CONNECTICUT RIVER GATEWAY COMMISSION

 

WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES

 

July 13, 2009

 

Present/Absent:

Chester:                      Margaret Wilson, Martha Wallace

Deep River:                  Amy Petrone, Nancy Fischbach

East Haddam:              Harvey Thomas, Robert Boulware

Essex:                          Ellen Whaley, Fred Vollono

Fenwick:                       Chuck Chadwick

Haddam:                     Susan Bement

Lyme:                           Kevin Mazer, J. Melvin Woody

Old Lyme:                   Vacancy, Ted Crosby

Old Saybrook:            Madge Fish, David Lemay

CRERPA:                      Steve Williams

Midstate RPA:             Raoul  De Brigard, Stacia DeMichele

DEP:                            David Blatt

Staff:                           J.H. Torrance Downes

Tidewater:                    Judy Preston

Guests:                        None present.

                                   

 

Call to Order

Vice Chairman Nancy Fischbach called the workshop of the Gateway Commission to order at 7:35 pm in the CRERPA meeting room. 

 

Meeting started with general discussion of GW members visiting member town P&Zs and ZBAs.  Ted Crosby urged other members to visit their local commissions and boards with “churning” coming from staff.  Nancy Fischbach suggested one member being assigned the task of visiting their local P&Z per month and report back to the GW the following month.  Stasia DeMichelle indicated that the Haddam P&Z chair was amenable to discussion of GW issues and that there used to be a series of liaisons but no more.  DeMichelle mentions that she and staff will be visiting the Haddam ZBA in October.  She indicates that member and staff would talk about GW goals and gain feedback, informing that GW is there to “assist and direct”.  JHTD offers to prepare a short document outlining the history of the organization and efforts in which it has been involved.  Fischbach suggests that initial visits should be short and to the point, offering expanded discussion at the invitation of the local commissions.  Crosby discusses a “package” for presentation purposes, to be available around Labor Day.  Visits should be scheduled on the agenda, coordinated through local staff.

 

Discussion moved to Committees and committee sign-up.  Committees discussed include Finance (existing), Community Relations (outreach) & Education, Land and Rules & Procedures.  GW members to sign-up for committees with lowest alphabet last name to coordinate the first meeting and when to meet.  Subcommittee will discuss their thoughts on goals and present to GW as a whole.  Number of committee members doesn’t matter, although all members should do at least one.  DeMichelle reports that Raul DiBrigard requests membership on “land” committee.   Fischbach reports that committee membership list was “populate” with the most regular attendees. 

 

Discussion moved to future goals, what the GW should pursue when it “grows up”.  Susan Bement indicated that most aren’t aware that the GW exists.  DeMichelle indicates that the Haddam P&Z didn’t even know.  Agreed that public outreach, especially to local boards and commissions is a high priority.

 

Regarding riparian buffer standards, JHTD reminded the GW that Deep River ZEO Cathie Jefferson and East Haddam Land Use Administrator Jim Ventres both expressed interest in the adoption of standards like those prepared by Tidewater Institute’s Judy Preston.  Fischbach discussed the opportunity presented by using Tidewater from the standpoint of GW needs for education.  Reiterating past discussion, Fischbach recounted that contracts with Tidewater will be more specific with more defined “benchmarks” for determining progress on work.  Payments to Tidewater could be based upon the meeting of such benchmarks.  The work Tidewater takes on for the GW should be driven more by GW needs and less by outside factors including grant funding availability.  Peggy Wilson queries if the updating of the Mission Booklet is one of the tasks already given to Tidewater and wonders for whom the approved PowerPoint presentation will be prepared.  Harvey Thomas suggests that the presentation is for any interested group with Crosby indicating that the PowerPoint could form the core of presentations made to local boards and commission and other groups.  Crosby suggests that a broader scope could be prepared for possible cable presentation.  Wilson expresses interest in whom Judy Preston would feel the audience may be.

 

Discussion moves to the need for a list of commitments made by the GW and the possibility of preparation of a calendar of events (board and commission dates).  JHTD to prepare (list completed and presented on lower half of Agenda at July 27 regular meeting).

 

Crosby queries how the GW will prepare for the acquisition of the CY Haddam Neck property.  Fischbach reports that the GW has benefitted from the initial gift of $3000 that was given to the effort in terms of being benefactors of all information available.  General discussion on various articles written about the ongoing process occurs.   Regarding the question of how to prepare, Fischbach suggests the preparation of a formal letter inquiring “how can we help”.  Additionally, its been said that the Obama administration’s budget includes funding for this acquisition.    JHTD informs GW that the Vita Nuova notification for the next step in the EOI process has been received.  JHTD told to express that the GW would prefer to delegate their efforts for acquisition to the Melissa Spears-coordinated Conservation Project, but not “drop out” of the EOI process (note that such a report was sent to Elaine Richardson at Vita Nuova and confirmed as received).  Crosby asks what the GW should do “internally”.  Thomas suggests that the GW should include this effort in the “script” presented to the local boards and commissions.  DeMichelle reports of a woman with whom she spoke who learned about the effort from elsewhere but would be interested in more information.

 

Regarding committee structure, Fischbach indicated that working toward the reestablishment of committees will serve to streamline meetings to a greater extent.

