Present: Bonita Chase, Anthony Coiro, Ric Coombe, Bruce Dolph, Peter Friedel, Art Merrill, Michael McCrary, Donald Murray, Jake Rosa, Mark Tuthill, Anthony Van Glad, Greg Vurckio, Jeff Baker

Public: Al Rosa, Tim Cox, Alicia Terry, Marge Miller, Dean Frazier, Molly Oliver, Michelle Yost, Rick Weidenbach

1. Call to order – 6:14pm

2. August 17, 2015 minutes approval – Motion to approve minutes as amended made by, Ric Coombe seconded by Mark Tuthill.

3. Introductions (old members and those newly elected)
a. Members, alternates and public introduced themselves.
b. Discussion of remaining alternate seats to be filled. The position will be offered to Diana Cope and another alternate from Delaware County. Carl withdrew from the race, so Bonita Chase is the alternate for Greene County. Ulster County currently does not have alternates. Ulster County is lacking two. It is their decision to pursue them.
c. Bruce will work with Kelly to send a letter to Alternates outlining their roles and responsibilities. Alternates should attend all meetings and contribute to the conversation.

4. Small business issues
a. There are businesses that have issues with DEP either with enforcement or concerns about septic systems or other changes in the business. CWT is going to be addressing these issues when it can. Bruce will write a letter to all counties, towns and villages inviting them to send us a letter with documentation if there has been an issue. Then we can decide if we should be involved or if it is outside of our scope. There has been strong enforcement of rules. Business owners are often caught needing to pay thousands of dollars to prove that they have not broken a use, changed use, etc. Not all businesses can afford to even attempt to prove their case and they are forced out of business.
b. Jeff said that he, Kevin, and Carl Steundel had met with DEP about a year ago to discuss some of these issues and DEP said they would look into them.
c. City attorney said they are coming out with draft regulations that attempt to address some of these issues.
d. Bruce stated that had he been the owner of Full Moon he would have been intimidated by the large number of DEP staff present at the facility to discuss issues they have raised about his changes, that resulted in less flow than before he made the changes.
e. Bruce added we should advocate for businesses, CWC, SWCD, and CCE. Need to keep business development affordable
f. Mike McCrary added that many of these businesses are beneficial to NYC visitors to the Watershed. If they go out of business because of regulations, this is a disservice to the people of NYC. DeBlasio might want to know about this.
g. Dean added that the Full Moon visit Bruce referenced is the tail end of a 2-3 year long process. Full Moon was a non-complying regulated activity.
h. The CWT discussed the process of getting approvals for designs and permits. It has the appearance of purposely stretching out the processes, and that businesses need a lawyer just to keep things on track. Most, if not all small businesses cannot afford this expense. This is a serious concern as the Watershed cannot afford to lose any existing businesses or discourage new businesses.

5. Flood Commissions reports
a. Rick Weidenbach reported that Delaware County SWCD has been working with eight communities in Delaware County. The LFAs for those communities should be completed in 1.5 years. In Greene County Prattsville, Windham, and Lexington are completing LFAs. Schoharie County has Conesville. The Town and Village of Walton have the Main Stem complete and now working on the tributaries.
b. Michelle Yost noted that that CWC grant round application is available. Dec 1st deadline.

6. CWC reports
a. Alan noted that the CWC has had correspondence with DEP re: regulation of small business.

7. Below the reservoirs
a. Delaware – Dean reported that the UDRTC bylaws are complete and officers elected. Resolutions have been passed and members and alternates chosen. The Task Force intermunicipal agreement between several of the towns below the dam is complete and officers have been elected. The UDRTC has been awarded significant funding toward the development of a stream corridor management plan. As a result of the issues with the Cannonsville incident, NYC will be taking action on issues of concern below the dam ie. warning systems. Water 101 is scheduled for Thursday Sept. 24th. Water, Water Everywhere is scheduled for October. That is the annual conference of Friends of the Upper Delaware River.
b. Esopus – no report
c. Schoharie – no report.

8. Preparing for the 25th Anniversary of CWT
a. We will look into this more. We need to form a small committee. If anyone is interested in working on this, let Bruce know. We should put together a history.
b. Logo outreach letterhead update? Kelly will begin reformatting the letter head to include Alternate Members, etc.
c. Develop a fact sheet to pass out that explains what the CWT has accomplished.

9. Membership Dues
a. Some towns haven’t paid yet for this year because of budget cycles. Town of Deposit 7/2013 and Stamford 11/2010 dropped out. Masonville, Franklin, Halcott, Tannersville, Hunter, and Jefferson haven’t paid yet this year. The CWT decided to send another letter to Stamford and Deposit, seeking their membership. Stamford has a lot of businesses. The CWT should be communicating with both municipalities so they know the CWT is an advocate for businesses.

10. Discussion on FAD
a. It is time to start planning for the 2017 FAD. Need to explore the type and amount of land being purchased. CWT will work with the Attorney to get a list together to make sure we have a comprehensive list of issues.
b. It was suggested that the TAG be resurrected to assist the CWT in preparing for discussions about the forthcoming WR&R changes and FAD.

11. Discussion on WSP
a. There are continued disagreements about Conservation Easements pertaining to the FBO. CWT believes that properties owned by the towns should not be subject to the restrictions of a CE. Towns need the flexibility to use the parcel as necessary to mitigate the flooding issue being addressed. There is a wide variety of reasons a parcel may need to be purchased including utility relocation and bridge expansion. Larger parcels could have a portion that is out of the floodplain that could be used for many different types of projects.
b. Clarification was made by the board that not all parcels are black and white. In the black and white scenario, some parcels will be used for direct flood reduction purposes, ie. creation of flood plain, but the “gray” scenarios are where the towns need flexibility. There are many different types of projects that need to be done. Conservation Easements can essentially never be removed from a deed.
c. Michelle Yost asked if there had been any resolution re: WSP comments, etc. No one knows of any updates.

12. White paper. Tony Coiro brought up the White Paper. Ric Coombe says he supports our role being at a higher level and that we do not have the time or resources to take on every case in the watershed. We need to discuss the global policy and procedure issues. We do need examples, but not to take on every case. Tony Coiro agrees. Dean noted that the White Paper frames the larger issues with some examples. Its framework captures the commonality of the day to day issues raised by several watershed partners. Bruce clarifies further that we often use Full Moon as an example, but what we are really addressing is the larger issue of overzealous application of the regulations.

13. Schedule meeting with Soil & Waters and Cooperative Extension. Rick Weidenbach said the city has scheduled a meeting for October 28th in Kingston. All basins have been invited to discuss the design issues.

14. Updates
a. Kurt Ossenfort proposal – he has most of it digitized. We need to look at his contract.

15. Kevin Young’s “Plan of Action/Relocation Took Kit” (June 12, 2015) – Need to send a copy of this to all of the new members. Once they review, we can have a discussion.

16. Marge Miller (Town of Middletown Supervisor) – Marge will talk to Jeff about the idea of a land bank or land trust that may possibly enable communities to purchase parcels they consider critical to the future of their village or town. Would like to see this as part of the FAD negotiations. Ric Coombe notes that if the land trust was meant to temporarily park a piece of land to enable the subdivision process, then the funding agency could be an environmentalist group. Municipalities’ role and responsibility should not be to hold land for long periods of time. Rick Weidenbach noted that this might be more of a land bank or development corporation, not a land trust.

17. WAC
a. WAC interested in moving offices to Treadwell.
b. New office location is outside of the Watershed.
c. WAC voting on building has been postponed indefinitely.
d. Concern was expressed that those in the watershed have to manage the challenges of the NYC WR&R and therefore those in the watershed should gain any benefits resulting from the staff involved in WAP. There was concern that WAC’s trade will go primarily to Oneonta/Otsego County if they move to Treadwell.
e. Rick Weidenbach noted that the unique nature of the programs all being under one roof creates synergy not otherwise possible if they separate staff between two locations. There is a potential that up to 70 jobs will be moved outside the watershed.
f. WAC should have to live here and have some ‘skin in the game.’
g. Tony VanGlad made a motion to have Young and Sommer draft a resolution to urge the WAC to stay within the Watershed boundaries. Seconded by Tony Coiro. Motion passed unanimously. Rick suggested that we send a copy of that to Paul Rush. Tony VanGlad agreed and the Attorney will do that.

18. Warrant(s) and Treasurer’s report
a. Tony VanGlad makes a motion to approve the warrants:
i. #26 – $314.50 – Young and Sommer
ii. #27 – $1880.00 – Watershed Affairs
Seconded by Art Merrill, passed unanimously.
b. Tony VanGlad reports that the checking account has $1,000.10 and the savings account has $92,021.18. Motion to accept the treasurer’s report made by Tony Coiro, seconded by Mark Tuthill. Passed unanimously.

19. Correspondence
a. Dean reported a letter came in from the East of Hudson. The CWT does not usually take action on matters in EOH. It is in the file as an FYI.
b. Bruce read a letter from Kelly Blakeslee of Delaware County Watershed Affairs regarding the letterhead updates. She asked if we should include alternates on the letterhead. Tony Coiro was wondering why alternates had not been included previously. He also notes that the alternates should be designated as such. Bonita Chase suggested they be listed at the bottom. Jeff said including the phone numbers is a good idea. Board would like the letterhead to be redesigned to include alternates with phone numbers and email addresses for each member and alternate.

20. Other
a. Regarding the Subcommittee to look into elections. The Committee was created last time and created Mike McCrary, Anthony Coiro, and Mark Tuthill. Coiro thinks the subcommittee should only have one member from Greene County, so he will be replaced by Ric Coombe of Sullivan County. Watershed Affairs will send out contact information and the subcommittee will find a time to meet. Mike McCrary is the chairman and will call the meeting.

