Proposed Pilgrim Pipelines Project: Why Kingston and the Town of Ulster Must Stay the Course.

By Rebecca Martin

15107480_617901495059186_7368560605403904128_nThe Proposed Pilgrim Pipelines Project: What Ulster County Citizens Need To Know and How Local Action Makes Global Impacts.  on Saturday, January 28, 2017 at Kingston City Hall located at 420 Broadway in Kingston NY from 1:00pm – 4:00pm (snow date January 29).  Guest panelists include Jeremy Cherson (Riverkeeper), Sue Rosenberg (Coalition Against Pilgrim Pipeline/CAPP) and Jen Metzger (Citizens For Local Power) and Andy Bicking (Scenic Hudson).    Brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org. This event will be filmed.

###

Pilgrim Pipeline Holdings, LLC has proposed to construct two parallel pipelines each up to 20 inches in diameter that would run from Albany, NY to Linden, NJ along the NYS Thruway and through private property. In total, the pipelines would cover some 170 miles (including five laterals totaling nearly 13 miles), impacting 31 municipalities in Albany, Rensselaer, Greene, Ulster, Orange, and Rockland counties. The pipelines would receive an estimated 200,000 barrels per day of Bakken crude oil by way of rail into Albany, proposing to ship the crude oil in one mainline south and bring refined products back north.

The pipelines would run through several sections of the City of Kingston with even more pipelines crossings through the Town of Ulster (TOU).  It is also being proposed that one of the four pump stations (the only one that would be located near a residential area)  is to be placed only 200 feet away from a trailer park on Sawkill Road in the TOU impacting the Town of Kingston, too. 

Proponents have said that pipelines will reduce the need to transport crude oil using rails (bomb trains) or barges (in the case of the Anchorage project).   Kate Hudson of Riverkeeper disagrees.  “Having barges won’t prevent pipelines, and having pipelines won’t prevent barges, and transport by rail won’t prevent either of the others. None of these industries has made a compact with the others, saying, “If you move the oil, we’ll back out of the business.

In other words, more opportunities to move crude oil simply means more crude oil.  Not less.

The proposal has the potential for significant environmental impacts according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, stating that the Pilgrim Pipelines project “…would cross 257 streams and waterbodies (232 along mainline pipelines and 25 along laterals), including the Hudson River and multiple major and minor tributaries of the Hudson.  There are also 296 (9.2 linear miles) crossings of wetlands; including 25 crossings of NYSDEC protected freshwater wetlands (approximately 19 along mainline pipelines and 6 along laterals). Additionally, there will be four pump stations and 215 permanent access roads and temporary access roads at every mile.”

Read more…

City of Kingston Can and Should Reject the NYS DEC and Thruway Authority Request to Co-Lead SEQR Review for Pilgrim Pipeline Project. Here’s Why and How.

Map-of-SEQR-process

By Rebecca Martin
UPDATE:  Kingston did it! Both the City of Kingston Mayor and Kingston’s Common Council (unanimously) voted to send letters to both the NYS DEC and Thruway Authority.   VIEW the letters. 

On December 21st, the NYS DEC and Thruway Authority both agreed that together, they would become Co-Lead of the SEQR review for the Pilgrim Pipeline Project.

Because Involved Agencies have been waiting for some resolution of the disagreement, expressed by 29 towns, cities and counties, with Thruway’s November 21, 2015 proposal that it serve as sole lead agency, some might have thought that the co-lead agreement between DEC and Thruway was final.  But it isn’t.  It is simply 2 involved agencies making a new proposal for who should serve as lead agency for the environmental review of Pilgrim Pipelines project.  SEQR regulations require that all involved agencies be given the opportunity to respond to this new proposal, which they can choose to consent to or reject.

Furthermore, the reasons cited by 29 Involved Agencies that rejected the NY Thruway Authority’s proposal to be Lead Agency in the SEQR process in the first go-round :  that Thruway stands to gain monetarily from Pilgrim Pipeline to use their right-of-way and that they are not equipped or experienced in managing an environmental review process for such an incredibly large and complicated project, remain true.

The bottom line is that the NY Thruway Authority’s bid to take on the lead agency role was overwhelmingly rejected to begin with and yet they are still in the running. Also perplexing is that on the NYS DEC’s own website, they dissuade co-lead roles in SEQR and instead advise that “a single lead agency be established with the other agency actively involved in the process but not as co-lead agency” and for good reason.  What would occur if the two leads differed in opinion somewhere down the line? Which agency would trump the other for a decision to be made?

Read more…

Water Powers Public Hearing on Thursday, July 23rd at 10:00am

11403319_431013000414704_871768142266555702_n
A great day. The Kingston Common Council sends the Water Powers legislation to the Mayor’s office for a final signature. The decision to do so was unanimous after each reading (there were two).

