Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 03 30 CFFCOC Special Meeting Final Summary  * Decisions and action items are indicated in bold font. Members Present: Phil Andrus – District 2; Mary Biskup – District 1; Lige Christian, Chair – District 3; JD Gallant – District 3; Rob Harbour, Interest – Working Lands; Richard Jahnke, Interest – Coastal Areas; Joanne Pontrello, Vice Chair – District 2; Craig Schrader, Interest – Climate Change; Linda Saunders, Interest – Historical/Cultural; Dave Wilkinson, Chair – District 1 Members Absent: Scott Brinton, Interest – Agriculture; Lorna Smith, Interest – Ecotourism; David Seabrook, Interest – Food Security County Staff Present: Tami Pokorny, Natural Resources Program Coordinator Guests: Blaise Sullivan, Jefferson Land Trust (JLT) I. Call to Order Chair Lige Christian called the meeting to order at 10:00 AM. II. Approval of Draft Agenda The agenda was accepted without changes. III. Guest Observer Comments Blaise Sullivan introduced herself as the Conservation Assistant for the JLT. IV. Old Business There was no old business. V. Subcommittee Reports There were no reports. VI. New Business Calendar and Related Changes Necessary due to COVID-19 Response On March 12, Committee Chair Lige Christian sent Tami Pokorny a request to pole membership to postpone all Jefferson County Conservation Futures (JCCF) meetings for at least six weeks. Since then, the State and Federal governments have put the shelter in place order into action through the end of April. Tami and Lige then sent another memo to the Committee to postpone meetings until the end of May. However, the Committee has a deadline of July 1 for their project recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC), so postponement is no longer an option. Tami has suggested some alternatives to meeting in person; this meeting is to decide how to proceed. Project recommendations usually follow a three-step process: site visits, sponsor presentations, and a ranking meeting. Lige presented two options: 1: To continue with the meetings on the dates as planned, but over telecommunication instead of by face-to-face; or 2: To cancel this funding round and continue to award funds again next year. He brought up the problem of project approval and rewards all being held in the spring, and suggested the possibility of changing the timeline to evaluate and approve projects in the summer or fall before the following spring funding round. Lige then opened the floor to discussion. Mary Biskup said she felt that a recommendation was needed about the best way to proceed. Lige said the only viable option was to proceed as scheduled, but to do all meetings online. Phil Andrus said that the main issue was finding a suitable substitute for the site inspections. He suggested driving around to the sites individually, or having good project documentation through maps, photographs or videos that could be provided by sponsors or Tami. He recalled that in years past when he was unable to attend site visits, Tami’s photos and videos of the sites were helpful and informative for ranking decisions. Mary emphasized the importance of the project presentations, especially in the absence of site visits. Extra photos could also be requested. Joanne Pontrello asked if it would be appropriate to ask sponsors for videos to be included in their project presentations. Blaise Sullivan said that she spoke to Sarah Spaeth about alternatives for the JLT presentations in light of the COVID-19 changes. They agreed that they would be willing to provide site visit videos and extra project material as long as they were allowed to do so and had no face-to-face contact with landowners. Lige stressed the importance of getting a feel for the properties, which could be done through videos and photographs. The group discussed whether Tami would be able to take her own videos of the sites if there were any issues with having the County request that they be provided by the JLT. Tami said she would look into that, but assumed that she could do so. Blaise suggested holding the project presentation meeting over Zoom, where a combination of slideshow and questions could be conducted. JLT staff is equipped to hold Zoom meetings from home. Tami will be in touch with the JLT about those logistics. All but one of the projects being submitted this round are from the JLT; the other project is from the Northwest Watershed Institute (NWI). Tami believed that the project from the NWI could be presented in a similar way. Lige concluded after discussion that the Committee could proceed with meetings as scheduled, but online and with video substitutes for the site visits. Tami suggested sending out packets with thumb drives and paper copies of the presentations. Richard Jahnke recalled that for many years, the site visits were held after the presentations. He suggested that having the site videos after the presentation meeting would be appropriate if additional time was needed to put videos together. David Wilkinson shared his experience with State-level water quality grants before the technology of Zoom was available, which was a paper-only process. He agreed that the videos would be great, but he would not want them to be a requirement. Tami said that the site visits are mentioned frequently in the application requirements, so if a substitute was not required, she would probably need to make a special request to the BoCC to forgo them under the exceptional circumstances. The group concluded that they wished to move forward with the meeting and funding process electronically. Phil Andrus moved to proceed with the evaluation process as scheduled in the JCCF calendar, with the exception of the site visits, which would be handled by photographic means. Rob Harbor seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Next Meeting The next JCCF Meeting is the Presentation Meeting, and is scheduled for Tuesday, April 7, 2020, from 6PM to 9Pm. It will be conducted by teleconference. Joanne recommended going forward with the presentations regardless of whether or not the site visit videos were ready. If the site visit videos were submitted afterward, that would be acceptable. The next meeting will also include the election of a new Committee Chair, and an update on the bylaws. Richard requested that sponsors distribute project materials prior to the meeting to make it easier for the Committee to follow along, particularly for those who are only able to call in and may not have access to the on-screen presentations. Blaise offered to email PDF copies of the project presentations to the Committee instead of mailing paper copies. Joanne mentioned the option of the Wi-Fi available from the County Library parking lot. Linda asked if the schedule allowed the sponsors enough time to provide the additional presentation materials. The group discussed the merits of project presentations versus a question and answer period. Blaise offered to put together short PDFs of each project, along with brief presentations in time for the April 7 meeting. There will also be time for questions. Phil has noticed redundancy in project presentations from the same sponsor in the past, and suggested economizing the information in each presentation. The JLT’s relationship with the Committee is one of trust and respect, and everyone understands the exceptions due to current circumstances. VII. Announcements/Administrative Tami Pokorny confirmed that there are eight applications totaling a request of $379,362. Available funds come to $291,000. The Bishop Dairy Project is not going through, so the vast majority of those allocated funds are being returned to the JCCF. Lige Christian requested a detailed report on the Bishop Dairy Project expenditures and returned funds. Tami thanked the Committee for their memberships. VIII. Guest Observer Comments Blaise Sullivan thanked the Committee for their consideration of the JLT’s opinion. IX. Adjournment Richard Jahnke moved to adjourn the meeting; Mary Biskup seconded. The motion was approved unanimously. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:58 AM. Meeting notes prepared by Rebekah Brooks.