21. Motion to adjourn 8:40 made by Tony VanGlad, seconded by Mark Tuthill. Passed unanimously.

In attendance: Carl Stuendel, Mike McCrary, Ric Coombe, Bruce Dolph, Tony Coiro, Tony Van Glad, Mark Tuthill, Karl Gonzalez, Don Murray, Greg Vurckio, Jake Rosa.

Others: Atty Kevin Young, Atty Allyson Phillips, Marge Miller, Michelle Yost, John Mathiesen, Tim Cox, Alan Rosa, Molly Oliver

1. Call to order: 6:17 PM.

2. Introductions (old members and those newly elected).

3. Carl: Brief overview of where we’ve been and where we’ve been headed.
a. Thanks to Alan Rosa and CWC.

b. 1974 Federal Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA) as amended 1986 led to EPA’s promulgation of Surface Water Treatment Rules (SWTR) in 1989 with emphasis placed on filtration; NYC seeking a filtration avoidance determination (FAD) attempted to dictate to farmers, businesses and communities in the Catskill and Delaware watersheds the changes they would have to make (at their own expense) for NYC to become eligible for a FAD (https://vimeo.com/82102057);

c. As said by Paul Rush, NYC thought they could come up here and do the same thing they had done when they built the reservoirs. But they ran into difficulty.

d. Farmers and communities organized ‑‑ in 1991, the Ad Hoc Task Force on Agriculture and NYC Watershed Regulations (forerunner to the 1993 Watershed Ag Council) was formed and in the same year the Coalition of Watershed Towns (CWT) was formed.

e. Over the years turnover in the municipal leadership has resulted in a fragmentary familiarity with this history.

f. There is a push on the part of the City now to tighten controls and regulations often through the permitting process.

g. Six years of negotiations between US EPA, NYC, NYS, environmental groups, and CWT led to the 1997 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and the formation of the Catskill Watershed Corporation (CWC). The MOA calls not only for the protection of water quality, but also for the continued economic viability of watershed communities.

h. CWT suspended its operation at that time. They had gotten done what they set out to do. CWC would manage the programs CWT had worked for.

i. Pat Meehan revived the organization. It is now acting again in an advocacy role.

j. Membership (39 towns and 8 villages spanning 5 counties), by-laws, dues, and continued advocacy on behalf of its constituents (including the lead it took in negotiating the December 2010 Water Supply Permit which sets the terms and conditions for the City’s ability to acquire land in the Catskill/Delaware Watershed).
i. Have done well with collecting dues.
ii. 7 towns that have not paid bills in some time .
iii. 7 towns have not paid for this year. They will probably be paid.

k. Now there is a “creep” by the city where they are taking back some of what they had given us. Need to keep an eye on this – it is very subtle. Kevin is a good barometer for this.
i. Jeff, Dan Russo, and Kevin were some of the principal writers of the MOA.

l. Following Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee Delaware County formulated the position that Stream Remediation and Flood Hazard mitigation was at least as important as land acquisition to ensure water quality. Green, Ulster, Schoharie, and Sullivan counties affirmed this position.
i. EPA/DOH agreed with this.

m. The Final Revised 2007 FAD issued May 2014 reflected this thinking, and three new programs were mandated: 1) Local Flood Analyses (LFAs); 2) Flood Buy-Out (FBO) program; and 3) Relocation program. Towns cannot afford to lose tax base.

n. FBOs will result in a loss of tax base and a Relocation program seems in theory an ideal way to off-set this loss. However, City funding is insufficient to cover all the costs associated with Relocation, which includes housing development and infrastructure construction.

o. Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) [and Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) in Ulster County], partnering previously with the City to develop Stream Management Programs (SMPs), were now asked to take responsibility for LFAs.
i. The New board should know that we need to help/represent SWCD.

ii. CWT has taken a first step in this direction by convening a meeting with SWCD designers in June of this year. City had been promising this meeting for 4-5 years. Found uneven approvals throughout counties/favoritism. A week later these findings were reported to Paul Rush and David Warne in a quarterly partnership meeting.

iii. The revised FAD now opens the door to advocacy not only on behalf of CWC but also SWCD.

p. CWC, in addition to the usual programs they administer, will also be working on the relocation projects. Details still being worked out.

q. All of these programs, new and old, have to eventually meld.

4. Minutes – June 15, 2015 minutes approval – moved by Dolph, second by Van Glad. Unanimously approved.

5. Warrant(s) and Treasurer’s report:
#24: Young Sommer – $2,404.50
#25: Young Sommer – $4,139.23
Total – $6,543.73
Motion Van Glad, Second Dolph. Passed unanimously.

Treasurers Report:
Checking – $994.10
Savings – $95,558.92

6. Election of Officers.
a. Results:
Delaware County
Regular Members                                            Votes
Bruce Dolph, Walton                                      13 *

Mark Tuthill, Delhi                                         10 *

Bill Layton, Tompkins                                    6 *

Diana Cope, Margaretville                              4

Art Merrill, Colchester                                     4

Marjorie Miller, Middletown                          2

Tom Joyce, Andes                                           0

Janet Champlin                                               0

Alternate Members
Dale Cole, Andes                                            10 *

Jacob Rosa, Middletown                               8 *

Art Merrill, Colchester                                   7 *

Alan Perkins, Delhi                                        6

Tom Joyce, Andes                                            3

Greene County
Regular Members
Mike McCrary, Jewett                                     5 *

Anthony Coiro, Hunter                                   4 *

Donald Murray, Windham                              2

Alternate Members
Karl Gonzalez, Windham                               5 *

Bonita Chase, Prattsville                                 1

[D]onald Murray, Windham                             1

Mike McCrary, Jewett                                    1

(There is tie between Chase & Murray that will have to be decided for the alternate position. Mike McCrary is already elected as a Regular Member)

Ulster County
Regular Members
Peter Friedel, Olive                                         5 *

Greg Vurckio, Denning                                  5 *

Alternate Members
No alternate members were nominated or written in for Ulster County

Schoharie County
Regular Member
Anthony Van Glad, Gilboa                1 *

Alternate Member
Maxwell Stryker, Gilboa                     1 *

Sullivan County
Regular Member
Ric Coombe, Neversink                      1 *

Alternate Member
Mickey Mullen, Neversink                  1 *

b. Bill Layton not interested in continuing his position, meaning a tie between Art Merrill and Diana Cope. There is a tie for alternate in Green County. Delaware County and Green County each have a caucus.
i. Delaware County decides to offer the spot to Art Merrill. Al Perkins is now the third alternate for Delaware County, as Art Merrill would have been an alternate.

ii. Green County decided to invite each to the next meeting and decide at that time.

7. Carl leads discussion re: election of officers. Recommends Dolph, the formers Vice-Chairman, for the Chairman position. Nomination moved by McCrary, seconded by Tuthill. No other nominations. Motion by Coombe, cast a unanimous vote. Passed unanimously. Van Glad moved to nominate Coiro as vice-chairman, Dolph seconds. He accepts the nomination. All in favor. Coombe make a motion to nominate Van Glad as Treasurer, Dolph seconds. Passed unanimously.

8. Dolph makes a statement:
a. Alan from CWC invited.

b. Take a step back to be a better advocate for CWC, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Cooperative Extension, and our local businesses. He would like to send out a letter to all of the towns and villages that are members of the CWT and find out more about the issues they are having and to collect documentation about those issues.

c. We know business owners have significant expenses if they want to expand. Very hard to start a new business or expand an existing business. They cannot afford to fight with the City. He believes that if the City wants to impose these regulations, they should pay for the expenses.

d. We should be an advocate for CWC. They are a great asset to businesses.

e. Very important for alternates to attend the meetings. Options and experience very valuable to the board.

9. Privilege of the Floor.
a. Marge Miller – Expresses thanks to Carl for his years of experience.
i. Carl expresses that after taking a four month break, if the board is still interested, he would consider assisting CWT again in an administrative/executive director capacity.

ii. Whether it’s him or not, Carl explains the staff position would be a paid position. Watershed Affairs is already paid for the administrative support they provide to CWT, and, of course, Young /Sommer is paid for their legal work.

b. McCrary makes a motion to continue contract with Delaware County Watershed Affairs, second Coiro. Unanimously passed.

c. Van Glad and board expresses thanks to Carl.

10. Preparing for the 25th Anniversary of CWT.
a. Carl explains that 2016 is the 25^th anniversary of CWT. CWC invited past members and political leaders to a dinner for MOA anniversary.

b. March 1991 was initiation.

c. Dolph says we will continue to work on this.

