Notes from the meeting held on Thursday, November 16, 2000

5^th Floor Planning Department Conference Room

Edwin L. Crawford County Office Building

Present: Stacy Merola, Tom Evans, Frank Evangelisti, Kenneth Kamlet, Chris Engler, Paul Thompson, Cindy Westerman, Chip McElwee, Joe Graney. Guest Experts: Chris Wood (NYSEG, EDC), Bernadette ________ (NYSEG), Susan Cummins (GeoLogic), Bob Murphy (O’Connor, Gacioch), Tom Suozzo (DEC).

1. The meeting convened at 4:32 p.m., although some participants arrived earlier.

2. Introductions were exchanged. Invited guests included Chris Wood, who is Economic Development Manager of NYSEG and Chair of the Broome Economic Development Council (EDC); Robert Murphy, Esq., who is a former City of Binghamton Corporation Counsel, private attorney, and member of a State Brownfields Task Force; Susan Cummins (a consultant with GeoLogic, who has performed numerous Voluntary Cleanups and site assessments at brownfield sites); and Tom Suozzo (lead brownfield engineer with NYS DEC’s Kirkwood office).

3. Stacy Merola described the composition and role of EMC and the genesis of the Brownfields Subcommittee as an offshoot of the Natural Resources Committee. She noted, however, that if it became apparent that the Subcommittee was getting too far outside the expertise and competence of the EMC members it might be appropriate to consider housing it within another entity, such as the Economic Development Council or the Department of Planning. It was acknowledged that no such decision needed to be made immediately and we could see how the Subcommittee’s work evolved. Ken Kamlet pointed out that the brownfields and economic development expertise assembled in the room probably surpassed that of any previous such meeting held in Broome County.

4. The Subcommittee voted to accept a one-page document prepared by Ken Kamlet (entitled “Proposed 2000-2001 Objectives and Action Plan”) as a working set of goals and objectives. A copy is attached. It was agreed that this document could be freely modified as the Subcommittee’s work proceeds as the need arises. The Subcommittee seemed comfortable with an approximate 1-year time-horizon for carrying out the Subcommittee’s work.

5. The Subcommittee next reviewed an 11/9/00 draft of “Potential Site Ranking Criteria.” These criteria were culled from summaries of EPA brownfield pilot projects throughout the U.S. Chris Wood suggested that we add a criterion that considers a site’s characteristics in relationship to potentially applicable funding programs. It was agreed that such a criterion be added. With that addition, the Subcommittee accepted the ranking criteria as a basis for assembling a site-specific database—recognizing that the criteria would be used, not to quantitatively prioritize sites with mathematical precision, but to ensure that the maximum amount of relevant information is collected for each candidate site.

6. An illustrative tabulation of site information for several Broome County sites (“Sample, Partial Site Evaluations” – 11/16/00) was handed out and briefly discussed. It illustrates how Site Ranking criteria can be classified into three categories (Land Use/Planning Factors, Legal/Financial Factors, and Environmental/Public Health Factors), and how site-related information can be tabulated by category in the relevant column. The more information is available about the site, the more data can be filled in within the appropriate column. Reviewers can then discern at a glance the pertinent site attributes that will bear on a site’s suitability for redevelopment (or the extent of the environmental risks it presents). Sites could then be grouped in “High,” “Medium,” or “Low” redevelopment potential categories—or in any other way deemed appropriate by the Subcommittee.

One member asked whether general site profiles are available that specify the site attributes that a developer or industry is looking for to meet its needs for a particular type of facility. Ken Kamlet pointed out that Empire State Development, on its website, has established site profiles (as part of its “Build Now-NY” initiative) for seven types of sites: (a) Research & Development, (b) Manufacturing, (c) Light Industrial, (d) Office Park, (e) Warehouse Distribution, (f) Business/Commercial Park, and (g) Retail. These can be found at htttp://www.gorr.state.ny.us. (It should be noted that these uses generally require large—sometimes, very large—sites, which are often newly developed on greenfield sites in the outskirts of metropolitan areas.)

There was also a brief discussion of a tabulation of “Broome County Sites With Federal or State Classifications” (11/9/00). It was pointed out that, while most of the sites on this tabulation could be considered “brownfields,” not all of them could be considered suitable candidates for redevelopment. For example, poor redevelopment candidates would be sites on the State or Federal Superfund lists, where active characterization or remediation is still underway. (On the other hand, a site on one of these lists that had gone through a rigorous cleanup and was declared subject to no further action, might be an excellent redevelopment candidate.) Other sites would not be considered good candidates because they do not constitute a discrete commercial or industrial site—such as a municipal wellfield or landfill—or because they are the sites of ongoing businesses and are not known to be on the resale market.

7. It was suggested and agreed that the focus of the Subcommittee’s efforts should be on the triple cities (Endicott, Johnson City, and Binghamton), which, as the most urban areas in Broome County, are where “brownfield” sites would be expected to predominate. There was no movement, however, to actively preclude consideration of other qualifying locations elsewhere in Broome County.

