The Oroville Supplemental Benefits Fund (SPF) steering committee discussed a draft Department of Water Resources (DWR) agreement that would provide the SPF with $200,000 per year in advance funding and voted unanimously to allocate initial Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) dollars 50%/50 between two priority categories.

At a committee meeting, Ruth (assistant city administrator) and staff described a draft DWR document labeled “draft” that, if finalized, would provide the SPF with $200,000 per year as an advance against funds due after issuance of a new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license. Committee members were repeatedly told the document in the packet is a draft and not final. Staff said the $200,000 would be an advance to be repaid from future license-related annual payments once the license is issued.

Committee members said they want the NOFA released as soon as practical to give applicants time to prepare. After discussion, the committee voted to divide available grant funding evenly between two priority areas (referred to in meeting materials as items 3 and 4). The motion passed unanimously.

Why it matters: the draft DWR advance would allow the SPF to resume issuing competitive grants and support local recreation-related projects while the formal license process continues. Committee members emphasized they will not spend money that is already required by the FERC license and said the steering committee remains the final decision-maker on awards once applications are reviewed.

What staff told the committee
- Staff said the $200,000 is proposed as an advance against future license payments and, if the license later specifies a larger annual payment, the advance would be repaid on a mirrored schedule described in the draft. Staff emphasized the draft status of the documents and said a final contract and a shorter agreement or letter of understanding would follow in the weeks after DWR and the state water contractors complete their review.

NOFA timing and structure
- Staff recommended issuing a NOFA in November or December and proposed that, if the $200,000 contract is not yet fully executed, the public notice include language saying the funding is tentative and contingent on the final contract. Committee members favored an earlier release to maximize applicant time. The steering committee agreed to a November rollout if the paperwork allows it.

Allocation approach and next steps
- Because some projects referenced in the long-standing river conceptual plan are expected to be funded through the FERC license, several members cautioned against using SPF dollars to supplant license obligations. To avoid overlap, the committee agreed the initial disbursement should be focused and recommended limiting awards to one or two project areas for the initial round.

The vote and procedural details
- The committee made a motion to allocate 50% of available funds to item 3 and 50% to item 4 (as described in the meeting packet). The motion passed unanimously. The packet and staff presentation explain that the city is the fund administrator and must sign any final contract with DWR.

What remains unresolved
- The draft DWR agreement remains unsigned. Staff said a letter of agreement or shorter instrument may be circulated first, followed by the final contract with full terms. The committee asked staff to return with final contract language, a NOFA worksheet showing proposed distributions, and a timeline for publication and workshops.

Background
- The SPF was created as part of settlement activities related to Oroville-area projects and has used prior upfront funds to support local recreation and economic enhancement projects. Committee materials include a “river conceptual plan” that lists seven priority areas; staff provided a worksheet modeling how $200,000 could be divided among those categories.

Committee speakers and roles referenced in this article include: Dave Pittman (committee member), Ruth (assistant city administrator), Andy (staff member), Brian (city staff/fund administrator, referenced), and the steering committee members who voted on the motion.

No final contract was signed during the meeting; the committee’s actions direct staff to proceed with drafting and publishing a NOFA contingent on final contract execution.