11. Updates:
a. Pursuant to SC 10f of the 2010 WSP the status of hamlet designations can be reassessed and re-voted on by towns and villages every five years and the first window is from 12/24/15 – 6/23/16.
i. Kevin – in 2010, Hamlet expansion areas were identified. Now we can only remove lands from Hamlet area, cannot add parcels.

ii. CWC will send each town all the information about where the Hamlet expansion areas are to assist towns in decision making.

iii. Cox notes CWC has some funding that is available for noticing public hearings, etc.

iv. Yost – not “all or nothing,” individual parcels can be removed.

v. Distinction made between Hamlet and “Watershed Hamlet”.

vi. Michelle Yost asks about subdividing the developable and undevelopable portions of a piece of property in the hamlet area in Jewett. Landowner wants to sell the undevelopable portion to City. McCrary states subdivision should happen with the planning board ahead of working with NYC. Then the Town Board can make the decision about if the undevelopable portion can be removed from the hamlet area. Alternately, the Town Board can decide if the whole parcel can be removed from the hamlet area.

b. Amendments to the Real Property Tax Law as referenced in paragraph 80 of the MOA and Paragraph 19 of the Water Supply Permit. Senator Bonacic introduced legislation in 2011 but it was never approved.
i. Under the original MOA, the City paid real property tax on Conservation Easements, but not on WAC easements. In 2010 as part of the WSP negotiations, we demanded they pay taxes on their portion of the WAC easements and they agreed going forward. To make that legal, we need an amendment to the State Real Property Tax Law. It is up to us to get it done, and it’s not done at this point. Since 2010, all WAC easements have had a PILOT agreement so the City can pay the property taxes on them. Same taxes as on CEs.

ii. We need to go back to Bonacic. We need to get some political support to get this done.

c. Water Supply Permit Change.
i. In the MOA, City could only purchase vacant property, unless it was part of a State or Federal Buyout Program. Now that they must give $15 million toward Flood Mitigation, they will be able to knock down houses, etc in the flood plains. WSP must be amended. We agree to that because we asked for this money. We’re disagreeing over: City wants to issue a CE to the state of NY so the property will never be developed. This is not what the program is intended to do. We want flexibility with the land. The City does not need to have this control over the parcels in the Hamlet areas. CWT finds the idea of CE on flood mitigation properties unacceptable. The language was in a document a while ago that said the municipalities were amenable with giving a CE, and no one noticed it at that time. NYC says we should have said something then. Kevin notes CEs are forever. Very limited conditions under which they can be amended.

ii. Yost asks about the WSP language-change comments sent by NRDC and Riverkeeper, and Watershed Affairs to NYS DEC’s Martha Bellinger. NRDC and Riverkeeper want individual landowners to be able to sell their land to the City. We want local, town level decision making to ensure best choices for the community. Comments do not seem insurmountable.

iii. DEC has not issued changes based on the comments.

iv. Carl cited the Delhi Riverwalk project. Many concerns about the responsibility for long term maintenance.

12. Kevin Young’s “Plan of Action/Relocation Tool Kit” – we will discuss at next meeting.

13. Marge Miller (Town of Middletown Supervisor) ‑‑ Formation of a land trust to acquire developable parcels.
a. Is there a way to fund a land trust that can compete with the City to buy developable parcels?

b. Wants support and collective power of CWT.

c. Also need to save expansion areas for village.

d. Jake asks if we can swap developable land for undevelopable land.

e. If this is a collective issue, Marge would like the CWT to ask the City to fund this.

f. Should not necessarily be tied to flood control. More related to towns and villages being able to survive.

g. Alan Rosa suggests condemnation of property. Possible if it is for the good of the community.

h. Kevin asks if we can team with CWC to find funding to find parcels that make sense to buy?

i. Alan says we should start FAD negotiations. City does not have to disperse money until negotiations are complete and they historically have stalled the process.

14. Below Dam Activities.
a. Cannonsville – Carl gave update about turbid water from test holes. Hydroelectric plant may be unfeasible. Coiro suggests NYC may need to strengthen dams.
b. Delaware – UDRTC is planning Water 101. Trying to form partnerships below the dam.
c. Esopus – no update.
d. Schoharie – no updates.

15. Correspondence – none

16. Other:
a. McCrary – election issues. Should stagger elections.
i. Coiro stated that this is a confusing process for the towns.

ii. Dolph stated is was very poorly done, embarrassing this year.

iii. Currently, procedures vary from town to town.

iv. Decided to form a sub committee to review the bylaws and potentially change the bylaws or make sure we are following the procedure they describe.

v. The only way to alter the bylaws is unanimous approval of all member towns.

vi. McCrary, Coiro, and Tuthill are on the committee.

vii. Young Sommer will send an explanation of process to amend bylaws to Molly, she will send to all.

17. Adjourn 8:47

Members present: Carl Stuendel, Bruce Dolph, Catherine Magarelli, Linda Burkhardt, Tony Coiro, Bill Layton and Counsel Jeff Baker.
Others present: Rick Weidenbach, Molly Oliver, Marge Miller and Frazier.

1. Call to order 6:15PM.

2. Minutes – May 18, 2015 – Motion to approve the minutes by Linda Burkhardt, second by Bruce Dolph with the recommended modifications.

3. Privilege of the Floor – Carl introduced and welcomed Molly Oliver, as the new Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of Watershed Affairs. Members then introduced themselves.

4. Regulatory relief –
a. In order to give more time to other agenda items, Carl requested that at tonight’s meeting we skip further discussion of the relocation regulatory relief tools. He also asked that we postpone discussing Kevin Young’s new relocation-toolkit/plan-of-action document until Kevin is available to review it with the board. Counsel Jeff Baker concurred and suggested that the discussion would be better pursued when new board members are in place. Jeff also suggested that the CWT Board consider hiring Carl part time as a staff person. Carl could do some of the work Jeff is currently doing. Carl graciously expressed his appreciation for the idea. He will think about it. Although there was not a resolution, board members appeared fully in favor of exploring this idea. Jeff will draft a position description.

b. Review of May 27, 2015 meeting between DEP and Full Moon Resort. In attendance from the City were four DEP regulators and one member of NYC Legal and from Full Moon were the two owners, their engineer, and their legal counsel, Kevin Young. Also in attendance were Leo LaBuda from CWC and Carl and Bruce from CWT. Carl asked Bruce to share his impression of the meeting. Bruce said this meeting was called because Full Moon is currently a grandfathered NCRA, and they are hoping to update and modernize their space. They will not be changing or adding additional content or quantity to the septic, but DEP thinks that they need to bring the septic systems into compliance with current regulations because their changes constitute a change of use. Bruce also expressed how intimidating it would be to have five DEP staff going through every building and every room of a business. He felt the meeting will result in positive outcomes for Full Moon, but, all in all, this action by DEP against Full Moon was unnecessary. Bruce’s own opinion is that if the City is going to force these unnecessary changes, then they need to pay for the changes, including attorney’s fees.

i. Next steps- CWT will continue to pursue this specific issue and other unjustified and arbitrary assumptions and subsequent overzealous regulatory enforcement by DEP staff.   There was some discussion about availability of funding from CWC for such cases as Full Moon from the Catskill Fund for the Future (CFF). The problem being that grants are not being issued and most small businesses are financially challenged to the point that they couldn’t even afford a low interest loan.   There was also a discussion about a change in use issue at the farm stand on Route 28 in an old satellite bank office. It has since been resolved but at the cost of the farmer who wanted to use the facility to sell his goods.

c. White paper – There was some discussion about speaking to the State about their thoughts regarding the white paper submitted to DOH by CWT regarding the scope-of-work of the Expert Panel mandated by the 2014 Midterm FAD.   Carl may contact DOH. This lead to a brief discussion on the forthcoming FAD and what should be pursued.

5. CWT/ CWC Report on the April 23 meeting. Carl discussed the meeting. Discussed the contractor/ subcontractor/sub-subcontractor vetting by DEP is problematic. Jeff and Carl went to the meeting on June 10^th with the stream teams for the five watershed counties. All the issues Rick W. had raised at previous CWT meetings were corroborated by SMP representatives from the other counties.  Jeff will develop a narrative that reflects the June 10^th meeting for the forthcoming meeting with DEP Deputy Commissioner Paul Rush at his quarterly partnership meeting with CWC, CWT, WAC and Delaware County.   Jeff recommended that design templates should be created and shared among the stream programs.   In Delaware County, one 1,400 foot of reach of stream has been in design for two years and still not at 60% in the 30-60-90 review process.   This delay is due to a .167% difference in storm flow calculations between the SWCD and DEP. WAC is now considering giving up pursuing the streambank stabilization funding from SWCD because their staff can design four ag BMPs in the same amount of time it takes to design one for the streams.   There are differences even within individual counties. Greene County has been held as an example of good design practices, but the City will not allow Greene County to share their templates with the other stream programs (and Green County has not been required to do 30-60-90 review). There have been four years of continuous delay in holding a meeting to discuss engineering issues such as the development of templates to be shared with the stream programs. In the forthcoming meeting the CWT will focus on bottlenecks and how to clear them up so projects can get out of design and on to the ground.   More importantly the overall theme will be to approach the City from a partnership perspective. Both parties are going to lose if the design and permitting process is not sped up. An example was cited that it took $18,000 in design costs for a project that cost just $8,800 to construct.

6. Preparing for the FAD – See 4c above for a part of this.

7. Pursuant to SC 10f of the 2010 WSP the status of hamlet designations can be reassessed and re-voted on by towns and villages every five years and the first window is from 12/24/15 – 6/23/16. Jeff will send a letter at the appropriate time to all involved municipalities.

8. Amendments to the Real Property Tax Law as referenced in paragraph 80 of the MOA and Paragraph 19 of the Water Supply Permit. Senator Bonacic introduced legislation in 2011 but it was never approved. The main substantive amendments are:
* Getting rid of the 12/31/16 sunset date for City obligation to pay taxes on watershed CEs;
* City paying taxes on Ag easements even if the land is ag assessed; and
* Allowing municipalities to change the allocation factor for a parcel before 20 years from when it was first set.
Jeff Baker will investigate this further.   Frazier noted that Assemblyman Crouch showed interest in sponsoring it for the Assembly.

9. Preparing for the 25^th Anniversary of CWT – It was simply noted that the CWT should be reaching out to the community and perhaps holding an event. It was proposed to hold the event in the “Pocket Park.” A Pocket Park is a clearing along the reservoir that is open to the public.

