INTERMUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION MEETING

11/29/00, 7:00 – 9:00 P.M.

Seneca Falls Village Hall

Seneca Falls, New York

R=designated representative for municipality

RA=designated alternate representative for municipality

*Municipality has signed and submitted the “Call for Cooperation” (intermunicipal agreement)

1. Welcome, Introductions, Approval of Minutes: Meeting began at 7:00 P.M. K. Bertuch welcomed everyone in S. Hurlbut’s absence. Acceptance of minutes from 10/18/00 meeting moved by D. Morehouse. G. Kennedy seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.

2. Financial Update: The third-year financial statement for the period April 1, 2000 through September 30, 2000

was available for IO review. Following the first claim of the current contract year, a project-wide, in-kind surplus of $42,063.41 has been documented.

The schedule of activities for the remainder of third-year tasks was presented. Dissemination of draft strategies by the Technical Committee will begin in December. The draft strategies will be available on the Internet for review by a limited audience including IO members and other interested watershed professionals. IO members will be notified of the release of the first draft strategies and the URL for accessing them through a one-time, general mailing. Notification of subsequent draft strategy releases will be made via e-mail. A sign up sheet was passed around for those wishing to receive direct notification of draft strategy releases. Those not providing an e-mail address will need to periodically check the web page for updates.

Public participation meetings will be held Feb. 6 through Feb. 14. and May 14, through May 24. A one-month comment period following each set of Public Participation meetings will be strictly enforced. Comments submitted to the EOPP Committee after the announced deadlines will not be accepted.

3. Development of a Model to Pro-Rate IO Membership Dues: The Mahassett Bay model for pro-rating membership dues was discussed. D. Morehouse noted that the model presented was not adopted in the Manhasset Bay area. While he felt that it is appropriate for the full IO to provide their thoughts on how membership dues can be assessed, he questioned whether the full IO is the appropriate body to determine the actual membership fee schedule.

D. Grantham expressed concern that using land area as a weight may result in “double-dipping” in some municipalities given the geographic nesting of IO member municipalities (village inside town inside county). She favors assessing a base contribution plus a pro-rated amount based on population.

In her absence, K. Bertuch read D. Keifer’s comments. She supports assessing all members a $500 base contribution plus an additional contribution calculated using the equal weight line of the Manhassett Bay model.

K. Bertuch noted that before a base contribution amount can be assessed it will be necessary to determine IO’s actual anticipated operating costs. Cost figures from the first three years of the project can not be used to accurately project the future operational costs given the IO’s new form and function following completion of the development phase of the management plan in July.

D. Morehouse moved to table this discussion without further comment. J. Sipos seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.

4. Use of IO Member Contribution Fund: K. Bertuch distributed an IO municipal contribution fund tally sheet. She stated that work completed by G/FLRPC to convert the Preliminary Watershed Characterization to PDF format for publication on the Internet and on CD-ROM was not funded under the DOS contract. G/FLRPC is requesting payment for these tasks in the amount of $2,000 from the IO fund.

D. Morehouse requested that the IO contribution sheet be dated and that the time referenced contributions were made be noted. K. Bertuch does not have access to contribution dates and could not verify whether or not that information can be provided for all past contributions

J. Sipos requested dates of municipal contributions approximately 5 months ago. He claims knowledge of multiple contributions having been made by Seneca County to the IO, but noted only a single contribution as being listed on the tally sheet. He called for accurate documentation of past municipal contributions (how many, how much and when) and noted how important it is that municipal boards have access to this information. K. Bertuch will request municipal contribution dates from S. Hurlbut. It was suggested that the municipal contributions listed on the tally sheet reflect contributions made only during the year 2000, therefore, contributions made in 1998 or 1999 were not identified.

D. Morehouse questioned the accuracy of the balance shown on the tally sheet given the uncertainties associated with the dates of contributions. Based on information provided by S. Hurlbut, and to the best of her knowledge, K. Bertuch stated the current balance of the IO Municipal Contribution fund to be $12,643.

