Notes from the meeting held on

Wednesday, October 17, 2001

5^th Floor Conference Room

County Office Building, Binghamton, NY

Present: Stacy Merola, Joanna Corey, Julie Sweet, Frank Evangelisti, Ken Kamlet (Chair), Cindy Westerman, Joe Graney, Ron Brink, Chip McElwee, and Chris Petraske Guest Experts: Joe Moody (Town of Union), Joel Boyd (City of Binghamton), Susan Cummins, Tom Suozzo (DEC) AWE: Dee Golazeski, Greg Lesniak, Doug Garner and Paul Thompson

1. The meeting convened at 4:30 p.m. On a motion from Chip McElwee, seconded by Julie Sweet, the minutes from the last meeting (9/19/01) were approved.

Joe Graney asked to correct a statement attributed to him in the July minutes. He said his proposal was not to take all candidate sites and simply present them in alphabetical order, with no ranking whatsoever. Instead, his proposal was to select the top 20 sites and then to list these alphabetically for more detailed ranking by decisionmakers. On motion from Ken Kamlet, seconded by Ron Brink, this change was approved.

2. Member Items of Interest

a) Stacy announced that the Environmental Business Council of New York State, together with the Newman Real Estate Institute of Baruch College, and the SUNY Center for Brownfields Studies in Utica, is organizing two informational seminars on successful brownfields redevelopment projects in New York and the current and anticipated policy environment. The seminars will be held in New York City (Dec. 3) and Utica (Dec. 5). When more details are available, they will be disseminated. If the costs are not too great, EMC may sponsor the attendance of a BFS member.

(b) The brownfields database is mostly complete and with this information Planning Department staff are able to generate maps of Broome County showing the location of brownfields sites in relation to various natural and land use features. Frank Evangelisti displayed several examples, including the relationship of brownfield sites to various park, recreation, and greenspace features. Examples of intersections of brownfields and greenspace features in Broome County were shown, for example, to be the former coal tar (manufactured gas plant) site between Washington and Water Streets (near the Susquehanna River), and Boland Park (in the Westover area of Johnson City—also near the River). Frank noted that maps could be readily generated showing the locations of brownfields in relation to any of numerous layers available through the County’s GIS program, including Empire Zone boundaries and zoning districts.

(c) Stacy distributed copies of a “Resolution Supporting Broome County Government’s Pursuit of Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot Funds,” adopted October 4, 2001, at the EMC General Meeting.

3. EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot. The group was informed that EPA had issued a request for proposals (RFP) for the next round of Brownfields Assessment Pilot Demonstration (BAPD) grants on October 5, with a proposal deadline of December 10. EPA Region 2 representatives have offered to help the County craft its submittal. Planning Department staff noted that the subcommittee’s input is needed to establish a focus for the County’s proposal.

With respect to the Washington Street Coal Tar Site, which is adjacent to the City’s planned Riverfront Trail system (on which a groundbreaking is planned this spring), and the possibility of highlighting it in our BADP grant application, Tom Suozzo cautioned that NYSDEC should look at it before the City does something with it.

In response to a question, Ken noted that, as he interprets the Proposal Guidelines, there is no preclusion against using BADP funds on privately-owned sites. The EPA does want to guard against the use of federal funds to assess or otherwise benefit a privately owned site owned by a responsible party who caused or contributed to the contamination problem that made it a brownfields site. In our screening to date of candidate brownfield sites, we have not really differentiated among categories of ownership. We need to be sure that sites are eligible for federal brownfields funding before addressing them specifically in the grant proposal.

Ken then briefly summarized the major elements of the BAPD RFP. There are two parts to the proposal. Part I, worth up to $200,000 over 2 years, is the basic brownfields assessment and cleanup planning project. There is also an optional Part II, worth up to an additional $50,000, which can be used for brownfield assessment projects that promote open space and greenspace plans, activities, and resource needs.

There are four main Evaluation Criteria that must be addressed by the Part I Proposal:

(1) A Problem Statement that defines the socio-economic history of the area and its demographics in relation to brownfields-related impacts, and explains how the proposed project will assist the overall community in its economic revitalization efforts. This section should also explain how EPA funding will be used to advance the community’s overall brownfields goals and objectives and will leverage other resources for addressing brownfields.

(2) Community-Based Planning and Involvement that shows the community’s interest in brownfields problems, involvement of community-based organizations in proposal development, efforts to develop partnerships with other stakeholders, the community’s progress to date, plans for community involvement in BAPD project implementation, and plans for ensuring that disadvantaged populations benefit from the project.

