SEVENTH MEETING

Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan
Intermunicipal Organization (IO) Meeting

5/26/99, 7:00 – 9:00 P.M.

CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION OF TOMPKINS COUNTY

Minutes

Attendees:

Ken Zabriskie (Village of Aurora)-R*
John Sipos (Towns of Varick and Covert)-R*
Pat Morrell (Town of Fayette)-R*
Bruce Johnson (Village of Freeville)-R*
Dan Winch (Tompkins County)-R*
Carolyn Grigorov (Town of Ithaca)-R*
Jeannine Kirby (Town of Lansing)-R*
Deb Grantham (Town of Dryden)-R*
Jerry Codner (Town of Lansing)-RA*
Sharon Anderson (Tompkins Co.)-RA*
Craig Schutt (Tompkins Co. SWCD)
George Kennedy (Town of Ulysses)
N.C. Dondero (Citizen/Ithaca)
Katie Borgella (Tompkins Co. Planning)
Janet Hawkes (Cay. Lk. Watershed Network)
Celeste Carmichael (Assem. Fessenden’s Ofc.)
Peter Shuster (Seneca Co. Farm Bureau)
Marshall Ballard (Citizen/Ithaca)
Mary Pearsall (Citizen/Ithaca)
Mary Beth Holub (Tom. Co. Ag/Frmld. Prot. Bd.)
Kevin Millington (NYS DOS)
Pam O’Malley (Central NY Regional Planning)
Edward Ide (Town of Aurelius)-R*
David Morehouse (Town of Ledyard)-R*
Ronald Erickson (Village of Cayuga)-R*
Chuck Howell (Town of Scipio)-R*
Deborah Davenport (Town of Summer Hill)-R*
Barbara Stewart (Village of Interlaken)-R*
Krys Cail (Town of Ulysses)-R*
Sylvia Hurlbut (Town of Ledyard)-RA*
Dooley Kiefer (Village of Cayuga Hts.)-RA*
Ron Anderson (Village of Cayuga Hts.)
Jennifer Wilkenson (Citizen/Ithaca)
John Kaminsky (Town of Lansing/Sierra Club)
Mikel Shakarjian (Tompkins Co. Planning)
Jim White (Cay. Lk. Watershed Network)
Tee-Ann Hunter (Town of Ledyard/Network)
Jose Lozano (Tompkins Co. WRC-TC)
Janice Degni (CCE Cortland Co.)
Nick Vandam (Citizen/Brooktondale)
Dr. Robert Raymond (Citizen/Ithaca)
Marion Raymond (Citizen/Ithaca)
Charles McCaffrey (NYS DOS)

R = designated representative for municipality
RA = designated alternate rep. for municipality
*Municipality has signed and submitted the "Call For Cooperation" (intermunicipal agreement)

I. Welcome, Meeting Purpose and Outcome: Meeting began at 7:00 PM. Sylvia Hurlbut welcomed everyone and stated the meeting purpose as: Select 1st-year interim recommendations; discuss IO Committees; and presentation of the project’s task and financial status.

II. Introductions: Introductions were made of all attendees.

III. Approval of Minutes: Acceptance of minutes moved by John Sipos. Seconded by Dave Morehouse. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

IV. Selection of 1st-Year Interim Recommendations: S. Hurlbut opened the discussion of 1st-year interim recommendations stating that everyone should have received and reviewed the copy of the proposed recommendation project descriptions and the ranking table that resulted from the joint Technical Committee/IO meeting held on May 17. She suggested hearing from project sponsors that were present about their proposed projects. Jose Lozano described his projects (#14 Trophic State of Cayuga Lake, #15 Ithaca/Cayuga Hts./Lansing Wastewater Treatment Improvements, and #18 Six Mile Creek Restoration) and responded to questions. Krys Cail described the Town of Ulysses project (#6 Safe Drinking Water Project) and responded to questions.

