KingstonCitizens.org is a non-partisan, citizen-run organization focused on increasing citizen engagement in local government.
Kingston Common Council Meeting
Kingston City Hall 420 Broadway Kingston, NY
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Sign-up to speak at 7:20pm. Common Council meeting begins at 7:30pm. Public comment starts at around 7:35pm.
The Kingston Common Council votes to pass through a resolution denying the Thruway Authority’s request (or not) for Lead Agency in the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) regarding the Pilgrim Pipeline proposal. Requests, instead, that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) assume the role.
In January of 2015, the Kingston Common Council passed through a memorializing resolution of the Kingston Conservation Advisory Council’s opposition of the bi-directional Pilgrim Pipeline proposal, stating that “the proposed pipelines potentially threatens the health, safety and welfare of the community; could decrease the values of homes located along its route and in surrounding neighborhoods; and could negatively impact future development in the City of Kingston.” The Council’s early position was important in preparation of the direction our council and community would take for what is now the start of the environmental review process.
The City of Kingston is an ‘Involved Agency’ in SEQR for the Pilgrim Pipeline proposal in NYS, and that is because the two pipelines would run underneath at least one of our city streets. Because of which, we have a ‘discretionary decision’ to make in SEQR and therefore, a say in who we feel is the most qualified “Lead Agency” in the SEQR process in this case.
On November 16th, the Thruway Authority sent “Lead Agency” letters out to all municipalities (Supervisors and Mayors) who are ‘Involved’ agencies with their intention to take on that role. That date is significant, because there is only a 30 day window in SEQR to determine Lead Agency once letters are dated and distributed. That gives municipalities only until December 16th to respond, which is not very convenient.
Proper process for decision making at a minimum is two months. This sort of timeline really places a strain on our local governments to come up to speed on the issue, craft resolutions and move them through proper channels to vote. If an ‘Involved Agency’ does not respond, then it is simply seen as consent for the one requesting the Lead Agency role.
That is why we appreciate the City of Kingston’s cooperation and swiftness here – in the midst of many transitions, holidays, tough proposals and budget hearings. Since word of the Lead Agency request only last week, our Conservation Advisory Council and Common Council acted swiftly. Letters from our Mayor’s office were released rejecting the Thruway Authority’s request for Lead Agency and instead, asking that the DEC take on the role as well.
On Tuesday, December 1st – our common council will discuss a proposed resolution to officially deny the Throughway Authority the role of ‘Lead Agency’. Help them to do so by speaking in support of this decision. If you plan to speak on Tuesday night, we ask that you keep your points succinct, three minutes or less – and remember to show your support to Kingston’s Common Council and thank them for their swiftness in responding to this matter. Ask that they REJECT the Thruway Authority’s request to be Lead Agency in SEQR and instead, that the DEC take on that role.
Here are four reasons why the DEC is the better choice for Lead Agency of a proposal such as the Pilgrim Pipeline.
1. The proposed pipeline threatens numerous resources of state-wide concern within the DEC’s jurisdiction, including the Hudson River and such important tributaries as the Rondout, Esopus, and Catskill Creeks and Wallkill River, State-regulated wetlands, the Karst Aquifer Region (a priority project designated in the NYS Open Space Conservation Plan), and other resources that the DEC is responsible for protecting.
2. NYS DEC, as the state environmental agency, is best suited to guide the environmental review of this large, multi jurisdictional project that has the potential to impact environmental resources in six New York counties and 29 towns, and is the agency with the power and the expertise to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated review.
3. NYS DEC has statewide responsibility for mitigating climate change and helping to ensure that New York will meet the targets set in the 2015 New York State Energy Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 below 1990 emissions levels. The Commissioner’s Policy mandates that DEC must consider climate change in all its actions, including permitting. This proposed project to construct the first crude oil pipeline in New York must be evaluated within the context of the Energy Plan and state energy objectives, and the DEC is best positioned to ensure the comprehensive evaluation that is needed.
4. The pipeline will traverse and impact private lands and resources both inside and outside of the New York Thruway right-of-way, and the evaluation of those impacts should therefore be led by an agency independent of the Thruway Authority, particularly given that the Thruway Authority has a potential financial interest in this project owing to any revenues that could be collected for use of the right-of-way.
TIMELY ACTION: Please attend the next Kingston Common Council meeting on Tuesday, December 1st at 7:30pm and sign-up to speak in support of the City of Kingston passing a resolution that rejects the Thruway Authority’s request to be Lead Agency in SEQR for the Pilgrim Pipeline proposal and, that the DEC take on the role of Lead Agency instead.
VIEW Facebook Invitation
By Rebecca Martin
On November 16, 2015, municipalities in NYS that are ‘Involved’ agencies in the Pilgrim Pipeline SEQR process were informed by the Thruway Authority (by letter) requesting to be Lead Agency. With only the allowed 30 day window to respond (which, in this case, would be December 16th, 2015) – hardly any time at all – municipalities are forced to have to act swiftly. At this early stage, all appear to be in agreement that the Thruway Authority should not be leading the environmental review process and that instead, the DEC should take on that role.
Why is the DEC the better choice for Lead Agency of a proposal such as the Pilgrim Pipeline?
- The proposed pipelines threaten numerous resources of state-wide concern within the DEC’s jurisdiction, including the Hudson River and such important tributaries as the Rondout, Esopus, and Catskill Creeks and Wallkill River, State-regulated wetlands, the Karst Aquifer Region (a priority project designated in the NYS Open Space Conservation Plan), and other resources that the DEC is responsible for protecting.
- NYS DEC, as the state environmental agency, is best suited to guide the environmental review of this large, multi jurisdictional project that has the potential to impact environmental resources in six New York counties and 29 towns, and is the agency with the power and the expertise to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated review.
- NYS DEC has statewide responsibility for mitigating climate change and helping to ensure that New York will meet the targets set in the 2015 New York State Energy Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 below 1990 emissions levels. The Commissioner’s Policy mandates that DEC must consider climate change in all its actions, including permitting. This proposed project to construct the first crude oil pipeline in New York must be evaluated within the context of the Energy Plan and state energy objectives, and the DEC is best positioned to ensure the comprehensive evaluation that is needed.