8. Some of the Subcommittee’s general discussion was informative. It was noted that, in the State of New York, “brownfields” are generally understood to refer to sites that are eligible for funding under the 1986 Bond Act. Other sites with brownfield characteristics that are cleaned up under DEC oversight are referred to as Voluntary Cleanup Program sites. For purposes of the Subcommittee’s activities, we will address all sites that have “brownfields” characteristics—regardless of the program(s) under which they may be regulated, funded, or remediated.

It was pointed out by Tom Suozzo that the State is currently “out of money” under the 1986 Bond Act for Superfund (including brownfield) cleanups. There followed a discussion of why some localities have been reluctant to seek Bond Act money to fund brownfield projects. Only municipalities are eligible. Loan moneys must be paid back after a brownfield site has been cleaned up and redeveloped. (An important exception is Economic Development Zones—now, Empire Zones—where Bond Act loans do not need to be repaid.) And, perhaps, most significantly, where the State provides money and provides a liability release or indemnification, it tends to insist on a very high degree of cleanup. (DEC wants the site to be “squeaky clean.”) This can be self-defeating to efforts to promote redevelopment of brownfield sites.

Reference was made to techniques in use elsewhere in the State to promote more efficient brownfield redevelopment. Bob Murphy noted that Neighborhood Support Groups have been organized in Rochester to provide community support for revitalization of decaying and underutilized neighborhoods. He also noted that some communities make effective use of the police power to condemn deteriorated sites and demolish substandard buildings. One member commended Mayor Bucci for taking some “calculated risks” to make brownfield sites more attractive for redevelopment. Mention was made of his efforts to bring Hansmann’s Mills (sp?) into the area, and the action to demolish the buildings at the Anitec site. Ken Kamlet observed that the City of Rochester made use of its eminent domain power to condemn certain brownfield sites as “blights” on the neighorhood.

Tom Suozzo noted that, in instances where DEC was taking a long time to sign off on a brownfield cleanup, the process can often be speeded up by means of a letter-writing campaign, which demonstrates that the site has a high priority for the local community.

There was some discussion of the prospects for State legislation on brownfields or the Voluntary Cleanup Program. Bob Murphy, who has been part of a task force seeking to negotiate such legislation, was not very optimistic about near-term prospects. Another Subcommittee member suggested that one role the Subcommittee could, perhaps, play is to weigh in to the State Legislature at an appropriate time when State legislation is again being negotiated.

9. There was discussion of sources of brownfield information that should be accessed and Subcommittee members volunteered to pull together such information. Frank Evangelisti will assemble information on underutilized properties in the City of Binghamton, the Town of Union, and the IDA. Bob Murphy will contact Jocelyn Thornton with the EDZ, and see if he can assemble a Tax Delinquency list for the City of Binghamton. Chip McElwee will bring in a Wellhead Protection Report, which lists sites in wellhead areas in the County that are associated with hazardous substance handling activities.

10. No one on the Subcommittee offered immediately to volunteer to press forward the effort to assemble a database of available Federal, State, and County economic development and brownfield funding sources. This would be an ideal project for an intern (see discussion below). Chris Wood provided literature on two programs (these have been added to the tabulation of “Funding Sources for Brownfields Redevelopment” [11/9/90]). These programs are: (a) The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (bedi), which provides funds and loan guarantees to clean up and redevelop environmentally contaminated industrial and commercial sites; and (b) the Brownfields Tax Incentive under the §198 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (allows deduction of qualified remediation expenses incurred to cleanup brownfields properties located in one of four targeted areas, including a federally-designated Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community).

11. It was suggested that the work of this Subcommittee be communicated and coordinated with that of related entities, such as the Broome County Economic Development Zone (EDZ) and the Economic Development Council (EDC). Ken Kamlet will contact Jocelyn Thornton of the EDZ about speaking at one of their meetings. Chris Wood will talk to the EDC Board about scheduling a similar meeting.

12. Finally, a question was raised about the ability of the Subcommittee to secure the assistance of a student intern. Stacy Merola described the procedure employed in the past to obtain the assistance of Binghamton University interns and expressed her preference for students in their Junior year. (Underclassmen lack sufficient experience and seniors are preoccupied with graduation.) She described the limited number of current applicants, how additional candidates might be identified, and how the ability to secure such interns might be frustrated by EMC’s limited availability of funding. (She indicated that the going rate for an intern was about $2,000.) Chris Wood responded that, on behalf of NYSEG, he was prepared to commit sufficient funding to pay for two interns. The Subcommittee expressed its gratitude for this generous offer.

13. The next meeting will be Tuesday, December 12, 2000 at 4:30 p.m., 5^th Floor Planning Department Conference Room, Edwin L. Crawford County Office Building. Please note that the starting time will be 4:30 p.m.—not 4:00 p.m.

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

Recorder, Ken Kamlet

11/20/00 (rev. 11/30/00)