1 1 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY LEGISLATURE 3 COUNTY OF ONONDAGA 4 ------------------------------------------- 5 In the Matter of 6 LAKEVIEW AMPHITHEATER, 7 ------------------------------------------- 8 PUBLIC HEARING in the above matter conducted at the Onondaga County Legislative Chambers, Room 9 407 of the Onondaga County Court House, 401 Montgomery Street, Syracuse, New York before, 10 JOHN F. DRURY, CSR, RPR, Notary Public in and for the State of New York, on July 23, 2014, 11:00 am. 11 A p p e a r a n c e s: 12 13 J. RYAN McMAHON Chairman Legislature 14 JOHN DOUGHERTY 2nd District JIM CORL 3rd District 15 JUDITH TASSONE 4th District KATHLEEN RAPP 5th District 16 DANNY J. LIEDKA 7th District CHRISTOPHER RYAN 8th District 17 PEGGY CHASE 9th District KEVIN HOLMQUIST 10th District 18 PATRICK KILMARTIN 11th District DAVID H. KNAPP 12th District 19 CASEY E. JORDAN 14th District 20 Kelly Berger, Esq. Counsel for Board Katherine French Deputy Clerk Legislature 21 PRESENTERS OF PROJECT: 22 Robert Duclos from C&S Company 23 Ben Brazell from EDR Companies 24 Reported By: John F. Drury, CSR, RPR 25 Court Reporter 471-7397 2 1 2 INDEX TO SPEAKERS 3 SPEAKERS PAGES 4 ROBERT DUCLOS C&S Co. (Presentation) 9 5 BEN BRAZELL, EDR Companies (Presentation) 18 6 7 ROBERT PAPWORTH Citizens Campaign Environment 25&87 8 JOSEPH HEATH Gen Counsel Onondaga Nation 32 9 ALMA LOWRY Law Office of Joe Heath 38 10 JOSHUA REAP Assoc Builders Contractors 45 11 LES MONOSTORY Izaak Walton Chapter 50&83 12 LANCE ROBSON NYS Fish & Wildlife 55&85 13 HUGH KIMBALL 61 14 JAMES SHULTS 63 15 FRED MILLER Nine Mile Creek Conservation 65 16 SARAH ECKEL Citizens Campaign Environment 70 17 AMELIA LEFEVRE Syracuse Peace Council 74 18 ANDY MAGER Neighbors of Onondaga Nation 77 19 20 WRITTEN COMMENTS 21 Jim DiBlasi 89 22 Ray Cudney Project Exec VIP Structures 90 23 24 25 3 1 Roll Call 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning. Call 3 the public legislative hearing for 4 public comment on the DEIS statement 5 that's been prepared as part of the 6 proposed Lakeview Amphitheater project. 7 We'll call this hearing to order. Would 8 the clerk please call the roll. 9 CALLING ROLL BY MS. FRENCH: 10 Q. Legislator May? 11 A. (No response). 12 Q. Legislator Dougherty? 13 A. Here. 14 Q. Legislator Corl? 15 A. Here. 16 Q. Tassone? 17 A. Here. 18 Q. Rapp? 19 A. Here. 20 Q. Plochocki? 21 A. (No response). 22 Q. Liedka? 23 A. Here. 24 Q. Ryan? 25 A. Here. 4 1 Roll Call 2 Q. Chase? 3 A. Here. 4 Q. Holmquist? 5 A. Here. 6 Q. Kilmartin? 7 A. Here. 8 Q. Knapp. 9 A. (No response but entered 5 min later). 10 Q. Shepard? 11 A. (No response). 12 Q. Jordan? 13 A. Here. 14 Q. Williams. 15 A. (No response). 16 Q. Ervin. 17 A. (No response). 18 Q. Chairman McMahon? 19 A. I'm here. 20 Q. Eleven present, six absent. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: So we have a quorum. 22 Was the notice of this hearing actually 23 published? 24 THE CLERK: It was. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Couple housekeeping 5 1 Chairman 2 items for everybody. We obviously have 3 exits here and here. Please turn off 4 your cell phones at this point. When 5 you're asked to speak, if you signed up 6 to speak when you come up please, if you 7 have written statements please turn them 8 into the clerk. If you do want to speak 9 and you have yet to sign up please come 10 up and sign up. 11 How we're going to do this, because 12 as of right now I believe that the 13 presentation has been set up in a way 14 where everybody can be here, we can have 15 a quorum. We'll have a presentation 16 first. And then after that we will have 17 comments from the public. And it's 18 important to note that the comments 19 should be on the content of the DEIS. I 20 know throughout the past few weeks we 21 received different comments and 22 different questions. Some of them on 23 economic viability of the amphitheater, 24 some of them on will this hurt other 25 County assets, the Civic Center 6 1 Holmquist 2 performances, that is not what we're 3 talking about here today. We're talking 4 about the contents of the DEIS. 5 If people still have those questions 6 and they want to submit them we can get 7 answers from the professionals that have 8 been giving us those answers. So saying 9 that, Bob if you want to go forward and 10 start the presentation that would be 11 great. 