Consideration of Sewage Infrastructure for the South Putt Corridor: A Whitepaper by Fran Wishnick

originally posted at: https://considerationofnewpaltzsewageinfrastructure.wordpress.com/

In order to gain a better historical understanding of efforts to expand wastewater infrastructure in the South Putt Corridor and to better understand the meaning and implications of the term “shovel-ready,” the available documents and reports going back to 1990 were examined. While this paper does not include anecdotal information and town board minutes, it examines the most pertinent documents (where available) that were intended to guide development in the corridor as well as concerns that emanate from the documents.  Town Board members, past and present, as well as community members are invited to clarify any information that is in error or not fully represented.

What Does Shovel Ready Mean?

Recent community discussions and concerns surrounding the actions of the Town Board related to the 2012 Shovel Ready Feasibility Study Grant Application have led to questions about the Town Board and the community’s understanding of what shovel ready designation means, why it is being pursued, and the ramifications of land parcels being deemed shovel ready for a particular type of development.

The term shovel ready refers to a type of incentive for economic development. Essentially, parcels of land can be designated shovel ready. In a nutshell, this means that they are “pre-approved” for specific types of uses. When a parcel of land is designated shovel ready, the Town Board may choose to allow a developer to forgo a specific environmental review (known as a SEQRA.) This is done by allowing the developer to use a General Environmental Impact Statement  (GEIS) from the past rather than convening a new, in depth assessment of a particular site. In the Town of New Paltz, the 1995 GEIS for the South Putt Corridor, or an updated version (yet to be conducted) could be used in lieu of a SEQRA for shovel ready parcels.  In order to be considered shovel ready, the town must also show that a parcel of land has access to basic infrastructure, including water and sewage. Thus, a Shovel Ready designation expedites approvals process, reduces the cost for potential development and makes the parcels of land more attractive for developers. 

An undated document located on the New Paltz Town site titled Sustainable Development Statement of Work states “Specifically, plan development will include going through the SEQRA process for the Putt Corners Road corridor to make a ‘shovel ready’ area which will reduce approval times and costs for interested developers.” The shovel ready status for non-developed land assumes that when infrastructure and environmental reviews are already in place, developers will be enticed to come to New Paltz.  It is a build it and they will come mentality that involves speculative infrastructure. In light of the current shovel ready feasibility study, one must raise the question:  Is there a clear Board and Community understanding of shovel-ready and the more limited opportunities for review and public comment that this designation implies?

What is the historical Impetus for discussion and interest in increased sewage infrastructure in Town of New Paltz, particularly the South Putt Road Corridor?

v  The desire for increased economic development to alleviate disproportionate tax burden on residents and a desire to expand employment opportunities.

v  The existing problems of the North Ohioville plant and rates, plus a FEMA grant that requires 75% grant funding to be used for 1) Mitigation of Sewer 6 issues, 2) extension and looping of water supply for North and South Putt Corners Rd and Rt. 32 and 3) Cherry Hill water line relocation.

v  The desire to combine sewer and water projects in the South Putt corridor with the widening of South Putt Rd and the ensuing issues of immediacy and coordination.

What does the public record indicate?

The following documents were examined and considered:

●        1990 Sewer Feasibility Study

http://www.townofnewpaltz.org/sites/newpaltzny/files/file/file/1990_swr_rpt.pdf

●        1994 Putt Corridors Road Corridor Development Plan Draft GEIS

and 1995 Findings Statement

●        1995 Town of New Paltz Comprehensive Master Plan

http://www.townofnewpaltz.org/sites/newpaltzny/files/file/file/masterplan1995.pdf

●        Town of New Paltz 2010 Comprehensive Plan

http://www.newpaltz.k12.ny.us/cms/lib/NY01000611/Centricity/Domain/96/NewPaltz_CompPlan_Feb2010.pdf

●        2012 Shovel Ready Feasibility Study Grant Application

http://www.townofnewpaltz.org/sites/newpaltzny/files/file/file/shovel_ready_applicationand_resolution.pdf

●        (Date Unknown, 2013?) Sustainable Development Statement of Work - Executive Summary

http://www.townofnewpaltz.org/sites/newpaltzny/files/agenda/agenda-file/full_proposal_2.pdf