 

Discussion moved to the issue of the regional land trust and the scheduled meeting on September 16, 2009.  Fischbach raised the question of to what extent the GW should be involved as a coordinator.  Discussion included the recognition of the possibility that a “regional” entity may be looked to for coordination.  Crosby mentioned the mid-state collective and the possibility that they could help.  The Pace University LULA organization was mentioned as well.

 

JHTD brought up the point of an effort being “staff-driven”.  It was recognized that Margot Burns was interested as she brought the idea to the GW, but it was unclear whether or not she was interested in pursuit of the project as staff of some sort.  The question was raised again: was GW interested in spearheading?  Does the GW have the resources (staff time) available?  Fischbach recognizes that the GW has “a lot on their plate” at present.  Is the inclination to say yes? Maybe? No?  Madge Fish commented that maybe land trusts could be the first recipient of GW-lead educational efforts.  The trusts could be used to GW advantage.  Crosby suggested that the GW should be looked at as community planners, a resource that towns can turn to for assistance.  Fish commented that perhaps boards and commissions should be “taught” first, followed by the land trusts.

 

Thomas suggested that CRERPA/Gateway should put out a letter for the September meeting.  If there is interest in coordination, it would be “remarkable” if it was one of the land trusts who expressed such interest.  By default, as already recognized, it’ll likely be a regional entity such as CRERPA or GW.  Offering the invitation, GW has “led with its chin”.  Fischbach indicated that CRERPA could coordinate with GW playing the role of “endorser”.  But, GW has to be ready to say yes or no (another position would be to review what “needs” come out of the September 16th meeting, then determine based upon those needs whether GW or CRERPA has the resources or desire to coordinate).  The possibility of waiting until next fiscal year was briefly discussed then discarded in that a loss of momentum would likely be detrimental to any effort.  Crosby brought up The Rockfall Foundation as an entity that could be considered.  No need to “reinvent the wheel”.  DeMichelle reiterated that land trust and conservation commission interest seemed high in Haddam.

 

Peggy Wilson suggested that since Margot Burns is a driving force in this discussion, perhaps she could talk to the Chester Conservation Commission regarding involvement.  Fischbach suggests that CY collaboration could be a model. Perhaps several individuals could get together to spearhead the effort.  No consensus has been stated.  Would GW coordination take JHTD away from the other tasks he is responsible for? Thomas reiterates the need for JHTD task list (subsequently passed out at the July regular meeting).  Fischbach suggests that the “core” of GW will likely be responsible for the majority of the work and indicates that JHTD duties and list of GW commitments are needed for the July 23rd regular meeting (completed and provided at July 23rd meeting).

 

Fischbach will email those not at the workshop to have them register interest in committee membership.  Upcoming agenda should reflect “Committee Finalization”.

 

Discussion shifted to the idea of GW sponsoring events once or twice a year.  Consensus was that boat trip should be done annually.  GW/staff were urged to select dates in September and August.  Wilson suggested that the issue be placed on the next agenda.

 

Discussion shifted again to the Haddam “land swap”.  It was indicated that the House Bill that would have enabled the swap was vetoed by the Governor.  DeMichelle opined that the proposed “swap” was not an even trade for the State of Connecticut.  It was suggested that Goodspeed would have gotten the better of the deal.

 

Picking up on an earlier discussion, Harvey Thomas again asked about the necessity of there being some formal agreement between CRERPA and GW regarding the staffing arrangement.  JHTD suggested a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of sorts.  That seemed acceptable. Fischbach mentioned that, in light of the possible shifting of regional boundaries in the future, formalization may be warranted in that it may not be CRERPA that staffs the GW in the future.

 

Fischbach raised the issue of clarifying the relationship of GW and the Lower CT River Land Trust which Gateway members populate and discusses the example of the differing officer structures.

 

Summarizing, Peggy Wilson indicates that the discussions of the past two workshops have succeeded in putting GW business in perspective.  On the issue of membership and lack of attendance by some, Fischbach suggested that the Outreach committee could perhaps handle such an issue because more attendance is needed with the work program being anticipated and notes that alternates do everything but vote.  Crosby suggested that all members should be required to attend some agreed upon number of meetings per year.  Fischbach suggested a new policy which requires such attendance.  Upon a question of public input into GW member selections by towns, it was indicated that there is none.  Selection is the purview of the Boards of Selectmen or the First Selectman.  Fischbach notes that the idea of each GW member reporting on his or her town could include a discussion of membership issues. 

 

JHTD indicated that he has continued to try to get in touch with Essex member Fred Vollono through email channels and has been unsuccessful.

 

Susan Bement reminded the GW that the final transfer of GW or LCRLT-owned properties to the State of Connecticut should continue to be a high priority.  Fischbach suggests that the requested list of commitments will allow for the proper prioritization of activities and responsibilities.  Regarding membership, Madge Fish suggests that if members go back to their town commissions and brings up the issue of membership, “we may get lucky” and find someone who has interest in serving.  Bement describes the potential new Haddam member, an “environmental psychologist” that Mel Woody knows.

 

Upon a motion by Nancy Fischbach, the workshop was adjourned at 9pm.