Sears Island Planning Initiative
Education Subcommittee
Searsport Town Hall
June 12, 2006 2-4 p.m.
MEETING SUMMARY
(As endorsed by Steering Committee on June 16, 2006)
Present: Jan Flint, Steve Miller, David Gelinas, John Melrose, Joe Perry, Ben Crimaudo, Anne Crimaudo, Buck Bulkley, Kevin Rousseau, Harlan McLaughlin, Bob Ramsdell, Dianne Smith, Jim Freeman, Becky Bartovics (by phone), Jonathan Reitman
1) Discussion of how to use “the box” of materials assembled thus far
Jonathan expressed the hope that however the materials were ultimately to be used, that the SC would avoid lengthy debates over the validity of the conclusions of particular reports or documents per se. There was broad agreement that some of the materials may prove irrelevant to any of the specific ideas for use of Sears Island which are likely to emerge in this process. There was broad agreement that the best way to use the materials was for individuals or groups with specific plans to cite a particular report or document to buttress their proposals. Others would then be able to endorse or critique the conclusions of the report or document cited, but it would be in the context of a specific proposal for Sears Island’s use. This process was likely to identify which of the materials are “essential reading.”
While acknowledging that new ideas will likely emerge as the process unfolds (and in particular during the public participation events), the Committee identified the following ideas for SI use as ones which have emerged thus far:
a) Leave the island as it is
b) Light recreational/educational uses (e.g. the three scenarios envisioned and studied in the recent report published collaboratively by several groups)
c) Use of the Island for marine transportation uses
d) Alternative ways of addressing marine transportation needs (e.g. increased use of Mack Point)
e) The variety of uses studied in the SIAUC report
After some discussion it was agreed that the presentation of specific proposals in any of these areas would likely be made in September when the SC reconvenes. To rush to assemble such proposals by the July 12 SC meeting would be a disservice to the SC deliberations, although some stakeholders may discuss conceptual approaches at that time.
2) Need for synopses
Everyone agreed that in order for the SC to make best use of the materials a one paragraph, factual synopsis of each of the reports or documents (without editorial characterization) should be prepared. Jonathan noted that this was a massive job. Participants agreed that if they were familiar with a particular report or document they would submit a proposed one paragraph synopsis to Jonathan for collation. This is a request which will be made of the SC as a whole.
3) Need for an additional copy of materials
All committee members agreed it would be helpful to have the materials reproduced in hard copy, to have one set available in Augusta, one in Searsport. Jonathan agreed to have this done and to investigate the cost and time involved into scanning the documents (many hundreds of pages) onto a disk.
4) Need for Legal Analysis
The Committee agreed that an objective, factual legal analysis and presentation to the SC is essential. Among the questions to be addressed: Who "owns" the island, how did that come about, and what are the implications of that ownership for permissible uses land uses? The Committee would also like the legal analysis to address the operation of L.D. 277. What kind of recommendations would "trigger" a Transportation Committee review? Related to that, given that the State must give "due deference" to a town's comprehensive plan, what kinds of recommended uses would require a change in the Town's comp plan? (That last may be answered by Anne C's presentation this Friday –see below). More generally, the committee felt it was important for the SC to understand the existing legal “parameters”. What path to implementation would any particular proposal have to follow? What entities (town, Legislative, state or federal agencies) would have to review and approve a particular use? Karin Tilberg will compile these legal questions and try to arrange for a presentation at the July 12 SC meeting. Any Committee member with specific questions will send them to her and the legal analysis will address as many as feasible.
5) Need for better understanding of the region’s transportation needs
Several people suggested the SC needs a sense of the “bigger picture” of transportation analysis as it relates to Sears Island. The obligation of the State to study alternative modes of transportation under the Sensible Transportation Act must be better understood. Kevin Rousseau said the Integrated Freight Plan (2002)—which is included in the materials identified thus far—is the most recent statement by DOT of the State’s transportation needs. Once the region’s transportation needs have been identified, several people expressed the desire to study the capacity of Mack Point to meet those needs through expansion of existing facilities.
6) Need for rigorous economic analysis of any proposals which emerge
Committee members agreed there is a need for any and all proposals to undergo a comprehensive economic analysis. This would include a “true accounting” of the economic costs of any particular proposal. An analysis of the “intrinsic value” of the Island in its current state should be part of the SC’s considerations. In analyzing the various alternatives, the SC should also consider the cost of alternate modes of transportation to meet identified transportation needs. In compiling its analysis, the SC should find a balance between “pure speculation” of what might or might not happen 30-50 years from now (to be avoided), and legitimate long-range analyses of existing trends likely to produce particular futures (which may be useful). Jan said that “intangible, aesthetic values” must also be factored into the SC’s thinking, and offered to bring to the SC’s information list studies (the Rocky Mountain Institute has one) which integrate such values into an economic analysis. Finally, several people noted the importance of understanding what the Town of Searsport wants, and the tax implications for the Town of any particular proposal.
7) Presentations for June 16 SC Meeting
The Committee agreed that it would be helpful to begin its educational process with some basic understanding of what local ideas and constraints have been expressed. Dianne Smith, who chaired the SIAUC, will report on its process and recommendations. Anne Crimaudo, who chaired the Searsport Comprehensive Plan committee, will also summarize the Comp Plan as it relates to Sears Island. Both will have brief handouts.
8) Miscellaneous
When one person suggested that a new environmental inventory of Sears Island should be undertaken, it was suggested that may be beyond the scope of this inquiry and could not be secured within the budget for this process. Moreover, several people noted the 1997 Environmental Impact Statement (included in the materials being assembled) was likely the “best information available” on the Island’s environment. One request was made to include studies which have been done on the effects of marine transportation uses on the seabed surrounding Sears Island.
Finally, several people requested that Jonathan help Education Committee and SC members “highlight the common ground” which may emerge in these discussions. He agreed to do so and reminded the Committee that the groundrules adopted by the SC make the seeking of common ground the responsibility of all SC members.
Meeting Summary prepared by Jonathan Reitman, jreitman@blazenetme.net