10. Updates:
a. Flood Mitigation Program
i. Water Supply Permit Change – it appears as of today the recently released language circulated is acceptable. Jeff will review as soon as possible.

ii. Inundation/Erosion and DEP’s new FBO Selection Criteria – New language was released in the past few days. That too, appears satisfactory, but Jeff will review. All comments are due June 25^th. All comments should go to Jeff.

iii. June 10 Meeting with Stream Program Planners – Jeff Baker – was reported on Item 5 above.

b. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff Baker – still in the works.

c. SUNY-Delhi DACUM June 24 – Carl expressed his pleasure over the development of a curriculum at SUNY Delhi to meet the opportunities and needs of employers impacted by the special challenges brought on by the City’s WR&R and very exacting environmental standards. The meeting is scheduled for June 24 and key people have agreed to participate. SUNY is trying to re-establish their civil engineering degree program.

11. Below Dams Activities
a. Delaware – A brief report was given that two grants appear to have been awarded. Official written notification is imminent. Meetings with NYC and NYS Assemblyman on Staten Island went very well. They said they would provide support to DEP Commissioner Lloyd to pursue more and improved consistent releases below the dams. Paul Rush has made a statement supporting a thermal standard protocol for releases.

b. Esopus – no report.

c. Schoharie – no report.

12. Election – nominations, etc. – All nominations are in. Ulster County has only one nomination and Sullivan has no nominations. When all the ballots have been cast, Jeff will call the winners on July 16^th to give them notice to attend the next CWT meeting on July 20^th.

13. Treasurer’s report and warrant(s).
Bruce Dolph moved to accept the treasurer’s report and pay the voucher.   Second by Bill Layton. Passed.
Payment to Young Sommer for $1,765.20.
Checking account balance:   $1,000.16.
Savings account balance: $97,293.03.

14. Correspondence –
a. Correspondence from New Bedford. The CWT has no say on issues East of Hudson.

b. Carl noted Marge Millers letter seeking the formation of a land trust to acquire developable parcels along town, county and state highways to preserve key parcels of land as locations to locate flood buyout participants. Jeff had questions for Marge. He and Marge will have a discussion before the July Board Meeting, where Marge will discuss the proposal. Either the town will have to issue a bond for the purchase of key properties or they will need to explore the option of getting financial support from NYC.   Carl thanked Marge Miller for the use of the Middletown Town Hall for the stream team meetings.

c. Carl also read a letter from Michael McCrary. Mike expressed his dismay of a misspelling of his name on a ballot along with some other errors. He was also concerned about the paucity of nominations from Greene County. Jeff explained the nomination process by village and town boards in reference to Mike’s letter.   Carl went on to finish Mike’s letter: “The ugliness of stormwater regulations . . . has affected a small project in Jewett to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.” “[S]o far we [on the issue of overzealous regulatory enforcement and certain overzealous regulators] have waffled like a bunch of spoiled children.” “It is time to man the barricades, close the flow of water to the City and let the chips fall where they may.” (Some members thought they could hear the Star Spangled Banner playing in the background.)

15. Other –
PAC Meeting June 11.
Paul Rush Quarterly meeting June 17.
(Many thanked Linda and Catherine for their service.)

16. Adjourn- Motion by Tony Coiro, second Linda Burkhardt. Surprisingly there was no discussion. Passed unanimously.

In attendance: Carl Stuendel, Linda Burkhardt, Cathy Magarelli, Pete Bracci, Mike McCrary, Ric Coombe, Bruce Dolph, Tony Coiro, Tony Van Glad, Bill Layton.

Others: Guest Kevin Young, Rick Weidenbach, Aaron Bennett, Jeff Flack, Frazier

1. Call to order: 6:17 PM.

2. Minutes – April 20, 2015 – moved by Linda Burkhardt, second by Bruce Dolph. Approved.

3. Privilege of the Floor – none

4. Relocation Regulatory Relief –
Carl began the discussion talking about the various tools and the need to evaluate the potential of each and the outcome of the survey. Results are attached. [Overview and Results]  Discussion ensued.
Kevin then explained what he had in mind about each tool. Each tool may be useful to many, none or a few. It likely would be situational by town. Towns in the WOH do vary. Some towns have more restrictive zoning than others and some have much more potential for development than others.

Tools:
#1. Downsize the Project and Carefully Select Site. Simply by keeping housing projects smaller could in many cases reduce the regulatory hurdles. For example, in villages where vacant parcels are scarce in villages, utilizing structures not in a flood plain that are up for taxes or foreclosure could pose opportunities for those needing housing. (Tool #2 could come in to play here after running an LFA.) Perhaps the plan would be to do 1 or 2 homes per year. Bruce Dolph said that in Walton it may be the slow process of one new house at a time because many of the parcels that could be incorporated into the village with easy access to infrastructure are held by landowners who at this time don’t want to sell their land. In addition, housing has to be considered in a broader context than flooding alone. This tool would help avoid the delays.

#2. Generic Environmental Impact Statement; Infrastructure Planning Document. The need here would be for communities to conduct a housing study to determine potential housing location by developing a long-term plan. This would then be useful to a private investor. The idea is to have a location or locations to develop to avoid losing the tax base. Identify those structures resulting from the LFA that could be helpful. Windham has done this to anticipate housing needs for 2010 through 2040. This tool came in first in the survey results. Focus is on community sustainability. The first step is a housing study. Example, what will happen to these structures if flood insurance when actuarial rates come in to play? Will they be saleable? What will that do to the overall tax base? This would likely be more useful in communities where there are lower income housing needs.
It is unclear whether the CWC money could be used for this planning effort. Not for profits usually do these studies.

#3. Adopt an Expanded Type Two List. This tool was too involved and was discussed only briefly after the other tools had been discussed. In actively developed areas this may be an acceptable idea. In rural, less prosperous communities, this is not a viable alternative. The concept behind this tool was to maximize the benefit to a community already working within the SEQR process.

#4. Create Residential Development Areas. (This could be an outgrowth of the LFA and Tool #2.) The sense of many was that this would be too costly for municipalities to have a shovel ready area funded by the tax payers.   It was suggested that this would be done by a housing trust. The biggest challenge is having a location that has close proximity to infrastructure, because otherwise the cost would likely be prohibitive.

#5. State Legislation Allowing One-Stop Permitting in Locally Designated Areas in Stressed Communities. The idea behind this tool had been misinterpreted to this point. The intent of this initially in the MOA was to help inform people, interested in a project, of the regulatory requirements.

Kevin’s intent was to identify a person that can expedite projects through the regulatory processes. For example, DOS could dedicate someone to monitor the permits to be sure that there are no delays. DOS would set the time frames. DOS would hold permit authorities accountable. The sense was that this option would be politically palatable at many levels especially at the Governors level. This individual would need standing among all permitting entities. This person would be available for coordinated site visits and reviews. This person would be an advocate to assure the permitting process is as fluid as possible. If permitting agencies don’t have the staff or time to do it that would be on them and they would have to approve it.

This is an alternative to the original intent in the MOA. The state in essence funded the opposition to permits via the WIG. Instead, they should fund a position for the purpose of oversight on the permit processes to ensure regulating agencies meet their timeline obligations. It is unnecessary to have a person who simply tells applicants what permits they need as was proposed in the original MOA. This tool was viewed as positive by most if not all members worthy of pursuing. It would be funded as per MOA funds. It was suggested that examples be gathered. Perhaps examples aren’t needed. This governor wants to get things done.

#6. For both siting a septic system and allowing new development for a flood mitigation project it was proposed that a generic variance be granted by the City. As it stands now there are far too many restrictions for both.   Flexibility is needed as siting a septic system is very difficult. Kevin proposed for flood mitigation programs that they be considered “redevelopment projects” under the WR&R. There needs to be flexibility in these programs.   For instance siting a septic system is very difficult with our soils and finding sites that have good soils and meet all the other criteria can be at times impossible. The construction oversight is critical, because not everything is going to be perfect. Professional judgment is needed to get the best outcome possible. Trying to meet all the setbacks associated with stormwater and areas for treatment need flexibility. Variances can take years thereby not very practical or useful.

#7. Small Business Septic Repair Program. This idea stems from the white paper submitted to NYS DOH on March 31, 2015 by both Delaware County and CWT regarding the scope-of-work of the Expert Panel mandated in the 2007 Revised FAD (A New Vision for the New York City Watershed: Using Successful Partnership Programs To Protect Water Quality While Facilitating Business Retention and Development) focused more on community sustainability. There are no septic funds for small businesses. The ability to avoid a change in use by DEP is nearly insurmountable. The costs to comply can easily become cost prohibitive. The WWTPs that were built or upgraded required City funding, for without it they would be unaffordable for the communities.   Many commercial and residential septic systems in the WOH Watershed are Non-Compliant Regulated Activities. [For additional information on NCRAs click HERE.] Money is available for residents through the CWC septic program. For businesses, there is no program for septics and with the determination of change in use cases, of which any change is considered a change in use, is subject to the new regulations. The septic system itself should be the focus of the change in use determination, not a change in the enterprise’s business strategy, especially if the waste is going to be of the same nature and volume. DEP is enforcing these situations even when the flow of waste is less than it was before the change. Money is needed for small businesses because they cannot afford to fight this issue or comply with it. Funding for this would help keep the local economies more solvent and viable.

#8. Future Stormwater Fund.  (As with tool #7 these thoughts evolved from the white paper cited above.)  Prior to 1993 regulations required that an applicant send in a form to DEC under a general permit. The stormwater permit was for construction.  Now stormwater includes post construction stormwater management. State regulations became both broader in scope and more restrictive.  However, those permits are granted under a general permit where a licensed PE submits a plan.  DEC approves or proposes modifications in a timely manner and the applicant is on his/her way.