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.

VIDEO: Water & Waste Water Infrastructure 101 Educational Panel 3/24/15

By Rebecca Martin

“Infrastructure must be maintained. People come to rely on that service.  The general population doesn’t stop to think “If I didn’t have water, how would my life be affected? How valuable is that infrastructure to my quality of life that I have?  How much am I paying for it vs. how important is it to my life?”
– Fred Testa, EFC

“Many municipalities  say “I haven’t raised water rates. Re-elect me!”  Not good. You need to continually keep pace with the cost of running your system. One of the ways you do that is by increasing your rates to recognize that things cost more as you move forward. You also recognize that things may not break next year, but may in five years – and you keep projecting future costs.”
– Candace Balmer, RCAP

Last evening, KingstonCitizens.org hosted a “Water & Waste Water Infrastructure 101” educational panel with guests Water Resource Specialist Candace Balmer of RCAP Solutions and Environmental Project Manager Fred Testa from NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation.

Close to 50 people were in attendance that included elected and appointed officials, representatives from many of our environmental organizations and citizens alike.

Thanks to our sponsors for this event that include the Woodstock Land Conservancy, Riverkeeper and Catskill Mountainkeeper and to Kingston News for providing a live stream of the event and the following video.

MATERIALS:

1.  NYS Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (NYS EFC)
City of Kingston applications/awards to date

2. Powerpoint: NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation

3. Powerpoint: Candace Balmer, RCAP (Coming soon)

 

 

PART One:

oo:oo – 2:42:  KingstonCitizens.org Welcomes the Audience and Guests.

2:43 – 5:24:  MODERATOR Jennifer Schwartz Berky, Introduction

5:26 – 25:00:  PRESENTATION: Candace Balmer, RCAP Solutions

25:14 – 27:48:  QUESTION: Dan Shapley, Riverkeeper
“Is there a reuse solution for the wastewater sludge?”

27:50 – 59:30:  PRESENTATION: Fred Testa, NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation     FOLLOW ALONG with PowerPoint

 

PART Two:

0:00 – 1:56:   QUESTION, Dan Shapley 
”If there is a water quality problem the community is aware of, but isn’t documented on the list it’s not helping getting funding for that project?”

“If the project is going to improve water quality (class b vs. class c) does that effect the score of the project?”

3:00 – 4:04:    MODERATOR

MHI (Median Household Income) is $44,000 in Kingston, making us likely to be eligible for funding.  

“How is the water supply changing based on growth and change in the landscape?  The way we manage, monitor, maintain?”

4:06 – 5:58:  Fred Testa, EFC

“State Department of Health has the role of regulating the quality of water.”

6:00 – 6:24:  MODERATOR

“Would you say that there is an increasing burden on small communities in the way of managing infrastructure?”

6:26:    Candace Balmer, RCAP 

“Demographic changes and the financial impact from shrinking communities.”

7:02 – 7:16:  MODERATOR

“H0w is the role of the government changed to met that gap? Is it doing so?

7:17:  Candace Balmer, RCAP

“Water is free, but the pipes that are bringing it to you are not. It costs more than what they want to deal with.”

8:28 – 12:20:   MODERATOR

“In the Kingston system, rates might have to go up to provide for infrastructure needs. In the present, we are struggling to meet that demand. Can we talk for a moment about different rate structures, and what you’re seeing as best practice? Kingston has a descending rate structure today.”

9:25:  Candace Balmer, RCAP

“We advocate a level rate structure and per gallon charge so that there isn’t any base usage. It’s called FULL COST PRICING.”

10:16MODERATOR

“How does that play out in the community?”

10:18:  Candace Balmer, RCAP

“You have fixed costs. If people decide to use less to save money, the department still has to meet those costs.”

11:24:  Fred Testa, EFC

“Some small communities have a simple, flat rate. In the old days, things were more simple and it’s not as simple today.  In waste water, sometimes the expense on the property owner is based in part on property values.”

12:21 – 13:38:  MODERATOR 

“You brought asset management which the City of Kingston is undergoing for its waste water infrastructure. Can you tell us more about it and how you might be involved?  By the way, it’s the most expensive piece of infrastructure for the COK to run. It was found in our climate action plan that the municipality is responsible for that, and the cost of repairs would be 3 x more than we thought given it’s in the flood plain. Instead of it being $2 million dollars it’s more like $6 million in longterm costs.”

