Fifteen percent of available funds in the resource
enhancement and protection fund (after the $350,000 annual allocation to the
conservation education board and 1 percent of revenues to the fund are
allocated to the administration fund) shall be allocated annually to the city
park and open spaces grant account. That 15 percent shall be divided into three
portions according to the percent of the state's urban population in each
category, with each portion available on a competitive basis to cities falling
within one of the following three size categories:
Cities of less than 2,000
Cities between 2,000 and 25,000
Cities larger than 25,000
Funds shall be initially apportioned to each category as per
this rule. If at the time of project review and scoring there are funds
available in any category which exceed the requests for grants in that
category, those funds may, at the director's discretion, be transferred to
another category where requests exceed the funds available.
(1)
Eligible projects.
Grants for up to 100 percent of project costs made to cities may be used for
the acquisition, establishment and maintenance of natural parks, preserves and
open spaces.
Grants may include expenditures for multipurpose trails, rest
room facilities, shelter houses and picnic facilities, museums, parks,
preserves, parkways, city forests, city wildlife areas as well as other open
space-oriented acquisition and development projects, subject to the
restrictions in rule 571-33.4 (455A).
(2)
Eligible
sponsors. Any incorporated city or town in the state may make
application for a grant.
(3)
Grant ceilings. Incorporated cities and towns are eligible to
receive annual grants from the resource enhancement and protection fund in
accordance with the following schedule:
|
Population
|
Maximum
|
|
0 - 1,000
|
$ 50,000
|
|
1,001 - 5,000
|
75,000
|
|
5,001 - 10,000
|
100,000
|
|
10,001 - 25,000
|
125,000
|
|
25,001 - 50,000
|
150,000
|
|
50,001 - 75,000
|
200,000
|
|
over 75,000
|
300,000
|
The grant ceiling may be waived upon approval by the director
if (1) the project is regional in nature or is projected to serve a minimum of
100,000 people; or (2) the project cannot be staged over a multiyear period so
that a separate grant application might be submitted each year.
(4)
Review and selection
committee.
a. The director shall
appoint a five-member review and selection committee to evaluate project
applications. This committee shall include one member representing each of the
three size classes of cities (e.g., one from a city of less than 2,000, one
from a city of 2,000 to 25,000, and one from a city of over 25,000). The
director shall request a list of candidates from the Iowa league of cities and
Iowa parks and recreation association. The remaining two members of the
committee shall be a representative of the department and an at-large member.
Additionally, there shall be at least two alternates designated by the director
from the candidates list provided by the Iowa league of cities and the Iowa
parks and recreation association. The committee shall elect its own chairperson
from its members. Members shall serve three-year staggered terms.
b. Conflict of interest. An individual who is
a member, volunteer, or employee of an entity that has submitted a project
shall not serve on the scoring committee during that award cycle. Instead, one
of the alternates shall review and score in the individual's place.
(5)
Project selection
criteria. The committee shall evaluate and rank the resource
enhancement and protection (REAP) city grant applications, scoring each
criterion from 1 to 10, low to high, and using the following multipliers for
each criterion:
a. The committee shall use a
multiplier of four for the relationship to relevant regional and statewide
programs based on the demonstrated relationship to the state comprehensive
outdoor recreation plan, the Iowa open spaces protection plan, the county
resource enhancement plan, and other relevant local, state and federal
plans.
b. The committee shall use a
multiplier of three for the quality of the site or the project, or both:
(1) Quality of site for land acquisition
projects. The committee shall consider the following characteristics:
1. Level of significance. Relative rarity of
the natural resources found on the project site, including but not limited to
native vegetation, the documented presence of species of greatest conservation
need as defined by the Iowa Wildlife Action Plan developed by the department,
which may be amended from time to time, or other uncommonly occurring but
native resources.
2. Resource
representation. The quality of the project site, including but not limited to
the size and diversity of the project area and the vegetation and wildlife it
supports.
3. Level of threat.
Specific factors or immediate threats to the project area that constitute
urgency for acquisition and development, including but not limited to urban
expansion, residential development, agricultural activities, or
clearing.
4. Relation to public
land. Proximity to existing wildlife management areas, existing parks, other
public recreation areas or other greenbelt areas already under public ownership
and management.
(2)
Quality of project. For construction projects, the committee shall consider
plans that demonstrate the highest and best site-specific quality of design,
including projects that use materials which incorporate energy savings and
adhere to sustainable building principles, including waste minimizations and
material reuse; plans for improvements that enhance the restoration or
expansion of Iowa's natural resources or that use development principles which
benefit the natural ecology of the proposed area; plans that include
innovations or construction methods in the design and development of the
project; and projects whose actual design and construction will exceed commonly
accepted design and construction standards.
c. The committee shall use a multiplier of
two for each of the following:
(1)
Environmental benefits. Projects that demonstrate a benefit to the surrounding
environment, including but not limited to incorporation of land improvements
that may have a positive impact on the larger ecosystem, such as timber or
prairie establishment or wetland or filter strip development.
(2) Public benefit. A realistic estimate of
the number of users of the project area and consideration of secondary benefits
such as impacts on local tourism, surrounding businesses and adjacent property
owners.
(3) Local support.
Demonstrated need for the project and increased public use of the project area
as a result of the award, as documented through surveys and other testing
methods, letters of support, and planning processes that consider social,
demographic, ecological and economic considerations.
d. The committee shall use a multiplier of
one for a communication plan that identifies the project sponsor's effort to
inform and advise constituents and users about the importance of the proposed
project and plans to promote the proposed project to expected user
groups.
(6)
Grant application schedule. Rescinded IAB 12/26/90, effective
1/30/91.
