1/24/00, 7:00 – 9:00 P.M.

Ledyard Town Hall

Aurora, 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. S. Hurlbut welcomed everyone. Introductions were made. Acceptance of minutes from 11/29/00 meeting moved by D. Morehouse. J. Sipos seconded. No discussion. All in favor. Motion carried.

2. EOPP Committee Update: S. Anderson stated that the EOPP Committee plans to deliver information that will be useful to the public during the first set of upcoming public participation meetings. The Committee fels that the detailed action plans posted on the IO’s website are too detailed for most people. A shorter and broader narrative (Strategy Framework) was posted on the website. The narrative will be the foundation for discussions at the PP meetings in Feb.

The EOPP committee recognizes that the Strategy Framework will continue to evolve. Eventually the Committee hopes the IO will adopt the document as a guide in the future. It was suggested that the document be discussed as an agenda item at future meeting.

D. Morehouse suggested that efforts to clarify the distinction between the IO and the Network would be helpful and appreciated. S. Anderson will address this issue at the PP meetings. She asked IO members to attend the PP meetings, offer to facilitate small group discussions as needed, stay informed about upcoming activities and provide contact information when possible.

3. Institutional Arrangements for Continuing the Cooperative Agreement: Mary-Arthur Beebe, Executive Director of the Lake George Association (LGA) talked about the history of the LGA and how the organization moved from planning to implementing projects. She stressed the importance of taking a pro-active approach to watershed management by identifying projects and acting on them. She credits the LGS’s success to maintaining a wide array of projects (big and small); tapping all available resources; focusing on the entire watershed and developing networking skills that foster collaboration and cooperation.

4. Draft Strategy Recommendations: D. Zorn presented an overview of the draft Cayuga Lake Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan as documented through the draft table of contents published on the IO web site. He stated that the draft Plan will continue to evolve and that it is important to point out all of the ongoing efforts in the watershed. The goal is to move all efforts toward each other thereby improving collaboration and cooperation.

The Plan must include the IO’s plans for it’s own future. The IO should identify the cost of those plans and funding to implement them. This should be discussed at a future meeting.

IO members were asked to review strategy recommendations posted on the IO’s web site and provide input that will help move the draft toward development of a final draft and ultimately, the final document.

The final plan will include an analysis of existing municipal, regulatory controls. Watershed municipalities completed survey documents that identified regulatory controls they currently employ. Municipalities have been asked to submit documentation in support of their regulatory controls. This documentation is need to fulfull the regulatory analysis contractually obligated by DOS. A handout identifying municipalities that have not provided the requested materials was distributed. IO members were asked to help generate the requested materials.

5. Seneca-Cayuga Canal Response: A final reply from the Technical Committee to questions raised in relation to exclusion of the Seneca-Cayuga Canal from the Cayuga Lake management planning process was distributed. The Technical Committee acknowledges the canal plays a role in the Cayuga Lake watershed and recommends that it be brought into subsequent versions of the management plan in more detail. It was also noted that if the canal is included as part of the Cayuga Lake watershed then other lakes upstream of the canal must also be included as part of the Cayuga Lake watershed.

6. IO Member Contribution Funds: S. Hurlbut distributed a Town of Ledyard - Watershed Intermunicipal Project Balance Sheet. The 12/31/00 Watershed Matching Fund Balance is listed as $20,601.17. In response to questions raised about the dates of individual municipal contributions, each member municipality was asked to document their contribution dates. The contribution dates from those municipalities who responded to the request for information were listed on a separate sheet.

S. Hurlbut stated that the Ledyard Town Attorney is assisting the IO in its application for non-profit status. It is expected that the IO will have tax-exempt status by July 1, 2001. At that time, the IO will be in position to maintain its own bank account. The IO will also be functional as outlined in its by-laws by that date.

7. Other Business: It was suggested that future IO meeting dates and locations be posted on the IO’s web site. It was also noted that the agenda for the January meeting was not posted on the web site. Agenda meetings will be made available in time to post on the web site prior to all future meetings.

8. Set Agenda Items and Date For Next Meeting: The next meeting of the IO will be held on February 28th in Ithaca. Agenda Items will include a brief presentation on using watershed models as management tools; draft strategy discussion; and an IO Institutionalization recommendation for the Restoration and Protection Plan.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 P.M.