13:40 – 18:56:  Candace Balmer, RCAP

“People don’t always understand where their dollars are going, (chemicals, transmission, admin, debt repayment, etc.). It’s about getting the most value for your equipment. It costs more to fix something once it’s broken than when it was planned for so to be replaced in a timely manner.  Assets are pipes, buildings, tanks, equipment, security, tools, office/lab. These are things that you have invested in and you recognize that they have a life span and when they break, you want to make sure that you have access to the things that you need to replace them efficiently and think of about financing for these replacements beforehand.  The first thing you do is an inventory. You want to identify what your assets are and prioritize your critical assets. Those that you’ll be really in trouble if you don’t have a back-up or money in the kitty for replacement.  Many communities don’t have maps. It’s very important to know what and where these assets are. What’s the expected use for life of an asset and how much does it cost? You’ve got to be saving money and setting it aside in dedicated accounts.”

18:29 – 18:56:  Candace Balmer, RCAP

Many municipalities  say “I haven’t raised water rates. Re-elect me!”  Not good. You need to continually keep pace with the cost of running your system. One of the ways you do that is by increasing your rates to recognize that things cost more as you move forward. You also recognize that things may not break next year, but may in five years – and you keep projecting future costs.”

19:11 – 19:52:  Candace Balmer, RCAP 

“Long term vs. short plan terming – you want to have the name of what you are replacing in that account so that extra money in water budgets are not transferred. You need dedicated reserve accounts.”

19:57 – 22:58:   MODERATOR 

“The EFC brought a list of what Kingston has borrowed from the revolving funds since 1994/1998.  How does EFC Work with a city like Kingston on Asset Management?

20:56 – 22:58:   Fred Testa, ECF

“We would mostly be urging them to do that. Asset Management plans are a growing phenomenon.  It wasn’t done in the past. There is a growing interest to do this and the DEC is starting to work on a plan making it required. What will the rates be? How will they need to be raised in order to avoid crisis? Asset Management will take communities a long way to know what will be happening. They are a live plan. They do no good to put them up on the shelf and not revisited and updated consistently.”

22:59 – 24:06   MODERATOR

“The State is trying to incorporate best practices for rating and in awarding funding.  Communities should invest where they already exist vs. sprawling. Invest in existing communities instead of newer projects.”

24:12 – 25:17:  QUESTION:  Rachel Marco-Havens (Woodstock)

“Can you speak to New Paltz regarding waste water? You spoke about Smart Growth. What does that mean environmentally?”

25:18 – 26:35  Fred Testa, EFC

We are looking at a project with new infrastructure or expand new service area. Has the municipality planned for growth in that area? Does it add properties that local growth hasn’t thought about. We are looking to see if the local gov have considered impacts on the communities. Was it planned for? Is a comp plan available to avoid uncontrolled sprawl that have adverse effects.

27:06 – 27:26  QUESTION: Rebecca Martin (Kingston)

“Can you speak a little bit to inter-municipal partnerships and how funding increase, or the benefits?”

27:28 – 29:56   Fred Testa, EFC

“We want to see that there is capacity at a treatment plant for both, that the communities have already talked. We want to see an inter-municipal agreement. A legal contract drawn up by the parties. Tying in smart growth, the idea is if there is a treatment plant nearby it may be best for everyone to make use of it.”

29:57 – 30:40:   MODERATOR

“There was a discussion in Kingston and Ulster in looking at that sort of collaboration in the past. I don’t know where those discussions are today. Also Comprehensive Plans can engage in other communities under municipal law to generate inter-municipal agreements.”

30:41 – 43:04: QUESTION: Ward 3 Alderman Brad Will (Kingston)

“I think this should be mandatory attendance for all muniapl leaders. Looking at the revolving fund loans for Kingston and noticing out of 14 there are 3 that originated from the Kingston water dept, all happening in 2012 under 1/2 million – 6.2 million.  In the dealings with the KWD are you in close contact or are there ongoing communications with KWD since 2012?

32:32:  Fred Testa, EFC

“I myself haven’t worked with Kingston, but the water district is referenced here – but the COK was the borrower here, not the Water Department.”

QUESTION: Ward 3 Alderman Brad Will

“We have a flooding task force that looked at conditions in the Rondout, historically it’s been very industrial. Are there funding mechanisms to assist with businesses and private property owners to help mitigate flooding problems?”

34:49:  Fred Testa, EFC

“Not through EFC.  There may be funding through the Consolidated Funding Application.”

35:43:  Candace Balmer, RCAP

“There may be funding through Community Development Block Grant for these things.”

35:59 – 38:13   MODERATOR and Fred Testa, EFC

“Kingston is going through it’s brownfield area opportunity, a GEIS of great magnitude that will allow business and property owners to move through the SEQR process more quickly. Through the DOS. The program, unfortunately, has sun setted but hopefully there will be more opportunities.” (more on the CFA Program, Green Innovations grant, all happen in June).  “Kingston has been on the ball and have qualified for a great number of grants. As have the county. We have a green infrastructure project for Sophie Finn School.”

