I Committee Administration

A Call to Order

Chair Dooley Kiefer called the meeting to order at 11:37 AM.

B Agenda Changes

Dooley asked that committee members discuss the Environmental Management Council’s comments on the proposed changes to the County Charter at the end of the meeting.

C Chair’s Announcements

Dooley announced that USGS has several new contracts that have come in since their proposal to us, so they cannot complete our Needs Assessment by July.  They will try to complete our Aquifer Needs Assessment by mid-September.

The Cornell University West Campus Redevelopment team is willing to give presentations to Planning staff and EMC.  Discussion will include the parking lots.  Ed has made arrangements for the meeting with Planning staff for the afternoon of June 13 in the Old Jail Conference Room, small side.  Members will be informed of the time.

Mikel Shakarjian attended a meeting in Albany of the NYS Association of EMCs.  It was mentioned in the discussion that counties can regulate wetlands under article 24.  The county must meet DEC requirement, but can be more stringent.  Ed said wetlands mapping requires expertise, training, and certification.  This would be a large task, but this option can be explored.

There will be an informational meeting by NYSERDA on 6/10 about energy efficient office equipment at Cooperative Extension.

II Soil & Water Conservation District

Craig Schutt was present for a budget discussion.  He said SWCD would have trouble implementing grants if need arose to reduce staff.  They might not be able to develop grant applications.  Conceivably, they would have to turn back some grant money if they lacked staff to implement the programs.  He provided a handout chart of total grants being administered by and applied for by SWCD.  He noted the new federal farm bill should make more money available to SWCD for projects they can apply for.

Dooley asked how many SWCD staff people are supported by Tompkins County dollars.  Craig said two positions and part of a third.  Budget cut might mean a cut in staff.  SWCD tries to do some programs that produce income – examples are the No Till program and tree sale.

The second handout was a ranking of ag non-point source grant applications submitted to the state.  Tompkins applications are near the top and are expected to be funded.  He noted the grazing grant is for Tompkins and Tioga.  Dooley asked if any one program would vanish under budget cuts.  Craig said no program would be cut completely.

Martha asked how grants are implemented.  Craig said they are designed in house, then perhaps bid out to contractor.  All work must meet NRCS standards.  Martha asked if implementation can be written into the grants.  Craig said they need to show percentage of in-kind contribution.

Steve Whicher asked how County money had been used in the past four or five years, as the budget amount has about tripled in that time.  Craig said it helped expand programs.  Last year they purchased a hydroseeder, and money increases staff to cover grant programs.  Dooley said  in the past the SWCD was only a shell of an office with a part time secretary.  The BOR was convinced it was worthwhile to increase staff, and thus at first a full time manager was hired, and then one full time staff persons.  Programs increased and County money leveraged more work.  Steve said it would be effective to show growth and changes as they relate to the budget – demonstrate growth in terms of County contributions.  Craig said SWCD programs also have a positive impact on the County economy in terms of products purchased and contractors engaged.

III Planning Department – Commercial Center Revitalization Program

Tom Mank was present to answer questions about the recommendations of the CCRP Advisory Committee.  He noted CCRP is in the third year of a three-year program, with a budget of $43,000 for 2002.  Applications totalled $74,591.26 for the spring round.  The Advisory Committee consists of Tom Smith (Tompkins Trust Co.), Dan Krall (CU Landscape Architecture), Peter Schug (Cayuga Press), Gary Watrous (First National Bank of Groton) and Nancy Schuler (Planning Committee).

In reviewing the applications for this round, the Advisory Committee took into consideration the boundaries of the commercial center for a community and whether requested items were mentioned in plans.  This year they did not fund most of the sidewalk applications or any driveways.  In working with Enfield, the grant application was revised to include concrete sidewalk in front of the community center rather than asphalt sidewalks on both sides of the road.

Dooley made a motion to reduce the grant for Town of Lansing (Funeral Home) from $4,000 to $2,000 and specify funding is for lighting and some landscaping.  Seconded by Nancy.  Vote 3:0.

Dooley expressed concern about the use of pressure-treated lumber in the Town of Danby grant (for picnic tables, lighting, fence at Danby General Store).  After discussion it was suggested to increase the grant to $1,000 and specify use of non-pressure-treated lumber in the contract.  Motion by Nancy to do so.  Seconded by Martha.  Vote 3:0.

Motion by Nancy to fund Freeville’s Revitalization Plan development in the amount of $1,500.  Seconded by Martha.  Vote 3:0.