City permits are issued as individual permits which are much more difficult to obtain and costlier as the City dictates the pace of approval and reviews each and every application at a micro level.  The City is supposed to pay for the incremental costs of their Stormwater requirements.  As the state’s regulations have gotten more restrictive they have created interpretation challenges because the City essentially says that the State’s regulations are the same as the City’s. Some of the confusion is created by the fact that the City interprets State stormwater guidelines as regulations and enforces them as such. If you don’t meet the demands of the City’s interpretation you won’t get an individual permit.  Their argument then is, if they are essentially the same there are no incremental costs.   In light of that, the City has taken the position that they are not accountable for some or all of the related costs for stormwater projects.  The process of getting agreement on what is considered the City’s incremental costs has created uncertainty in interpreting where the incremental costs associated with the City’s regulations begin.  It becomes a costly endeavor for the applicant to differentiate between the two. Additionally, if the position of the City is that they are the same as the States, Kevin posed the question of the need for an individual permit?  Kevin proposes that the City pay 50% of all stormwater projects automatically to eliminate the confusion and costly negotiations for the applicant.  He suggested that the CWC also hire an expert because they will want to shepherd their funds in a prudent manner.

Additional comments were made with respect to the 8 tools and some of their underlying assumptions:
Out of frustration, rebellion and humor Tony Van Glad suggested a tool #9 – Do it yourself.  Go forward with your program disregarding all WR&R and permitting processes.  Let the chips fall where they may.

Ric senses that abandoned homes outside the floodplain being utilized as a source of housing for those who undergo the buyout process is not the answer to bigger problems. The individual project ideas Kevin proposed he agrees with.  He believes the larger problems overall, come down to jobs and the economy some of which have nothing to do with flood mitigation.  He supports efforts to moving homes out of floodplains where economically feasible.

Tony Coiro suggested that the CWT needs to continue to review the information presented tonight.  He summarized what he sees as some possibilities that are reasonable and small enough for the CWT to pursue –
The number of permits DEP gives the community.
Have an IDA approach to development where communities can make it work.
Funding to develop a plan with time.
Need to be time standards to mitigate issues and accountability standards for applications.
Oversight and flexibility with sound engineering are needed.
A program to help small businesses to upgrade septic for a small percentage of costs so they can be DEP compliant.

In closing the discussion, while no resolution was passed, the CWT as a group seemed to agree they need a bit more discussion to set its course.  Carl supported the notion of Tony Coiro’s summary list, particularly for providing a context of concerns within which the tools could be understood as a natural development to achieve relief from the identified issues. Carl liked the link between Tool #5 and the fixer group idea.

Pete suggested that CWT needs to reassess the issues that it considers.  It should consider some bold new initiative like partnering with environmental groups (EGs) to develop a long term economic revival in the watershed.  He mentioned meeting with some EGs to see what they think of the tools.  (Kevin suggested that the CWT come up with an agenda and schedule a meeting with select environmental groups.)  Inspired by Pete’s suggestion, Cathy also suggested doing something bolder: in addition to the tools, let’s state more clearly what communities need from DEP that will enhance the probability of them becoming more prosperous.  Ric added that at times our discussions seem to have us stuck in the weeds when we should be looking further into the forest.

Many agreed that the issues discussed will be done in small steps incrementally.  Kevin opined that DEP needs to update their regulations for variances, stormwater etc.  That process would require discussions with watershed stakeholders.  One stop shopping is something to take to the governor.  The discussion will continue.

5. Reports:
a. The 2^nd quarterly CWT/CWC meeting held April 23 at the Windham Town Hall in Hensonville was constructive. [Due to a lack of time, a full description was not given.]

b. Regulation Enforcement related to Non-Complying Regulated Activities (NCRAs) – A meeting between Full Moon Resort, Kevin Young, and DEP enforcement officials is scheduled for May 27^th 11 AM at the Full Moon in Big Indian. Our CWT chairman was invited to attend; for him, this is a follow up to his meeting with these same parties in Kingston held Dec22^nd, 2014.

6. Preparing for the 2017 FAD –information such as that generated in discussion of agenda item 4 (Regulatory Relief) the CWT will continue to formulate and formalize issues to be addressed in the upcoming 2017 FAD.

7. Updates:
a. Flood Mitigation Program
i. Water Supply Permit Change – Carl reported that there is movement with the language and hopefully will be resolved.

ii. Inundation and DEP’s new FBO Selection Criteria – Same as above.

iii. Meeting with Stream Program Planners – Jeff Baker – This is in process to set a meeting date for discussions.

b. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff Baker – communications are in process.

8. Below Dams Activities – due to the time no reports were given.
i. Delaware
ii. Esopus
iii. Schoharie

9. SUNY-Delhi – DACUM – Carl reported that the plan to do this is underway and that the appropriate people will be contacted by SUNY Delhi to participate so that a productive curriculum can be developed to meet local needs in the watershed.

10. Election – nominations, etc. – nomination forms have gone out.

11. Treasurer’s report and warrant(s):
Tony Van Glad moved to pay the vouchers. Linda Burkhardt seconded. Motion passed to pay
Young/Sommers $5,821.53
Delaware County Watershed Affairs $1,457.62
for a total of $7,279.19.

Bruce moved to accept the treasurer’s report. Tony Van Glad seconded.
Checking account balance is $1,000.22.
Savings account balance is $104,559.78.
Passed.

12. Correspondence – none reported

13. Other –
a. Linda B. referenced a letter dated March 23, 2015 that DEP had sent to a local businessman who is operating a farm stand in a building that once held a bank. The letter stated that New York State Dept. of Agricultural Markets (NYSAM) requires this business to have a 3 bay sink. The DEP states that, in essence, because this 3 bay sink is required the stand is now a minor food service and they are out of compliance and will be shut down. Linda said that this issue has been resolved, costing the business owner extra money and a delay of time, but she questions the method DEP uses and the effect these methods have on future businesses in watershed communities.

b. Related to all the issues raised at this meeting, Carl said that since the start of his administration as CWT Chair (roughly coinciding with NYS DOH inviting comments to the proposed 2007 FAD Midterm Review and with the redistricting that led to the current boundaries of the19th Congressional District, a district that for the first time included the WOH Watershed in its entirety and Congressman Chris Gibson’s follow-up formation of the Watershed Advisory Group), he has invited the executive board to address not only the immediate issues at hand, but to stay alert to changes taking place in the Watershed and the need for CWT to remain responsive to those changes, to reflect on the adequacy and effectiveness of our processes, and to not shrink from the task of helping to formulate a unifying vision for the Delaware-Catskill Watershed as a whole, especially with respect to the economic wellbeing of our communities living as we do under a regime of restraints imposed by the NYC’s WR&R.

14. Adjourn: Motion to adjourn Tony Coiro, second by Tony Van Glad. Carried.

Attending: Carl Stuendel, Bill Layton, Linda Burkhardt, Toni Coiro, Peter Bracci, Mike McCrary, Bruce Dolph and Counsel, Jeff Baker.
 
Others attending: Guests: Gail Schaffer and Joanne Noone from “Dam Concerned Citizens”.  Michelle Yost, Aaron Bennett, Rick Weidenbach, Frazier.
 

1. Call to order: 6:18 PM

2. Minutes – April 20, 2015 Moved by Linda, second by Bruce. Passed unanimously.

3. Carl informed the group that Cathy Magarelli’s mother recently passed away. It was suggested that the CWT board send a sympathy card to Cathy. All agreed.

4. Privilege of the Floor:
Carl introduced Gail Shaffer and Joanne Noone offering them privilege of the floor.   Gail is a past assemblywoman representing the Middletown area and past Secretary of State under Governor Mario Cuomo.   Her concern has been the safety of the dam, flood mitigation and environmental issues.  The building of the reservoir changed dramatically the nature of recreation, fishing and agriculture as there were no requirements for minimal releases.  A lower level outlet is being built into the new Schoharie dam, from which, for the first time since its construction, releases will now be required as a condition moving forward.   Joanne said she was glad to be learning about the CWT and the issues they address, and expressed her concern regarding the representation of Conesville (which along with Gilboa are the two communities in Schoharie County that are in the WOH Watershed) on CWT.    She wanted to know how CWT board members were nominated and elected.  Carl explained that nominees had to be elected officials and that they could not already be serving on CWC’s board.      The acronym SWAC was used in this discussion. It stands for Schoharie Watershed Advisory Committee.
 

5. Continuing discussion re regulatory relief options: Tool 5: State Legislation Allowing One Stop Permitting in Locally Designated Areas in Stressed Communities. (See Jan 19, 2015 meeting minutes.) Jeff Bakers comment: This is nothing more than a list and that very little assistance would be given to applicants. This concept is in the MOA. The funding for this possibility promulgated in the MOA has ended. Doesn’t break the bureaucracy. Many of the Eco Dev offices can help applicants through the regulatory processes.

Jeff again suggests taking advantage of the provisions in the MOA and WRR that enables a municipality to create and enforce its own Stormwater regulations. A response to Jeff: There is a presumption that City will delegate regulatory authority over stormwater, etc. The difficulty is convincing the City to actually do so.

Rick pointed out that under the current arrangement (with DEP in charge of stormwater regulations) it is difficult to influence Stormwater Regulators about design decisions even if you have a PE on staff.   Coordinated reviews would be most helpful so that stormwater input would be part of the design process of a project early on.

Rick pointed out the challenges.   Every design goes through just one individual at DEP, Doug DeKoskie, on any stream project at review periods of 30, 60 and 90% complete. DEP does not want its stormwater staff to get involved until the stream project is well along in the design approval process before going to DEP for stormwater review which adds another 45 days.