- The two pipelines will traverse and impact private lands and resources both inside and outside of the New York Thruway right-of-way, and the evaluation of those impacts should therefore be led by an agency independent of the Thruway Authority, particularly given that the Thruway Authority has a potential financial interest in this project owing to any revenues that could be collected for use of the right-of-way.
I am pleased to report that Kingston took immediate steps upon learning of the Thruway Authority’s intent, and tonight the Public Safety Committee passed through a resolution created by Kingston’s Conservation Advisory Council requesting that they refuse the Thruway Authority’s request, and press that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) take on the role instead.
The resolution will now come up in front of Kingston’s Common Council to vote on TUESDAY, December 1st at 7:30pm. This is a great opportunity for the public to speak during public comment, to urge that the resolution pass and that a notice to all necessary parties be sent ASAP and prior to the December 16th “Lead Agency” request deadline.
For more information on this, please read:
1. Letter from CAC president Julie Noble
2. Draft Resolution Presented to Kingston Public Safety Committee
3. Kingston’s Role as Involved Agency in SEQR and the Pilgrim Pipeline.
4. KingstonCitizens.org SEQR Glossary Definitions
VIEW Tonight’s Discussion on the Pilgrim Pipeline Lead Agency in SEQR:
Begins at 1:13 and ends at 22:00.
By Rebecca Martin
VIEW: The city of Kingston’s memorializing resolution opposing the Pilgrim Pipeline.
As you probably read in the papers yesterday (Daily Freeman, 11/18/15), Pilgrim Pipeline, LLC has filed a ‘use and occupancy’ permit application in NY to construct the Pilgrim Pipeline. According to the papers, the pipeline would run under at least one of Kingston’s roads (as it follows the Thruway).
Because of which, the City of Kingston is an ‘Involved’ agency in SEQR, which means that Kingston will be able to have a voice in determining who is Lead Agency of this project.
This is now incredibly timely, as the Thruway Authority (TA) has sent out “Lead Agency” letters to all “Involved” agencies, which means that one has probably arrived by now at City Hall, and the City of Kingston will need to respond by DECEMBER 16th. What’s important to note here that during this process, municipalities must respond by this date. Having no response is a supportive nod “yes” to the one requesting Lead Agency status.
As you may recall in January of 2014, the City of Kingston unanimously passed a memorializing resolution #21 of 2015 ‘in support of the Kingston Conservation Advisory Council’s Recommendation to Oppose the Proposed Pilgrim Pipeline” that was sponsored by the Council’s Public Safety Committee and that passed unanimously.
Why is it important that city of Kingston right now decline the Thruway Authority as Lead Agency, and instead – request that the DEC take on that role instead? First, the proposal may in fact violate New York State Energy and Climate policies firmly in place. READ: Energy/Climate Programs: NY’s Climate and Energy Portfolio. Additionally, here are five points so clearly outlined by Jennifer Metztgar who resides in the Town of Rosedale, also an ‘Involved’ agency in the proposal. We changed the municipality to reflect our own.
1) More than 20 New York municipalities, including the City of Kingston, have passed resolutions (both memorializing and otherwise) of opposition to this project after concluding that the risks and costs to our communities far outweigh any potential benefits, and that the project contradicts local and State energy goals;
2) The proposed pipeline threatens important resources of statewide concern, including the Hudson River and major tributaries, such as the Rondout, Esopus, and Catskill Creeks and Wallkill River, State-regulated wetlands and other resources that the DEC is responsible for protecting and is best equipped to ensure a full and adequate evaluation of environmental impacts.
3) The DEC is one of the State agencies responsible for State efforts to mitigate climate change, and is best positioned to lead an evaluation of this project’s potential impacts on climate.
4) DEC, as the state environmental agency, is best suited to guide the environmental review of this large, multi jurisdictional project that has the potential to impact environmental resources in 6 New York counties and 29 towns, and is the agency with the power and the expertise to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated review,
5) The pipeline will traverse and impact private lands and resources outside of the Thruway right-of-way, including lands within the City of Kingston, and it is therefore more appropriate for the DEC than the Thruway to play the lead role in evaluating the impacts to those lands and resources.
Inside of Kingston, we’d like to thank Kingston’s elected and appointed officials for the hard work they have already put into the Pilgrim Pipeline issue inside our community. We are now faced with our first critical item – so to help support them, we are working on a direction for our community to speak in response to this initial request. It will come about swiftly, so please stay tuned to learn what you can do to in support a Kingston request the DEC be Lead Agency in SEQR on the Pilgrim Pipeline proposal.
By Rebecca Martin
Citizens in the City of Kingston spoke regarding the proposed Shooting Range in Midtown, Kingston. Some requested a public hearing, and it appears that the Planning Board has determined it to be appropriate to hold one.
More details shortly. Part three of the video, by the way, will be available later on today. Please review the video below.
“Rebecca Martin, founder of KingstonCitizens.org, said the decision was an important one. The group has been a strong proponent of the measure. “Congratulations to the citizens of Kingston for taking this important first step in protecting their water by voting ‘yes’ on the water sales referendum,” Martin said via email Tuesday night. “KingstonCitizens.org wishes to thank the leadership of the city of Kingston’s Common Council and our partners, including Kate Hudson of Riverkeeper, Kevin Smith of the Woodstock Land Conservancy and Mary McNamara of the Esopus Creek Conservancy.” – The Daily Freeman
By Rebecca Martin
Vote YES on the Water Sales Referendum on Tuesday, November 3rd by TURNING OVER THE BALLOT where you will find the referendum.
The Niagara Bottling proposal came out of the blue for Kingston citizens (VIEW the timeline). After extensive work by a growing coalition of residents and stakeholders to bring as much information to the public forward as possible, Niagara abandoned their proposal on February 15, 2015. Elected officials acted quickly afterwards, and the City of Kingston’s Common Council unanimously voted (twice), with the Mayor’s approval, to support a Water Sales Referendum that would give the public a say in municipal water sales outside of Kingston’s corporate boundaries to be placed on the ballot this fall. It’s an unprecedented and critical opportunity.
