Midcoast Workshop Welcome and Opening

Midcoast Workshop Welcome and Opening

Dave Schmanska, St. George's Harbormaster, welcomes everyone to tonight's workshop being held at the University of Maine's Darling Marine Center, in Walpole, Maine.

Dave begins by talking about his personal experiences as a citizen of a coastal community and as a harbormaster. Having spent his life on the water, Dave has witnessed a dramatic change in the waterfront and seen traditional ways of life lost to the privatization of coastal lands. Land that was once working waterfront is being sold to private owners at an alarming rate. More often than not this land is put to uses that limit or restrict coastal access. With the value of shorefront property increasing, more and more of Maine's coast is being sold to private landowners. This means that much of Maine's coast will never again support working fishermen and their families. Dave stresses that the health of Maine's fishing industry is intrinsically linked to coastal access. As such, preservation of Maine's cultural heritage and fishing communities is dependent upon the preservation of Maine's working waterfront.

Dave tells us that we are here tonight to discuss ways to address the access issues that impact Maine fishermen and talk about programs, such as the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program and Current Use Taxation, that have been developed over the past several years in response to these problems. Dave knows first-hand the positive effect that these programs have on fishing communities that are struggling with access issues. Just this year, the Working Waterfront Access Program provided funding to restore and expand the Port Clyde wharf at the Fisherman's Co-op in St. George.

Before introducing tonight's moderator, Dave thanks everyone who has worked so hard to make these programs a reality, emphasizing that innovate solutions like these, along with continued activism and education, are an essential part of preserving working waterfront in Maine.

Dave introduces tonight's moderator, Dick Clime of Coastal Enterprises, Inc. Dick welcomes everyone again and explains that the purpose of tonight's workshop is to come together as a community and discuss the issues associated with working waterfront and public access and share ideas for resolving these issue in a cooperative way.

Here tonight are a couple of South Bristol residents, an extension agent with the Maine Sea Grant Program, several fishermen, a real estate agent, a Phippsburg resident hoping for ideas on how to incorporate public use into working waterfront, land use planners, town assessors, agency members, and law students.

Before we get started Dick wants to recognize Maine Sea Grant for funding tonight's Workshop.

Next: Progress Made

Progress Made

Progress Made: Presentation of Model Regional Projects from the New Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program and Current Use Taxation Program

Three people are here tonight to talk about the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program and the Current Use Tax Program: Gerry Cushman of the Port Clyde Fisherman's Co-op; Jim Connors, Senior Planner for Maine Coastal Program; and John Flood, Tax Assessor for the town of Friendship.

Gerry Cushman begins with some history of the Port Clyde Fisherman's Co-op, and their recent participation in the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program. The Co-op began in the 1960s with 30 fishermen. Gerry's grandfather and great uncle were some of the original members. In 1980 the Co-op purchased the Port Clyde Wharf. Several years ago Gerry received an unsolicited offered to purchase the Co-op property for over four million dollars. Despite, the allure of the offer, Gerry knew that selling the co-op to outsiders was not what his grandfather and uncle had in mind when they started the co-op fifty years ago. Gerry knew that to keep the wharf and the co-op in the hands of the fishermen the property needed to be tied to working waterfront.

This year, through the Working Waterfront Access Program, the Fisherman's Co-op was able to do just that. The Co-op sold the development rights in the property to the state for $340,000. With the money they restored and expanded the wharf, which this year will be worked by 28 lobster fishermen. In addition, the Co-op retains ownership of the property. As a result the wharf will be preserved for commercial fishing opportunities in perpetuity.

Next, Jim Connors explains the workings of the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program. First, Jim acknowledges the hard work of the members of the Working Waterfront Coalition and legislators who support the program and played a vital role in its passing. Essentially the program relies on voter-approved bond funds to invest in economically significant waterfront properties, restricting commercial and residential development and preserving them as working waterfront.

This program has made Maine a leader in working waterfront preservation and many states addressing similar issues may soon follow Maine's lead. The program has even attracted the attention of national legislators. Right now there is a proposal before the House that would create a federal source of funds that would parallel the state program. This would provide additional funds for projects such as the one in Port Clyde.

