Members Present: Dooley Kiefer, Peter Penniman, Nancy Schuler

Members Excused: Frank Proto, Martha Robertson

Staff Present:  Joan Jurkowich, TCPD
Heather McDaniel, TCPD
Judy Tynyk, Weights & Measures
Kathy Wilsea, Secretary, TCPD
   Jonathan Wood, County Attorney

Guests:  Jeff Cox, EMC
   Steve Nicholson, EMC
Monika Roth, Cooperative Extension

I Committee Administration

A Call to Order

Chair Dooley Kiefer called the meeting to order at 9:20 AM.

Addition to Agenda:  Joan Jurkowich was present to briefly discuss replacement of the Planning Department vehicle.  She wished to confirm that at their 9/15 budget meeting, the Planning Committee had authorized Purchasing to get quotes for replacing the car.  Joan reported that the State contract has been extended and research by the Purchasing Department has yielded a Ford Taurus station wagon at a price of $15,889.  Joan said a station wagon would be useful for the Planning Department to transport staff at the same time as easels and displays, which have in the past needed two vehicles.  Part of the purchase will be with $10,000 in this year’s budget for auto replacement, and approximately $4,000 from the sale of the Oldsmobile.  It was accepted by consensus that the Taurus could be purchased.

II Neighbor Notification Law

B Resolution:  Recommending that Tompkins County Adopt the NYS Pesticide Neighbor Notification Law (Chapter 285 of the Laws of 2000), NY Environmental Conservation Law 33-1004(1)

Motion by Peter, seconded by Nancy.

Dooley said she felt NNL would require training for County staff, retailers, and commercial sprayers.  Monitoring of the law as it applies to retailers could be done by the Weights & Measures Department.  Article 16 would allow assignment of this role to Weights & Measures, since retail monitoring for signage is consistent with Weights & Measures’ consumer protection mission.  Dooley said education of the public and retailers could be undertaken by the Environmental Management Council, likely in conjunction with Cooperative Extension if the Environmental Education position is re-created.  Other departments that might contribute to the education program are Health Department and Solid Waste because of its household waste depot’s acceptance of pesticides for disposal. Regarding responding to complaints, local enforcement only applies to violations regarding notification, and it appears that could only be enforced by the Health Department.  Product usage violations are regulated by NYS Department of Environmental Conservation.

Peter said in his support of NNL, he felt the County’s involvement is in the enforcement of the law, not checking on retailers or public education.  He would dislike putting together a whole package of County programs that are tied to this.  Dooley disagreed.  She said Weights & Measures could monitor retailers for compliance, as they are already in these establishments checking for other things. Peter asked if this would be a burden for W&M.  Judy Tynyk said she wouldn’t expect many retail establishments to sell pesticide products, and staff already has to check these retailers for other purposes.  Weights & Measures staff can check for signage.  Section 180.3 of Article 16 allows Weights & Measures to do this as consumer protection.  Enforcement and fines would not automatically be functions of Weights & Measures.  She didn’t think posting signs would be a barrier for local dealers.  She speculated about requiring retailers to notify W&M that they sold products subject to this law, but Jonathan Wood thought that responsibility could not be placed on the retailers.

Monika Roth estimated there are five retailers, and perhaps Target, too.  She felt the County should send information to the retailers, including the specifics about sign size and visibility.  Steve Nicholson said Weights & Measures could respond to citizen complaints about signs not being posted.  Dooley recalled that any fines collected under this law belong to the County.

Nancy asked if DEC has a role in the signage.  Steve Nicholson said it is a gray area, and the County should take initiative.  Dooley noted a DEC spokesman had said enforcement would be up to counties.

Steve Nicholson provided a handout on GIS information.  He spent some time at Assessment and found information on neighboring properties easy to obtain.  Using owner name or address, the GIS user can choose to generate a list of addresses of neighboring properties within a specified distance.  Labels can be printed at Assessment.  He produced a list of his own neighbors in about three minutes.  EMC is willing to write up instructions for use of GIS in this manner.  Kathy Wilsea noted that a GIS user can get into more complex layers of the program if the owner owns more than one property or numbers do not match exactly.  She asked if staff would be available to help.  Steve said no, some options for more advanced searches would be in the instructions.  Also, neighbors can choose to decline future notices.

Nancy asked Monika Roth how Cooperative Extension can help, since the environmental educator position is unfilled.  Monika said CCE hopes to be able to fill that position, and there is a big need for education on pesticides, especially private property owners.  Professionals have more training and awareness.  Most people don’t use sprays, they use granular products.  She noted some properties are exempt (golf courses, for example).  She saw a need for a workshop with retail staff, although many are seasonal employees and couldn’t be trained until spring.  Dooley speculated that an information sheet could be made available for point-of-sale.  Steve Nicholson said EMC has some of that information ready.

Dooley asked if there were any comments from Jeff Cox.  Jeff said he had no special comments.  The author who spoke at the open meeting 10/17, Sandra Steingraber, was very impressed with the EMC recommendation and she is considering joining EMC.