Some have asked, will this impact agreements already set in place? The answer, is no. This referendum impacts any contracts moving forward. The process will have to be determined, but it will allow the council to collaborate with the Water Department to set some real criteria to its decision making as should be the case.
Here are four important points made by KingstonCitizens.org’s Jennifer Schwartz Berky in our piece “In Their Own Words“.
During the Niagara Bottling proposal last year:
You had no say about whether to sell our limited supply of safe, high quality drinking water to a billion-dollar corporation for a fraction of the rate that you pay.
You had no say about the use of your tax dollars going toward the attraction of a polluting industry.
You had no say about how this would limit further residential and commercial development in Kingston.
You had no say regarding whether this was environmentally detrimental to our community.
If you vote “YES” for the Water Referendum, you will for evermore have a say. Say “YES” to include Kingston’s Common Council – and the public – to the Water Board’s decision making process in the sale of our precious municipal water.
The referendum will appear on the back of your ballot. Make sure you TURN IT OVER when you vote on Tuesday.
* Kingston Water Department issued a ‘Will Serve’ Letter to Niagara Bottling, welcoming them to Kingston before the public had any knowledge of the proposed deal on 9/15/14. Lets make sure that doesn’t ever happen again. READ
* In Their Own Words. Citizens, elected officials and stakeholders share their views on why citizens should vote YES on the Water Sales Referendum. READ
* The Mayor of Kingston appoints Water Board Commissioners solely. Who are they, and what experience do they have to help steward our municipal water source? What is the selection process? It has all been handled out of the public eye until we started watching last year, and we will continue – as the Water Department, though currently independent, is still a part of Kingston City Government. The Charter states that Water Board Commissioner’s terms are five years, though there are still members who have served since 1981. Why? READ
Video from the County Executive Candidate Debate held at the GW Elementary School in Kingston, NY. on Monday, October 26, 2015.
By Rebecca Martin
At the last Water Board Meeting, a board member made a motion to “Make sure that those who record meetings notify us prior to doing such action and that we have a record of those doing such.”
In other words, you can’t record their meetings unless you alert the board in advance and then, submit some form of paperwork to be determined. It passed through unanimously and their Lawyer, Bill Cloonan, clarified and obliged (see video below. Starts at 7:31 and ends at 9:18).
What the board and their lawyer may not have realized is that what they requested was against NYS Open Meetings Law on recording devices.
Jennifer Schwartz Berky, KingstonCitizens.org’s Policy and Planning advisor, called Albany to confirm that this was the case, and crafted a letter to the Water Board requesting that they overturn the motion based on judicial precedents (see below).
Citizens have the right to record all city meetings, and as it pertains to the water board – we will continue to do so until the end of time. Or until at least the City of Kingston does it themselves. Water management is just too important for us not to.
We hope that this instance helps to inform the public on their rights in this case.
KingstonCitizens.org is pleased to bring you video from last evening’s Mayoral Candidate debate (10/22/15). Special thanks to Kingston News for helping us to make it possible.
Please mark your calendars and VOTE on Tuesday, November 3rd. The polls are open from 6:00am – 9:00pm. To locate your polling place, please visit the BOE POLLING PLACE site for more information.
Don’t forget that the Water Sales/Supply Referendum will appear on the BACK OF THE BALLOT! Please consider a YES vote and give Kingston citizens the opportunity have a voice in any future water sales outside of our community.
Monday, October 19, 2015
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A Water Sales Referendum will appear on the back of the ballot in the November 3rd General Election in Kingston, NY. KingstonCitizens.org encourages Kingston voters to get out and vote ‘yes’ on what would be a positive and historic charter revision on the municipal water protection front for the community, and the region.
Kingston, NY – A Water Sales Referendum to include the Kingston Common Council on all sales of water outside of the City’s corporate boundaries will be on the back of the ballot during the General Election on November 3, 2015. Polling places are open on that day from 6:00am – 9:00pm.
Over the past year, citizens of Kingston and the region faced a potential threat to its water and watershed during the Niagara Bottling Company’s attempt to purchase a significant share of Kingston’s municipal water supply. During a State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR), it was further revealed that the Kingston Water Board — a four – five member group appointed by the sitting Mayor of Kingston (who is also a member of the group) — was independent of City Government and had the sole discretion to approve such a sale. This decision making body’s power excluded Kingston’s Common Council and, therefore, all citizens of Kingston from the decision making process.
By Rebecca Martin
As part of our ongoing effort to educate citizens on the upcoming Water Referendum that will appear on the November 3rd ballot, we are happy to present this piece, “In their own words” to share insight from residents who live and work inside and out of the City of Kingston.
Our lives are intimately impacted by the decisions made by our elected and appointed officials on all fronts. In this case, regarding water, by voting ‘YES’ to include the Common Council on all sales of water outside Kingston’s corporate limits, we have a real opportunity to assure better decisions to be made.
Please take note. The Water Sales Referendum will be on the BACK OF THE BALLOT on November 3rd.
At a recent Finance Committee meeting on July 15th, 2015, council members were addressed by Gregg Swanzey, Director, Economic Development and Strategic Partnerships Department (EDSP) alleging that there were ‘serious’ grant management issues of seven of Kingston’s grants, and in particular those coming from Kingston’s Parks and Recreation office.
As far as we know to date, the directors of both departments have not yet sat down together to discuss these items – line by line – with their reports.
Based on video of the meeting, it appears that the EDSP office was charged by the Mayor to work on a report (that took approximately 8 weeks) to present to the Common Council’s Finance Committee. Apparently, the Parks and Recreation department received the report two weeks prior to respond in time for the July 15th meeting (although without a formal communication request by Parks and Recreation to be added to the evening’s agenda, the department was not officially allowed to respond during the meeting, although there are moments where they did as you will see in the video).
Generally, elected/appointed officials or citizens who wish to move something through to council start by sending a ‘communication’ to council president to be added to an appropriate committee so to present. An action for the committee to take is generally (if not always) requested which is then either approved out of committee and moved to council to vote or, kept on the agenda for further review and discussion.
In this case, the result (since there wasn’t any formal action being made) was for there to be an audit of all City of Kingston’s grants (suggested by Finance Committee chair Maryann Mills that evening).