John Flood, tax assessor for Friendship, Maine, is up next to talk about the Current Use Tax Law, which provides tax relief for Mainers who fish from their own property. John tells us that the town of Friendship has had approximately 12 fishermen interested in the Current Use Tax Program. He explains that if you are an individual who owns a boat, a dock, and an acre and a half of coastal land you can participate in the program. He warns, however, that individual fishermen are not the ideal candidates for the program. More specifically, individuals may be subject to penalties if they find themselves in a situation where they are no longer able to fish. For example, John tells a story about a 90-year old fishermen from Friendship who was walking along his dock and fell. He broke his hip and is no longer able to work his dock. This particular fisherman had expressed interest in the program, but decided not to do it. If he had entered into the program before he got hurt he would have been subject to a $57,000 penalty. That being said, John tells us that co-ops are ideal participants because if one fisherman gets hurt the co-op goes on and no one is penalized.

Questions and Comments:

Q: The fishermen were offered $4 million for the property, but the state only paid $340,000. Why?

A: Under the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program, the amount the state pays is the difference between the fair market value of the property and the value of the property encumbered by the covenant.

Q: Who owns the land where the Port Clyde Co-op built the dock?

A: The co-op retains ownership of the land.

Q: Was there a push back from the town regarding tax shifting (tax dollars lost under the Current User Tax Program)?

A: No. The town of Friendship has been working very hard to keep their harbor a working harbor. For example, the town rallied and voted down a restaurant that wanted to go in on the waterfront. The members of the community think it is worth it.

Q: I agree that one of the problems with the Current Use Tax Program is the penalty imposed on individuals who are no longer able to work the land. If, however, that loophole was closed, are there fishermen who would be interested in the program?

A. Yes. There are about fifteen fishermen in Friendship who have been scared off by the penalty.

Q: A woman who wants to keep her property working waterfront had applied for the program, but according to her town's tax assessor she would not see any savings.

A: Sounds as if your town's tax assessor does not understand the program, because if you work the property 90% of the time, you would be entitled to significant savings under the Current Use Program.

Q: Are there other entities besides the state who would hold the covenant under the Pilot Program?

A: Yes and no. We have one project in York where the property is held by a land trust. You have to be careful and make sure that the trust is one that is designed to hold the land for the purpose of working waterfront. In the future we hope to develop a Fishermen's Trust. Typically, land trusts are not designed to hold easements over land that continues to be worked. That being said, land trusts like the Georges River Land Trust have expanded their vision and are looking for ways to acquire and manage easements to working property.

Comment: Combining the Current Use Tax Program and the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Project seems as if it is where the most benefit can come from.

Comment: In St. George, sellers have been taking the town's assessment of waterfront property, tripling it, and selling it no problem.

Next: New information and tools

New Information and Tools

New Information and Tools: Legal Framework for Coastal Access Tools in Maine

Dick introduces David Kallin, a third-year law student at the University of Maine School of Law. Two years ago, while working for the Center of Law and Innovation, David was presented with a question: how can the public and the state preserve and increase public access? David is here tonight t0 present the legal research he did in trying to answer this question. Everything that David is going to talk about tonight has been incorporated into the Coastal Access Web site.

David starts by explaining that some basic property concepts, i.e, traditional ownership includes the right to exclude others. Thus, the person who owns the land has control over who has access to the waterfront. However, this type of traditional ownership can be split through easements or right of ways. For example, you may own the land but someone else may have a right to cross the land, splitting the ownership rights between several individuals.

Another type of ownership is trust ownership. This means that someone else is in charge of administering the property, however, they must manage the land in the best interest of the person who the land is being held in trust for. This is important because there is land that the state owns in the trust for the citizens of the state. In most states, the state owns everything below the high-water line in a trust for the people, thus no individual has an ownership interest in the beach below the high-water line. Unfortunately, Maine is one of the few states that does not own up to the high water line. Maine owns from the low-water line seaward. However, in Maine there is a limited right to fishing, fowling, and navigation below the high-water mark.

Q: Can you define navigation?

A: This is an open question (the courts have not full defined navigation for the purpose of public access). However, there has been some fleshing out of the concept. For example, you could portage a kayak across private land between the low and high water marks, but it is unclear whether or not you could stop and have lunch there. The Public Trust Doctrine is a common law doctrine so the only one who can define fish, fowling and navigation is the court. The court has declined to change the limitations on the public trust doctrine, although some believe that the court may expand the definition of fishing, fowling and navigation (i.e. birdwatching is modern day fowling).

Continuing on, Dave asks: what are ways to obtain access? The simplest way is to buy it on the open market. Eminent domain is another option if a town really has an access need. Some examples of how can you buy land for less are easements, public money, working with a land trust. Beyond buying land you can contract with land owners for a right of access. Tools available to the public sector are regulation and taxation. A state or municipal government can regulate to prevent loss of access (i.e., zoning and environmental regulations) or incentive preservation (tax benefits).

Q: I thought that a few years ago there was a study about water dependency in the Northeast, emphasizing prioritizing water dependent use.