38:19 – 40:22  Candace Balmer, RCAP

“I want to answer your question, Brad. The CDBG program, one is public infrastructure, planning, public facilities and economic development of small business and enterprise. I don’t know if the economic development section would apply, but it’s worth looking that up. For joint applications, there are strict requirements, but if you were a join applications you could apply for more funding.”

40:22  MODERATOR

“Kingston is an entitlement city, not entitlement county. Kingston’s CDBG goes through HUD (Housing and Urban Development).”

40:44:  QUESTION: Ward 3 Alderman Brad Will

“What is the percentage of applications that are approved through the EFC?”

40:54 – 41:00:  Fred Testa, EFC

Last year we financed every application.”

41:05  MODERATOR

“The window is closing for the hardship applications. If Kingston wanted to apply for the round that moves forward in 2016 and are not  listed this year how would that work?”

41:24: 43:04  Fred Testa, EFC

I think Kingston has projects listed in the drinking water plant, but not waste water. The City received funding last September for a study 30,000 to study the engineering planning grant WW treatment plant for improvements. They can then give us a listing form, get on the intended use plan and get a score to hopefully be high enough to apply for hardship financing.   Projects can apply for up to $25 million, $18 million at 0%  The city is not in a position to apply because they are not on the list. Step one. Get on the list.

43:08 – 48:20  QUESTION: Kathy Nolan, Catskill Mountainkeeper

“Troubled that we are talking about conventional waste water treatment plants. They don’t include pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, hormones. However newer technologies methods do. Those plants require less maintenance impacting costs. Who do we get to help us to be directed towards innovative approaches, especially considering NYS watershed?”

44:42:   Candace Balmer, RCAP

“Most don’t describe technology requirements, though must be technically approvable. In that way, it’s all fundable.”

45:18:  Fred Testa, EFC

“If there are new technologies being considered, the DEC which permits waste water treatment plants allows them to discharge treated wastewater as long as it meets cleanliness regulations. If they are presented with new technologies, they are going to want to see proven technical evidence.”

Candace Balmer, RCAP

“If it breaks, they want to see that you can get the pieces easily for repair. That don’t want you to put in something that is problematic in that way.”

Kathy Nolan CM

“What you’re describing is a system that doesn’t have a way to perhaps get started in communities that use better technology. With the Green Innovation funding stream, can we can get a plant funded to be used as a pilot to see how it functions and if it’s possible to create more of them.  We keep coming to the same point in the conversation. We need to do something that gets us into the better technology.”

Candace Balmer, RCAP

“Get with your regulator. Have them come with you and chat about concerns. Sometimes it’s an individual look at concerns.”

48:27 – 50: 04  QUESTION: Joanne Steel, Mid-Hudson Sierra Club  

“Town of Lloyd had a rebed system that was doing very well. Are you familiar with it?”

49:06   Fred Testa, EFC

“That was a wetland. It’s not a rebed for sludge.”

49:17  Candace Balmer, EFC

“Though it’s an example of their working with the DEC to get that project off the ground.”

50:11 – 53:53:  QUESTION: Mary McNamara (Saugerties)

“In our region there are often neighborhoods where Septic Systems have failed. To accommodate, water districts have been created. It’s to o expense to bring in a clean water program. The nearby surface waters are impacted. I see it more and more. What funding programs exist for individuals?”

51:25:  Candace Balmer, RCAP

“Looking at it from a community perspective, what EPA has promoted is decentralized water management concept with responsible management entity. Pay the bills. You can have a management district that manage onsite. Woodstock has a management area where they inspect and repair individual septic systems. There’s a variety of ways. For individuals, there are not a lot of programs. If you are poor or elderly you can get up to 7500 in a lifetime and septic systems are one of them that you can use it for.”

53:34: Fred Testa, EFC

“There is Housing Improvement in CDBG to improve septic systems for private drinking water wells.”

53:54 – 58:05:   MODERATOR

“Kingston represents a community that has experienced it all.  Now we are dealing with the burdens in dealing with infrastructure. How do we look down the road to address this challenge?”

56:11 – 57:16:  Fred Testa, EFC

“You need people to sit down and focus. Asset management approach forces people to look at specific elements of infrastructure and plan accordingly. Infrastructure must be maintained. People come to rely on that service.  The general population doesn’t stop to think “If I didn’t have water, how would my life be affected? How valuable is that infrastructure to my quality of life that I have?  How much am I paying for it vs. how important is it to my life?”

