The public can attend to share any of their concerns (that will be placed on record) for consideration of a determination by the planning board as lead agency for the Kingstonian Project.
Video made by Clark Richters of the Kingston News. Brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org.
(click on image to view video)
2:00 – 4:55 Geddy Sveikauskas
“The project is sited on the steep slope connecting two quite different successful neighborhoods, Kingston Plaza and the Stockade district. Connecting these two signature parts of the city while retaining the character of each has been a community goal for at least the last 361 years. Given the site’s location and it’s important to examine the site very thoughtfully with extensive community input …the present design (of the Kingstonian) presentation has been disappointing and unpersuasive. More of a marketing effort designed to mislead than a site plan to provide an honest sense of the environmental, economic and social impacts of this $40 million + project.”
5:00 – 11:44 Rebecca Martin
“The spirit of SEQR is to provide the opportunity for the public to identify and understand what the impacts of a project like this are – so that they can be properly mitigated through a collaborative and inclusive process. At this critical juncture, it would be helpful for the planning board as lead agency to communicate in advance the timeline of SEQR as it pertains to this project so that the public will know what and when they can contribute in a meaningful way.”
11:50 – 14:15 Peter Orr
“Although certain people supporting a positive SEQR declaration have said they only wish to have a process that maximizes the benefits to Kingston residents, the reality is this project will not happen if a positive declaration for SEQR occurs…”
14:17 – 16:29 Karen Clark-Adin
“One aspect of the Kingstonian is important to bear in mind. This is not an out of town billionaire developer. This is the Jordan family. They have been in the city of Kingston for over 80 years…I highly doubt that the upstanding members of the Jordan family would do a shabby job in the Kingstonian development…being a contributing citizen in a community is incredibly important and should be recognized and acknowledged. The Jordan family has that in spades. It’s very important for you to look at the residents of the city of Kingston who has been here for years supporting the city.”
16:33 – 18:19 James Shaughnessy
“I suggest that a positive SEQR declaration for the Kingstonian project be made. The proposal is the largest uptown development project in recent history. It is on the boundary of the Stockade – a historical district. The footprint and scale will be larger than any in the surrounding neighborhood…Millions of public dollars are earmarked…what other subsidies have been promised or asked for? This is not an unabashed benign project. Positive and negative impacts will be irrevocable once it’s built. Kingston deserves more than a ‘no problems’ declaration.”
18:26 – 25:29 Testimony on the West Chestnut Boarding House
(click on image to view video)
Kingston Planning Board declares Lead Agency and announces April 10th at 6:00pm in the Kingston Common Council , special meeting to open a public hearing for the Kingstonian Project.
Items #9 and #10 are tabled at this time.
For more information, please REVIEW the Kingstonian Project Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)
INVOLVED AGENCIES (those who have a discretionary decision to make for the Kingstonian Project) include:
1. City of Kingston Planning Board (site approval, special use permit approval, SEQRA approval, Lot Line Revision).
2. City of Kingston Common Council (Closing of a City Street, Sale of Land or Easement Conveyance, Deviated PILOT Review)
3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (SPEDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharge)
4. City of Kingston Department of Public Works (Curb Cut Permit, Sewer Tap)
5. City of Kingston Zoning Board of Appeals (Area Variances for Floor Area Ratio and Height)
6. City of Kingston Historic Landmarks Commission (Notice of Preservation of Action)
7. Ulster County Industrial Development Agency (Deviated PILOT Agreement)
8. City of Kingston Water Department (Water tap)
9. City of Kingston Consolidated School District (Deviated PILOT Review)
10. Empire State Development Corporation (Approval of Grants: Restore New York, Consolidated Funding Application and Downtown Revitalization Initiative)
At last evening’s meeting of the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC), the Commission as an involved agency in the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) for the proposed Kingstonian Project put forward a motion to amend the agenda to include a discussion of the Kingstonian Project and its “potential significant environmental impacts” pertaining to historic preservation. With the clock ticking on a 20-day window for the Planning Board, as lead agency, to make a Positive or Negative Declaration in SEQR (the deadline being March 20th), the HLPC’s March meeting would have effectively been their last opportunity to discuss their concerns as a collective body. Apparently it was the desire of the entire Commission to have this discussion placed on its March agenda beforehand, but their request was not honored by the Commission’s administrative staff in the Planning Department.
