Chautauqua County has a five percent (5%) occupancy or “bed tax” for the rental of lodging units within the County. Three-fifths (3%) of the revenue that is generated from this tax is utilized to increase tourism, conventions, trade shows, special events and other directly related and supporting activities including business in the county. The two-fifths (2%) bed tax is utilized solely for the enhancement and protection of lakes and streams in Chautauqua County. The following Occupancy Tax Grants for Lakes and Waterways offers financial assistance to efforts that enhance and protect the lakes and waterways of Chautauqua County. The Occupancy Tax Grants for Lakes and Waterways, or “2% bed tax”, may be used by public agencies, private organizations, or residents of Chautauqua County.
The minimum grant amount available is $500, while the maximum grant amount is $40,000. Projects will be evaluated and ranked for the Legislature by the Chautauqua County Water Quality Task Force Waterways Panel based on the individual merits of the project (see evaluation criteria below). The Waterways panel will provide the ranked list of projects to the County Legislature by May 31, 2017, who holds the right to deny funding to any and all projects. Funding for projects will not be available any earlier than January 1, 2018. Funded projects must begin and demonstrate measurable progress within one year following funding approval. Applicants from previous years that have not demonstrated measurable progress will not be considered for the current funding cycle. The County Watershed Coordinator, Dave McCoy will evaluate project progress and provide the Legislature a progress report as necessary.
• Project located in Chautauqua County and demonstrates clear evidence as to how the project will provide a public benefit (see question V on application).
• Not-for-profit organizations
• Governmental agencies
• Businesses and corporations
• Public and private schools
• All landowners of Chautauqua County
Evaluation Criteria and Weight
(see application instructions for more details)
• Water Quality Benefits (Weight 15%)
• Erosion and Sedimentation Control Benefits (15%)
• Recreational and Educational Benefits (5%)
Ecological Benefits (15%)
• Partnerships and Project Leveraging (15%)
• Implementability (15%)
• Other Benefits (10%)
• Relative Cost to Benefits (10%)
Selection Process/Ranking Procedures
All project proposals submitted for 2% occupancy tax grant funding will be reviewed by the Chautauqua County Water Quality Task Force Waterways Panel. The Waterways Panel will develop a ranked list of projects and submit the list to the legislature for their review and approval. They will rank projects based on eight individually weighted criteria. Each member of the waterways panel will independently score and rank each project.
Committee members will meet at least once as a committee to discuss each project where in members may adjust their scores based on peer interaction. Final scores will be compiled by the Watershed Coordinator and results will be provided to each member of the waterways panel to be used to calculate the rank order for each project. The waterways panel will then provide a memorandum describing its deliberations, with the ranked list of projects and suggested funding amounts to the Legislature for their approval.
Detailed Ranking Criteria Description
I. Water Quality Benefits (Weight 15%): The water quality benefits derived from an individual project reflect the ability of the project to remove and capture pollutant loads from runoff prior to discharge into downstream waterbodies. Those projects that are specifically designed to provide a high level of treatment to currently untreated runoff from a large drainage basin or point source discharge would receive a high score. Conversely, those projects with little or no real water quality benefits receive a score of zero. In assigning scores in this category, the total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) loads, or other pollutants removed are to be considered by the reviewer in a qualitative fashion and scored based on the expected result of the project.
II. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Benefits (15%): Projects that are designed to provide a long-term remedy for severe erosion problems along substantial lengths of channel or shoreline will receive a high ranking score. Projects that have the secondary benefit of reduced potential for erosion will earn an intermediate score depending on the magnitude of the downstream or shoreline benefits. Projects that have little or no effect on the remediation of erosion and sedimentation in the watershed will be assigned a score of zero.
III. Recreational and Educational Benefits (5%): This criterion ensures that waters most valued by the public or having the potential for public use receive consideration. Public support and awareness helps ensure funding and may indicate citizens’ willingness to collaborate for control efforts. Projects that provide opportunities to create or enhance recreation and education for the general public will be rated based on; 1) their ability to have value as a demonstration project or; 2) have potential to foster a community conservation ethic through citizen involvement or; 3) provide for enhanced recreational opportunities. Projects that combine all three of the fore mentioned criteria and have long-lasting benefits will rank highest, while projects that do not provide for these benefits will be assigned a score of zero. Features to consider could be: nature centers, websites, active outdoor classrooms, fishing, boating, public workshops and symposiums, manuscripts/ journals/ pamphlets, and interpretive exhibits and kiosks. Though this committee acknowledges the potential contributions of proposed projects toward recreation and education, the enabling legislation stresses protection and improvement of lakes and waterways. Therefore this criterion is weighted less than the others that directly protect and improve water quality.
