December 3, 2021

CFSB Board Meeting Minutes - November 15, 2021

Attendance:

Chris Voss, Bernard Friedman, Harry Liquornik, Gary Burke, Michael Harrington, John Colgate, Kim Selkoe, Mike Nelson, Jeff Maassen, Mary Nishimoto, Andy Rasmussen

Absent: Garrett Rose, Paul Teall

Notes: Ava Schulenberg

Agenda:

  1. Maassen’s Proposal

  2. CFSB Financial Report

  3. Infrastructure/USDA Project

    • Recap on goals and strategies

    • Waterfront dept role

    • Stakeholder input process

    • Planning activities

    • Budget

    • Build Back Better (BBB) and ARPA funding asks

  4. Lobster Fest Report Back

  5. Stearns Wharf Ideas, Boiling Station

  6. Brief Updates:

    • Offshore wind

    • Econ Impact report

    • Ice house

    • OceanRainforest

    • Media coverage

    • Other news from members

  7. Board Votes:

    • Pursue Chamber membership?

    • Buy Independent mention in Giving Tuesday?

    • Pursue Market insurance?

    • Personnel decisions (if not done prior by mail) in closed door session

Chris Voss opened the meeting on November 15, 2021 at 4:00pm. Meeting was held in person and via Zoom.

1.Maassen’s Proposal

Jeff Maassen is putting together a preliminary project/proof of concept for removal of purple sea urchins on the backside of San Miguel Island as he has identified an area that’s barren and noticed how it is impacting a prime red abalone habitat. This project would be utilizing a new technology that will need to be tested and proven for efficacy. This project will look into implementing green gravel (sprouting small kelp on stones, has already been used in northern CA) as this area is thought of as 90-95% dead with documented losses based on data gathered by NOAA and Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), etc. but we haven’t seen any mitigation efforts yet. Maassen has developed relationships with USC, the Sanctuary, and the DFW to try to do a demo project to show whether his proof of concept will work or not. He asks for support from CFSB from a standpoint of giving acknowledgement and scientific advice and being a repository to pay the urchin divers in a boots on the ground approach. Maassen has also developed relationships with community stakeholders that have shown support and is presenting to CFSB to see if there is a holistic approach to getting this off the ground as a support system for all fisheries in this community.

  • Harry Liquornik suggests asking the Urchin commission as well, Maassen responds letting him know the idea is to get started in March/April of 2022 when divers can more easily participate in the project (11 or so divers that have expressed interest). Maassen confirms that CFSB would be the ideal entity to fund this project through if grant money is approved and also provide support from an admin level 

  • Maassen asks for a motion for CFSB to support such a project in the future, asks for what’s tenable 

    • Liquornik says CFSB would support, but using CFSB as an entity will bring up details that need to be flushed out (percentages on admin support, etc.)

    • Voss suggests agendizing the topic for the next board meeting vs. making a motion right now, Liquornik asks the rest of the board: Harrington brings up issue of liability and says it needs to be closely looked at and identify clear roles before starting because it could get complicated 

    • Conclusion: Maassen should provide a letter of proposal and CFSB writes a letter of support and then we flesh out more details, we all agree to follow solid business practices (defining roles clearly, liability, covering all bases) 

Motion to support Maassen’s project and concept and have it looked at again for further consideration. Motion seconded by John Colgate, Bernard Friedman, Chris Voss, Harry Liquornik, and Gary Burke in support. 5-0-0, vote stands.

2. CFSB Financial Report

Because the Treasurer, Garrett Rose, was unable to make the meeting, Selkoe makes the report and reminds the board that we have recently moved to doing quarterly approvals of our financials. 

Beginning with 2021, a YTD breakdown is presented showing that unsolicited donations are lower than expected, but we received $10k from the SB foundation, $5k from the state for COVID relief (for non-profits, not fisheries-specific), $7k from The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and another $7k from TNC when we complete our report to them. We also have the USDA grant of $100k plus $25k from The City of Santa Barbara which will be submitted as expenses and reimbursements (not a lump sum).

Memberships are down, we will be making efforts in the new year to up our membership (as a reminder, it costs $70 annually). 

Liquornik also stresses that money being available for insurance and safety grants is key. Selkoe notes that spending on insurance went up and states that Ava will look into insurance for the Saturday Market which will come out of the Sat Market William-Corbett grant budget.

Harrington notes that the boatyard is on autopilot, but expenses will likely continue to go up. He expects we will break even by the end of the year. The boat yard netted $6822.03 in 2020 and approximately the same net is expected in 2021.

Voss makes a motion for approval of 2021 3rd quarter financials: Bernard second.  5-0-0, motion passes.

Harrington explains the 2020 financials were finalized after consultation with CPA. Voss makes a motion for approval of 2020 finalized financials: Bernard second.  5-0-0, motion passes.

3. Infrastructure/USDA Project

  • Recap on goals and strategies

    • Currently in the planning process/needs assessment stage, not implementation (i.e. what is it going to cost, laying out all the components of the Maritime Collective, etc.). Today should be counted as part of the stakeholder process.

