Notes from the meeting held on Wednesday, January 10, 2001

5^th Floor Planning Department Conference Room

Edwin L. Crawford County Office Building, Binghamton, NY

Present: Stacy Merola, Tom Evans, Frank Evangelisti, Ron Brink, Ken Kamlet, Chip McElwee, Cindy Westerman, Joe Graney, Michael Clugston (intern). Guest Experts: Chris Wood (NYSEG, EDC), Susan Cummins (GeoLogic), Bob Murphy (O’Connor, Gacioch), Tom Suozzo (DEC), Joe Moody (Binghamton Local Development Corp.), Paul Nelson (Town of Union), and Daria Golazeski (Village of Johnson City and Interim Chair, Empire Zone Administrative Board).

1. The meeting convened at 4:30 p.m.

2. Approval of Minutes: The minutes of December 12^th were approved with one correction (change of Broome Local Development Corp. to Binghamton Local Development Corp.). The minutes of November 16^th were approved as drafted.

3. Introduction of New Intern: Michael Clugston introduced himself and gave a capsule summary of his background. He will be available to work an average of 10 hours per week (on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays) throughout the Spring Semester. Chip McElwee reported that internship funds have been deposited in an interest-bearing account and are available to be drawn upon to pay Mr. Clugston’s intern stipend.

4. Revolving Loan Fund Grant: Tom Suozzo reported that the DEC Commissioner in Albany (not just the Regional Director in Syracuse) had written a letter to EPA in support of Broome County’s grant application.

5. Discussion of Partial Site Tabulation: 12 additional sites on the 1/10/01 tabulation were discussed by Subcommittee members. New information has been added to an updated tabulation (dated 1/12/01) [HANDOUT]. Six sites have been dropped from the tabulation on the basis that they are occupied and in active use—and, therefore, are not active candidates for redevelopment. These sites are: U.S. Air Force Plant No. 59 (Lockheed Martin-Westover); former Binghamton Plastics Facility; Universal Instruments/Dover Instruments; Hansmann’s Mills; Singer Co., Link Division; and Gulf Oil Corp., Johnson City [Dee was going to check on the precise location and characterization of this site]. Members proposed the addition of four additional sites to the tabulation: former Endicott-Johnson property at 650 or 660 Riverside Drive in Johnson City; former Philadelphia Sales site on Grand Avenue in Johnson City; the Department of Defense Depot in Hillcrest; and the former Hancor Plastics site in Endicott. To the extent they do not overlap with already listed sites, a listing of 15 sites prepared by Ron Brink (and appended to the County’s recent grant application), entitled “Known or Suspected Brownfield Sites – BCHD – December 14, 2000” has also been added to the updated tabulation.

MEMBERS ARE URGED TO REVIEW THE EXISTING TABULATION PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING ALL KNOWN RELEVANT INFORMATION. Any further suggestions of sites to be added to the tabulation will also be welcome.

6. Miscellaneous Comments and Insights: Tom Suozzo pointed out in the context of the ___________ (?) site in _______ that, although DEC would not provide a covenant not to sue or other sign-off on this site without requiring further testing and/or cleanup, the property owner could choose to redevelop it without DEC involvement if he/she were willing to assume the risk. In such a case, the owner would retain her own environmental consultant and conduct whatever cleanup was recommended by the consultant without the need for DEC involvement. Ken added that this is frequently an option—but, as a practical matter, only where bank financing is not required. This is because lenders are reluctant to finance the purchase or development of potentially contaminated property without “comfort letters” from relevant environmental regulatory authorities.

Several of the sites discussed by the Subcommittee (e.g., Canny Trucking and GAF Corp.) are on the EPA CERCLIS inventory and have been “archived” to the classification of “No Further Remedial Action Planned” (NFRAP). Tom Suozzo suggested that it would be desirable to get these sites delisted entirely from CERCLIS—as a means of further reducing the stigma that may inhibit interest in redeveloping them. We need to double-check with EPA whether delisting is, in fact, an option.

Sites that have been remediated under Federal Superfund—even where they have been delisted from the National Priorities List—may still be listed on the New York State Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites. So, before such a site can be given a clean bill of health and be redeveloped, DEC review and sign off may also be required. Time Suozzo made the point that, in appropriate circumstances, DEC could redefine such a site—where only portions of the site were significantly contaminated—to classify only the contaminated portions as on the DEC list. That would free up the remaining portions for immediate redevelopment.

As noted at the last meeting, some sites which contain hazardous substances (but not hazardous wastes) are not currently regulated by DEC. These sites could become regulated and have to undergo assessment and cleanup prior to being redeveloped if State law is changed to add 300+ hazardous substance sites to the scope of DEC’s jurisdiction. Bob Murphy reported that a draft bill is circulating in the State Legislature on brownfields that also includes new hazardous substance authority.

7. Potential Funding Sources: The Subcommittee went through 15 or 16 of the potential funding sources listed in the 11/9/00 tabulation of “Funding Sources for Brownfields Redevelopment.” The HUD Brownfield Economic Development Initiative grant program (#5) is not as useful as might appear because, as explained by Paul Nelson, a brownfields application has to be accompanied by a §108 application. (Paul will do a short write-up elaborating on this point.) Binghamton is not a participant in the HUD/USDA Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community program because our application to participate several years ago was turned down. (Have circumstances changed such that it may be worthwhile to revisit this?) The Subcommittee was informed that a number of small businesses have taken advantage of the SBA loan guaranty programs described in items ##7 and 8. These loans are financed through local banks, but are backed up by SBA guaranties. It was indicated that the SBA Section 504 program (#9) is administered locally through the New York Business Development Council and/or the Southern Tier East Regional Planning Board. With regard to Empire Development Corporation’s Rebuild Now-NY pilot program (#10), it was indicated that no 2001 iteration of the program has yet been announced. EPA’s Targeted Brownfields Assessment (TBA) program (#14), which provides funding or technical assistance for environmental assessments at brownfield sites, was cited by Ken as probably worth looking into further. The reason is that many brownfield sites remain underutilized because of uncertainty concerning the extent of contamination, and some owners may not have the financial wherewithal to pay a consultant to do a full site characterization. Where funds are available (administered through the state or county) to pay for site studies, this could remove an impediment to site cleanup (if necessary) and/or redevelopment. This program was used to good effect by the Maryland Department of the Environment. EPA’s new RCRA/Brownfields Prevention Initiative (#15), although involving only 4 pilots last year and expected to add only 4 to 6 more in 2001, may be worth looking at over the long-term as a way of avoiding the transformation of present-day hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities (RCRA sites) into future brownfields. Finally, the Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities (TAB) program (#18) was discussed as of potential interest. The New Jersey Institute of Technology is the designated Hazardous Substances Research Center for the northeast region. Their EPA-subsidized expertise is available to help communities clean and redevelop brownfield sites. The remaining programs on the tabulation of funding sources (##16, 17, and 19-29) will be discussed at the next meeting.

8. Future Agenda Items: It was suggested that guest speakers be invited to future meetings. Mark Gregor of the City of Rochester was mentioned as an initial candidate. Ken will contact him and see if he is available to speak at the Subcommittee’s February meeting. Our intern was also asked to look through internet information on EPA brownfield pilot localities elsewhere in New York State for interesting work products that we could invite guests to speak about at future meetings.

9. Future Meetings: The next two meetings are scheduled for January 23 and February 14—both at 4:30 p.m. at EMC’s offices.

10. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Recorder, Ken Kamlet

1/12/01