The request for a citywide audit of grants, however, did not pass through Council in August. No further request or action has since been made on the subject based on press reports.
Before any further steps are taken by Kingston’s highest office that might further burden the public and cost more taxpayer monies, citizens should request that both Kingston’s Economic Development and Parks and Recreation Departments sit down face to face, having each a report of their own, to identify which are actual issues and which are not – and then, to proceed from there.
The meeting is roughly transcribed and included below so that citizens can follow along, as it can be hard to follow if you haven’t any background on this matter.
GS Gregg Swanzey
MM Maryann Mills
MD Matt Dunn
BW Brad Will
BS Brian Seche
ND Nina Dawson
SN Steve Noble
JN Jim Noble
DB Deb Brown
SS Steve Schabot
AZ Andy Zweben
KG Kevin Gilfeather
5:02 – Introduction and what action is the Economic Development office asking for?
8:44 – GS: This is a legitimate exercise with “primary documents”
9:59 – GS: Review of Parks and Rec Grants.
10:11 – GS: Economic Development office gives background.
13:50 – GS: “Primary documents” and not just conjecture.
15:07 – GS: “It’s not all the grants, but it’s ones where we had the information and we were able to forensically figure out what was going on with the grants.”
15:22 – GS: “We had not gotten information placed on the S Drive”
16:30 – GS: “Most problematic was allocation of time for the match that involved “in-kind” our applying our time to the grant.”
17:28 – GS: “Problems with process. They are requiring all documentation before they can reimburse the city You have to send everything in signed by employee and supervisor. 30% MWBE. More stringent. Didn’t just happen over night.”
18:42 – GS: Summary of grants via table in the front of his informational packet.
20:45 – GS: “There are people rallying, and I’m really impressed by their dedication. It’s not only going to help Kinderland, but the tennis courts at Forsyth.”
21:49 – GS: “Primary documents”
21:51 – GS: Problems too with recycling coordination and outreach grant opportunities. Unless we can show 50% time on task by recycling coordinator, we can’t go for the $92,000 worth of funding. “Highly unlikely we can prove that.”
22:25 – GS: Steve Noble is the grants manager and recycling coordinator. He’s got hours in for the zoo, fishing doc, one of the issues. 50% to be applied to the zoo. 50% time applied for money for recycling. 120 hours for the fishing doc. other grants that aren’t here that require more time. “There is not way in the world someone can work more than 100% of their time. Not possible to be reimbursed at all.”
24:54 – GS: I do have ‘primary documents’ if we can look through grant by grant. Look at ‘primary’ information.
25:30 – SN: Passes out Parks and Recreation response to Gregg Swanzey’s audit. The department spent two weeks working on a response. They, too, put together their report grant by grant.
26:07 – SN: A very brief explanation of documents and distribution (many interruptions).
26:41 – JN: to Gregg – “Have you reached out to get answers?” GS: Multiple times from Parks and Rec Department Head Kevin Gilfeather (who walks in at that moment). Gregg explains that as ‘we go through grant by grant I can share with you what was not forwarded by Parks and Rec”.
27:40 – JN to GS: “Do we have copies of your requests?” GS: “I have copies of those requests here but I didn’t think those were…I am not here to defend myself.” JN: “Is there a procedure for grants?” A discussion ensues to understand what Gregg is looking for at this meeting. New procedure? S drive discussion and how it currently works in the city.
29:00 JN: “If I were a department head, and I want to put in for a grant, do you hand them something? Do they say I’ll do it for you?” GS: “A lot of grants I am directly involved with. You’ll find full documentation for those. Departments do their own grants.”
29:40 GS: It (procedure?) hasn’t fully changed, we are trying to pilot this with [parks and recs because there are many grants there.
30:05 GS: “This doesn’t come up to speed over night. It’s in progress.”
30:16 GS: “Trying to start with parks and recreation because we knew there were many problems there.”
30:27 – GS: “I’ll take responsibility for this. I should have pushed harder from 2013 to get documents that we should have had. I was presuming wrongly unless there are documents that I haven’t received and have asked for, I thought they were all in one location. that’s not the case. We are doing a review. If an auditor came in, we’d be hard pressed to produce the documents”
31:05 – JN: “Are there instructions, such as ‘sign this to show that you received this’ as procedure?”
31:19 – GS: “I am working with the Jr. League, there are so many moving parts. It says right in the contract that we are responsible for sub- contractors. We can’t give up that responsibility. We must work closely with them as grantee, we are responsible for requirements.”
32:18 MM: “We need to start going through these (items). The process isn’t understandable.”
32:36 MD: “Aren’t we using a tracking software for grants?”
32:43 GS: “We are. Amplifund (sp?). Steve and I worked, in fact Steve found it. Unfortunately it was not implemented by Parks and Recreation even though there was some training. We have a structure on the S Drive, and there is enough capacity. We are more than able. We won’t go after funding for that software. Not an expense that we want to have. We would need a way of training more people in city government in order to implement something like that. We tried it didn’t work as much as we had hoped.”
34:03 – MM: Should we start from the list? GS: Start with Forsyth (quickly responds). It’s the most complicated one (keeps apologizing for the density of the grants).
34:36 MD: “When you want to throw someone under the bus you put in all the stops you can.”
34:50 – GS: Forsyth grant. Application submitted. Second page where the budget was. 72,000 for supplies and materials EPF funds. Highlighted because contract is not in place. What should have been in place is the contract before construction started. Design needed to be approved. Procurement policy for us to pay out 72,000 to a vendor or supplies and materials. MWBE process. We would be required to follow through on policies. We should have worked closely with the Jr. League to begin with. Now we must wait 2 months for the contract to turn around for reimbursement as it just got signed. We can’t commit funds. we may need an alternative strategy.
38:00 – SN: Are we at this point if there is something that he said (Swanzey) is wrong, are we going line by line? We should have done this internally. MM: “I created my agenda based on communications I received. I did not receive one from you so I couldn’t add you to the agenda. We were given a protocol in January. MD: “You’re not going to let Steve speak?” JN: “The grants manager?” MM: (raised voice) “Leave the room if you can’t listen to the finance chair.” MD: “Can Steve speak or can’t speak?” (Meeting escalates. Maryann refuses to answer whether Steve can speak or not and attacks Matt.) MD: “This is a unilateral conversation with Gregg Swanzey.”