The issue of why some participants did not rank certain projects came up. Pam O’Malley stated that some participants didn’t feel there was enough information to provide a rank. One of the statements to come out of the Technical Committee/IO ranking meeting was that the development of this 1st-year interim list was as learning experience – and one suggestion for improvement was that for the next time, project descriptions should be made to address the specific criteria to facilitate their evaluation and ranking.

Janet Hawkes moved that instead of going through every project, the IO endorse all projects and provide a letters of support for all. Carolyn Grigorov seconded. J Hawkes commented that since the projects varied in type and potential funding source, many would not be competing against each other, and so it isn’t appropriate to rank them against each other. D. Morehouse commented that the group should be prioritizing the recommendations according to the rankings developed – a flat endorsement of all projects would be meaningless. C. Grigorov and J. Sipos agreed that it would be more useful to have prioritization. Vote taken: 11 No; 5 Yes. Motion not carried.

J. Sipos moved that the prioritization developed by the Technical Committee be adopted. D. Morehouse seconded. Deb Grantham agreed that the rankings should be used, but questioned where the cut off would be for the lower ranking projects (e.g., who doesn’t get endorsed). Dan Winch suggested that all get endorsement and a support letter, but that the support letter should state that the Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan and IO ranked 18 projects for inclusion in a 1st-year interim recommendations list and that [that particular] project ranked #x out of 18.

Dooley Kiefer moved to amend the rankings so that project #18 was moved to between the rankings of projects #10 and #2 – it was unfairly impacted by one of the participants not ranking it, for which the reason was unknown. Motion not seconded. Jerry Codner raised the point that a quorum wasn’t present at the 4/28 IO meeting to officially adopt criteria.

Vote was taken on J. Sipos’ motion to adopt the prioritization of the Technical Committee. 14 Yes; 2 No. Motion carried.

Much frustration and confusion was expressed over the inability to make rankings relevant for comparison purposes since the proposed projects fell under many funding categories. Next year’s interim list process should cluster projects by type (e.g., construction, planning, research, engineering and design, education, other) and then rank them within those types to make rankings more relevant. It should also separate out projects that aren’t specifically water quality related.

P. O’Malley inquired about getting IO endorsement of an additional project – specifically Dave Zorn’s proposal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to incorporate source water assessments for public water supplies into the watershed management plan, which currently doesn’t incorporate such assessments. This would make the plan more comprehensive. The EPA call for proposals wasn’t out until just before the deadline for submitting 1st-year recommendation project descriptions – so there wasn’t enough time to prepare a proposal by the deadline.

D. Kiefer moved to add the proposal to the list and have the IO rank it tonight. Ken Zabriskie seconded. J. Lozano expressed concern that the budget was too small and about policy implications of the proposal. P. O’Malley explained that since it would tie into the management plan and benefit from information being produced in it, the source water assessments could be done very cost effectively. D. Winch felt that it is unfair to rank it now because of the number of people who would rank it is greater than the 9 that ranked projects at the 5/17 meeting. He suggested just reading through it and voting on whether it was worthwhile without ranking it. J. Hawkes said that the IO should stick to deadlines that everyone was asked to adhere to, and also said that it should be referred back to the Technical Committee – a review protocol needs to be established. Ed Ide expressed concern that we’re taking on too many projects to get them done. J. Sipos stated that if the IO adopts this proposal today it will set a precedent for encouraging latecomers. Vote taken on motion to add Dave Zorn’s proposal to list: 1 Yes; 15 No. Motion not carried.

J. Sipos moved to refer Dave Zorn’s proposal to the Technical Committee for action and that it be on the IO agenda for the next meeting. P. Morrell seconded. Vote taken: 13 Yes; 3 No.

Concern was raised about how the group rankings were determined. Averaging of the individual rankings was suggested as an alternative to totaling them – if 8 people ranked divide by 8, if 9 ranked, divide by 9. This would eliminate the problem of projects being penalized by people not ranking particular criteria or even entire projects.