Monika Roth recommended changing the resolution, as some statements in the Whereas clauses would be challenged.  Serving the public is a better focus of the law.   Peter felt the resolution needs to say why we’re doing this and should emphasize public health.  Steve Nicholson said the resolution is basically worded from the EMC resolution, which was carefully researched, and the EMC resolution exists as an educational document.

Nancy speculated about attaching the EMC resolution to a briefer committee resolution, which would leave in key references to educational value of the law.  Dooley said the committee resolution could quote the State legislature’s intent and have a right-to-know focus.  Jeff Cox said after reading the Attorney General’s article, he was surprised the lawn care industry is saying any pesticides are safe.  Monika Roth said with these chemicals, the label is the law.  It is illegal to use pesticides in a manner that does not match the label.  Dooley said illegal usage would be enforced by DEC.  Steve Nicholson said pesticide labels cannot claim product safety.  Jeff Cox said the EMC Pesticides Committee has documented statements from their original sources for the Whereas clauses in the EMC resolution.

Dooley asked Jonathan Wood for his opinion.  Discussion ensued about the two drafted resolutions – recommending on the committee level and adopting on the BOR level.

Peter proposed dropping the first Whereas clause.  Dooley wanted to retain it, as it accepts the research of EMC.  Nancy said she would prefer to reword it for BOR colleagues.  She suggested using “based on” language.  Monika Roth felt they should go straight to the point of the public’s right to know.  Dooley asked if the 95% figure mentioned in Whereas #5 was still current.  Jeff Cox said yes.  He added that this law is about public health, and the fact that some products are available and later removed from the marketplace shows that providing information on the label doesn’t prove that anything is safe.  Nancy asked if any pesticides are environmentally “friendly”.  Others said there is a list of exempt materials, which include horticultural oils.  Monika said homeowners can have a good lawn without using chemicals.  She felt there was no cost benefit to passing NNL, as it would regulate a very small number of users.  She noted that Cornell University and golf courses are exempt.

Kathy Wilsea related Frank Proto’s comments from a phone conversation 10/29.  Frank said he did not support NNL this year.  He would prefer to organize an education committee as outlined by Ken Miller of the Farm Bureau at the 10/17 open meeting.  Dooley said yes, we need the component of education; the NNL was put off a year ago so education could be done this past year, but that didn’t happen.  If we adopt the law the educational component will definitely get done.  Dooley reported that Martha Robertson is out of town and unable to attend today’s meeting.  She supports NNL, so the two absent committee members cancel each other’s vote.

Steve Nicholson said it is important to remember that this is the only law in the nation that even attempts to mention the use of pesticides.  Jeff Cox said Tompkins County is not a large suburban community, and might lead this issue among agricultural counties, who are watching us.  The low chemical use sited by Monika should mean that Tompkins County would have a low enforcement problem.  So while Monika might feel the law is unnecessary, he feels it is even more viable.  Jeff felt the educational benefit would far outweigh the enforcement cost.

Monika conceded that the ball was dropped on education, and not just by Cooperative Extension.  She made some efforts to coordinate a meeting, but was unable to reach people.  She agreed it is important to pursue the suggestions regarding education, and thought it is important to include the Health Department in the development of the education program.  Nancy asked if a student would be able to help.  Monika said it is difficult to find a student with enough science background.

Peter asked if it was necessary to act on the resolutions today.  Dooley said the committee can adopt the recommending resolution, and continue to work on language for the adopting resolution.  There is more time available in the cycle than she was aware of when she called this special meeting; it can be adopted anytime in 2002 to become law January 1, 2003.  Jonathan Wood reiterated his confusion regarding using two resolutions.

Dooley said Alice Cole’s only reservations about opting in to NNL are the budget and related time constraints at the Health Department.  Discussion followed about deleting and changing the order of the Whereas clauses.  Dooley said the third Whereas clause on page 2 was added to show that Tompkins County will not be subject to a lawsuit similar to those brought against other counties.  Original Whereas clauses 1, 10, and 12 were deleted.  Others were reordered.

Heather McDaniel brought up the point that the Environmental Assessment Form for SEQRA on this law was done by DEC, and is not necessary on the county level.  Jonathan Wood concurred.

The Resolved clause was altered to read:  “Resolved, That the Planning Committee recommends that the Tompkins County Board of Representatives pass a local law to adopt the New York State Pesticide Neighbor Notification Law, to become effective January 1, 2003.”

Resolution adopted by vote of 3 yes: 0 no.

C Resolution:  Authorizing a Public Hearing on Local Law No. ____ of 2002 – A Local Law Authorizing Pesticide Neighbor Notification

Motion by Nancy, seconded by Peter.  Adopted by vote of 3 yes: 0 no.

It was decided that Kathy Wilsea will listen to the tapes of the 10/17 open meeting and provide more detailed minutes.  These will be distributed for the BOR agenda for the public hearing and adoption vote, together with the chart summarizing Kathy’s research with other counties, material submitted at the 10/17 open meeting, and information received from NYPIRG about Rensselaer County.

III Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 AM.

Respectfully submitted Kathy Wilsea, Secretary,Tompkins County Planning Department