40:27 MM: “I have done extensive research with Gregg Swanzy and John Tuey (JT seems puzzled, but does not speak) meeting day after day what fiscal responsibility for the CI-TY.
40:43 MD: “This is nothing but a political witch hunt”
40:47 BS: “STOP IT! WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. WE ARE HERE TO DO A JOB AND WE CAN’T DO IT BECAUSE YOU WON’T SHUT UP.”
41:00 MD: “We have never seen one department throw another department under the bus like this.”
41:02 MM explains protocol JN: “Maryann, that’s on issues. You’ve got to let everyone speak.” MM: Disrespectful to me who takes fiscal sponsor seriously. JN: “You really think you can discuss this and not have the other party respond to it?”
42:05 JN: “Gregg is discussing issues he has found fault with, wouldn’t you want to hear from the person who is supposed to…”
42:19 MM: “Kevin walked into Gregg’s office and said stop sending me emails because i have nothing more to provide you.”
42:21 JN: “Did anyone ask Steve any information?” GS: “Yes, through Kevin.:
42:29 – SN: “There is information requesting for documents. The interpretation of those documents…” GS: “The documents were not provided.”
42:38 – MM: “He must have as he had this prepared (Parks and Rec Report). I’m not taking sides here, but…”
42:49 – BS to KG: “Were you asked to did you provide documents” KG: “Yes”
43:02 BS: Gregg, did you ask for more documents?” GS: “I did not receive all documents that I asked for.”
43:14 BS: “Steve, do you have more documents that Kevin did not turn over to Economic Development?”
43:21 – SN: “The documents are emails, timelines…” MM: “Was this sent to economic development or not?” SN: “We just got the audit 2 weeks ago.” MM mentions the process began 8 weeks ago. SN: Speaks to inaccuracies. “This Could have been done in a table setting.” MM: “Did you suggest that?” SN: Kevin and I talked about how to proceed with this process…”
44:20 MM: Persists with Steve “Did you request to meet with gregg?” MD questions Maryann’s point, and Maryann screams “SHUT-UP!”
44:31 MM: “Did you reach out to Gregg Swanzey?” SN: “I did not reach out to Gregg Swanzey…” MM: “Thank you, that’s all I wanted to know.” SN: “That’s not my role”
44:42 – MM: “We should hire an independent auditor.”
44:50 MD: “So are we going to continue this political discussion?”
44:52 MM: “You’re so disrespectful.”
45:06 MD: “We know what’s going on. This is a political issue.”
45:16 – MD: “I’m saying but for Steve Noble running for mayor… etc. Any good manager of the city is going to say we have issues with grants. Lets deal with those issues in house, and lets figure out a solution.” MM speaks over him.
46:36 – ND: “Lets get things on track. I sometimes do what he does. Grandstanding. Can we bring this back to issue. this is a money thing” MM: “Do you think? it is a money issue.” ND: ”Steve knows I like him. You know I like the mayor.”
47:38 – MD: “We’re here for one reason tonight. we’re here to deal with a political matter for Shayne Gallos’ reelection campaign.”
47:50 GS: “We’re looking at primary documents. This is primary documents. These are not politically motivated documents. If you took the time ahead of time to look over this. I’d like to get through the grant before comment if I could. We can digress. MM: “The info that Steve Noble provided is also here.”
48:38 – GS: Third page. 139,000 put out for supplies and materials for Forsyth. how can we interpret this any other way, political or not?
49:54 – Maryann stops Gregg . MM: “Steve do you have anything to add to that?”
50:06 SN: “At no point was anyone allowed to purchase anything under this grant. Our department did not authorize a single penny as there is not a contact in place. When Kevin and I met with the Jr. League on March 19th, we stated not one penny could be spent until after the contract was in place. I’m not sure where that’s coming from. It’s made up. We did not authorize money under this contract. We were clear with our partners and city on how this process works. “ JN: “Was money spent?” GS: “Absolutely.”
51:20 BH (Jr. League) “We were told to submit receipts. Purchase materials, submit receipts.”
51:40 ND: “when did that meeting happen?” BH Confirms Steve’s date.
ND: “I’m confused.”
52:33 DB: “March 29th last meeting with Kinderland.” BS: “It was march 19th. Did you tell them (Jr. League) you were starting in April? BH: “TI believe it was on the parks calendar.”
53:04 SS: “who was at the meeting? BH: “Myself and Anna Brett.” SN: “myself and Kevin.”
53:20 MD: “What are we going to accomplish here other than smear campaign?”
53:53 – MM to JN: “What actions can be taken to stop Matt making snide remarks?” JN: “I’ll have to check the code.” MM: “I’ll call a break right now to see the code book.” JN: “There’s nothing that can be done tonight. This is America” JN is accused of siding with MD.
55:09 JN: “Gregg has presented no agenda of what he wants to accomplish. we can’t do anything with personal, we can’t discuss personal issues all we can do is finance. Nothing to vote on to correct a thing. Always the purpose to come in to vote.”
56:00 ND “I’d like to know what we’re talking about figures wise.”
56:44 – MM: “You want me to write up a committee report with figures? a discussion needed to be done first. Pace energy made a presentation and we have to have further discussion on it”
57:40 – JN: “They came with a request. Gregg is coming with stuff I believe would be done in house. I don’t see the need for the finance committee. There has not been one single dollar lost. “
58:10 – GS: “There are significant dollars at risk.” JN: “At risk, but not lost. fix the at risk issues.”
58:20 – GS: “I am basing this on facts and primary documents. This is not political. Not small dollar amounts. 100’s of thousands of dollars. we could have been reimbursed with good documentation.” JN: “You feel you need action of finance committee.” GS: “I’m not recommending this, but we should take action of Herzogs and Jr. League. Been money out of pocket that did supplies and materials and not paid yet. Grants not in place. Jr. league carrying that debt. Like Herzogs carrying that debt. I wish you look at all of this that’s your responsibly as alderman. I beg your pardon (says twice).”