In closing, Charlie McCaffrey pointed out that while many project recommendations came out of the effort to develop the 1st-year interim list, many were not Bond Act eligible. He suggested that in preparation for developing the 2nd-year interim list, additional applications be submitted to the Environmental Protection Fund this summer, along with the 3rd-year Watershed Planning Program request, that would enhance the Watershed Planning effort. Proposals are due 8/18/99. All watershed planning-related project proposals could be submitted under the same application, but should be clearly broken out. He suggested an application to do detailed design and planning for nonpoint source projects in priority stream corridors during the coming year, so that when the next Bond Act round comes up (next year) there will be implementation projects ready to be applied for from this Watershed Planning effort. He also suggested requesting funds for watershed-wide GIS work such as land use, land cover, soils and slope, as well as funding to enhance education, outreach and public awareness efforts that would support the planning process. He acknowledged that the greatest challenge to doing this will be coming up with the 50% match required.

V. IO Committee Status, Reports and Related Discussion: P. O’Malley handed out the Technical Committee summary prepared by Dave Zorn. This was also handed out at the last meeting. Questions should be referred to Dave Zorn or Technical Committee members. Sharon Anderson, who is organizing the Education/Outreach/Public Participation Committee, stated that she is looking for people from the northern and western parts of the watershed to join the Committee. Current participation is primarily from the southern and southeastern end of the watershed. She asked for ideas on how to reach out to the watershed for input about the draft watershed characterization. The Committee is strategizing the details for the 2nd public participation meeting to be held this fall. S. Hurlbut commented on the importance of the 2nd public participation meetings and getting consensus from the watershed on the watershed characterization (the facts) so that the IO is not constantly defending the facts and the plan that is based on those facts. S. Hurlbut also briefed the group on the Membership Committee activities. There are now 27 municipalities that have signed the Call for Cooperation. There are 6 municipalities that have stated that they do not intend to participate at this time, because of the minimal amount of land they have in the watershed – and there are a couple of others that probably do not intend to participate as well for similar reasons. That means that out of a maximum of 44 left we have 27 who have joined – so good progress has been made.

VI. Project and Financial Status: P. O’Malley handed out the most recent (5/25) project update. She also handed out a financial status of the project for the period of 3/1/98-3/31/99. The financial handout showed the total budget for the 1st year (which will actually go from 3/1/99 through 11/99) and expenses through 3/31/99 for the DOS effort for both the project as a whole and for individual subcontractors. Claims are submitted quarterly. All payments are reimbursed based on work done – no grant dollars are advanced. The last page of the summary itemizes activities/accomplishments through 3/31/99. The 2nd year of the project is not shown on the financial summary but it has a total project cost of $100,000 of which DOS will cover $50,000. The remaining 50% is required local match. Staff agencies will provide half of the match through in-kind contributions, but a source of the remaining $25,000 cash that is needed has yet to be identified.

VII. Set Date and Agenda for Next and Future IO Meetings: The next IO meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 30, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in Seneca County. J. Sipos will inquire about the availability of the Seneca Falls Town Hall. Note that this is an irregular date (not the 4th Wednesday). Refreshments will start at 6:30 P.M. Agenda items will include discussion of D. Zorn’s proposal following Technical Committee review, dealing with the averaging issue for the ranking matrix, discussion of the relationship of land use to water quality and the range of land use control tools available to protect water quality, and discussions of upcoming Environmental Protection Fund proposals for the 3rd year of the Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan project.

The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM.

SUMMARY OF VOTES

ITEM OUTCOME
Vote to accept 4/28/99 IO meeting minutes. Carried (Unanimous)
Vote to endorse all projects (equally) and provide letters of support. Not carried (5 Yes; 11 No)
Vote to adopt Technical Committee prioritization of projects and provide endorsement letters stating the rank received. Carried (14 Yes; 2 No)
Vote to add D. Zorn proposal to list and have IO rank it during meeting. Not carried (1 Yes; 15 No)
Vote to refer D. Zorn proposal to the Technical Committee for action and to have the IO address Tech. Comm. recommendations at next IO meeting. Carried (13 Yes; 3 No)


Return to index


To contact the Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization.

or email info@cayugawatershed.org

CLW IO 2002