01: Please supply any comments related to the Introduction, Definitions, or Background sections.
No response submitted.
02: Please supply any comments related to Proposal Development section (3).
The Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) recognizes the document's careful explanation of the proposal development process. While the details are extensive, SRP would like to recommend a visual representation, such as a flowchart, that could enhance participants' understanding of this process. SRP appreciates the document's commitment to transparency and stakeholder involvement.
03: Please supply any comments related to the Proposal Development - Task Force Creation section (3.1).
SRP appreciates the document's clear description of Task Force composition and the role of the Lead Sponsor. However, for the sake of transparency and trust-building among participants, we recommend providing more information about the selection process for Lead Sponsors and the criteria considered. We appreciate the document's emphasis on the diversity of perspectives within Task Forces. Additionally, SRP notes that Section 3.1 does not clearly define the makeup of the Task Force. It indicates it "may include members of the PRC or others with specific subject matter expertise." This leaves room for interpretation regarding Task Force composition. We recommend further defining the criteria for Task Force membership, particularly concerning whether members of the public can nominate themselves and the eligibility of third-party consultants nominated by WRAP participants. Clarifying these aspects will enhance the transparency and inclusivity of the Task Force creation process.
04: Please supply any comments related to the Proposal Development - Proposal Drafting Process section (3.2).
SRP acknowledges the document's thorough explanation of the components of a Proposal. To enhance practicality, SRP recommends including an example or template of a typical Proposal document. This may be a valuable reference for Task Forces.
05: Please supply any comments related to the Proposal Review section (4).
SRP finds the Proposal Review section well-structured and informative. The document effectively outlines the stages involved in reviewing proposals and demonstrates a commitment to transparent processes, which aligns with our values.
06: Please supply any comments related to the Proposal Review - Public Comment section (4.1).
SRP appreciates the document's approach to public comments. However, SRP recommends providing clear guidelines or criteria for Task Forces when determining the duration of the public comment period. This will ensure consistency and fairness in the process.
07: Please supply any comments related to the Proposal Review - COSR Comments section (4.2).
SRP acknowledges the importance of the COSR's role in the review process. However, SRP recommends providing more specific information about how COSR comments are considered and their potential impact on proposals. Enhanced clarity in this regard will benefit all participants.
08: Please supply any comments related to the Proposal Review - PRC Recommendation Process section (4.3).
SRP recognizes the document's role of the PRC in considering proposals. However, SRP recommends providing more details on how the PRC reaches consensus or votes on proposals. Participants may benefit from a deeper understanding of the PRC's decision-making process.
09: Please supply any comments related to the Proposal Review - RAPC Review section (4.4).
No response submitted.
10: Please supply any comments related to the Proposal Review - COSR Formal Opposition to Endorsed Changed Proposal section (4.5).
No response submitted.
11: Please supply any comments related to the Proposal Review - Board Interaction section (4.6).
No response submitted.
General Comment