1:00 – DB: Herzog invoice. Info provided. “I have the bills right here.
how about paying this bill sometime maybe?”
1:01 – SS: “We read about ‘at risk’ everyday. Give me an idea what percentage we are at risk: 50/50? 90/10? What action will be done to move these grants alone? More information? Independent audit?”
1:03 – GS “For the Forsyth grant, money out the door. Time sheets, MWBE all need to be submitted for reimbursement. Design not approved by OPRHP all of money at risk of being reimbursed. That’s the amount that we could be at risk. (Herzog bills). There are a lot of inconsistencies if we went through this pack. Can’t get around it. Certified time sheets.”
1:04 – SS – “What I’m really looking for, is it more likely or less likely we will get that money.” GS: “We need 3000 hours documented via time sheets to get that money recovered. To get that reimbursement, we need to get those time sheets. everyone is working hard. We need that to be reimbursed. $500,00 grant. It is at risk and it’s not resolved yet. All I’m trying to do is pin down those moving parts and we restore confidence with the agency and the city as to how we are managing grants. Breakdown it’s not the Jr. League’s fault. It’s the city’s fault. We need to take responsibly. it’s not politics.”
1:07 BS – “Kevin, meeting on March 19 w/jr. league. do you believe they were given all the requirements, MWBE, etc.”
1:07 KG – “Great organization (Jr. League). I thought at that time the information as far as record keeping was in place. The build date was made known in April 2014. A year ahead. This project would have taken place with or without the grant as it was a project that they (Jr. League) decided this was going to be their project to rebuild the playground. That was set in place a year ago. “
1:08 – BS: “Did anyone tell the jr. league if you do this project now, all of the $$ spent is at risk.” KG: “What was stated was all receipts to be kept so that we can reimburse when the grant came through. MWBE was only for company design, not equipment.”
1:10 Andy Zweben explains metes and bounds map. The city needed to provide a letter that says the city owns the property (Kinderland). Speaks to a missing attachment in emails sent by Parks and Rec who says they were sent. In April, Kevin and Steve appeared in office quite nervous quite upset saying they needed the letter right away.”
1:12 BS – “Steve…” (maryann stops Brian). AZ reiterates there was no attachment. Janet had requested it and they didn’t get it.
1:13:18 MD: “Are we going to do a thorough review of all the other grants we have? ALL the grants. Since we’re going through a ‘thorough’ process with Park and Rec, are we going to do the same for others.” GS: “I welcome that”
1:14:20 – MM: Suggest hiring an independent auditor maryann. Arguing. MD “We have a biased voice right now. We have the mayor’s advocate on any number of statements.”
1:15:07 BS: “I make a motion for the city to look into hiring an independent audit to see if they have been properly managed”
0:00 resolution is created for independent auditor for all grants including documentation and proper administration. Get to the end game for neutrality.
1:30 GS: “I have a lot of information.” BS: “Is there something you want to authorize tonight an action we can take?”
1:58 GS: Pause. “I think there is a lot of info here that is relevant to finance in the city. I’m a bit surprised we wouldn’t take a look at this. Actions, we have seen some coming out of this because we’re having this dialogue. Whether it’s an audit or paying Herzogs. I’m a little surprised after all this, having passed this along and it’s ‘primary documents’ prior to the meeting.”
3:10 – MM: “Are we looking to reimburse Herzogs?” GS: “I was not going to bring this up, not my role.”
3:45 – MM: “What actions do we need to take?”
3:53 – GS: “We should pay them XX money. But we don’t have those numbers yet. There are outstanding issues re: jr. league and Herzogs, two that I know of. You should be aware of those. It is possible not to have a decision at the end of the conversation here. You are being informed. I am helping you to understand the intricacies of grants that come up increasingly. We have millions of $$’s in grants we are managing now. There are implications right now. We have not been reimbursed for most of this because of issues.”
5:13 – BW “I think our purpose isn’t to get into the minutia in the grant process. That happens in the city, should work well, not our task. Nothing on the table to reimburse Herzogs tonight. We should understand and be careful how this impacts the city what’s the domino effect? Came together quickly, worked hard. I don’t think it’s about fault in any direction. Money is still out there. We do the best job we can to get it. Take this info from Economic Development for a closer look, If we feel an independent audit is necessary…”
6:50 – MM: “We got this info early to review.”
7:00 – BW “Yes, but a long review is not the purpose tonight. No action tonight. Stamping it. Been received.” MM: “Time is of the essence.” BW: “I don’t think it is.” Explanation of grants in NYS
8:18 – MD “Instead of going through the minutia, have a committee report and vote on it.”
8:34 – AZ “Let me frame around the timing of the issue here. Grant application 72,000 of supplies and materials, 12,000 would be grant funds. Legitimate concern about the availably of those funds and reliance of those funds and expenditures already made. Jr. league intends to enforce the rights that they have (implies litigation and that there is a timeline now). I’m not trying to force you to vote tonight, but this is not something you have time on.”
11:32 – MM reads committee report to hire independent audit. BS/DB first and second, opposed by MD and BW.
11:56 – ND to JN: “Why is this so sensitive? is it because he’s your nephew?”
12:45 – JN: “When we lost the grant for the treatment facade, we never discussed it one bit. What was the deal with that? That was over 1 million $:
13:10 – GS: “Rest his soul, Steve Finkle did not realize the match wasn’t good on that issue. Not only did I take a look at final grants, a lot were extended. We are doing them now. We are trying to change the way government works”
13:58 – ND to JN: “I don’t know why you’re saying that. Is it because he’s your nephew?”
14:01 – JN: “This is the second time you’re saying that. Why are you saying that ?” ND: “Because you’re overly sensitive. MD: “ You’re being political.” ND: “I’m not trying to grandstand.”
14:26 – JN: “Didn’t we pay $45,000 match?” GS: “Related to the facade, not a good match going back to 2011. Not to excuse it. maybe we should have brought that up. These are severe problems. I hope these notes build confidence in how we are working to manage grants in the city. We care about our partners, like the jr. league.”
15:45 – MM: “The fishing doc, five minutes to address this. labor parks/rec, DPW, etc. Not sure how this is without a doc in the water. Was this money paid?”