Rick continued: Going out to bid takes 2-3 weeks. If you have a project with a successful bid, the contractor must respond to DEP within 10 days to be reviewed by DEP. On July 7^th a new process begins that will take up to three to four weeks to review the contractor. A new set of regulations now requires that each subcontractor will have to be approved by DEP, which could take an additional 3-4 weeks for any subcontractor. The fear being that projects will be delayed more and more slowing implementation down to unnecessarily slow rates.

Bruce invoked the boat launch mess in Walton that has taken 3 years already and is still not resolved. Rick again suggested that a small interagency committee of high level decision makers may be the most viable option to get past this logger head. This project is not just about NYC regulations, but also other regulations involving state and federal partners.

In summary, the two issues Rick sees are the bottleneck of design review being caused by a lack of staff and the late arrival of stormwater regulators to the design process. If indeed the bureaucratic maze that creates these problems is not overcome, implementation is going to be extremely slow due to conflicts between agency requirements and individual administrative processes within each agency.

Aaron stated that, although he is not directly involved in projects, he has heard similar concerns from the Ulster County Stream Program.

Before meeting with DEP about the issue, Jeff Baker said he would convene a meeting with design folks from each stream program to see if others are having similar issues.   Rick said the depth of the issue could then be gauged.   Jeff will send invitations by email to the relevant planners. He added that the City is going through its budget process now. He suggested that if staffing shortage is a major issue, the CWT should move fast to see if they would include it in this round of budget discussions.

Rick wanted to make it very clear that the person commenting on the designs at DEP, Doug DeKoskie, provides excellent input. It is not about him or his comments. It is that one individual cannot efficiently handle the review of designs generated by five stream programs. It is a lack of staffing at DEP not the quality of input or the individual at DEP.

He used the Herman More project in Hamden to illustrate the frustrations he trying to illustrate.   It is now two years old and the project is still at the 30% design review stage. In this case, the problem does not rest solely on the shoulders of DEP. Philosophical differences on the design of project between DEP and UDSA have been part of the problem even though USDA would pay for 75% of the project. It appears now that the DEP wishes to fund the entire project.

Mike offered that the process is causing a problem, in that the MOA and the FAD have the intent of cost effectively protecting water quality. The longer the projects are delayed is contrary to the intent of the MOA and FAD. He feels it is a legal issue if the CWT chose to pursue it.
 

6. Quarterly meeting – Report – Carl reported that the meeting was postponed. Carl indicated that the next meeting is set for June. The board expressed their disappointment. They are adamant that the meetings are extremely important to the partnership and should be a high priority for DEP and all the other involved stakeholders. Once a date is set it should remain so except for emergencies. Several suggested that this is a topic that should be on the agenda for the June meeting.
 

7. Updates:
a. Outcome of Flood Mitigation Program: Meeting 3/18.
i. Water Supply Permit Change – At this point in time it is still in the hands of the DEC. Counsel recommended that municipalities that have already committed to participating in the FBO, contact Tom Snow to communicate they are on board and are ready to explore the possibilities. Invite him to come to the Towns to see and hear where they are at. All continue to feel strongly that it must be an opt in.

ii. Inundation and DEP’s new FBO Selection Criteria

b. CWT submittal Expert Panel – Comments were sent in with Carl’s letter and white paper.

c. Aaron Bennett – report on the Ashokan Watershed Conf. – Aaron reported on the Conference of April 11th. It went well. At least 92 present. Robert Steuding spoke. He is author of The Last of the Handmade Dams. George Fowler of White Engineering spoke about the LFA in Ashokan.   Aaron was also pleased that Dave Warne attended.

d. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff Baker – still in process. Jeff and Kurt have been in communication.

e. Below Dams Activities
i. Delaware – Frazier reported that Marge is working on a grant to the Community Foundation of Central New York. FUDR has three or four grants apps out seeking funding for the SCMP. At the DRBC Regulated Flow Advisory Committee, Frazier made comments to Decree Party members, appealing to them that there is a gap in understanding about the tailwaters, their value to the local economies, the fact there is no designated funding for this area, sediment transport is a big problem at the confluence of the tributaries and main stems affecting local infrastructure and the fishery that is being overlooked. More uniform releases would be beneficial to for all stakeholders. Informed them they the UDRTC is seeking help in the development of a SCMP, a commitment made by the Communities and NGO’s to develop this. Meeting with Paul Rush on May 8^th seeking partnership opportunities. Trout Unlimited has now joined the UDRTC. Portions of the towns of Walton, Andes, Hamden, Tompkins, and Masonville have tributaries that drain into the tailwaters below the dams, and the UDRTC will appeal to them about becoming a member of the UDRTC. The Inter-municipal Agreement is final. By-laws for UDRTC are essentially done. Next meeting Town of Sanford and Broome County are invited.

ii. Esopus – Nothing new to report. The working group has met, but no news on the consent order. A memo to the DEP inquiring about the design in the feasibility study as to why they did not consider a higher level releases for warmer water as opposed to just having the low level release portal has been drafted. Paul Rush is meeting with the Esopus Group that is seeking more water. Why not consider the recreational releases, such as white water? DCC is urging the City to incorporate into the designs consideration for releases for the Esopus as the DCC group doesn’t need the cold water releases. Part 2 of the issue is related the trends in turbidity levels and to elevated NTU readings, such as on April 10^th at which time it reached 227 NTUs at the portal on the Esopus. There are questions related to the seiche phenomena where the wind blows on the surface causing waves below surface resulting in a layer of suspended sediment that moves with the waves. When conditions are right the suspended sediment flows out the portal to the Esopus. On April 10^th the NTU reading was 227 NTU at the portal on the Esopus. This high reading may have been the result of the seiche phenomenon.

iii. Schoharie – DCC Delaware River Releases Task Force. Seeking to force DEP and the NYPA to coordinate and develop joint protocols. Hurricane Irene impacts were terribly exacerbated by the management of the two dams. Every system failed, backup systems included, at the NYPA dam during the Irene event forcing them to manually control the gates.

A discussion ensued about releases from all the reservoirs. Frazier suggested that the tailwater communities seek more information regarding the OST. He suggested that the DEP may be willing to provide some education regarding that. The OST is used for the entire system. A better understanding of it could help us better understand the assumptions behind it and the rationale for decision outputs from it.

f. SUNY-Delhi – The DACUM process is ongoing.

8. Election – nominations, etc. Jeff has prepared a draft letter to seek nomination. Essentially the same letter from two years ago. Jeff explained that Carl must step down. Jeff explained the process to all.   Jeff will develop a letter.   Pete made the motion to send a letter indicating that if a municipality is more than a year behind they will not be considered a member. Linda seconded. Unanimous.

9. Treasurer’s report and warrant(s).
Warrants – No warrants.

Checking $1,000.14
Savings $104,564.89. 
Bruce moved to accept the treasurer’s report. Linda seconded.  Passed unanimously.

Carl raised the request of Counsel to raise rates by $10 per hour from $175 to $185.   Bruce moved to accept the increase request, Bill 2nd.  Passed unanimously.

10. Correspondence – None.

11. Other:
a. CWT and CWC had one meeting and it was very productive. Tony Van Glad, Bruce Dolph, Carl Stuendel, Mike Triolo and Berndt Leifeld were in attendance. This coming Thursday, April 23, they will hold their second meeting at the Windham Town Hall.   In addition to Carl, Bruce, and Tony VanGlad, as will Mike McCrary, Tony Coiro, and Steve Walker will be attending from CWT. Members would like to know if the CWC is anticipating the same problem with the 30-60-90% design review process and subcontractor vetting that DCSWCD is currently experiencing.

b. DEP has submitted to regulators a position paper calling for relief from some requirements imposed on them. With regard to the Watershed Ag Program (WAP) administered by the Watershed Ag Council (WAC), the City has asked for a reduction of thresholds, for instance a reduction of the current 90 percent required participation rate of eligible farms in the program to some lesser number.   WAC is very concerned about this.   Rick indicated there is a $20 million back log of BMPs. The delay in implementation is causing problems on farms. The WAP is not able to help them make changes or provide technical support. Rick will forward DEP’s paper (Evaluation of the Watershed Agricultural Program’s BMP Prioritization Methodology, Summary of BMP Implementation Status, Review of Current Metrics, and Justification for Developing Fewer Than 50 New Whole Farm Plans). Gail Shaffer pointed out that they city needs to maintain their investments. The Schoharie dam project came in $300 million under budget. In light of those saving they should not be backing off on the commitments they have made to the watershed.

12. Adjourn. Moved by Bruce. Second Linda. Unanimous.

Present: Carl Stuendel, Ric Coombe, Tony Van Glad, Stephen Walker, Bill Layton, Linda Burkhardt, Pete Bracci, Toni Coiro, Mike McCrary, Bruce Dolph and counsel Jeff Baker.

Others present: Marge Miller, Adam Wisnieski (City Limits/WNYC), Michelle Yost, Aaron Bennett, Mary MacNamara and Frazier.  

Guest Speakers: Paul Rush (Deputy Commissioner NYC DEP) and Eric P. Robert (Deputy Chief, Hydroelectric Project Manager NYC DEP).