57:19 – 58:05:   Candace Balmer, RCAP

“It takes the community. When we do project planning we get everyone at the table. The regulators, the public, the board. Lets all sit down at what we’re looking at and what it costs.”

 

 

Now That’s Leadership. Kingston Common Council Passes Resolution for 80 Day Public Comment Period and Local Public Hearing.

KingstonCitizens.org would like to express its gratitude to the Kingston Common Council for passing a resolution this evening that will be sent to the Town of Ulster Town Board as Lead Agency in the Niagara Bottling SEQR Process ASAP:

1) For the Town of Ulster Town Board as Lead Agency to provide 80 days from the delivery of the Scoping Document to the Town of Ulster from Niagara Bottling’s consultant the Chazen Companies for public input during the public portion of the Scoping Document.

2) Because the proposed project is complex and multi-faceted in nature and has the potential to impact multiple communities and environmental resources, the City of Kingston as both an Interested and Involved Agency requests that the Town of Ulster Town Board as Lead Agency host a public hearing on the Scoping Document at Kingston City Hall in the City of Kingston in collaboration with Kingston’s Common Council towards the end of Public Scoping.

A motion was made by Ward 5 Alderman Bill Carey. It was seconded by Ward 9 Alderwoman Deb Brown and passed 8 – 1. The decision was made in caucus this evening, where Brian Seche who was the one ‘no’ vote was not in attendance.

Other interested and involved agencies can do the same. Protect the interests of your public and support their request.

###

READ3 Kingston lawmakers join effort to block tax breaks for Niagara Bottling; council calls for 80-day comment period

INVOLVED & INTERESTED AGENCIES in SEQR: Citizens Request a Longer Public Comment Period.

the-seqr-process

By Rebecca Martin

KingstonCitizens.org is expecting Niagara Bottling Company to deliver their Scoping Document (in SEQRA) any day now.

For many months, citizens have petitioned the Town of Ulster as Lead Agency for ac longer public comment period (of at least 60 days) with the opportunity to host a public hearing in each impacted municipality (Kingston/Woodstock/Saugerties).  Hundreds of letters were sent to the Town of Ulster Town Board and Supervisor James Quigley.

Lead Agency does not have to honor this request and so far, they have not.

Today, we are asking that all INVOLVED AND INTERESTED AGENCIES in SEQR to please consider submitting a letter to the Town of Ulster Town Board and Supervisor James Quigley requesting the following:

1. To provide a minimum of 60 days for public input during the public portion of the Scoping Process (some organizations might request longer, given their meeting cycle. See City of Kingston Matt Dunn’s request where they ask for 78 days).

2. Because the proposed project is complex and multi-faceted one that has the potential to impact multiple communities and environmental resources, we ask that the Town of Ulster Town Board as Lead Agency consider more than one public hearing on the Scoping Document to include locations in Kingston, Woodstock and Saugerties. Additional time and hearing locations in communities that will be potentially impacted would allow for greater public participation and input on the proposed environmental review laid out in the applicants Draft Scope.

We wish to thank those who have already done so, including SCENIC HUDSON and Matt Dunn, Ward 1 Alderman of the City of Kingston.

 

INVOLVED AGENCIES

Ulster County Department of Health
Ulster County Department of Public Works Highway & Bridges Division
City of Kingston Water Board
US Army Corps of Engineers
NYS DEC
NYS DEP
NYS Department of Health (Water)
Town of Ulster Sewer Deparment
Town of Ulster Water Department
Town of Ulster Highway Department
NYS DOT
Ulster County Industrial Development Agency

INTERESTED AGENCIES

Town of Ulster Planning Board
Ulster County Planning Board
Ulster County Community College
Town of Woodstock, NY
NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets
City of Kingston, NY
Town of Saugerties, NY
Village of Saugerties, NY
Town of Esopus, NY
Town of Kingston, NY

10436201_371141306401874_406794775755180526_n

VIDEO: Town of Ulster Town Board Meeting 1/22/15

12:09 – 13:08    Rebecca Martin, Kingston NY
Has the ToU received the draft scoping document from The Chazen Companies and if not,  will the Town Board extend the projected publication date of the draft scoping document by Town Board resolution as protocol based on the SEQR TIMELINE initiated by the Town of Ulster as Lead Agency?

13:20 –  15:38   David Bruner, Kingston NY
“It Could very well be said that this water belongs to God, in whatever form he appears to you.”  VIEW speech text.

15:44 – 16:24     Jennifer Schwartz Berky, Kingston NY
Have you received any other communications from The Chazen Companies or Niagara outside of the draft scoping document?

