1 / 7

Chesapeake Bay Environmental Finance Advisory Committee Options

Chesapeake Bay Environmental Finance Advisory Committee Options. Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board April 11, 2013. Background. On January 10, 2013, the Management Board approved development of a set of options for a finance advisory committee for consideration.

oren
Download Presentation

Chesapeake Bay Environmental Finance Advisory Committee Options

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chesapeake Bay Environmental Finance Advisory CommitteeOptions Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board April 11, 2013

  2. Background • On January 10, 2013, the Management Board approved development of a set of options for a finance advisory committee for consideration. • Efforts to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed demand significant investments to achieve success. Such investments require financial strategies, tools, coordination, and partnership. • The Chesapeake Bay Program sponsored environmental finance workshops and webinars in 2012 and 2013, but greater effort is needed to support Bay Program partners.

  3. Option 1: Status • Constitute workgroup as part of existing organization such as EPA EFAB or GIT 6. • Establish advisory committee with standing equal to CAC, LGAC, or STAC. Option 2: Scope • Focus of new group should be on water quality. • Focus of new group should be all goals of the Chesapeake Bay Partnership.

  4. Option 3: Scope • Focus of new group should be on either public financing or private financing. • Focus of new group should be on both public and private financing. • Focus of new group should be on both but place greater emphasis on one or the other. Option 4: Size • New group should be open to all potential members willing to serve. • New group should be limited in size.

  5. Option 5: Credentials • Membership in new group should not be predicated on professional credentials and expertise. • Membership in new group should require demonstration of appropriate credentials and expertise. Half the membership should be from entities headquartered outside the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Option 6: Term • Duration of membership in new group should not be limited. • Duration of membership in new group should be limited to five years. • Terms should be staggered with a portion rotating off on a specific frequency.

  6. Option 7: Operations • Work plan of new group should be based on issued raised by Chesapeake Bay Program partners. • Work plan of new group should be based on issued raised by members of the new group. • Work plan of new group should be based on issued raised by Chesapeake Bay Program partners and by members of the new group.

  7. Budget Implications • Since FY 2009, CAC and LGAC have each received between $150,000 and $169,000 per year in Chesapeake Bay Program funds.  During the same period, STAC has received between $303,000 and $401,000 per year.  • We expect the new group to conduct much of its business via teleconference and video conference. • Due to the broad mandate of the new group, we expect its budget to be between $150,000 and $300,000.

More Related