(3) Implementation Planning that shows support from concerned state and local agencies, progress of brownfields characterization efforts to date, status of plans for reuse of brownfields sites, proposed mechanisms for funding of brownfield cleanups, and anticipated sequence of ownership of brownfield sites through assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment.

(4) Long-Term Benefits and Sustainability to show how this project will help surmount barriers to brownfields cleanup and reuse, how these benefits will remain in place after the project concludes and will serve as a model for others, the methods that will be used to promote sustainable reuse of brownfields and prevention of future brownfields, and the specific measures that will be used to gauge project success.

Three Evaluation Criteria will be used in reviewing Part II (greenspace) proposals:

(1) Authority and Context, including letters of support from local greenspace agencies, existing open space and greenspace plans and programs, and proximity of greenspace areas to identified brownfields.

(2) Community Involvement, community involvement efforts planned or underway near the site(s), and anticipated benefits to disadvantaged populations.

(3) Site Identification, Site Assessment Plan, Flow of Ownership, and Reuse Planning, with the specific site(s) we plan to assess and methodology to be used, proposed end use of the site(s) being assessed and anticipated community benefits, project milestones and schedule, and potential funding sources and public/private partners.

The group brainstormed ideas for a focus for the BADP. Frank suggested evaluating County brownfields with a view to recommending a new corporate park site. This could be tied into the Sustainable Economic Development Plan, which is currently being undertaken by Angelou Economics [EDITOR’S NOTE: For more information on the plan see thebcplan.com] and funded by NYS Quality Communities Funds. Ken questioned (i) how many large brownfield sites (of the sort most suitable for corporate parks) we have in the county, and (ii) of those, how many would be disqualified from EPA funding because their private owners are connected to those who caused the contamination. Julie clarified that the Angelou project was also looking at the concept of identifying a string of smaller business parks. This also ties in to the County Executive’s proposal for developing a system of regional business parks encompassing not only Broome County, but also neighboring counties.

Tom Suozzo indicated support for the idea of selecting a “gateway area” along I-81 where you have a view of the City. This is the first impression that visitors get of the City of Binghamton. The County’s proposal could be geared to redeveloping brownfield sites visible on this stretch of I-81 as a means of revitalizing the City’s image, as first observed by visitors. Relevant sites would include the Stow site and other nearby and adjoining properties. [EDITOR’S NOTE: As Ken has indicated to the group at previous meetings, Newman Development Group has had the Stow site “under contract” (option to purchase) for several years. Since NDG had nothing to do with the original contamination of the site, NDG’s potential purchase and redevelopment of the site should not diminish EPA’s interest in a project to revitalize the surrounding area.]

The group showed support for focusing on both of these ideas in the proposal - i.e., screening of brownfield sites to promote the redevelopment of those (i) contributing to the viewscape visible from I-81 approaching the City of Binghamton, and/or (ii) suitable for inclusion in a string of new business parks. The group also encouraged the Planning Department to obtain Larry D’Andrea’s (EPA) thoughts on these approaches.

Ken identified four areas where members of the BFS might be of assistance to the Planning Department in putting together an effective proposal:

(1) Assembling background documents and materials (including letters of support from agencies, localities, stakeholders). Frank was encouraged to seek support and involvement from as broad a group of stakeholders as possible, including not only government agencies and environmental groups, but also NYSEG, local banks, property owners, developers, insurance companies, etc.

(2) Defining Part I project goals and objectives.

(3) Developing a community involvement / environmental justice strategy.

(4) Defining Part II goals and objectives.

Rather than constituting work groups in one or more of these areas, Frank said he preferred to solicit assistance from individual BFS members as production of the proposal proceeds. Asked whether the group would have the opportunity to review and comment on a draft of the proposal, Frank assured us that we would—although he doubted that a complete draft would be ready prior to the group’s next meeting (November 14^th). He promised that, by the next meeting, the group would be able to review at least a Proposal summary or overview.

Ken provided a tabular summary he had prepared of the 28 BAPD projects awarded to date in New York State. [EDITOR’S NOTE: Ken referred Frank to further useful information at the website of the Institute for Responsible Management (www.instrm.org), which includes a searchable database of results from all Pilot program projects (through about early 2000), and an indexed archive of 4 or 5 years worth of articles appearing in the “Brownfields EPA Pilots News.”].

4. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 14^th at 4:30 p.m. (Note that this is the second Wednesday of the month instead of the third—to avoid interfering with members’ Thanksgiving plans.) The meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

Recorder, Ken Kamlet

10/19/01

Editor, Joanna Corey