A: Water-dependent use zones are developed at the municipal level. The state zoning enabling laws allow a town to zone shoreline for water-dependent uses. The Shoreland Zoning Act gives guidance to towns, but the specific zoning laws are developed by the individual towns.

Dana Morse, an Extension Associate for Maine Sea Grant and the University of Maine Cooperative Extension, is up next to talk about Maine Sea Grant's Coastal Access Web site. Dana starts by explaining that the Web site was designed from the viewpoint of a user. Most users go to a Web site with a question or a problem. So the Web site is organized based on specific circumstances or questions.

One of the ways to navigate the site is by selecting "who are you" (landowner, waterfront user, or a government agency) and what do you want (to prevent, control, or maintain access, gain access, regulate or preserve access).

Dana walks us through the site from the perspective of a private landowner. If you click on private landowner, the site will direct you to commonly asked questions by landowners. The site also includes links to definitions, other Web sites, relevant statutes and regulations, case studies, and legal tools that Dave discussed earlier.

The Sea Grant Law Center is leading the country in addressing these issues and it is likely that this site will be used by other states and organizations as they begin to face the same public access problems.

Discussion about how to make the site more user friendly:

Jim asks people to try and develop a better word than tools to describe the information presented in the Web site.

Q: What is the difference between a tool and a resource?

A: A tool is a program or a statute or a regulations, while resources are the individual or organization who can walk you through applying the tool, or a writing that better explains the tool.

Suggestion: maybe distinguish between tools and resources by including examples after each of the words: tools (i.e. easement, contract, regulation, program).

Suggestion: you might want to include a section with informal tips.

Suggestion: you should have a navigation bar on each of the pages so someone who stumbles on an informational page can get to the home page. Also you might want to include the organization sponsoring the site so that people know that the information is credible (University of Maine Cooperative Extension).

Q: Is there a link to contact you directly with feedback?

A: Gillian mentions that any other feedback people have can be sent to her (she will be handing around feedback cards at the end of the night) and that they will take it into consideration and try and incorporate it into the site.

Comment: So many people have worked so hard, but making this a usable tool might require hiring a professional to take the site to the next level.

Dick thanks everyone, encourages us to access the site as we eat dinner, and points to the additional literature and resources at the registration table.

Next: Where do we go from here?

Where Do We Go From Here?

Where Do We Go From Here? Click here for presentation slides.

In 2002, a group of fishermen identified loss of working waterfront as one of the biggest issues facing Maine's fishing industry. In response, the Working Waterfront Coalition was formed. The Coalition is a "statewide group of industry associations, nonprofits, state agencies and individuals dedicated to supporting and enhancing Maine's working waterfront through policy, planning [and] research, investment and education.

Although Maine has 300 miles of coast only 20 acres are working waterfront. In 2005 and 2007, armed with this statistic, the Coalition went to the legislature and asked for $2 million from the Land for Maine's Future Fund to support their efforts to preserve Maine's working waterfront. Due in part to the state funding, the Coalition helped pass both the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program and the Current Use Taxation Program.

Excited about their success the Coalition began to focus on the future, asking: what next, what still needs to be done? In July of 2007, in an attempt to answer these questions, the Coalition distributed a survey.

Q: Can you explain what "expanding the definition of working waterfront" means when referenced as an objective on the coalition's strategic plan?

A: Right now the definition of working waterfront is limited to fishing and aquaculture. There are a number of other interested parties, kayak rental companies, boat builders, etc. that would like to have those uses incorporated into the definition. We support expansion of the definition; however, we are still unsure of what we think the new/expanded definition should include.

Q: Is Bath Iron Works or boat builders included under working waterfront under this definition?

A: No. The program is predicated on the fishing industry's dependence on waterfront access. Sometimes activities that are closely associated with fishing or aquaculture are deemed to fit under the current definition of working waterfront. The broadest interpretation is that working waterfront includes all water- dependent industries. The Coalition is still trying to decide how broad do we want the definition to be and how broad it can be without undermining the purpose of the working waterfront program.

Getting back to the survey, Gillian explains that based on information gathered from the survey the Coalition developed a strategic plan. The goals articulated by the plan include: maintaining and monitoring the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program and the Current Use Taxation, increasing legislative awareness, and education.

Q: In terms of education, has the WWC connected with municipal governments?

A: An existing tax assessor continuing education program is a great opportunity to be educating tax assessors on the Current Use Taxation Program.

Q: Is the Current Use Taxation Program limited to commercial fishing?

A: Yes. The definition of current use needs to be narrowly construed for the program to provide the exemptions that it does.

