still being developed.
DEC staff member Chris explained how O&M funding is being handled now: the money for O&M currently comes from the same pot as project funds rather than a separate, dedicated O&M account. "The money right now for O and M is in the same pot as your project money," Chris said, adding that program managers are gathering data to decide whether to create a distinct O&M funding pool and, if so, how large it should be.
Council members raised questions about how O&M will be calculated and reported. Kate suggested using qualitative frequency categories (low/medium/high) and matching those to project types; Angie, referencing material from the Clean Water Initiative Program, said a table in the program manual already links frequency categories to practice types and that staff will build a cost library over time. "That information is there," Angie said of the manual, adding that the present approach is a qualitative interim method until more precise dollar estimates are available.
Several council members urged caution. Helen said treating O&M budgeting as informal would be "irresponsible" and pushed for clearer accounting; program staff responded that DEC and CWIP staff are attempting to balance the need for O&M funding against the limited project funds available this fiscal year and that more detailed budgeting will follow as the program gathers data.
Staff and DEC representatives told the council they would return in April to review application materials and suggested the council use that meeting to specify any additional information it wants applicants to provide about expected O&M frequency, responsibilities and funding sources. Staff also reiterated that the CWIP money allocated to the council is state funding and that federal dollars are not part of the current allocation.
Ending: The council scheduled application‑process review for its April meeting and asked staff to bring any CWIP/O&M guidance or tables that the council can use to evaluate O&M risk when scoring projects.