    • 2 year timeline for this planning phase total - We are taking it slow and fully understand that CFSB could get in over our heads if we were to go into the full maritime collective vision.

    • Partnership with Carrie Culver with Sea Grant

      • Will employ Ava 50% time and job duties will include using SB as a case study on an infrastructure project.  

    • The USDA funding program is specific in that it wants to support more harvester support training.

    • Ava is designing a questionnaire this week to survey fishermen of what exactly they will need. Feedback/ideas voiced:

      • Ask fishermen for an actual deposit to have some skin in the game/ get more commitment when asking the fleet for a wishlist. 

      • Determine what people are willing to pay and suggest that this will give us an idea of budget (this will be incorporated into the survey)

      • Seafood processing shouldn’t be in the conversation - CFSB isn’t the right entity to be responsible for this. Challenging to keep control over it. 

        • Selkoe expresses that there are fishermen who have expressed a desire for processing. 

        • Underscore the importance of this being a needs assessment, and that it’s in the preliminary/planning stage. 

        • Suggest hiring a property manager to deal with these concerns. 

        • Emphasis should always be on achieving gear, boat, and cold storage, but with that said it might be possible for someone else to use that space and handle all the moving parts if all the stars aligned. 

      • We fully trust our partners/advisors who are advocating for us

      • The city cares about supporting local seafood and they want to see what the local seafood industry would require to thrive, which is why we’re mentioning seafood processing in the first place, not just the industrial needs of the commercial fleet.

    • What is the status of the $25k from the city? Selkoe confirms it’s primarily for salary cost, but not as restrictive as the USDA money. We will invoice the city periodically. Liquornik suggests a motion to agendize the $25k and have a formal vote when designating the exact use of the funds. Voss seconds and the board votes in favor.

    • Selkoe notes there may be a coming wave of funding from state and federal sources for port infrastructure and coastal resilience. We will be the port that is ready to accept these funds and do something productive with it

      • We’ve applied for $500k from the county via the American Rescue Plan allotment to the county. County is in the process of confirming CFSB’s eligibility under the guidelines of the program. 

      • Coastal Conservancy is about to get $500 million for projects that address coastal resiliency. We plan to submit a letter of inquiry/pre-proposal.

    • CFSB was included in a preliminary application for a Build Back Better (BBB) grant through the EDA (Economic Development Administration). The application process was led by the port of San Diego and included the San Diego fishermen’s working group also. If successful, this grant would potentially provide the Maritime Collective project a million dollars or more. 

    • Andy Rasmussen commented that he felt it was ridiculous for CFSB to pursue government money and was cut off by Voss before he finished. He then left.

4. Lobsterfest Report Back

Lobster Fest was a hit. A total of $1,500 donated to CFSB (this has not been added yet into the 2021 financial report because it was too recent). Press seen in SB News Press, the Independent, and on KEYT. Would like to plan our next seafood fest at the maritime museum for mid January. Could rent Chomp’s patio as well for more space and seating. We could focus on crab, urchin and abalone? Ideas welcome.

5. Stearns Wharf Event Ideas, Boiling Station

The Waterfront Department is celebrating the 150th anniversary of Stearns Wharf in 2022 and are trying to plan an activity once a month to celebrate. Some ideas include selling live seafood,  possibly implementing a boiling station (Selkoe has asked a rep of the merchants association if it would be an issue to have us cooking live seafood in competition with the restaurants and was told in this situation it would be OK). Other ideas are welcome. 

6. Brief Updates:

  • Offshore wind

    • Last PCFFA meeting, Kenny Bates says he has 20k to stand up a nonprofit to represent all fishing communities up and down the coast in a way to present ourselves to wind energy which would be beneficial to have a single-sourced contact of the commercial fishing group for wind energy companies. The model for the nonprofit would be similar to RODA which is an east coast association that represents a united front of where fishermen stand in relation to these agencies/energy companies (they want a more one-stop-shop for negotiating with fishermen).

    • There is a discussion taking place on 12/1 sponsored by DFW trying to get fishermen’s perspective on these impacts.

    • We are also actively coordinating with the Central Coast Alliance of Sustainable Fisheries. 

    • The county’s fishermen’s contingency fund that directly addresses damages and gear loss already offers a model for a structure and entity that functions in this way. Mary Nishimoto offered to assist us in learning more about this model.

    • Selkoe suggests that we should consider donating money, maybe to PCFFA as an effective way to participate in this state-wide effort.

    • Burke emphasizes that offshore wind is moving very fast and is already in stage 3. Biden wants it and it’s coming no matter what.

  • Ice house news

    • Waterfront Dept. said their bid for the icehouse came in over budget. They are interested in grant opportunities that we learned of through the EDA 

  • OceanRainforest follow up

    • The letter of ‘no opposition’ that the board suggested we draft after the last meeting was drafted but never got submitted to the coastal commission. We halted the process when Zack Robinson reported back that it would interfere with his fishing zone. A meeting is being scheduled with him and Eliza from Ocean Rainforest to problem solve this situation and go over high-res maps of the area. 

  • We ran out of time to discuss other items on the agenda.

  • A closed session of the board was held to vote on personnel matters.


Meeting adjourned at 6:10pm.