7:00 – 9:00 P.M.
Falls Village Hall
Falls, New York
Cassiniti (Town of Caroline)-R*
Howell (Town of Scipio)-R*
Young (Village of Cayuga)–R*
Warrick (Town of Seneca Falls)-R*
Woodman (Town of Summerhill)*
Lozano, (City of Ithaca)-R*
Shockey (Village of Union Springs)-R*
Bertuch, CNY RPDB
Malyj (Seneca County)*
Morehouse (Town of Ledyard)-R*
Sipos (Towns of Covert and Varick)-R*
Leopold (Village of Lansing)R-*
Winch (Tompkins County)-R*
Anderson (Tompkins County)-R*
Greeley (Town of Lansing)-R*
Shattock (Town of Lansing)*
Kennedy (Town of Ulysses)-R*
Howe (Cayuga County)*
Grantham (Town of Dryden)-R*
Grigorov (Town of Ithaca)-R*
Stewart (Village of Interlaken)-R*
Hackett (Tompkins County)*
representative for municipality
alternate representative for municipality
has signed and submitted the “Call for Cooperation” (intermunicipal
1. Welcome, Introductions, Approval of Minutes:
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.
The third-year financial statement for the period April 1, 2000 through
September 30, 2000
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
favors assessing a base contribution plus a pro-rated amount based on
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.
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.
Morehouse moved to table this discussion without further comment. J. Sipos
seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
for IO Support:
Lozano requested that the IO contact watershed county representatives
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
- S. Anderson reported that approximate attendance at the Wells College Dinner
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Joint Strategy 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Set Agenda items and date for next meeting:
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.
meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
Minutes of 10/18/00.
membership fee assessment discussions until a later date.
$2,000 expenditures for work completed by G/FLRPC in converting the Preliminary
Watershed Characterization to PDF format for publication on the Internet and
a maximum expenditure of $325 for postage required to distribute the
Preliminary Watershed Characterization CD-ROM.
S. Hurlbut to petition the NYS DEC to grant Bond Act eligibility to the Cayuga
Lake Watershed IO pending verification that the current DOS contract does not
preclude this action prior to July 31, 2001.
J. Lozano to address the issue of why the Technical Committee has not included
the Seneca-Cayuga Canal as part of the Cayuga Lake watershed during the
development of the Management Plan at the Technical Committee’s 12/7/00
Return to index
To contact the
Cayuga Lake Watershed
CLW IO 2002