●        2014 Wildberry Lodge Final Scoping Document (9/14)

http://www.townofnewpaltz.org/sites/newpaltzny/files/file/file/1990_swr_rpt.pdf

·         Town Engineer Dave Clouser’s 12/18/14 Presentation

                http://www.townofnewpaltz.org/sites/newpaltzny/files/file/file/new_paltz_presentation_dec_           18_0.pdf

In 1990, the Town of New Paltz commissioned a Sewer Feasibility Study to evaluate the “feasibility of sewage alternatives that would not only provide for existing needs but also for future development in the area. Ultimately, the study identified three alternatives:

1.       Tie into Village facilities

2.       Expand the existing Ohioville Road facility

3.       Build a new facility south of the high school (which would appear to be close to the current site under consideration)

The report concludes that best option is alternative number one, tying into the Village facility, as “the use of an existing treatment facility greatly reduces operation and maintenance costs and would likely be more satisfying to the Department of Environmental Conservation.”

It should be noted here that the 2012 Shovel Ready Feasibility Study Grant Application  states  “The recommendations in the 1990 Sewer Feasibility Study were based on several assumptions that are no longer valid and did not consider future development in this area to the extent analyzed by the South Putt Corridor Development Plan GEIS which was completed 5 years later.”

Next multiple attempts were made  to look at the Final 1995 South Putt Corridor Development Plan GEIS, however it could not be located despite extensive searches.  The reason that it is so important is that the DRAFT GEIS, states that an alternative among the three listed below would be selected and elaborated on in the final GEIS, but no evidence has been unearthed that this decision occurred.

The Putt Corners Road Corridor Development Plan Draft GEIS of 1994 was prepared by Saratoga Associates and addressed the entire Putt Corridor (North and South),  including both town and village properties. The DRAFT GEIS refers to 3 possible patterns of development:

1.       Maintain existing pattern of development

2.       100% office or 100% light industrial with existing infrastructure

3.       100% office or 100% light industrial with enhanced infrastructure

Page 1-21 cautions  that “development under alternative three will require municipal water supply. At present the water supply is at or near its per capita limitation. Office or light industrial development will increase water use without increasing population, thus raising the usage rate per person in the communities. In effect, there may not be water available to service full development of the corridor.”

Page 2-25 goes on to state that “Provision of sanitary sewers would increase property values substantially, conferring a windfall on the landowners. This windfall could be recouped as the time of development by imposing development fees. In the interim, the community would have to pay the costs of site preparation through general tax revenue. Unfortunately, public funds for infrastructure development are much more difficult to obtain than was the case in the past. …….At the present time there are no known public funds for speculative infrastructure extensions.”

This document clearly raises several concerns regarding speculative infrastructure extensions such as a new sewage facility and refers the reader to the final document for elaboration, yet this document cannot be located.

Around the same time, the 1995 Town of New Paltz Comprehensive Master Plan was created. Page 16 of the 1995 Master Plan states, “The New Paltz Economic Development Corporation has obtained State Economic Development Assistance Grant funding to finance a generic EIS for the Town's and Village's Putt Corners Corridor Development Plan. The plan has provided an objective analysis of alternatives for development of the Putts Corners Road corridor to assist the Town and Village of New Paltz in adopting a land use plan for the corridor that encourages growth within the parameters of existing zoning, provides jobs for residents of the town and village and surrounding area, increases the tax base without significantly impacting community services, and maintains the character of the community and

potential for tourism.”

Page 29 of same document states:

“The industrial area shown on the Land Use Plan is located in the Town, to the east of the Village along the New York Thruway. Despite its thruway accessible location one

constraint upon research office or industrial development is the lack of a fully developed

public utility system in this area. The creation of major office research or industrial

centers without central sewer and water facilities would not be recommended. The Putt

Corners study will be utilized for guiding the development.”

Page 43  of the 1995 Town of New Paltz Master Plan further states:

“If the community requires or needs additional sewage treatment facilities, the ideal

locations for these facilities are:

1. North along the Wallkill corridor near the Camp Dineen property. Site #1 is

downstream from the current facility. Because of the proximity to the Rail Trail it

can provide easy expansion of routes for underground pipes. Also, nearness to the

Wallkill River provides a convenient location for discharge of the treated effluent.

2. In the Ohioville/Putt Corners area, preferably replacing the existing, undersized

Ohioville facility with one on the south side of Rt. 299 with enough capacity for

this entire industrial area and allowing residential tie-in.”