VIDEO ONE: 4:00 – 20:00
KingstonCitizens.org found it deeply troubling that the City of Kingston’s Planning Director — who is both affiliated with the Planning Board as Lead Agency (meant to be an impartial body responsible for administering the environmental review process) and as staff of the executive branch that wrote the successful Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) application to secure the $10 million dollar grant to be used in part to fund the Kingstonian Project — spent nearly 15 minutes trying to dissuade the Commission from amending their agenda to include a discussion of the project and its potential impacts as it pertained to the historical, archeological and community character of the project.
The HLPC is one of 10 involved agencies that will have a discretionary decision to make for the Kingstonian Project. Although anyone can point out potential significant environmental impacts, it is required in the SEQR regulations for the Commission in their capacity to “state their concerns (of the)…potential (environmental) impacts of the overall action”.
In the SEQR Handbook, Page 66, “How is the lead agency chosen?” it says about all Involved Agencies:
“The agency undertaking a direct action or the first agency to receive a request for funding or approval should circulate a letter, Part I of the EAF, and a copy of the application, including a site map, to other potentially involved agencies. That agency may choose to indicate its desire to serve as lead or may point out that its jurisdiction may be minimal compared to other agencies. If it has indicated a desire to become lead agency, it may also note its intended determination of significance. The letter should request all other involved agencies to state their interests and concerns regarding selection of lead agency and potential impacts of the overall action. The letter should also note that an agency’s failure to respond within 30 days of the date of the letter will be interpreted as having no interest in the choice of lead agency and having no comments on the action at this time.”
“Dan,” said Kingston Planning Director Suzanne Cahill, as a seemingly last resort for support of her efforts to squash the item from the agenda. “I’m with you,” replied Dan Gartenstein, the City of Kingston’s Assistant Corporation Counsel, who serves at the pleasure of the Mayor. “I don’t think this item should be discussed if it was not on a publicly distributed agenda…based on open meetings law.” However, there is no reference to agendas in the NYS Open Meetings Law.
Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given or electronically transmitted to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy-two hours before such meeting.
Public notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be given or electronically transmitted, to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a reasonable time prior thereto.
The public notice provided for by this section shall not be construed to require publication as a legal notice.
If video conferencing is used to conduct a meeting, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public that video conferencing will be used, identify the locations for the meeting, and state that the public has the right to attend the meeting at any of the locations.
If a meeting will be streamed live over the internet, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public of the internet address of the website streaming such meeting.
When a public body has the ability to do so, notice of the time and place of a meeting given in accordance with subdivision one or two of this section shall also be conspicuously posted on the public body’s internet website.
KingstonCitizens.org is all for good policy, but the City of Kingston’s elected and appointed officials have a responsibility to not mislead the public or its citizen volunteer commissioners at any time. In the case of the Kingstonian Project, the meeting filmed last night raises the question of whether it is even possible for any municipal body to be lead agency and remain impartial in SEQR given what it stands to gain in a public/private partnership. Maybe, but the perceived errors in the actions of city staff last night ought to be enough to inspire the Planning Board to follow the rules to the letter to insure a transparent process.
VIDEO TWO: 5:34 – 18:08
The HLPC discusses the potential significant environmental impacts as it pertains to historic preservation for the proposed Kingstonian Project.
The project site has the potential to yield information important in history or prehistory, such as evidence of the former presence of the stockade which crossed on or near to this site and/or other previously unknown archaeological resources. Such evidence was unearthed nearby on Clinton Avenue in 1970. This site has been identified as archaeologically sensitive by the NY State Historic Preservation Office.
This project involves the demolition of an existing architectural resource in the Stockade Historic District and may seek to replicate this resource, which has the potential to create a false historical record.
This project involves new construction in the Stockade Historic District. Potential impacts include those that are construction-related, such as falling objects, vibration (from blasting or pile-driving), dewatering, flooding, subsidence, or collapse. The project’s close proximity to two architectural resources—the Senate House and grounds and the John Tremper House at 1 North Front Street—may negatively impact them if adequate precautions are not taken.