16:27 – 17:25    Elizabeth Simonson, Lake Hill, NY
Knowing that you anticipated a copy of the draft scoping document today, has anyone from the Town Board or the Supervisor’s (Deputy) office contacted or had direct communication with Chazen about when they can expect to get a copy of the document?

 

WHAT TO EXPECT: Town of Ulster Town Board Meeting Thursday, 1/22/15 at 7:00pm

By Rebecca Martin

The Town of Ulster (ToU) Town Board will meet on Thursday, January 22nd at 7:00pm.

It was REPORTED that the new deadline for the Chazen Companies to submit a draft scoping document for Niagara was to occur on 1/22/15 which is tomorrow. Although at the last ToU Town Board Meeting Supervisor Quigley stated “We have no notice from Chazen of a delivery date of the scoping document” (VIEW the recorded meeting that starts at 30:15) the public anticipates tomorrow as a deadline as there hasn’t been any formal communication otherwise.

The ToU has released tomorrow evenings AGENDA where nothing regarding Niagara is noted. That doesn’t mean that it will not be added sometime tomorrow, and we will keep you updated.

According to the SEQR TIMELINE  that the Town of Ulster posted on their website, it states that the ‘Projected publication date of the draft scoping document‘ was to be December 22nd and that the date “May be extended by Town Board Resolution“.  That did not occur last month.  We are hoping to learn the Board’s course of action tomorrow evening in this regard.

As a reminder, the public may speak at the front of the meeting on matters that are on the agenda, and then allotted time at the end of the meeting to speak on anything else. If Niagara is not on the agenda, be prepared to step up to the podium when Supervisor Quigley invites the public to address the board later in the evening. Their meetings run on time, and are brief – so if you intend to come, place be prompt.

 

WHAT TO REQUEST?   A draft scoping document IS submitted:

1. 60 Day Public Comment Period

Last December, KingstonCitizens.org generated a letter to the Town of Ulster as lead agency requesting a total of 60 days for public input during the public portion of the scoping process. This was due in part to the process start date being December 22nd – January 22nd and in the midst of three major holidays.

As the date was reported to be moved to January 22nd, giving The Chazen Company a total of 60 days to deliver their scoping document.

The public, in turn, wishes for the same courtesy.

In addition, for as long as it takes The Chazen Companies to deliver their draft, the public will request the same amount of time.

 

2. Additional Hearings/Locations to Allow Public Input on Draft Scope

Because the proposed project is a complex and multifaceted one that has the potential to impact multiple communities and environmental resources, the public should ask the Town of Ulster to consider more than one public hearing on the scoping document to include locations in Kingston, Woodstock and Saugerties. Additional time and hearing locations in communities that will be potentially impacted would allow for greater public participation and input on the proposed environmental review laid out in the applicant’s draft scope.

FOLLOW:  SEQR Pos Dec Review Timeline on Facebook.

WHAT TO REQUEST?   If a draft scoping document IS NOT submitted:

1. That the Town Board Initiate and Pass a Resolution on Submission of Draft Scoping Document for the Amended SEQR Timeline.

In the SEQR Timeline that the ToU posted on their website, it states that the ‘Projected publication date of the draft scoping document‘ was to be December 22nd and that the date “May be extended by Town Board Resolution“.  The Town Board did not do so to extend the change in December to January. Request that the ToU be transparent and follow their own protocol so that the public has the information that it needs to continue to track this process.

BE PREPARED. 

We ask that all residents prepare a statement in advance to be no more than 3 minutes in length and to please show respect to municipalities where you are a visitor.

Town of Ulster meetings are generally audio taped, however we will be on hand to to film the event thanks to Clark Richters of Kingston News.

If you have any questions, please contact me at: rebecca@kingstoncitizens.org

Thank you.

 

 

TOWN OF ULSTER
TOWN BOARD

WHAT
Town of Ulster Town Board Meeting

WHEN
Thursday, January 22nd, 2014
7:00pm

WHERE
Town of Ulster Town Hall
1 Town Hall Road
Lake Katrine, NY

AGENDA
Click on this LINK 

CITIZEN ALERT: Town of Ulster Town Board Meeting January 22nd

By Rebecca Martin

The next Town of Ulster Town Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 22nd. The public awaits to learn of the draft scoping document to be delivered by The Chazen Companies regarding the proposed Niagara Bottling Project on this evening, or it may once more be delayed.

According to the “Proposed SEQR Schedule” created by the Town of Ulster, a date change to the projected publication date of the Draft Scoping Document (that was originally set to be 12/22, but then reported to be moved to 1/22) “may be extended by Town Board Resolution”.  We therefore expect for the Town Board to communicate with the public regarding the timeline and to address their resolution obligation.

Please plan to attend.