Fifteen years later, the Town Board adopted the 2010 Town of New Paltz Comprehensive Plan. Page 210 of 2010 Plan states:

“There is also a study underway to determine the feasibility of the Town building a new wastewater treatment facility near South Putt Corners Road where sewer districts one and five are located. The advantage of a plant in this location is that the properties already have

sewer lines which feed to the Village system.”

Page 208 of the 2010 Master Plan contains a map of the town’s sewer districts. These sewer districts are in the vicinity of Rt. 299 and S. Putt.

To recap:

1990 – Sewer Feasibility Study identifies a new facility near New Paltz Senior High School as a possible alternative but concludes that this is not the best option.

1994 Putt Corridors Road Corridor Development Plan Draft GEIS - Does not identify specific location for potential expansion of sewage infrastructure, but cautions, “there may not be water available to service full development of the corridor.”  The report appendix contains three maps that show sanitary sewer options for connection.  All of them are in the Rt. 299 vicinity.

1995 Town of New Paltz Comprehensive Master Plan - Indicates that the ideal location for additional sewage treatment facilities are “North along the Wallkill corridor near the Camp Dineen property” or  “In the Ohioville/Putt Corners area, preferably replacing the existing, undersized Ohioville facility with one on the south side of Rt. 299.”

2010 Town of New Paltz Comprehensive Plan - “There is also a study underway to determine the feasibility of the Town building a new wastewater treatment facility near South Putt Corners Road where sewer districts one and five are located.”

The 2014 Wildberry Lodge Final Scoping Document prepared by the Town Planning Board Line 126 states, "The project proposes to develop necessary water and sewer services." However,  line 324 states, "The project sponsor has been asked to consider the alternatives of supplying its water and wastewater needs through municipal districts or extensions, should those be formed within a time frame to allow connection of the project at the time of commencement of operations."

Again, the 2013 Sustainable Development Statement of Work outlines plans to streamline “environmental review by use of a GEIS that reduces the cost and time of site specific environmental review” and outlines a timeline for a SEQRA assessment to update and expansion of the generic GEIS done in 1995 for the Putt Corners Road corridor.

Summary

The public record is far from definitive in terms of the type of increased infrastructure needed, the cost/benefit ratio, and the identification of an optimal location for said infrastructure. The record also raises important questions that should be addressed before determining when, where, and how any new municipal sewage or wastewater infrastructure is to be built or considered.                                                                                        

Questions:

●        The 1994 GEIS Alternative 3 presents figures on projected wastewater flow per day for both office and industrial development.  The December 18, 2014 Progress Review and Update on the Feasibility Study presents vastly different figures on projected wastewater flow. What accounts for the variance in projected wastewater flow based on the same kind of future development? (See table below)

PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOW IN GALLONS PER DAY
	Office	Industrial
1994 GEIS, Alt.3-“Enhanced Infrastructure”	79,965	118,625
12-18-14 Progress Review & Update	281,700	144,500
VARIANCE	201,735	25,875

●        Will the Town Board allow shovel ready site developers to forgo a full  SEQRA , thereby instituting an expedited shovel-ready review process, by referring to previous GEIS and if so, what GEIS will they use? A parallel question:  Does the Town intend to designate the entire S. Putt corridor as shovel-ready and if not, which parcels?

●        Please explain the numbers shown in the Feasibility Study for existing sewer use in the S. Putt Corridor.  Do those figures reflect the current sewer district’s use in the Rt. 299 vicinity, or projected use of sewer by existing uses along the corridor (e.g. school)?  Will existing uses be required to join a S. Putt sewer district or will it be optional?  How is this usage reflected in any proposed rates/financial analysis?

●        Were the properties North of the Wallkill suggested as “ideal” in the 1995 Town Master plan considered? Was the land surrounding sewer districts 1 and 5 as suggested in 2010 Master plan considered as part of the feasibility study?

●        What are the terms of the FEMA grant for Sewer 6 updates and the water loop?  Is there a firm commitment?  Is there at 25% match or is that covered by grants?  Does the commitment expire if funds are not used by a certain date?

●        Did the Town Board or town engineers request that the DEC conduct site visits of properties other than the Copeland/Barry properties as part of the feasibility study? If so, which parcels and what was the DEC feedback on these alternate parcels of land?