New construction may impact the visual context of the district, including the architectural components of the district’s buildings in this area (e.g. height, scale, proportion, massing, fenestration, ground-floor configuration, style), streetscapes, skyline, landforms, and openness to the sky. The project may also impact the visual context of the Senate House, a significant state landmark.
This project proposes changes to a significant historic landscape feature of this historic district: the bluff, an important element to interpreting the district’s history. The National Register nomination for the Stockade Historic District recognizes the following:
“To this day, the boundary lines of this stockade are formed by Green Street, Main Street, Clinton Avenue, and North Front Street and are still intact. Also, amazingly enough, almost the entire bluff promontory forming the perimeter of this area, elevated above the lowland, is still comparatively intact. Therefore, of the three first settlements in New York State—Albany (Fort Orange, New York (New Amsterdam), and Kingston—it is only Kingston that the authentic elements of an original fortification remain. Documents indicate that this log palisade was in existence until the early eighteenth century, having been kept in repair as protection against later Indian raids. While this area at present is surrounded by commercial development, aerial photography has recently indicated the existence of outlines suggesting that the angle itself may as yet be relatively undisturbed. This area forms a sharp bluff and this may account for its preservation.”
VIEW the petition We are still collecting signature to present during public comment of the Kingston Planning Board meeting on 3/18 so keep signing and sharing.
The Kingstonian is a project planned for Uptown Kingston’s historic district. It “involves the redevelopment of the City of Kingston parking garages property, the Herzog’s Supply Co. Inc. warehouse property and the Uptown Grill property (also owned by Herzog’s Supply Co., Inc). The proposed project includes the following elements: 420 car parking garage, 120 apartment units, 32 room hotel, 8950 square feet of retail space, a pedestrian plaza area, and an elevated pedestrian link to connect to Kingston Plaza.”
DRI Grant Application (Public/Private project with $3.8m in grant funds and $48m in private funds).
In our letter, we state that “Upon reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) as a record before the Planning Board, we have identified a number of significant potential impacts. Therefore, as required by New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) 617.7(a), the Board should issue a Positive Declaration and the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project.”
“We also request a public comment period of 90 days on the Draft Scope for the Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) and to hold a public scoping meeting to allow for greater public participation. By doing so, this will ensure that no potentially significant adverse impacts are left out of the DEIS and all environmental concerns are adequately addressed as required by SEQRA.”
The letter outlines potential significant environmental impacts taken from the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)submitted by the both applicants Kingstonian Development LLC and JM Development Group, LLC.
“We expect that the Planning Board will recognize these impacts and issue a Positive Declaration, and outline plans for a public scoping process at its next meeting on March 18th. As this project has already elicited strong reactions from the community, a transparent and inclusive SEQR process is an opportunity to address important concerns in a comprehensive manner. Such thoroughness will ensure that this project benefits the Kingston community to the greatest extent possible.”
The Kingston Planning Board meets next on March 18th at 6:00pm where it is expected that the Planning Board as Lead Agency will issue a positive declaration and outline its scoping plans. They may also choose to issue a negative declaration, however – the burden will then be on them to prove that there are no impacts rather than the citizens to prove that there are.
Residents are encouraged to attend the upcoming meeting to support a Positive Declaration for the Kingstonian Project during public comment.
READ: What to Expect: March 18th Kingston Planning Board Meeting and the Kingstonian project.
SIGN the Petition “We Support a Pos DEC in SEQR for the Kingstonian Project”
Kingston Residents can request a Positive Declaration in SEQR that would allow more input and studies on the proposed Kingstonian Project.
With the Lead Agency for the Kingstonian Project underway (READ: Kingstonian Project and SEQR: Lead Agency), we anticipate the Kingston Planning Board will secure that role for the Kingstonian Project SEQR process. With a 30-day window for confirmation that began on January 29th, we expect confirmation by February 28th.
Once Lead Agency is determined, the next significant milestone in SEQR will be a 20-day window for Lead Agency to make a “Positive” or “Negative” declaration for the Kingstonian Project.
With a project this large and significant, we are advocating for a “Positive Declaration” (Pos Dec) in SEQR and are currently putting together a coalition of partners to make that same request. To assure that the public is involved in this request, we have also created a petition that we will submit with our coalition letter in a couple of weeks.
Please join us by signing our PETITION by Friday, March 1st.