J. Sipos claimed shoddy accounting of the municipal contributions as illustrated by the fact that not all known contributions are accounted for and contribution dates are not readily identifiable. K. Bertuch suggested that the IO Grant and Finance Committee take an active role in tracking IO funds.

G. Kennedy motioned to approve the expenditure of $2,000 to G/FLRPC for work completed converting the Preliminary Watershed Characterization files to PDF format for publication on the Internet and on CD-ROM. D. Grantham seconded.

In subsequent discussion, D. Morehouse amended the motion by moving to delay payment to G/FLRPC until the IO municipal contribution fund tally sheet balance ($12,643) is verified and the contribution dates are noted.

J. Lozano further amended the motion by moving that G/FLRPC provide a description of the actual work performed in the file conversion prior to payment. D. Morehouse declared both amendments to be “friendly.” During discussion, D. Morehouse withdrew his amendment to the original motion. J. Lozano re-stated the need for task documentation from G/FLRPC but agreed that approval of payment to G/FLRPC should not be delayed.

G. Kennedy suggested that the IO agree to pay G/FLRPC without delay but that no additional payments be made from the IO municipal contribution fund pending review of the fund by the Finance Committee. K. Bertuch asked J. Lozano to represent the Finance Committee and agree to conduct the suggested review. He agreed to review G/FLRPC’s statement of work completed, but referred review of the IO account to Sylvia who has access to the original contribution records.

The original motion and friendly amendment were restated as follows: The IO will agree to pay $2,000 to G/FLRPC for work completed converting the Preliminary Watershed Characterization to PDF format for publication on the Internet and on CD-ROM. G/FLRPC will provide a statement of work completed during the conversion. All in favor. Motion carried.

J. Sipos moved that a more detailed list of IO contributions, including contribution dates and multiple contributions be made available. D. Morehouse seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.

K. Bertuch asked IO representatives to deliver Preliminary Watershed Characterization CD ROMs to their municipal buildings and local libraries. This will reduce, but not eliminate mailing costs for distributing CDs. Postage for distributing CD-ROMs is not covered under the DOS grant. The estimated per CD mailing cost is $1.64 (actual postage, reproduction of a cover letter and a padded envelope). The estimated, high end cost for mailing the CD-ROMs to municipal buildings, libraries, CLWN Board members and IO Committee members is $325. D. Morehouse motioned to approve an expenditure not to exceed $325 for postage required to distribute the Watershed Characterization CD ROMs. D. Grantham seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.

5. Request for IO Support: J. Lozano requested that the IO contact watershed county representatives

To promote coordination between individual county water quality strategy plans and the upcoming Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan. D. Grantham asked for clarification and restated the present request as follows: the IO is being asked to send a letter to each County Board requesting that they acknowledge the fact that their county-wide water quality strategy plan also contributes to the protection of the entire watershed; therefore, the IO encourages each county to fund its own water quality strategy. J. Lozano verified this to be what is being requested and added that the county boards should also be asked to communicate with other counties to identify any multi-jurisdictional issues that can be addressed. D. Grantham stated it would be reasonable to request that this letter come from Sylvia.

Questions were raised concerning discrepancies between the written request for endorsement sent to IO representatives prior to the meeting and the oral request now being made. J. Lozano stated that the request is to simply promote inter-county communication that will foster coordination between individual county water quality strategy plans across the watershed.

D. Grantham suggested that the IO work on developing a forum where counties might present their water quality strategies. She offered to assist J. Lozano in developing plans for an inter-county, water quality strategy information exchange forum. It was suggested that it would be useful to identify differences in water quality strategy plans as well as common areas.

K. Bertuch read D. Keifer’s comments. She feels there are too many “coordinators” referenced in the current proposal and suggests that the County WQ strategy plans reference the IO. A sub-committee should be formed to examine watershed county water quality strategy plans, note differences and difficulties in wording, conflicts between county water quality strategies themselves and conflicts between individual water quality strategies and recommendations that will be made in the Cayuga Lake Management Plan.

Discussions were tabled until the January meeting. At that time J. Lozano and D. Grantham will suggest a plan for moving inter-county water quality strategy communication/cooperation forward.