●        Has a study of the feasibility of utilizing village facilities been included in the S. Putt Feasibility Study?

●        Have any studies been done of the available real estate and market trends to assess whether or not there is demand in Ulster County for land zoned  “light industrial/office?”  Is there evidence to suggest that taxpayers will see a return on speculative infrastructure development in the near future?

●        Are there any currently existing sewer problems (as evidenced by an engineer’s report) along the S. Putt corridor?

●       Perhaps most importantly, has an analysis been done of the increased tax benefits to the community of developing this corridor considering the variety of tax abatements that are currently being used (PILOTS, Start-up NY, etc) by developers? Does this analysis show a significant net gain in taxes?

Visit https://considerationofnewpaltzsewageinfrastructure.wordpress.com/ where via a feedback form you can submit suggested annotations or clarifications. 

Transparency and “Sewage-gate”

Facts are important.

The fact is, there have been discussions about development of the South Putt Corners “corridor” for light industrial use for more than two decades. The Town Board discussed commissioning a “shovel-ready feasibility study” at meetings in 2011 and 2012. However, the fact is, there is no indication in any minutes of a specific potential site or sites within that 360-acre corridor for a sewage treatment plant. In fact there is little documentation to even substantiate the need for a sewage treatment plant on South Putt Corners Road.

In 2012, the town of New Paltz filed an application with the Ulster County Industrial Development Agency (UCIDA) for a grant to fund a “shovel-ready feasibility study” to “evaluate the feasibility and costs of constructing a new town sewer district.” The application includes a “scope of work” that encompasses the assessment of soil conditions, wastewater flow estimates, and the preparation of sewer district mapping. What the scope of work does not include is the site selection and acquisition of a property along the 360 acre corridor. One can argue that this is an implied outcome of the grant, but negotiations on the purchase of a property were not part of the study or required for its completion.

It is a fact that a conceptual plan on parcels of land owned partially or in full by Town Board member Kevin Barry (on a map created by Town Engineer Dave Clouser) depicting a sewage treatment plant adjacent to the High School dated 11/6/14 exists. While Mr. Barry recused himself from the vote to submit the grant application for the feasibility study to the UCIDA, many wonder if it is a conflict of interest that a Town Board member’s property is being considered over other properties located in the 360-acre corridor. To date, the town has not produced any similar conceptual plans on alternate parcels of land.

While the Town Board has made many documents pertaining to the sewage treatment plans available on the Town website, some of the most revealing and pertinent documents were not included. These missing documents raise some very troubling questions about town government transparency.In mid-December, an 11/18/14 letter from Town Engineer Dave Clouser to Town Attorney Joseph Moriello (cc’d to Town Supervisor Susan Zimet) was shared widely on social media, but has not yet been included on the Town website. In it, Mr.Clouser states that a potential site for the sewage treatment facility was “offered up by a landowner,” and that “a conceptual layout of the facility was prepared and discussed with the landowner.” Mr. Clouser indicates that the NYS DEC had conducted a site visit and refers to “pending property acquisition agreements.” This letter was then forwarded to the UCIDA by the Town Attorney and once again cc’d to the Town Supervisor.

So, as early as November 18th, our Town Supervisor knew that the Town Engineer had identified a specific potential site for the sewage treatment plant, that negotiations to purchase land had begun, and that conceptual plans had been shared with both the landowner and the DEC. Town officials have not disputed the information contained in this letter. Yet, in a 12/5/14 email to former Town Board member Kitty Brown (shared on the Town Board’s website), Supervisor Zimet stated, “We never authorized Dave (Clouser) to draw up plans...We are not even close to authorizing a design or acquisition.”

Emails to Town Councilman Dan Torres also indicate that Supervisor Zimet was aware of plans to acquire land prior to 12/5/14. On 12/2/14, she wrote, “We have been looking for another site and we finally just got DEC approval for 350,000 gallons into the stream on the site. We need to start talking to the landlord about acquisition...” On 12/3/14, Zimet wrote, “Dave just told me the other day that he got approval from the DEC to use a specific site and that the town needed to start talks on acquisition…I understand the owner just wants fair market value so we may just need to hire an appraiser.” An earlier email from Town Councilman Jeff Logan to Town Board members and Supervisor Zimet on 11/30/14 stated, “I have been in meetings on the proposed site with Susan, engineers, Chris M. (Marx), and proposed developers for at least the last year.”