IV. Ecological Benefits (15%): This ranking criterion can ensure that waters of ecological value get consideration in the decision process. These waters might include waters of aquatic / fisheries value, primary nursery areas, outstanding resource waters, and protected streams, wetlands, or rare, threatened and endangered (RT&E) species. The potential ecological benefits of an individual project are ranked based on evaluations of the anticipated improvements to habitat that will be realized by implementing the project. Factors for evaluation include; the size of the treated area, habitat quality and ecological condition, and proximity to other habitat areas. Areas that currently provide no habitat, but will provide significant habitat upon completion, will rank highest. Projects that have no habitat impacts such as the replacement of culverts for flood control or maintenance projects will rank the lowest.
V. Implementability (15%): This ranking criterion is a measure of the relative severity of obstacles that must be over come to implement the project. Determining a score is a cumulative assessment of factors such as: public vs. private property, property easement acquisition, permitting requirements, impact or disturbance to nearby residences, long-term maintenance and operation requirements, completeness or status of project planning design and maintenance, phase of the project relative to past and/or future funding, and relative ease of construction. A high ranking would be assigned to projects with no foreseeable implementation concerns related to any or all of these issues. A low ranking would be assigned to projects which would have a high degree of difficulty.
VI. Partnerships and Project Leveraging (15%): Partnerships and project leveraging is a quantitative measure of the various funding and in-kind support from other vested organizations. Factors to consider include: The ratio of partner contributions to the funding request (1:1, 2:1, etc), how many project partners are contributing to the grant request, and the number of partner categories (state/federal government, local government, NGO, university, watershed group, etc.) involved in the proposed project. Projects that have high ratios of other sources of funding (monetary or in-kind) with several project partners of various categories will receive the highest score. Projects with no documented partners or leveraging will receive a score of zero.
VII. Other Benefits (10%): This evaluation criterion allows the reviewer the ability to examine the overall project and determine if other benefits exist that have not been addressed in the other sections. The reviewer will rely on professional judgment when applying a score to this criterion. Other project screening factors to consider:
1) Cost per treated area or pollutant removed: The cost benefit analysis may not address the complete ability of the project to remove a substantial amount of pollutants from a waterbody depending on the cost of the project (i.e. new or upgraded sewer treatment)
2) Compatibility with watershed objectives
3) Synergy with other restoration, research, or maintenance projects
4) Public and Neighborhood acceptance
5) Logical precedence: Some projects may rely on the prior completion of other projects, or a project might not function at its intended capacity unless implemented in conjunction with another project
6) Experienced based ranking: the ranking of a project may sometimes be based exclusively or primarily on the judgment of experienced managers, governing bodies, other officials, citizens, and anyone else who may be involved in the decision making process
VIII. Relative Cost to Benefits (10%): This ranking criterion is difficult to quantify and ultimately even more difficult to weigh against projects that differ significantly in their outcome and subsequent benefits. However, since funding for public improvements is not unlimited, it is useful to identify those projects that provide the most benefits for the least cost. The cost to benefit score is applied to projects last after all other criteria have been scored and projects have been ranked without a cost consideration. This allows for the generation of a “benefits score” of the project. Next, a “cost score” will be applied for each project based on the requested amount. Funding provided by the applicant is not considered as a cost and is recognized as an additional benefit. Lastly, the “benefit” and “cost” scores are then combined to derive the final cost to benefit score.
Each project selected for funding will enter into an agreement (contract or agreement of service) with Chautauqua County that defines the obligations of the applicant and the County. This includes, but is not limited to, items such as; reporting, payment schedule, terms of the agreement, use of funds, cancellations, reporting, insurance, disability, and workman’s compensation. During the term of the agreement the applicant must allow access to the project area to the County Watershed Coordinator. Applicants are responsible for securing all permits necessary for work and fulfilling New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requirements. Funding will only be applied to costs incurred under the agreement after the agreement has been signed.
All projects will be finished by December 31, 2018. Recipients of approved 2% projects that are not completed within the allotted time frame may request an extension in written form to the Watershed Coordinator explaining why an extension is being requested. The extension requests will be reviewed and a determination will be provided on a case-by-case basis. Extensions shall not be extended beyond December 31, 2019.
As the 2% project progresses, reporting with photographic documentation must be submitted to the Watershed Coordinator as defined in the agreement, which is typically at the initiation of the project, while work is underway, and at the completion of the project. All reporting will be consistent with the work plan (scope of services), timeline, and budget submitted as part of the application. Within 60 days of the completion of the project, the applicant must submit a project final report, which includes detailed financial information to the Watershed Coordinator in order to receive final payment.