6. Committee Reports: EOPP - S. Anderson reported that approximate attendance at the Wells College Dinner

Program was 136. Feedback indicates attendees were appreciative of the information provided. Four Public Participation meetings have been scheduled for February. Four meetings will eliminate a noted gap in coverage on the west side of the lake. Development of a 10-15 minute slide show for municipal board members is being contemplated. The presentation would be funded under the EOPP Committee budget. Feedback was requested on the utility of developing such a presentation. Based on favorable discussions that followed and a general willingness of IO reps to work with their municipalities, the EOPP will move ahead with the development of this presentation.

Grant and Finance Committee: J. Lozano requested clarification on the Grant and Finance Committee’s authority to submit a grant application without IO approval when a submittal deadline is imminent.

J. Sipos stated the sole purpose of the IO is to prioritize grants and all grants must have prior approval of the IO. J. Lozano agreed to notify the IO or the Executive Committee before submitting any future grant application.

J. Lozano stated that the IO is not eligible to apply for Bond Act grants. He would like the IO to petition the DEC for Bond Act eligibility. Questions were raised regarding possible DOS restrictions on initiating this petition while the DOS contract is still in effect. J. Sipos moved to authorize S. Hurlbut to petition DEC for Bond Act Eligibility on behalf of the IO once it is verified that there are no DOS imposed restrictions preventing this petition from being made prior to completion of the current DOS contract. D. Morehouse seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.

Agricultural Committee: J. Young stated that the Agricultural Committee has met twice. K. Bertuch reported that C. Schutt is planning to hold a third meeting prior to the 1/24 IO meeting.

IO/Network Joint Strategy Committee: No report.

Technical Committee: K. Bertuch read the Technical Committee report submitted by D. Zorn. The Technical Committee is currently reviewing a draft framework for the monitoring plan portion of the management plan; the Characterization has been put into PDF format; Federal wetland [maps] have been acquired or are being digitized for the wetlands management portion of the plan; land use is being digitized from digital ortho photos for calculation of pollution loading and nonpoint source strategies; slope coverage has been developed from digital elevation models to help calculate pollution loading for subwatersheds; land use regulation and control documentation inventory is being conducted for programmatic environment analysis and recommendations.

Several reminders have been sent to municipalities to provide their land use regulation and control documents for use in the programmatic portion of the plan. It will cause problems if they don’t return the survey and requested documentation. K. Bertuch suggested representatives contact D. Zorn to find out if their municipalities have complied and to take action to prompt them to do so if they have not.

D. Morehouse asked if the Technical Committee has considered the Seneca-Cayuga Canal as part of the Cayuga Lake watershed. He states the canal is one of the major items on the north end of the Cayuga Lake watershed due to the commercialization of Waterloo, Seneca Falls, Geneva and the impact of Seneca Meadows. He suggests that the Seneca-Cayuga Canal be included in the watershed despite the fact that he has been told the canal was purposely omitted from the Cayuga Lake watershed as there were plans to address the area as a separate and specific watershed. He sees no indication that this is what is happening and requests that D. Zorn address this issue in writing.

J. Lozano suggested that the issue should be presented to the entire Technical Committee rather than to only D. Zorn. With the approval of the IO, he offered to bring the issue before the Technical Committee at its next meeting. D. Morehouse moved that J. Lozano raise the question of why the Seneca-Cayuga Canal is not being considered as part of the Cayuga Lake Watershed during the development of the Management Plan. J. Sipos seconded. All in favor. Motion Carried.

Other Business: J . Terninko displayed a draft of an upcoming Network publication that will distributed to Network and IO members and will also be available at the informational talks in February.

7. Set Agenda items and date for next meeting: The next meeting of the IO will be held on January 24, 2001 at the Ledyard Town Hall. Agenda Items will include draft strategies from the Technical Committee; project financial update; municipal contribution fund update; county water quality strategy initiative update. Pending items include a DOS guest speaker who will address issues related to the transition from management plan development to implementation.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M.