This raises difficult questions. Why would the Town Supervisor claim no knowledge of land acquisition discussions when she was clearly cc’d on Mr. Clouser’s letter and herself made reference to site acquisition in several emails? If the Town Board didn’t instruct Dave Clouser to develop a conceptual or site plan and to discuss these plans and purchase price for land that is owned either fully or partially by Town Board Member Kevin Barry, who did?

The 12/18/14 Town Board meeting transcript raises even more questions. At 1:57:00, member Dan Torres raised a potential conflict of interest in the determination of the sewage treatment site:

Susan Zimet: “What conflict of interest?”Dan Torres: “Who owns that property?”Susan Zimet: Shrugs shoulders, no response

Afterwards, Zimet indicated that she was unaware of who owns the parcel or parcels of land in question:

Susan Zimet:“Kevin, do you own the property that is under consideration for a potential site for a sewer plant that is yet to be designed, discussed...do you own that property?” (To Kevin Barry) “Do you own the property that Dave is looking at?”

In light of the fact that Dave Clouser’s 11/6/14 conceptual plan clearly labels the parcels of land in question as belonging to Copeland Funeral Home, Kevin Barry, and to “140 South Putt Corners LLC,” (the last two parcels use Kevin Barry’s law office address at 310 Mill Street, Poughkeepsie and have been previously been co-listed for sale) and that all work carried out was contracted by the town, it is highly unlikely that Supervisor Zimet did not know the answers to her queries. So why would she strive to appear as if she was unaware of who owns those properties? A voicemail shared by Dan Torres on 12/1/14 features Supervisor Zimet stating:  

“I really want to make sure that we manage everything that we are doing without getting caught up in the politics of the school bond vote, and Kevin, and his property on South Putt, and you know, all of the insanity that ensues with this community when we get into these waters with people who don’t have trust in each other.”

These facts beg the question, why would Supervisor Zimet feign ignorance of Mr.Barry’s ownership in the town board meeting two weeks later?

Also at the 12/18/14 public meeting, Supervisor Zimet said:

“Quite frankly we have not had an update from Dave on the sewer feasibility study and what’s going on in quite a while because he’s been working on the water and he just got started.”

This statement cannot be factual considering Mr. Clouser’s 11/18/14 letter to town Attorney Joseph Moriello (cc’d to Supervisor Zimet), and the emails referenced above. The transparency and honesty of the Town Supervisor’s comments are thus called into question on land acquisition adjacent to the high school, and on the timeline of the Town Board’s progress identifying and beginning purchase negotiations for this land.

A 12/25/14 Daily Freeman article states, “Zimet said a location has not been chosen and that options include an adjacent 9-acre parcel owned by Terrence Copeland or connecting to the village’s wastewater treatment plant.” However, in her 12/2/14 email, Zimet wrote, “We need to start talking to the landlord about acquisition….” And Dave Clouser’s 11/18/14 letter also refers to “pending property acquisition agreements.” These comments strongly imply that contrary to Zimet’s assertion to the Daily Freeman, a property has already been identified.  Additionally, the feasibility study encompasses a study of the “South Putt Corners Road Sewer Corridor” only and to date, the town has not provided any evidence that the Village’s wastewater treatment plant is in fact under consideration as an alternative.

During the 12/18/14 Town Board meeting, members of the Town Board shifted discussion to the current state of the high school sewage system and Supervisor Zimet engaged in similar discussion in the 12/25/14 Daily Freeman Article. There is nothing to indicate that a detailed study of the high schools’ sewage system was conducted as part of the feasibility study. Even if it were determined that the high school’s sewage infrastructure were in need of repair, this would not necessarily justify or require a new plant situated in close proximity to the school and such discussions do nothing more than deflect from community concerns regarding transparency.

Many community members are deeply disappointed with the lack of transparency, and question whether all options have been thoroughly analyzed. It is incumbent upon the Town to ensure that any and all discussions of sewer capacity and location as well as potential sites for a sewage treatment plan are presented in a timely and transparent manner to the community and are subject to public input prior to consideration of land acquisition.

At the 12/18/14 Town Board meeting, all but Councilman Torres voiced support for these plans despite the objections of many attendees. To continue full steam ahead, casting aside the community’s concern for the safety of our students, educators, and school personnel is unacceptable. If you agree that this plan should be stopped now, please sign the petition at Change.org:  “Drop the plans to site a sewage treatment plant adjacent to our high school.”

