Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250422 CFFCOC Special Meeting Summary_20250422_DRAFTP a g e 1 | 4 Members Present: Tom Backman, District 3; Carol Bernthal, District 1; Laurie de Koch, District 3; Tom Ehrlichman, District 2; Rob Harbour, Interest – Working Lands; Richard Jahnke, Interest – Coastal Areas; Cheryl Lowe, Interest – Habitat Values; E. Ryan McMackin, Interest – Wetlands; Joanne Pontrello, Chair, District 2; Ron Rempel, Vice Chair, Interest – Wildlife Conservation Biology; Robert Simmons, Interest – Watersheds; Dave Wilkinson, District 1 Members Absent: None County Staff Present: Tami Pokorny, Natural Resources Program Coordinator; Tressa Linquist, Clerk, Environmental Public Health Others Present: Peter Bahls of Northwest Watershed Institute I. Call to Order, Roll Call, Determination of Quorum Chair Joanne Pontrello called the meeting to order at 2:05 PM. Roll call was performed. All members were present, quorum was met. Tressa informed the group that measures were taken to increase Zoom security since the last meeting, and that a transcript was now being generated along with the Zoom recording. II. Public Comments None. III. Summary of previous meeting Tom B moved to approve the 04/01/2025 meeting summary. Bob seconded. The meeting summary was approved by consensus. IV. Old Business Approval of amended 02/19/2025 meeting summary: Tom E was satisfied with his requested changes to the summary. Rick moved to approve, Tom E seconded. The meeting summary was approved by consensus. V. Sub-Committee Reports Materials: The Sub-Committee has not met since our last meeting and had no updates. Storymap: Sub-Committee (Rob, Cheryl, Tressa) will meet 04/23/2025 at JCPH at noon to begin site redesign. Now is a great time to join. Note a correction to what was stated in the meeting: There are two spots available on the Storymap Sub-Committee, not one. Each Sub-Committee may have up to four members. Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund (JCCFF) Special Meeting: Hybrid between JCPH and Zoom Connection April 01, 2025 from 2:00 to 4:30 PM DRAFT Summary P a g e 2 | 4 VI. New Business Conflict of interest review Tressa displayed again the three questions each CFFCOC member should ask of themselves regarding conflicts of interest and the projects/lands up for consideration (crafted in 2002 by county Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, David Alvarez). Time was allowed for reflection and voicing of recusal. No conflicts of interest were reported. • Do you, as a member of the CFFCOC, stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? • Are you, as a CFFCOC member, unable to hear and consider this application in a fair and objective manner, i.e., without bias and without a predisposition to any particular result regarding this application? • Have you, as a CFFCOC member, engaged in any communication outside this hearing with either a proponent or opponent of this particular application? 2025 Funding The amount of funding available for this CFF cycle is estimated to be ~$321,000. This includes $252,000 from 2024 revenues and ~$69,000 in funds returned from the cancelled North Barry/Snow Creek project. These numbers need to be finalized with the Finance department, but with the total request this cycle being $230,500, it is safe to assume that there are sufficient funds available to grant each project in full, should the Committee vote to do so. 2025 funding requests Deerfoot Forest $110,000 Upper Yarr Creek $26,000 Toandos Forest $94,500 Robert’s Rules of Order A simplified procedure for conducting meetings using Robert’s Rules of Order was displayed as a refresher for the group. Any motions made should be stated clearly, following the procedure, and each member should be given an opportunity to speak before a member may speak again. Respect and decorum are expected. 2025 Project Application Scoring Review and Ranking Tressa displayed a workbook showing individual and cumulative scores for the three 2025 project applications. The 70% cutoff for automatic eligibility (outlined in the Manual, page 4) is 177 points (0.7*253 total points allowed). Average scores were displayed. Toandos Forest exceeded the cutoff, Deerfoot Forest and Upper Yarr Creek fell below the cutoff. %CVs for each project showed the Committee was more divided on the Deerfoot project, less so on Upper Yarr and Toandos Forest. Project Name Score %CV Deerfoot Forest 163 64% Upper Yarr Creek 167 66% P a g e 3 | 4 Toandos Forest 191 70% It was noted that projects may still be recommended for funding despite falling below the 70% cutoff, if compelling reasons are brought forward during the discussion. This has occurred many times in the past. Questions on the score sheet are up for personal interpretation. Some members score projects based on inherent values, other members score projects relative to each other. Often there are broader benefits and/or conservation values that are not captured in the scoring process. Rob Harbour removed himself from the discussion and sat-in as a member of the public, having missed the project presentation meeting and thus being ineligible to