Q: Are there any criteria that makes sure that those who get the current use benefit are actually working the waterfront? What if someone owns ten acres of land with a mansion and a fishing boat, could they benefit from the current use taxation program?

A: The tax benefit is only for the coastal land that is being worked. Tax assessors make sure this criterion is met.

Q: Is there a need to develop a fishermen's land trust?

A: Yes. Just as the agricultural industry saw a need to create a land trust designed to preserve farmland as opposed to open space or conservation, we feel that it makes sense to create a trust with expertise in working waterfront.

Q: How do we balance conservation easements, which increase property values, and affordable housing?

Q: From Lincoln County's perspective, we have lots of boat builders, and not much other industry. I think, for our area, it is really important to expand the definition of working waterfront to include boat building so that boat builders could benefit from the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program.

A: Even if the definition of working waterfront is expanded it does not mean that other marine industries included in the expanded definition would be allowed to participate in the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program. Other marine industries need to consider what their needs are and establish programs that meet those specific needs. This particular program is designed to meet needs specific to the fishing industry.

As far as small boat builders are concerned, many boat builders have sold their coastal property and moved inland because they are not a water-dependent use and the coastal property became too valuable for them to hold onto. For example, just down the coast from the Port Clyde Co-op, a 3/4-acre lot with a house was purchased for $1.8 million and the buyer tore down the house and built a mansion. Bigger boat builders are a little different in that they are water dependent.

Municipalities need to invest by zoning to preserve working waterfront.

Q: Does the Coastal Program/State Planning Office have a document that articulates what they are hoping to accomplish?

A: Yes. They are in the form of statutory policy statements.

Q: What is the state of the status of the policy statements, have they been updated or amended?

A: No.

Q: What are some ways we can foster or develop outreach programs aimed at educating municipalities regarding working waterfront issues and programs?

A: There seems to be a lack of knowledge at the municipal level and perhaps we can be going directly to the businesses, the landowners, the individuals who are affected or would benefit. Get the information to the fishermen (mass mailing perhaps) and let the fishermen, who have an incentive, get the information to their local governments.

Q: How are you going to reach people if you are not speaking their language? How do you provide information in a way that is meaningful to the individuals who would benefit from it?

Comment: As a fishermen and a taxpayer I voted for the bond issue and kept my eye out for the program. As a lobstering license holder we get weekly mailings from the state. They have a mailing list of every license holder, they should send out the information.

Comment: If your municipal council members, tax assessors, etc. can not answer your question, you need to push them to find out-- it is their job.

Next: Midcoast Closing

Midcoast Maine Closing

Closing: Moderated Question and Answer with Panel of All Workshop Presenters and a Summary of Central Themes and Next Steps

Panel:

Q: How do we move forward to the idea of a fishermen's trust?

A: We probably need to start by generating capital.

Q: Where does that capital come from?

A: The philanthropic generosity of individuals with capital who want to see Maine's fishing heritage protected.

Maybe the capital should come from the interests that benefit from the health of the fishery; or, like the small woodlot owners who got together and created the Wood lot Land Trust [ed.: Small Woodland Owners Association of Maine], a group of fishermen could get together.

We need a leader, someone with energy who is results-oriented, like Gerry Cushman.

Q: Will the Coalition will be able to maintain the momentum it has now?

A: I think the Coalition will keep going as long as there are issues to address. There are still problems and still people interested in developing solutions. In addition, new people with an interest come along every day. The amazing part about the individuals and organizations who are part of the Coalition is that it is a wide variety of characters with a single interest.

Q: What were the number and interests of the people who attended the Workshop in Wells?

A: A few more people attended, mostly landowners.

Q: What is planned as the follow up to these three workshops? How would everyone here like to see these workshops followed up on?

A: The reason we are here tonight is because the first workshop series [in 2006] developed questions; we addressed these issues and are presenting the solutions at these workshops. After this series of workshops, we will meet to discuss questions that arose, what needs to happen to address them, and develop a plan for addressing them over the next few years with the intent to meet again.

Comment: Press release should be sent to coastal papers and MLA and Fishermen Association's Newsletter.

Comment: We need to grow the mailing list. Take all the new emails from the 60 individuals who attended these workshops.

Q: Do lobstermen receive emails from the Department of Marine Resources and does the state have a list of all the commercial fishing licenses that may have email addresses?

A: We do not get emails from the state, but the application we fill out every year asks for an email address so the DMR has our information.

Comment: It might be a good idea to compile an informational packet regarding the Current Use Taxation Program and the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Project so that individuals can bring the information to their tax assessors.