VISIT the meeting Facebook Event for up-to-date agenda information

Village of Saugerties “SEQRA Review For Niagara Water Bottling”

By Rebecca Martin

Village of Saugerties Trustee Patrick Landewe recently wrote a letter to the Town of Ulster as Lead Agency respectfully requesting ‘to be contacted during the course of the SEQR process as a courtesy’ to keep informed as an ‘interested’ agency.

Landewe thanks the Town of Ulster for ‘taking the lead and initiating the EIS process’.  We, too, appreciate a positive declaration and formal/public scoping process in SEQR.

READ the article in the Saugerties Times “Saugertisians Urges to Oppose Ulster Bottling Plant”.

 

Click on image to read the letter in full.
Click on image to read the letter in full.

 

Scenic Hudson, City of Kingston Alderman Request Longer Public Comment Period in SEQR

By Rebecca Martin

Recently, it was reported that The Chazen Companies (Niagara Bottling Company’s consultant for the proposed Niagara Water Bottling project) requested an additional 30 days to submit their scoping document (originally due on December 22nd, thirty days from which Lead Agency was determined).

At last night’s Town of Ulster Town Board meeting, however a new resolution was not passed that would have indicated any changes to the Town of Ulster’s (as Lead Agency) original SEQR schedule.

KingstonCitizens.org will follow this closely by keeping up with the Town of Ulster’s Town Clerk daily to learn and confirm whether or not the Chazen Companies has or will turn in their scoping document prior to January 22nd.

In the meantime, we are pleased to share letters from both Scenic Hudson and Alderman (and Majority Leader) Matt Dunn of the Kingston Common Council who submitted letters to the Town of Ulster in support of our request of a minimum of 60 days for public comment in the SEQR scoping process.

All eyes on SEQR now, Kingston citizens – and in working to provide you with the proper time required to respond.

 

Letter from Scenic Hudson:

 

Scenic Hudson 1
Click on the image to read the letter in full.

 

From Matt Dunn, City of Kingston Ward 1 Alderman and Majority Leader:

 

Matt Dunn
Click on the image to down load the letter written by Ward 1 Alderman and Majority Leader Matt Dunn.

VIDEO: Town of Ulster Town Board Defeats Resolution of City of Kingston and Town of Woodstock as Involved Agencies. Passes Resolution Clearing ToU as Lead Agency and Positive Declaration.

2seqrmap

By Rebecca Martin

* Because we want to get this information out to the public ASAP, we are still extracting important details from the video and of documents pertaining to  SEQR in the proposed Niagara Bottling Project over the next few days.  Please check back daily on this post as we do so and thank you.

Tonight at the Town of Ulster Town Board Meeting, the Town Board under the leadership of Supervisor James Quigley passed several resolutions that included a Resolution for the City of Kingston and Town of Woodstock to become Involved Agencies (Denied Unanimously, though with some hesitation),  2) A resolution clearing Lead Agency to construct a water bottle facility. (Resolution passed unanimously.) 3) A resolution declaring a positive SEQR declaration (passed unanimously).

The public comment was incredibly rich. Take a moment and review it below.

I ask that the citizens not be discouraged and to continue to be diligent.. There is a great deal underway to protect our interests. As the Town of Woodstock Supervisor Jeremy Wilber states in his public comment “There are citizens that transcend the borders…that are going to involve themselves. We would rather be inside the tent with you spitting out than outside the tent spitting in. But we will be an involved party….I just hope that we won’t have to dwell on legalisms as neighboring towns and as people and that share a very neutral concern for the future of our water sources of the area.”

We are united and committed in seeing our region prosper and in working together to find alternative solutions in addressing Kingston’s aging infrastructure.

Special thanks to Clark Richter of Kingston News for filming this evening.

 

Initial Public Comments

1:26 – 4:41
Kevin Smith, Chairman of the Woodstock Land Conservancy

4:45 – 6:11
Dennis Doyle, Ulster County Planning Board

6:20 – 8:05
Kate Hudson, Riverkeeper

8:14 – 11:57
Rebecca Martin, Kingston, NY
READ REBECCA’S SPEECH

12:00 –  15:44
Jennifer Schwartz Berky, Kingston, NY

15:55 – 18:37
Rev. Betsy Stang, The Wittenberg Center for Alternative Resources

18:47 – 22:13
Kitty McCullough, Kingston, NY

22:19 – 25:21
Rachel Marco-Havens, KingstonCitizens.org
READ RACHEL’S SPEECH

25:30 – 28:45
Robert Barton, Town of Ulster

28:58 – 31:58
Donald Gregorius, UC Legislator

31:57 – 35:39
Jeremy Wilber, Town of Woodstock Supervisor

35:55 – 39:39
Henrietta Wise, Olivebridge, NY

 