The new total for the spring grant round is $20,685.

Resolution:  Making a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance in Relation to Resolution No ____ of 2002

Resolution:  Approval of Commercial Center Revitalization Grants – Hamlet of Newfield (2 projects), Town of Lansing, Town of Danby, Hamlet of Speedsville, Village of Groton, and Town of Enfield

Second resolution amended per votes during discussion.  Motion by Nancy to adopt the two resolutions.  Seconded by Martha.  Vote 3:0.

Martha expressed an interest in having CCRP funds available for 2003.  Joan said it could be put in the budget as an over-target request.  Dooley asked staff to provide some options on how this program might continue for discussion by the BOR.  Nancy and Dooley felt the guidelines should be re-examined if the program is funded next year.

IV Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County

Paul Bonaparte-Krogh was present for a budget discussion, along with staff member Monika Roth and board member James Mason.  Paul felt the proposed budget reduction would have an impact on County contracts.  The Youth Bureau is the big one.  Steve Whicher asked if departments had let Cooperative Extension know there is consideration of canceling contracts.  Paul said some agencies have been informed and that is still under discussion.

Concerning the handouts provided, Steve Whicher requested information regarding the link of in-kind contributions with County dollars.  He would like clarification of which cuts would have largest impact on programs.  Paul noted County dollars are the basis for leveraging grants.

Dooley commented that one reason Cooperative Extnesion can provide services at such reasonable cost is that Cornell Univeristy pays for the fringe benefits.  Martha said since Cornell’s contribution of fringe benefits is from the State schools, really it is NYS money.  Paul said, when put like that, yes.

On the goldenrod pages (Agriculture & Horticulture), environmental education staff is not mentioned, as it was cut last year.  Committee members felt that should be mentioned as a previous reduction and reference made to its impact, which is substantial.  Dooley noted the need for an environmental educator position was documented in a survey done by Monica Hargraves.

Paul would expect budget reductions to be split between Youth programs and Family Well Being programs, because Agriculture and Horticulture took a big hit last year.  Nancy expressed a reluctance to cut preventive staff, especially for the Family Well Being programs that include nutrition training.

Paul said in the “County Local Share” item on the goldenrod sheets, the largest portion is the Ag & Farmland Protection Board.  Another large portion is solid waste education.  He expressed a need for Tompkins County to retain a solid waste education program, so it should be discussed with Solid Waste Division to see where expense is most effective.  Monika Roth said $16,000 goes to AFPB, of which Farm/City Day is $2,000.  Lack of an environmental education staff person means Cooperative Extension can’t partner on grant programs with SWCD.  Dooley noted that was the decision of Cooperative Extension board of directors to balance the 2001 budget.  Monika expressed her support for funding AFPB.

The green sheets of the handout were concerning Youth programs.  Paul noted the amount of $462,820 in “Other grants” on the last page is mostly contracts with municipalities for youth development programs (other than recreation).  But Paul noted some of that municipal money has its source in County taxes.

Concerning the yellow sheet, Organizational Support, Paul said public access television is part of that, and most of that expense is for telecast of BOR meetings.

Nancy asked if Tompkins County is favored by Cornell University because of proximity.  Jim Mason said no, it may even be to our detriment.  Paul said there is an advantage in staff partnerships, but not in local fundraising.

Martha said the duck race and other items are positive, well-received “moneymakers” but take a lot of staff time.  Paul said they are targeting all fundraising to the building project in the next few years.

Ed said he has had some brief discussions with Paul about the probable AFPB funding cut.  Dooley asked what else might be cut.  Steve mentioned DSS has some contracts with CCE.  Paul said the Community Justice Center contracts are up in the air, as are the nutrition programs in Life Skills Training.

V County Charter

The Environmental Management Council’s executive committee provided comments on the proposed changes to the County Charter.  Ed Marx drafted changes that incorporated the EMC suggestions.  Planning Committee members accepted the changes by consensus and they will be forwarded to the Charter Review Committee for their meeting on 6/12.

VI Vital Communities Initiative

Nancy proposed an addition to Principle 1, as recommended in the Ithaca Downtown Partnership resolution of support.  In paragraph 3, line 2, add “existing neighborhood and structures”.

Nancy spoke with Joan about this before today’s meeting, and staff felt that not everything has to be mentioned specifically.  Staff had discussed addition of historic structures.  Ed said he felt it was okay to add.

Motion by Nancy to include “and structures”.  Seconded by Martha.  Vote 3:0.

VII Adjournment
JUB
The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 PM.