SR-502-006-07 (2)
EPWM:CP:GB:BJ:NS/WaterEfficiencyGrantAttributes.doc
Council Meeting: April 27, 2004 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Proposed Criteria to Qualify and Select Projects for Award of Water
Efficiency Competitive Grants
INTRODUCTION
This report proposes criteria to be used to evaluate applications for award of funding
from the Water Efficiency Competitive Grant Program to help fund exterior water
efficiency projects throughout the community.
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 2004, City Council approved modification of the Water Efficiency
Revolving Loan Fund to the Water Efficiency Competitive Grant Program (Program) to
fund exterior water efficiency projects on private and public properties. At that time, City
Council requested additional detail regarding criteria that the City will use to evaluate,
judge and select applications for the award of grant funding.
DISCUSSION
The following discussion provides proposed criteria that would be used to evaluate, rank
and select applications for funding. The proposed criteria include initial minimum pass-
fail requirements, followed by a set of criteria to rank those projects that meet the pass-
fail standard.
1
Minimum Pass-Fail Criteria: Landscape Project Types
All projects must be located in the front of the property to allow for reasonable viewing.
Projects must then satisfy at least one of the four categories below to progress to the
second evaluation phase. All listed criteria are considered of equal value.
Low-volume irrigation systems to reduce water use.
?
Native or drought-tolerant plant species to reduce water use.
?
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to harvest and store urban runoff,
?
including storm water.
Graywater systems to replace exterior potable water use with graywater from
?
building interior.
Ranking and Evaluation Criteria
The following criteria will be used to competitively rank projects that meet the minimum
standards noted above. This phase of the evaluation includes six criterion:
1) Reduction in Water Use, 2) Applicability for Climatic Region, 3) Replicability,
4) Aesthetic Value, 5) Trees, 6) Urban Runoff Harvesting.
1) Reduction in Water Use involves ranking projects based upon the property?s water
use differential (i.e. water savings) between pre- and post-project water use.
2) The Applicability for Climatic Region criterion seeks to promote projects that are
appropriate for a semi-arid, Mediterranean-type region such as Santa Monica. For
example, palm trees and turf are widely planted but not native to this climate. Priority
2
will be given to projects that are appropriate for a coastal zone that receives little
rainfall.
3) The Replicability criterion seeks to promote projects that can be duplicated easily.
Priority is given to projects with relatively low-cost, available technology and simple
installation.
4) The Aesthetic Value criterion seeks to promote projects that have an attractive
appearance. For example, while exposed dirt and concrete do not require watering, the
aesthetic value is low, and, therefore, projects proposing expanses of these surfaces
would not be prioritized. Alternatively, priority will be given to projects that use native or
Mediterranean-type landscapes which attract native fauna (such as insects) and which
flower at different times of the year.
5) The Tree criterion promotes trees planting due to the many long-term benefits that
they provide a community: reducing the heat-island effect, filtering air and removing air
pollutants, and providing food, shade and wildlife habitat. Priority will be given to those
trees that maximize these benefits as well as being drought-tolerant.
6) The Urban Runoff Harvesting criterion promotes the reuse of collected precipitation in
landscaping which offsets the use of potable water. However, this criterion can only be
included for consideration if the project provides a direct impact (water reduction) on the
3
property?s water consumption. The use of a cistern to collect and store rainwater for
reuse in a landscape thereby displacing the need for potable City water is one example.
Evaluation Process
An evaluation committee will be composed of representatives from Open Space, Water
Resources, Engineering, and Environmental Programs divisions. Other City
departments will be consulted as necessary. This Program does not impact any
permitting or approval processes otherwise required of landscaping projects in the City.
Each project will be assigned a point score for each of the six criteria of between 0 to 3
points (18 total points possible) based upon its satisfaction of each specific criteria (a
score of 0 indicates that the project did not meet the criteria and a score of 3 indicates
the project satisfies the criteria very effectively). A summary score will then be
calculated for each proposed project which will serve to priority rank the proposals for
funding offers.
The committee will decide how many projects on the priority list will be funded per cycle
based upon the total dollar value of the projects? requests, the number of high-ranking
projects, and diversity of location throughout the City. It is anticipated that grant
applications could be submitted as early as July, 2004, if these criteria are approved.
4
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no budgetary impact associated with the action recommended in this staff
report. Funds for the grant program are in Water Fund and Wastewater Fund capital
accounts totaling $851,251.
RECOMMENDATION
This report recommends that the City Council approve the criteria for the Water
Efficiency Competitive Grant Program to help fund exterior water efficiency projects
throughout the community.
Prepared by: Craig Perkins, Director, Environmental and Public Works Management
Brian Johnson, Manager, Environmental Programs Division
Neal Shapiro, Senior Administrative Analyst
5