Hey folks,

Sorry I haven't posted the notes from the meeting yet. I haven't had time to read the posts here, either.

Just a quick thank you to everyone who participated in the meeting on Wednesday. While it got a little heated a couple of times, I certainly gained a lot of understanding and a better sense of what people's concerns are. And it reinforced for me that ultimately *everyone* does have the central purpose of providing a safe and pleasant access point so boaters can more fully enjoy boating. To make an analogy, I think sometimes we don't look downstream far enough in planning our route and are staring at our bows instead, but there is a lot of energy and a lot of good ideas. As long as we keep sight of access and conservation as the point of it all, we'll be ok.

I'll try to transcribe the notes tomorrow.

Zina

Zina

Here are my notes -- I am sure they are incomplete, but I hope you can follow them.
The beginning part is where we brainstormed some ideas, and then we stuck post-it dots next to items to indicate what we felt was most important. Each person got 6 dots to work with and could put all six at one idea, or however they wanted to distribute them. The asterisks * stand for the dots.

---------------------------------------------
Notes from EAMG meeting 4/2/2008 held at the Franklin County Extension Office

in attendance: David Quarles, Zina Merkin, Barry Grimes, Brent Austin, Don Spangler, David Merrifield, David Margavage, Paul Singleton, Dale Perry, Liz Kauffman (Elkhorn Paddlers), Phil Sisk, David Leachman, Brian Sandmann (Viking Canoe Club), George Mead (observer), Robert Milgate (observer).

The list of goals/issues/ideas mentioned (in no particular order)
- ACCESS TO THE CREEK **
- Vehicles off the road ****
- For local paddlers
- Limit impact on those who live on or near the creek ********
- Not for tourist/commercial use
- Reduce erosion at creek *
- For all paddlers ***
- to be managed by area clubs *
- buying privately and owning privately ***
- access for boaters specifically ********
- in friendly hands **
- to be able to park without trespassing ***
- less impact on neighbors ****
- less impact on stream ******
- secure and friendly place – friendly to neighbors, environment, boaters
- “model” access point / good example
- Easy access ****************
- Public access

-------------------------------------
The process by which we acquired and donated the land
- a management group was invoked as one way to manage any loans if they were necessary
- a concern was how to care for the land ****
- initial goal to keep a low profile because of county opposition and zoning issues *
- the whole thing was pulled together very quickly (with lots of holes in communication and in plans for after the purchase.
- some thought the management group was temporary
- some did not think a particular club would take over **
- some thought BWA would take over
- some thought a group was necessary to make sure someone would be looking after the land when all the excitement was over **
- some questioned the fairness of representation when a minimum donation of $500 was required for a share
- should have a voice for all ****
-------------------------------------------
other thoughts about management
- quasi-public space
- separate access needed to eliminate problems/conflicts with other creek user groups, especially being blamed for their trash, etc.
- need to be able to control the property to control problems like trash
- need more involvement by and discussion with AW
--------------------------------------------
Random personal notes/observations

First of all, I think we all got a chance to really think about what was most important, and that is ACCESS. And we were reminded that the takeout came about because access was threatened (which could conceivably happen again).

Paul brought up the point about how people who were very interested in the takeout felt cut out of the process by the setting of a $500 per “share” threshold, and how he felt it unfairly discriminated against those who didn’t have money.

As the history of the purchase was discussed, we reminded ourselves what a remarkable achievement that was.

It was also clear that as two separate groups gathered money, two separate conversations about the future of the property had been going on, and the two conversations were never well reconciled despite their agreement that donating the land to AW was the appropriate disposition after the auction. And the two slightly different visions have contributed to ongoing misunderstandings and hurt feelings.

It was noted that some of the confusion and misunderstanding wouldn’t have happened if AW had been more involved in setting forth their expectations for property management.

People felt that the collective goals of the individuals matched up pretty well with what AW recently put forth for management guidelines, but that those guidelines had clarified some gray areas or areas in contention. Everyone could accept AW’s guidelines.

There was not anyone in the room who was necessarily against AW’s proposal for a regional management council composed of representatives from 4 clubs and EAMG, but some wanted to move slowly and have a lot of discussion to anticipate future needs and avoid future misunderstandings.

Dave Margavage made a thoughtful point about having changing attitudes about the degree to which the property should represent public access (kids, dogs, picnics, fishing...), attitudes which have evolved as we have seen issues in regard to avoiding problems for the neighbors, making it comfortable and secure for boaters, being able to keep it clean and maintained, etc.

Dave Merrifield made the point that the project had succeeded very well in achieving his goals, to have a safe place to park that did not require trespassing. He feels it has been maintained well and is serving its purpose. He thanked everyone for what they had done toward that success.
----------------------------------------

Thanks everyone, and I hope everyone has fun on the water this weekend!

Zina