vote this cycle. Members were given an opportunity to revise their submitted individual scores if new perspectives had been gained. Ultimately, it was decided that a more appropriate approach would be to leave the scores as-is and make recommendations based on the arguments presented during today’s discussion. Are these lands key open spaces that are worthy of public investment? Do they meet the criteria outlined in JCC for preservation of unique and valuable resources? Discussion began with scores for Deerfoot Forest. Some committee members expressed that their final scores did not reflect their overall opinion on the project’s value. The property is a significant area (37 acres) of mature forest surrounded by residential property and commercial forests, much of which have been recently logged. It will take the surrounding landscape many years to develop into the mature and diverse condition Deerfoot is in. An ecological “island.” It has hydrologic value to two watersheds. If not conserved, the two parcels may be sold individually in the future, perhaps for development or forestry. The current owners have demonstrated a long-term commitment to stewarding diversity. They are open to having opportunities for community education. Ryan moved to deem Deerfoot Forest worthy of funding, and Tom E seconded. The motion was passed by consensus. There was no further discussion on the project. Carol moved to fully fund Deerfoot Forest at $110,000. Tom B seconded. The motion to fully fund Deerfoot Forest was passed by consensus. Discussion moved to Upper Yarr Creek. This project had a lower level of deviation, meaning the committee were in greater agreement about the final score. Protecting this parcel, which has Yarr Creek flowing through it at the base of a steep hill, will protect the stream from erosion or human impacts to the hillside. It is a small parcel, but it is very vulnerable. The fact that NWI already owns the parcel was discussed – if it is owned by a conservation entity, is it actually threatened? NWI is asking to be reimbursed/rewarded for taking on the risk. The committee should consider this potential scenario in their revision of the program materials. The real estate market is dynamic and fast-paced, and CFF is not an agile program. The parcel is part of a well-managed, larger conservation plan. Ron moved that Upper Yarr Creek be deemed worthy of funding. Ryan seconded. The committee voted 11 in favor, 1 against. The motion passed. There was no further discussion. Ryan moved to fully fund Upper Yarr Creek at $26,000. Laurie seconded. The committee voted 11 in favor, 1 against. The motion to fully fund Upper Yarr Creek passed. P a g e 4 | 4 Toandos Forest was briefly discussed. This project met the 70% cumulative score requirement to be “automatically worthy” of funding. It also showed the least amount of variation among the group. The property is valuable and unique as it is in an area underserved by CFF (Toandos). Bob moved to fully fund the project at $94,500. Ryan seconded. The motion to fully fund Toandos Forest passed by consensus. Public Comment Peter Bahls of NWI gave thanks to the program and to the committee for their efforts this cycle, and recognized that the grant process is a lot of work for the group. Ron asked if it could be possible to reserve a portion of the dollars for a future larger project, such as something on the West End. Staff should investigate, and perhaps a sub-committee should be formed to deliberate. Formation of “Resources” Sub-Committee This committee will generate a set of resources for the CFFCOC that are relevant to conservation in Jefferson County – habitat, cultural resources, agriculture, large scale processes, climate change, etc. What do CFFCOC members need to know to determine if a property is biologically important? What are the specific criteria in RCW and JCC that should be met? What are the biggest conservation issues faced by the county? Perhaps there could be guest lectures. Ron, Carol, and Tom B will make up the sub-committee. Tom E asked that the Materials Sub-Committee consider removing or restructuring application question 14, O&M. The question is confusing and was not answered by any applicants this cycle. The Materials Sub-Committee still plans to overhaul the application this fall. What is the most efficient grant award process others have engaged in? It would be helpful to have more training for CFF, perhaps running through a dummy proposal. Can be hard to evaluate as a new member, this will help with consistency. VII. Next meeting date There are no additional meetings scheduled at this time. Joanne will present the committee’s recommendations to the BoCC soon, Tressa to schedule and inform the group. There will also be a public hearing after that where additional comments may be made. It was agreed that September would be a good time to meet again to discuss sub-committee findings. VIII. Announcements None. IX. Public Comment Thanks were given to Tressa for her work and growth over in her position over the last year. X. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:59 PM. Meeting summary prepared by Tressa Linquist.