Bianca Tanis
New Paltz

transcript of the 11/13/2014 town board meeting from 4min 59sec to 7min 3sec

Facebook post January 18th by Mike Russo

Below is a transcript from the 11/13/2014 Town Board meeting from 4m59s to 7m3s.

It seems to me that (1) Susan expresses clear intent that full emphasis is on the South Putt site, and (2) Susan avoids naming the site but in the context of her explanation, it seems highly unlikely that she doesn't know that it is next to the HS. Also, (3) it also seems unlikely that Susan doesn't know who owns the land, considering that it has been publicly discussed in the past that Kevin owns the land next to the HS (this fact came up as an ethics issue back in 2012 when Susan and Kevin made overtures to Maria Rice about buying the Town buying the Middle School.)

Start: 4m59s
Question from person making public comment: The IDA is expecting a letter from the town, um ...

SZ: I can explain to you exactly what that is ...

Q: ...regarding a feasibility study.

SZ: Yeah, what happened was a number of years ago prior to me being supervisor, the town had applied for a feasibility study for South Putt Corners Road and it never got, um, submitted properly and all that, so when I first came into office back in three years ago, we reapplied and got in all the paperwork and stuff so we had this feasibility study... a lot of it had to do with sewer and seeing what we can do with sewer on South Putt, and we were working on a particular piece of property - we thought that everything was going to be okay with that, then the DEC said that, um, they didn't think we could use that property so we have been trying to search for other places for sewer in order to be able to do the feasibility study, and um, there were other sites that we were looking at and of course, we had to talk to the landowners and whatever, but what has happened is the property that we're looking at now seems to be, um, favored by the DEC and there's meetings going on right now with the DEC in regards to a site to do sewer on South Putt and the DEC seems to be happy, so we will be getting a letter back to the IDA with the update and the information because now we can proceed to do the study now that we think we really finally solved the sewer problem on South Putt Corners Road.

Q: So do you have a timeframe on that?

SZ: Well they want the letter back in three weeks so we will have a letter back to them within three weeks. In terms of the sewer situation, it's being worked on right now and there's a number of developments that are involved in helping us to figure out how we are going to, you know, create the sewer system and how it's going to get paid for and we're waiting for some final things from the DEC and then we have to talk to the landowners about, you know, purchasing the property so there's still some work to be done but at least we finally think we have a solution for how we can get sewer on South Putt.

Q: Okay, thank you.

SZ: Okay, that's what that is.
End 7m03s

ed burke fb thread 12-19-2014

Ed Burke

December 19 at 10:45am · Edited

As someone who attended last night’s meeting I found myself with more questions than answers. In an effort to try and educate myself I sat and listened to all sides over the 3 ½ hours (didn’t need to be that long at all) I came away with a couple of questions that I hope to get some answers to:

The NPBOE in there resolution stated “THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the New Paltz Central School District Board of Education declares its strong opposition to the Town siting the sewage treatment plant adjacent to or within reasonable proximity to the High School or any other school for reasons of health, safety and welfare of students and staff; “ What would be a reasonable proximity? I know there are other sites under consideration.

    Amy Dooley Mosbacher What other sites are being studied Ed? I haven't seen that anywhere.

    Ed Burke It wasnt clear. What I heard was a possible connection to Park Point, possible new treatment plant on 32N in the Village that Sewer 6 could tie into, and there was another property that was ruled out. It was a long meeting. Amy what would you consider a reasonable proximity?

    Steve Greenfield Ed, speaking only for myself, I would consider "reasonable proximity" to be one that could provide substantial assurance that this would not happen. I am choosing this example because it is the very sewage plant that Dave Clouser mentioned last night as being a good example of a plant near a school that's been safely operating for a long time. The land currently proposed was deep underwater at this same time, for this same reason. I hope this isn't too much to ask.

http://dmna.ny.gov/pressroom/?id=1318970765

    NYS DMNA Press Release: New York Air National Guard Cleans Middleburgh High...

   

    Ed Burke Steve agreed, but would that distance be?

    Steve Greenfield And it's also important to remember that this is a school. The proposed site is not 900 feet from the school. It's less than 100 feet. One would think a youth athletics leader like Kevin Barry would be acutely aware of that, and arguing to protect it. The playing fields are part of the school, not just the parts inside the bricks.