On Niagara Bottling Company Resolutions

0:10 – 1:08
Resolution including City of Kingston and Town of Woodstock as Involved Agency
Resolution defeated unanimously (though with hesitation)

1:12 – 1:41
Resolution clearing Lead Agency to construct a water bottle facility.
Resolution passed unanimously

1:42 – 2:29
Resolution declaring a positive SEQR declaration
“I would the people in the audience to know the that the town board is dedicating itself to an open and public process…as requested.”  – Supervisor James Quigley
Resolution passed unanimously

Closing Public Comments

2:46 – 5:21
Robert Barton, Town of Ulster

5:28 – 7:31
Jeremy Wilber, Town of Woodstock Supervisor

7:37 – 10:14
Rachel Marco-Havens, KingstonCitizens.org

10:23 – 11:27
Donald Gregorius, UC Legislator

11:35 – 13:40
Jennifer Schwartz Berky, KingstonCitizens.org

13:47 – 16:34
Kevin Smith, Chairman of the Woodstock Land Conservancy

16:43 – 20:09
Rebecca Martin, KingstonCitizens.org
READ REBECCA’S SPEECH

20:24 – 21:24
Mike Berardi, Town of Ulster

 

The Wittenberg Center: “Positive Declaration in SEQR Essential For Potential Level One Archeological Sites.”

“We are writing concerning the proposed Niagra Bottling Plant SEQR review process. We are asking for a positive declaration on the following grounds. We strongly believe that both Cooper Lake and the location of the proposed Niagara plant are potential Level One archeological sites.

We are writing concerning the proposed Niagra Bottling Plant SEQR review process. We are asking for a positive declaration on the following grounds. We strongly believe that both Cooper Lake and the location of the proposed Niagara plant are potential Level One archeological sites.”
                   – Rev. Betsy Stang and Rev. Jim Davis, the Wittenberg Center for Alternative Resources

 

10313539_340679042781434_7299981977873726417_n
Click on image to download the entire letter.

WHAT TO EXPECT: Town of Ulster Town Board Meeting Thursday, 11/20/14 at 7:00pm

By Rebecca Martin

The Town of Ulster Town Board will meet on Thursday, November 20th at 7:00pm.   Scheduled to occur that evening is the Town of Ulster Town Board to give final approval of itself as being “Lead Agency” in the proposed Niagara Bottling Company SEQR process.

The public is invited. Public comment on any matters will be made available following “Old Business” at the end of the evening. We expect that to occur between 8:00pm – 8:30pm, though it may be later.   Please see Supervisor James Quigleys’ note below.
We ask that all residents prepare a statement in advance to be no more than 3 minutes in length. Please show respect to municipalities that you are visiting.

Here are several posts to research that will help you to create your 3 minute speech so to hit key points that evening.

On a Positive Declaration in SEQR.
LINK1   LINK2  

Why the City of Kingston should be an Involved Agency.
LINK1   LINK2

Insightful letter to the DEC from Town of Woodstock Supervisor Jeremy Wilber.
LINK

Their meetings are always audio taped by the Town and we will be on hand to to film the event thanks to Clark Richters of Kingston News.

If you have any questions, please contact me at: rebecca@kingstoncitizens.org

Thank you.

 

TOWN OF ULSTER
TOWN BOARD

WHAT
Town of Ulster Town Board
1 Town Hall Road
Lake Katrine, NY

WHEN
Thursday, November 20th, 2014
7:00pm

WHERE
Town of Ulster Town Hall

AGENDA
Click on this LINK

 

As per Supervisor James Quigley regarding this month’s meeting:

“A DRAFT AGENDA will be posted Tuesday morning (we have linked it above) and is subject to change. There are no items currently listed on the Agenda related to Niagara Bottling. I am awaiting the Resolutions from Counsel prior to place the item on the Agenda. A Revised Agenda will be posted as soon as possible. There are two opportunities for the Public to speak during the meeting. In the beginning Statements may be made on Agenda Items. At the end of the meeting is Public Comment for any and all topics. Remember these are times for the Public to make statements to the Board not enter into a debate with the Town Board.  Anyone who wishes will be able to address the Board during these periods. Comments are limited to three minutes per speaker and there is no yielding time to other speakers.”

 

Corporation Council Andy Zweben: “The City of Kingston is not an “Involved” Agency

By Rebecca Martin

Perhaps the most disappointing letter that I have seen in the past four weeks since beginning this work is one initiated by the City of Kingston’s Corporation Council Andrew Zweben – a public sector lawyer dated 10/24/14 -appears to be working against our Common Council’s memorializing resolution. Why?

Read more…