1. Call to order: 6:15 PM

2. Minutes – February 16, 2015. Linda motioned to accept; Bruce Dolph second. No discussion. Passed unanimously.

3. Privilege of the Floor: Paul Rush and Eric Robert were introduced by Carl and given privilege of the floor to discuss NYC’s hydroelectric program and pending Cannonsville Project. Their Hydroelectric Operations Presentation was provided as a handout, (see attached).   Paul explained that a priority of this administration is to reduce its carbon footprint and that the Cannonsville project is an effort that would contribute to that. He indicated that the project must show a positive return long-term. In light of current energy market situation and cost of the project and projected megawatts generated, they estimate that at minimum it would be 35 years for the project to pay for itself. The City is also looking at the possibilities at their waste water treatment plants in the City to develop digesters to reduce greenhouse gases and reduce their energy costs long-term.

Responding to a question, Paul explained the reasons for the City’s application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) which involved protecting their interests in the property for various reasons. Because under law FERC gives preference to municipal applications, the City was granted approval over Delaware County Electric Cooperative (DCEC). Additionally, the City had reservations about the DCEC’s designs regarding safety of the infrastructure feeling the City’s design would pose less threat to the infrastructure. He also indicated that the DCEC in their preliminary design assumed that all water not diverted to NYC for consumption was available for flow. This could be in conflict with release requirements in the 1954 Decree.

Responding to a question from Pete Bracci, Paul indicated that subsequent to the decision by FERC to give DEP the permit to build, the DEP and DCEC met to explore ways in which the DCEC would be able to purchase the electricity at the City’s cost to produce it and then in turn sell to their rural customers or through some other arrangement, manage the electricity generated in a manner beneficial to DCEC customers. Paul informed the group that by law they can’t sell electricity at below market prices. Also, due to City law the City can’t legally build something that doesn’t pay for itself indicating that even the City’s plan may take 50 years to turn financially positive. He additionally commented that all electricity generated must benefit the City. Because of these issues along with other complications, the DCEC and DEP have discontinued further discussions. The DEP anticipates the local benefit will occur in the form of higher assessments on the improvements and local job creation during the construction phase of the project. Perhaps as many as 5 new permanent jobs may be created. Pete Bracci was pleased to hear that the DEP and DCEC were able to communicate and consider alternatives, but obviously disappointed that a longer term local benefit could not be arrived at.   Carl thanked them for their time and interesting presentation.

4. Discussion ‑‑ Regulatory relief options from January 19^th meeting. Due to time constraints the three tools listed below were not discussed.
a. Tool 5: State Legislation Allowing One Stop Permitting in Locally Designated Areas in Stressed Communities.
b. Tool 3: Adopt and Expanded Type II List under SEQRA for New Residential Projects, Redevelopment of Existing Parcels, and Moderate Commercial Development.
c. Tool 6: Generic Variances for Flood Mitigation Related Projects ‑‑ Sewage.

5. Quarterly meeting – DEP, CWT, CWC, Delaware, WAC. The meeting has been rescheduled for April 16^th. Michelle Yost had asked about the selection criteria for participation in these meetings. Chairman Stuendel indicated that he had only attended one of these meetings, and said he believes that Paul Rush, or some long-standing custom, had determined the list of attendees. Michelle said she (or a rep from Greene County) would like to attend.

6. Updates:
a. Status of Flood Mitigation Program: Meeting 3/18.
i. Water Supply Permit Change
ii. Inundation and DEP’s new FBO Selection Criteria document.

Carl asked Jeff to explain what is planned for the March 18 in Kingston. Proposed language for WSP is fine. However, Jeff reported on the conference call including Carl, Stream Program Staff, Planning, Kevin Young and Frazier to discuss the eligibility criteria for individual properties not part of the LFA that may fall within Soil Erosion and or Inundation lower level criteria. The concern being that it might pose liability issues for communities, how to make the determination of what criteria are used for determining where a property may fall, arguments between landowners as to why their property is not eligible now. All these confounding factors could cause a use of limited resources on non-imminent properties at risk. Jeff recommended that the CWT move toward eliminating the multiple tiers of threats in each category into one category under Inundation and Soil Erosion. Jeff explained the fear of potentially leaving the three tiers might lead to an opening for the City, perceived or otherwise, to purchase improved properties in and outside of LFA areas. Frazier reported that Kevin and he had added language for outreach to be passive, not aggressive, directed by the community with the contract between the community based on their decision of what tools they want to use in a FBO program and the Outreach Leader to avoid any incentives to solicit aggressively. Jeff will provide a final version of the changes to the FBO Selection Criteria and other components on Tuesday in advance of the Wednesday meeting.

Peter Bracci motioned to remove the lower levels of risk under Soil Erosion and Inundation. Second by Bill Layton. Motion passed unanimously.

Frazier reported that Alan Rosa and Tim Cox are also in favor of the concept and language in the White Paper.

Toni Van Glad inquired about new wider setbacks from water courses for activity. Jeff responded that if such a proposal was on the table for the watershed that would be a serious issue that we should have known about and it would have raised objections. Jeff believes that is taking place down in the City for flood protection.

b. Stream Programs/CWC meeting: Meshing programs. Michelle reported that it went very well. CWC coming out with their first grant round on June 1. CWC is looking hard at two grant cycles.   The CWC is apparently going to pursue changing the 20 year limitation for calculating flood damage so as to not to limit eligible candidates as we are coming up on the anniversary of the flood of 1996. Aaron reported that in an earlier, private discussion with Alan Rosa, he had raised this very concern about the 20-year time constraint, and that Alan had agreed. Aaron also mentioned that if an Anchor Business can be moved without an LFA, why not a Critical Community Facility. He recommended talking to CWC members about changing program rules to include Critical Community Facilities.

c. Pam Young’s (NYS DOH) request for comment ‑ FAD & Expert Panel – and CWT’s proposed submittal. Carl read a draft letter and asked the board to support it. It emphasized that in addition to outstanding water quality issues, community economic needs must be addressed as well, as required in both the MOA and WSP. Toni Van Glad moved to send Carl’s letter to Pamela Young after review with Counsel. Stephen seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.

d. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff Baker – still working on it.

e. Below Dams Activities:
i. Delaware – No report given due to time constraints.
ii. Esopus ‑ Aaron introduced Mary MacNamara, a member of the Shokan Release Working Group. She is an advocate for the Lower Esopus. Their first quarterly meeting will be held this Friday. They are waiting to hear back from the DEC on the Scope of Work related for the EIS. She is looking forward to the Stream Corridor Management Plan for the Lower Esopus.
iii. Schoharie – No report given due to time constraints.

f. SUNY-Delhi ‑‑ Carl mentioned that the idea of developing a curriculum is still moving forward.

g. Treasurer’s report and warrant(s).
Tony Van Glad moved to pay $4,909.00. Second Linda. Passed.
Checking $1000.17
Savings $106,441.48
In response to a question regarding the status of membership dues: no cause for alarm, payments continue to be made.

7. Correspondence – N/R

8. Other:
CWC holding Annual Meeting on April 7 at 1 PM. Meet and Greet at noon.
The next scheduled meeting between CWT and CWC officers is tentatively scheduled for April 23.

Jeff reminded all that the term of office for CWT Executive Board members ends this coming June, and that his office will be sending out nomination forms with a cover letter very soon to get that election ball rolling.

Aaron announced the Ashokan Watershed Conference at the Ashokan Center is April 11^th, 9AM – 3PM.

9. Adjourn:  Stephen moved to adjourn.  Second Bruce Dolph.

Present: Carl Stuendel, Bruce Dolph, Linda Burkhardt, Catherine Magarelli, Anthony Van Glad, Mike McCrary, and Counsel – Jeff Baker

Others in attendance:  Rick Weidenbach, Frazier, Aaron Bennett

1. Call to order: 6:20 PM

2. Minutes – January 19, 2015 – Move to accept, Mr. Dolph; second, Mr. McCrary. Passed unanimously.

3. Privilege of the Floor: Given to Mr. Weidenbach.
a. Extensive discussion ensued regarding the ability to get past bureaucratic differences among agencies with conflicting jurisdictions that cause problems with design and getting approvals and permits needed in a timely manner. Mr. Weidenbach expressed that the agency people he deals with at his level can’t make the decisions needed to overcome duplicative or conflicting interagency or interagency requirements that unnecessarily cause delays that can undermine funding and implementing projects.

To overcome this, Mr. Weidenbach suggested that an Umbrella Group or Task Force of high level agency decision makers be identified that could on an ad hoc basis be summoned to meet in person or by phone conference if possible to address or eliminate roadblocks as they may occur. Mr. Weidenbach explained the situation in Fleishmanns with SEMO and FEMA. Although a vote was not taken there was general agreement to pursue this. Jeff will work with Rick on developing this idea.

b. The second item involved some forthcoming meetings.
i. Mr. Weidenbach announced that the CWC and the stream corridor management program staff will meet the first week in March to have further discussions to clarify how they will integrate their programs. This meeting will be helpful in preparation for the meeting on March 18 noted below. The stream programs are advocating that communities request all relevant funding sources be present at a meeting when discussing the preliminary engineering LFAs and Final LFAs.

ii. There is also a meeting of the Flood Mitigation Group at NYC DEP on March 18. This includes the CWT, DEP, County Departments and Agencies, CWC, State and Federal Agencies and NGOs that began the process. The goal is to finalize changes to the WSP to enable the voluntary flood buyout program to proceed.

iii. Resolution: Bruce Dolph moved to authorize Jeff Baker to attend meetings, at the request of a community undergoing an LFA. Specifically to attend when communities begin to discuss funding from various programs at the LFA Engineering analysis level and the final LFA’s. The intent being to assure clearly which sources of funds and mitigation tasks were to be performed as agreed to in the September 20, 2012 Agreement in Principle. Motion seconded by Tony Van Glad. A qualifier was added to the motion: the offer to attend community meetings would not be indefinitely extended into the future, but available only until such time as clarity had been achieved regarding the jurisdiction and roles of the various funding sources. The qualifier was accepted. Motion passed unanimously. Bruce suggested that the Walton LFA would be a good place to bring all the parties together.