Why is this significant?
A Positive Declaration is “a determination by the lead agency that an action may result in at least one potential significant environmental impact and so will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before the Lead Agency decisions may be made regarding the action. The positive declaration starts the EIS process.”
With the recent changes in SEQR Regulations, a “pos dec” immediately triggers a public scoping process which would be a great opportunity for our community to work on this together.
The Scoping Process in SEQR.
As of January 1, 2019, when there is a “Pos Dec” determination, scoping is automatically triggered. This is in the public’s best interest, as prior Jan 1 this year, an additional request would have had to have been made.
A “draft scope” would be created and submitted to the Lead Agency by the applicant at some point in time that would then be released to the public (as my mentor, Kate Hudson, used to say, “Think of a draft scope document as a ‘table of contents’ for the project”).
Once it is received by the Lead Agency, approved and released – there is a 30-day window that occurs for the public to review the document and to make additional comments for study. In our petition and coalition letter, we are requesting 90-days as well as a public meeting.
The comments/questions of concern are ultimately sent to the Lead Agency to vet – and once approved, a ‘final scoping’ document is created and sent to the applicant who is then required to answer each questions in what will become a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). More on that later on. We need to achieve a pos dec first.
The Input of Citizens and Advocates is Critical for a Good SEQR Process and Outcome.
There is no one better to do this work than the citizens who will be directly impacted (both negatively and/or positively) to a project like this with the support of advocates who have dedicated their life’s work on the range of issues that may arise. We hope you’ll join us as we take our first step in preparing to ask the Lead Agency to issue a “Pos Dec” on the proposed Kingstonian Project. If you live in the City of Kingston, please sign our petition to be delivered by or about 3/1/19.
With the recent positive changes to the Lincoln Park Grid Support Center project, we can turn our attention to the Kingstonian Project and its SEQR process (State Environmental Quality Review) which is just getting underway. KingstonCitizens.org is in the midst of organizing a new coalition of partners for this effort. Our goal is to follow SEQR step by step and support the public and our elected and appointed officials to assure a clear, efficient and transparent process.
A Brief Description of the Kingstonian Project.
In the applicant’s (Kingstonian Development LLC and JM Development Group LLC) Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), it states that the Kingstonian Project “involves the redevelopment of the City of Kingston parking garages property, the Herzog’s Supply Co. Inc. warehouse property and the Uptown Grill property (also owned by Herzog’s Supply Co., Inc). The proposed project includes the following elements: 420 car parking garage, 120 apartment units, 32 room hotel, 8950 square feet of retail space, a pedestrian plaza area, and an elevated pedestrian link to connect to Kingston Plaza.”
The parcels of land include “City Parking Garage (1.43 acres), Herzog’s Warehouse (0.49 acres), and Uptown Grill (0.49 acres) along with portions of Fair Street Extension and a small pocket park owned by the City of Kingston. The project further includes consolidation of several tax parcels (subdivision-lot line deletions)”
The City of Kingston Planning Board as Lead Agency.
On January 22nd, the City of Kingston’s Planning Board passed a resolution confirming the Kingstonian Project being a Type 1 Action in SEQR with a Coordinated Review and asking to be Lead Agency for the project. The resolution was acknowledged by the Clerk’s office on 1/24 that starts the 30-day clock for all Involved Agencies to approve the request (more on that below).
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.”
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.
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?
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.
“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.
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.”
“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 – 24:06MODERATOR
“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.”
“Can you speak to New Paltz regarding waste water? You spoke about Smart Growth. What does that mean environmentally?”
25:18 – 26:35Fred 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 – 27:26QUESTION: Rebecca Martin (Kingston)
“Can you speak a little bit to inter-municipal partnerships and how funding increase, or the benefits?”
27:28 – 29:56Fred 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 – 38:13MODERATOR 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.”
“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.”
“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: 43:04Fred 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.“
“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: 04QUESTION: 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.”
49:17Candace 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.”
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.
READ: 3 Kingston lawmakers join effort to block tax breaks for Niagara Bottling; council calls for 80-day comment period
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.
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 Department of Health (Water)
Town of Ulster Sewer Deparment
Town of Ulster Water Department
Town of Ulster Highway Department
Ulster County Industrial Development Agency
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.