    Steve Greenfield The distance would depend on variables. That's why it's better not to be specific, and just have planners of sewage disclose what they're doing case by case. For example, a plant on high ground could possibly be closer as the crow flies than one in lowlands that readily floods. Or one on a downhill that's flowing in the opposite direction from the school could be closer than one on a downhill side that's flowing towards the school. One cannot make a blanket distance in feet.

    Steve Greenfield But one thing is absolute: anywhere kids go is "school." Not a physical structure. Parking lots, ballfields, anywhere kids go.

    Ed Burke Steve I believe you are the chair for facilities for the School. Were you surprised at all with what Dave Clouser disclosed about the water treatment issues at the HS? I dont recall the specifics but that there were no plans with the BOH or DEC and the permits are expired? If I did not summerize this properly I apologize- too much popcorn at the meeting

    Steve Greenfield Interesting thing, Ed, is that Dave didn't actually describe any issues with water treatment at the school, so no, I was not surprised at all. He didn't speak to anyone at the school, nor did he make any observations of any kind. He raised some issues about DEC procedures, which is not my wheelhouse, and has nothing to do with the school district. Surely you're at least as curious as I am about why Kevin Barry's son made the only attempt at an observation, rather than the Town's expert who was tasked with the report, and that nothing wrong was revealed by the young Barry. Aren't people with ownership and immediate family connections to ownership legally barred from these kinds of activities on behalf of the government? I'll save you the research time: yes. And yet there it was, presented at a Town Board meeting.

    Unlike Kevin, Susan, and Jeff (because I will not use the term Town Board as long as they're exluding Dan from access to the information he's required to be given), the School District is an open book. All Dave needed to do is talk to our staff.

    Steve Greenfield Any further questions about specifics of our system will have to be directed to our professional staff whose contact information is on our website. I do not personally operate or test the system. I am oversight, not operations. If you have any questions about saxophones or pianos, I'll do my best.

    Ed Burke Steve so the school district has an in force SPIDIES (not sure on spelling) permit? I thought I heard it lapsed. Would that fall under oversight

    Michael O'Donnell Ed Burke, what I remember as concrete data on locations was the following:

    1. The Ohioville plant is not an option because the DEC will not approve any additional flow at that facility (since it dumps into a wetland).

    2. Connection to Park Point has been ruled out. The reason why was not disclosed. That came up when I asked the question (from the Clouser-Moriello memo) about the first location that "became unavailable".

    3. Jason West recently contacted the Town about connecting the South Putt corridor to the Village system.

    Sue Zimet mentioned toward the end that the High School location was not her favorite and implied that there is a second location. No idea where that is.

    Terrence Quinn Ed Burke let me take a shot. Non adjacent (1/4 mile?) non line of sight. The proposed system still produces the same amount of by products per unit of waste as other systems. The comment about reduced odor is due to air being forced through the system. Overly simplying this... They are reducing the odor potential by blowing the air away from the plant. One of the byproduct to worry about are sulfides. These are heavier than air and can spread long distances per the Published MSDS. So they will move away from the plant staying low to the ground following the path of least resistance. The proposed layout I saw shows no trees between the proposed plant and the school and fields. So the sulfides hang around the school and fields till moved out by weather or breathed in. According to CDC 10% of kids have respiratory issues (asthma etc). So subjecting a more at risk population to it for 7 hrs a day for multiple years does not seem wise.

    Ed Burke Terrance thank you

    Eric Schwartz I'm gonna go with...a flood plain away?

    Eric Schwartz I think a better way to phrase the question is: "how many ways can a Town Board member figure out how to sell their land to either the Town or School District?".

    Ed Burke Eric how much distance would that be?

    Steve Greenfield Ed, are you unsatisfied with the list of criteria I provided that could, along with other possible factors, influence the proper distance, and that it is not an exact one-size-fits-all measurement?

    And now a question from me: can we all agree that the actual distance of under 100 to a couple of hundred feet (depending on which tank you measure from, and to which point along the property line), in a lowlands that regularly floods, is too close? Because what we're talking about is an actual "site-specific conceptual design that's being submitted to the county under the name shovel-ready" (see, I didn't call it a "site plan, which some consider a term of art, rather than a plan for a site) that is actually proposed to be situated right alongside the actual New Paltz High School?