4. Discussion:
a. Regulatory relief options from January 19^th meeting.
i. Tool 5: State Legislation Allowing One Stop Permitting in Locally Designated Areas in Stressed Communities. The Board discussed this as one alternative to mitigating duplicative or conflicting regulations. Counsel felt this particular program was not successful and did not provide the type of services the Board was interested in. It did not assist in getting applicants through the process, it merely identified for them the steps they needed to take. Counsel recommended that a county pursue stormwater permitting as allowed for under the WR&Rs. While that is an option it is not without challenges. DEP made it very clear that it would be extremely difficult to achieve that authority. Probably the biggest challenge is who would do it and where would the funding come from. We can investigate.

ii. Tool 3: Adopt and Expanded Type II List under SEQRA for New Residential Projects, Redevelopment of Existing Parcels, and Moderate Commercial Development. Due to time this was not discussed.

b. At this juncture Carl asked Bruce if he wanted to discuss the letter to the editor from Margaretville. Bruce declined suggesting he may write a letter to the editor in response. That peaked interest and discussion about the letter. Although no resolution was brought forth both Bruce independently and the board concluded they would not respond to the letter. A number of people have reached out to Dianna to express their concerns already. The DEP wrote a letter to the Village of Margaretville, reminding them that this is a voluntary program and that it was voluntary program that the watershed representatives from the Counties sought this program and were very clear that relocation would have to be part of the volunteer flood buyout program.

c. Pam Young’s (NYS DOH) request for comment – FAD & Expert Panel – Carl reminded the board that comments are due at the end of March.

5. Updates:
a. Status of Flood Mitigation Program:
i. Water Supply Permit Change

ii. Inundation and DEP’s new FBO Selection Criteria document.

b. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff Baker

c. Below Dams Activities
i. Delaware – got a grant working on a work plan in the context of a larger effort. The UDRTC will be meeting Thursday night to finalize an IMA. There is a meeting being pursued with Paul Rush to discuss some issues.

ii. Esopus – Aaron – no new developments.

iii. Schoharie – Tony – Gilboa interested in the tailings to use on local roads in the future.

d. Mike Brandow’s membership on the Executive Board of the CWT. CWT bylaws don’t allow him to have membership both on the CWC board and the CWT board. Jeff recommended to just ignore the issue since elections will be held shortly and a new member will be selected at that time.

6. Treasurer’s report and warrant(s).
Warrants:
Young Sommer – $5,496.68

Balances:
Checking $1,000.16
Savings $110,399.38
Bruce moved to pay the bills and balances; seconded by Linda. Passed.

7. Correspondence – Mayor Cope’s letter to DEP, DEP’s letter of response to Mayor Cope. Covered above.

8. Other:
a. SUNY-Delhi- Carl reported that there is progress with them to develop a curriculum to provide graduates needed related to watershed issues.

b. Frazer reported that the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) is reaching out to DEP to do work up in the watershed. The UDRTC had a visit with the ACOE below the dams.   Because they would have funds, that could be very attractive, but Frazier is concerned how their philosophy of addressing flooding issues and funding might affect the overall flood mitigation program above the dams should they become involved.

9. Adjourn: Tony Van Glad moved to adjourn; seconded by Linda Burkhardt.  Passed.

Present: Carl Stuendel, Bruce Dolph, Mike McCrary, Toni Coiro, Ric Coombe, Pete Bracci, Bill Layton, Stephen Walker and counsel Jeff Baker

Others Present: Michelle Yost, Aaron Bennett, Guest speaker Kevin Young, Frazier.
 

1. Call to order: 6:20 PM

2. Minutes – Dec 15, 2014.   Moved by Bruce Dolph; second by Bill Layton, passed unanimously.

3. Privilege of the Floor

4. Kevin Young- Young/Sommer Attorney –
a. FBO and Relocation Regulatory Relief Position Paper At the request of the CWT Kevin Young developed potential ideas for streamlining the regulatory process of the DEP. This concern is driven by the maze of regulatory thresholds that are required to put a capital project through the regulatory and permitting processes of local municipalities, State and City. This is especially concerning as we look ahead regarding the potential (VOLUNTEER PROGRAM) purchase of flood damaged property, potential moving and relocating of a business or homes to move them outside local residents outside areas of high flood risk, as proposed in the overall NYC Flood Mitigation Program negotiated by watershed stakeholders.

Kevin outlined as many as 24 regulatory hurdles that may have to be overcome. Follow that with SEQR. With a SEQR Negative Declaration and no subsequent lawsuits the process approaches 3 years. A positive declaration could mean the end of a project as it opens it up for any involved party to delay a project for years. The costs to develop an Environmental Impact Statement under a Pos Dec could easily exceed $200,000 even for a small project.

Six different tools were discussed. A seventh was mentioned by Jeff Baker reminding all, that the WR&Rs enables a community to take assume regulation stormwater permitting and management in their community. It would be a challenge to do, but counties may want to consider it.

Carl asked the board what they wanted to do regarding the material Kevin has developed. The CWT did decide that they need to discuss those options further and wait to see. It was proposed that the CWT could discuss one or two options at each meeting going forward. The CWT felt that they should examine each and prioritize where they want to expend their efforts.

b. Following-up on the June 10, 2014 regulation enforcement meeting in Grahamsville [See June 16, 2014 CWT meeting minutes, item 4b.], on Dec 22, 2014 Carl attended a meeting in Kingston between DEP officials and Full Moon Resort (FMR) owners Henry Stout and Michael Densmore, their engineer Rex Sanford and attorney Kevin Young. Kevin, consistent with his June 10 position, expressed his concern that this enforcement proceeding, though based on a suspected “change of use” at Full Moon, seemed to be overkill as there never was any evidence of a failed septic system and though Henry and Mike’s business strategy continues to evolve, there is no agreed upon usage baseline to justify raising the “change of use” flag, an early-alert to a possible impact on water quality. The only impact of these aggressive enforcement actions will be to put good businesses out of business.

After the meeting had concluded, Carl spoke with DEP attorney Joya Cohen who acknowledged FMR’s frustration, but said DEP felt frustrated by Kevin’s objections to what seemed a rather straightforward application of the WR&Rs ‑‑ an exploratory investigation related to Non-Complying Regulated Activities (NCRAs) that was well within DEP’s jurisdiction. In addition, Joya indicated that since the June 10, 2014 meeting, DEP had been working internally to incorporate many of the suggestions from that meeting into a revised set of enforcement guidelines. (Carl said that in a subsequent conversation he had with David Warne, Dave had confirmed that progress had been made on a set of revised guidelines that would be issued in draft form to CWT in the near future.)
 

5. Updates:
a. Status of Flood Mitigation Program:
i. Water Supply Permit Change – nothing to report – Carl indicated he will investigate status.

ii. Inundation and DEP’s new FBO Selection Criteria document – Nothing new to report. There is no date to send comments by, but one can still comment. The CWT at the last meeting concluded there did not appear to be anything that was problematic.

b. Kurt Ossenfort Proposal – Jeff Baker – ongoing

c. Below Dams Activities – No new news to report on any of the three listed.
i. Delaware
ii. Esopus
iii. Schoharie

d. Dues – Carl reported that he had a very good conversation with Tom Axtell regarding what real benefits arise for his Town as a result of membership in the Coalition. Tom said he would, once again, bring the matter up to his board. Carl wanted Tom to know he was not being singled out for scrutiny and affirmed that this was a decision for Tom and his board.

e. Hydro-electric on the Cannonsville – there have been some positive constructive discussions between the DCEC and NYCDEP. It is too early to conclude anything. Carl Reported that Paul Rush has agreed to speak about the issue at a future CWT meeting.

f. Clarification of Mike Brandow and Dixie Baldrey CWT executive committee membership status. Dixie is an alternate. Because Mike is currently serving on the CWC Board of Directors, CWT by-laws don’t allow him to serve on the CWT Executive Board.
 

6. Treasurer’s report and warrant(s).
Bruce Dolph moved to approve the warrants and treasurer’s report. Bill Seconded passed.  
Checkbook balance – $ 1,000.11
Savings account balance – $100,660.38      
Warrants:
Young/ Sommer – $3,045.00
Delaware County Watershed Affairs – $2,579.92
 

7. Correspondence: none to report.
 

8. Other:
a. Bruce and Carl reported that their meeting (which included our very own Tony Van Glad) with CWC board members Mike Triolo and Berndt Leifeld. They said the meeting was positive. They renewed their commitment to work together and set up the next quarterly meeting for April of 2015.

b. Carl informed the Board of a meeting with SUNY Delhi to discuss how they, the only college in the NYC watershed, may be able to assist the Watershed through their environmental science/ natural resources curriculum, continuing education programs, and training opportunities. Dean and Carl met with the Provost and two professors.

A next meeting is scheduled for January 30 to discuss the types of jobs that exist or are needed in the Watershed and the degrees and course work that are needed to meet them. Organizations such as the SWCDs, Planning, DPW, NYCDEP, CWC, WAC, Eco Dev, CCE would be invited to what Delhi calls a DACUM, the purpose of which would be to get a good sense of the positions and skills required by these employers and then to decide what curricula or training programs SUNY could develop to meet those needs. If possible this could lead to many positives regarding jobs and a larger program at SUNY Delhi, which could lead to growth there, benefit the local economy and produce graduates who could learn directly from the largest recognized watershed protection program in the world.
 

9. Adjourn: Moved to adjourn Bruce Dolph; Second Steve Walker. Passed. 9:15 PM.