16:29 – GS explanation regarding fishing doc grant.
17:22 – GS: “Sorry this is so dense. I live and breath this stuff.” More on grant. work and expenses take place in the time frame. “Trouble is, none of this time was actually done. the docs not here, it’s in Vermont (dock) to my knowledge. Another 10k needs to be sent to them to my knowledge. Ralph put in 2 hours. No DPW work done, nothing on the books. An auditor would look at this and say the work didn’t happen. We need to have these records in place, we need them in hand. We just received a permit to put it in the water.”
20:10 – SN: “The fishing dock was ordered by Brian Woltman 9/25 when we started the process. City was satisfied and paid them on 12/23. If a grantor is not happy, they don’t pay you the money. Certified time sheets keeps coming up. DEC, DOS they give you a sheet for time and we use them. Others require you to simply keep records and they are kept with the comptroller office and our payroll. One of the recommendations that may come out of this process is that we have no time management system for employees who are grant funded. We met with Tuey about this issue. Employees don’t check in and out. There is not city system. One of Gregg’s concerns are no time sheets. I worked on this grant for 18 month’s. I’ve put in at least 2 hours per week (8 hours per months), of course. I can produce evidence of this time. Procedures the city could put into place is a system. Our department is also maintaining TR Gallo park, along with DPW. Grantors were happy with process to reimburse us as they have. For you to say this is fabricated, a lie, or you’re being swindled….” Interrupted by MM.
23:20 – MM: “You could have provided time sheets before hand.”
23:54 MD: “Where are you going with this Maryann? Move on.”
24:03 – SN: “I think you can see the work that we do.” MM: “I’m not a ghost in this city, I see what goes on, thank you.”
24:18 – AZ: “I called the DPW. No work order, no name of supposed worker or what equipment used nor how $2000 was calculated. Gilfeather signed off on this. I took it upon myself to call DPW. There’s a mysterious DPW worker that noone knows who it is. We certified a document for someone working 97 hours and equipment when the work hadn’t occurred.”
26:22 – SN: suggests DPW can apply time to put in and take out Dock at TR Gallo Park.
26:45 – GS: “How can i interpret it any other way then how grant requirements read? Looking at this can only be interpreted one way. No document part of the contract.”
27:40 – SN: “We did not put in any reimbursements after that date.”
28:05 – GS: “Recycling coordination grants. Steve says he spends 50% of his time. Another grant says that over 5 years he spends 50% on this grant. That means zero time for anything else. I hope the other grants are on track. “
29:04 – GS: “That’s double dipping.”
29:26 – MD: “Looks like we can look forward to the termination of Steve Noble if he looses the election.” (sarcastically). “That’s where we’re going.” GS: “This is not political.” MD: “It is political.”
30:04 – SN: “Using the term double dipping is big to use. In our packet, it lists funding by agency and matching funds by grant that we worked under at that time. It explains the numbers and time for two environmental educators.” MM cuts SN off.
31:14 – MM moves committee on. GS tries to speak to Steve’s response to double dipping.
31:36 Item #3 to execute the docs.
33:17 – GS: Double Dipping term used again regarding CAC grant.
34:10 Dan Gartenstein sits with Jr. League lawyer.
35:28 Zweben, Gartenstein and Jr. League leave together to have a discussion in council chambers.
We are pleased to provide the Mayoral Debate in its entirety from tonight (8/24/15) organized by Temple Emanuel and moderated by the League of Women Voters.
Brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org. Thanks to Clark Richters of Kingston News for filming tonight’s event.
00:00 – 5:00 Ground Rules
5:18 – 8:26 Steve Noble, Opening remarks
8:37 – 11:59 Shayne Gallo, Opening Remarks
#1 – What is the most pressing issue for the City of Kingston?
12:17 – 13:39 Shayne Gallo
13:42 – 15:30 Steve Noble
#2 What are you proposing for job growth in the City of Kingston?
15:50 – 17:42 Steve Noble
17:50 – 20:29 Shayne Gallo
#3 Do you believe the City Mayor should have more input or oversight into the Kingston school district and their budgets and board of education?
20:52 – 21:55 Shayne Gallo
21:57 – 23:50 Steve Noble
#4 As Mayor, what will you do to resolve the ex-fire chief litigation without raising taxes?
24:08 – 25:27 Steve Noble
25:28 – 27:35 Shayne Gallo
#5 What is your position on drug policing in Midtown, do you think URGENT has been excessive and bad for community or important for bringing safety to the community?
27:56 – 29:53 Shayne Gallo
29:59 – 32:15 Steve Noble
#6 Do you have any plans or proposals to improve the complaint process, and would you support or work towards some form of civilian oversight of the city police?
32:40 -34:42 Steve Noble
34:45 – 37:01 Shayne Gallo
#7 Do you support initiatives such as the Rail Trail, ‘Building a Better Broadway’ and the Riverport?
37:15 – 38:40 Shayne Gallo
38:47 – 40:55 Steve Noble
41:00 – 41: 28 Shayne Gallo rebuttal
#8 How important do you think the traffic flow problem in Uptown Kingston is and what will you do to move it forward?
41:45 – 43:46 Steve Noble
43:54 – 45:55 Shayne Gallo
#9 Do either of you have concerns about nepotism in City Government?
46:27 – 48:05 Shayne Gallo
48:07 – 50:04 Steve Noble
#10 Explain the logic behind the sale of the fireman’s museum, and can you explain what happened with the fishing pier project and how can this be avoided in the future?
50:39 – 52:42 Steve Noble
52:46 – 55:06 Shayne Noble
#11 Considering the issues highlighted by Black Lives Matter, how would you move Kingston towards a police force that exemplifies excellent community policing?
55:27 – 56:50 Shayne Gallo
56:51 – 59:03 Steve Noble
#12 There are numerous questions about community. How will each of you include the minority community in your administration and what could the city do to communicate with the residents?
00:40 – 2:35 Steve Noble
2:40 – 4:11 Shayne Gallo
#13 Do you have a plan to improve the housing stock for the poor without forcing them to sell?