    Because I'm really hoping, especially given what we know about the terrible sewage flood at Middleburgh High School in 2011, that for starters, we can all agree on that. Once we make sure that's not going to happen, then I'll be happy to talk about other sites, or what kind of industry we might attract, as I have many times before. But right now, something dangerous and time-sensitive is in our laps. First things first.

    Eric Schwartz I'm not really sure Ed - how far...not-adjacent...Maybe there is more land a Town Board member has for sale?

    Ed Burke There is a map of the light industrial zone. I am trying to figure out what the consensus is on a distance based on the resolution the BOE outlined.

    Ed Burke Steve I am not an expert on sewage systems. Are the systems designed today better than the one the HS is using now. Do the systems today use chemicals? I am asking these ??? To try and better understand it

    Ed Burke Eric move past Kevin already. Would any of you be any less stirred up if the property were owned by anyone else

    Ed Burke Steve this town/village seems to always looks at issues in silos or vacuums. I can't stand that. Put the sewage treatment place anywhere else. What businesses would be acceptable within certain distances of the HS is absolutely relevant to me because it appears water and sewer is coming

    Kathleen KT Tobin I'm inclined to first explore hooking up to our existing system. I believe Jason West has voiced that it is a possible option.

    Jason West I don't know if its workable, but you'd think it would be explored

    Kathleen KT Tobin Also, if this is primarily for the water park proposal, shouldn't they be building any needed sewage treatment infrastructure?

    Eric Schwartz is this a Common Core trick question? Is this to get us to explore ideas that would normally be rejected outright based on common sense, in order to examine another perspective?

    Kathleen KT Tobin http://www.dailyfreeman.com/.../most-of-susan-zimets...

    Most of Susan Zimet’s campaign money in Assembly race came from owner of New...

    dailyfreeman.com

    Amy Dooley Mosbacher Ed, in my view there are plenty of businesses that do not cause health risks or need to house large amounts of dangerous chemicals that could be close to a school.

    Amy Dooley Mosbacher Ed, there was a great thread between Mike Mike Russo and Dominick Profaci that explained very clearly why this is not a good idea on the New Paltz School Budget Watch page. I've learned more about sewage plants in the last week than I ever thought I would know.

    Ed Burke Amy I too am trying to understand as much as I can

    Ed Burke Eric if your asking me this my answer would be no and no

    Mike Russo Ed Burke - this may help

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/npzsbw/permalink/898756910134748/

    Ed Burke Mike thank you. Read that a few minutes ago

    Steve Greenfield Ed, the corridor has been zoned light industrial for 54 years, and is still almost entirely undeveloped. This "it's coming now" outlook is people trying to win elections, and, unfortunately, trying to line their pockets with taxpayer money. I understand the problem of short policy sightlines that you mention, but sometimes the problem is immediate. Right now I have two big problems, and a small handful of self interested people have tied them together -- unfortunately, right around me, since I'm on the School Board. Those issues are extending the lifespans of our schools to secure the quality gains of the last decade for the next generation, and to prevent the construction of a commercial-scale sewage plant in a flood zone alongside one of our schools. I will be delighted to talk to you about the long-range issues after those fires are extinguished.

    I would appreciate your leadership on these matters. Surely you can see that the same people who are attacking the idea of the high school being in the industrial zone are the very same people who are insisting we should move 500 more, younger, kids into what on some days they say is a better place, supposedly safe from drugs (which is false), and on other days, is too dangerous even for the high school kids that are there since the 1960s. But at the same time they also want not only to double the student population in the zone, and lower its average age, but also to surround them with both biohazards and even more trucks. I know you have friendships within what's going on, but if you really want to get out of the silos, the first thing you have to do is help us get some breathing space.

    Others have said this, and they're right. What makes New Paltz what it is today is our public education system, and that's what will make or break us tomorrow. Nobody will move here if the education system is in decline. Nobody will open businesses here if people don't want to live here, and operate service businesses for those industries. So I ask you these two things: help us get the schools renovated, and help us stop this one location for a sewage plant. Don't just cast a good vote -- step up to a public role.

    If we can solve these two problems, we can move on to the rest. If we don't solve these two problems, we can't move on to the rest, because we still have these two huge problems to deal with. So how about it? Lend a hand. Let's get over this hump so we can move ahead.