4:20 – 5:55 Shayne Gallo
5:56 – 8:07 Steve Noble
#14 What is your position on the upcoming water referendum and the appointment of new water board members?
8:25 – 10:09 Steve Noble
10:15 – 11:30 Shayne Gallo
#15 If you think in terms of the two most important initiatives for the mayor, what would you be most concerned about continuing if you were elected, what would you be most excited about promoting if you were elected mayor?
12:31 – 14:00 Shayne Gallo
14:02 – 16:28 Steve Noble
16:50 – 21:49 Shayne Gallo
21:50 – 27:07 Steve Noble
By Rebecca Martin
This week, many anticipate the scheduled public hearing on the Water Powers legislation on Thursday, July 23rd at 10:00am at Kingston City Hall Council Chambers (this event will be filmed).
It is the final step in the process that would include both “the Common Council and the Mayor of Kingston for any water sales outside of the City of Kingston’s corporate boundaries.” It is expected that the mayor will sign off on the legislation on Thursday, sending it to the ballot as a referendum in November for the public to decide.
It’s our water. We are INVOLVED.
As it is currently written, Water Powers in the City of Kingston’s charter excludes an elected body (although the Mayor of Kingston does sit on the water board of commissioners) in decision making on how the public’s water supply is sold outside of the city of Kingston. The public’s most valuable resource therefore is in the hands of about five-six people.
If the public votes in favor of the referendum this November, water sales outside of our corporate boundary will be made with the inclusion of Kingston’s common council. This action will allow the City of Kingston a ‘seat at the table’ in the case of a SEQR review, something that we did not have and that was terribly frustrating last year.
The inclusion of the common council for water sales would give our community a ‘discretionary decision’ to make as an involved agency in SEQR (we were only an ‘interested agency’ last fall and as you might recall, we had to fight tooth and nail for it. That hard won status still gave us little to no authority). As an ‘involved agency’ we would have a say in determining who the ‘lead agency‘ in SEQR would be, creating an important opportunity for the collective community voice.
Taken from the SEQR handbook:
As an ‘involved’ agency, the City of Kingston would be allowed to
- Make certain the lead agency understands the extent of the involved agency’s jurisdiction; and
- Provide the lead agency with observations and concerns about the proposed action and its potential environmental impact so the lead agency may consider them in making a determination of significance.
When a lead agency has made a negative determination of significance (negative declaration) each remaining involved agency may make its final decision on the action after completing any other required procedures.
When a lead agency has made a positive declaration each involved agency could:
- Participate in scoping, making the lead agency aware of that agency’s concerns and technical requirements identify potential significant environmental impacts and suggest alternatives and mitigation;
- Assist the lead agency in reviewing a draft EIS for adequacy, if requested;
- Participate in any hearings, as appropriate;
- Provide formal agency comments during the public review period;
- Assist the lead agency in responding to substantive comments on the final EIS, if requested; and
- Prepare the involved agency’s own separate SEQR findings before making its final decision.
An involved agency can also influence the determination of significance by the lead agency. All involved agencies are encouraged to submit comments during the coordination period. Comments that deal with an agency’s specific area of interest or jurisdiction are especially appropriate.
It’s an important safeguard, particularly when municipal water is involved.
Oversight and Transparency.
The City of Kingston is fortunate for many reasons – one of which is that it has its own water source. In amending the charter and including the common council as a determining body in water powers, some are concerned of political antics intruding upon their sales. But this inclusion isn’t about personalities, as council members and those in executive office come and go. This is about making certain that policy and the law are applied for decision making as it pertains to our water and water infrastructure.
In the spirit of community and in seeing our region prosper, with proper oversight, good science, climate change modeling and all other matters we can help to support sustainable economic development while placing the health of our watershed and the impacted communities first.
In less than a year from the time that we first heard and spoke out on our concerns of the Niagara Bottling Company’s proposal in the Town of Ulster, the public will have the opportunity to make itself ‘involved’ in water sales outside of our ever changing community, a voice in the protection of our water supply today and for future generations.
We’ve come a very long way.
By Rebecca Martin
Last night, the Kingston Common Council unanimously passed through an amended Water Powers resolution.
We will be following up with the Mayor’s office to get a date on the public hearing that is to occur in the next 10 days (the Daily Freeman reported 20) so that you can organize your schedules in advance to attend. This – after ten months – will be the last meeting of this sort and ask prior to the November ballot.
Thank you for your participation.
READ: Kingston Times Editorial “Moral, Business and the Moral Imperative” by Dan Barton
“We are pleased to witness the second reading of the amended local law regarding Water Powers to include the common council in municipal water sales outside of Kingstons corporate boundary this evening. Once passed, the legislation will be on its way to a referendum and a public vote this fall.
Shortly after February 13th of this year, when the Niagara Bottling Company choose not to locate to the area, our community was left with an opportunity to examine our charter and to consider who was to be included in the decision making process for water sales outside of our community.
Since then, KingstonCitizens.org and our great partners – some of which we am pleased to say are here tonight – have had the distinct pleasure to support you, our common council, as you have taken a very important step in identifying a solution to effectively protect the interests of the public whom you represent. You understand that the more eyes that are watching, the more minds that are aware of how their government functions – the more likely we can expect transparent outcomes.
Thinking about water and our watershed together as a people and elected/appointed body is new for our community. Some are calling it historic. That, is now a part of your legacy and its something to be very proud of.
So thank you, to all of our council members and council president for your collective concern, smarts and follow through on this matter. Swiftly, you addressed a glaring item and your action tonight illustrates great leadership to our community.”
Rebecca Martin, KingstonCitizens.org: 4:38 – 6:55
Alex Beauchamp, Food and Water Watch: 7:00 – 9:10
Kate Hudson, Riverkeeper: 9:21 – 11:05
Kevin Smith, The Woodstock Land Conservancy: 11:07 – 15:59
Jennifer Schwartz Berky: 16:03 – 18:27
Johannes Sayre: 18:34 – 22:34
Rachel Marc0-Havens, Earth Guardians NY: 22:52 – 24:44
Aiden Ferris, Earth Guardians NY: 24:52 – 26:14
SECOND READING, COUNCIL SPEECHES. RESOLUTION PASSES!