12 LEGISLATOR HOLMQUIST: Mr. Chairman. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Kevin? 14 LEGISLATOR HOLMQUIST: Can I be 15 recognized before the presentation? 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Absolutely. 17 LEGISLATOR HOLMQUIST: Thank you, 18 Mr. Chairman. This meeting today was 19 advertised as a public hearing. This is 20 the only opportunity that I can see so 21 far that at least we've divulged, that 22 the public has an opportunity to come in 23 and give us their opinions. I'm not 24 interested in seeing the presentation 25 before the public hearing. This 7 1 Holmquist 2 information is going to have many many 3 opportunities to be disseminated on the 4 web site. We already had a public 5 information session. The public has not 6 had an opportunity to come up and speak. 7 Again, they're here to talk, speak 8 with us. A public hearing is where the 9 public tells us their opinion. This dog 10 and pony show is not what they came here 11 to see. They came here, and if they 12 want to give their presentation after 13 the public hearing I think that would be 14 more than appropriate. I view this as 15 very inappropriate. The public has not 16 had an opportunity to give their input. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Legislator Holmquist, 18 let me interrupt you, if I may. We have 19 12 speakers signed up. The presentation 20 will be 20 minutes. Each speaker is 21 allowed three to four minutes to speak. 22 So I think we're talking about an hour 23 to an hour and-a-half time frame. If a 24 speaker had to leave and they wanted to 25 let us know they had to leave I would 8 1 Holmquist - Chairman 2 have no problem stopping the 3 presentation to do that. 4 The reason why the presentation may 5 be of value is that some of the 6 questions may be answered that they may 7 have via the presentation if they were 8 not at the previous presentation a 9 couple weeks ago. But I totally agree 10 that the main goal here is to hear from 11 the public. If the public, if someone 12 in the crowd has to leave for whatever 13 reason, we will stop the presentation 14 and bring them up. But if we have 15 twelve people asking questions, giving 16 opinions on information they did not 17 have and yet maybe we can answer the 18 questions, I think that might bring some 19 value. 20 LEGISLATOR HOLMQUIST: All right, I 21 hope we don't lose one person today that 22 would want to speak and they have a 23 commitment. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Exactly, if one 25 person has to leave please let our staff 9 1 Duclos 2 know right in the back row, I will stop 3 the presentation and we will let them 4 come up and they will be heard. Sound 5 good? 6 LEGISLATOR HOLMQUIST: Thank you. 7 MR. DUCLOS: Well, good morning 8 everyone. With that as a segue I think 9 our marching orders were very clear to 10 keep this brief because obviously as the 11 chairman stated and Legislator Holmquist 12 stated, really the purpose of today is 13 to get feedback from the public relative 14 to the DEIS. So we will keep the dog 15 and pony show to a minimum and keep it 16 as brief and factual as we can. 17 First of all, can everybody hear me 18 okay? I would just like to mention a 19 few quick things. I'm Bob Duclos, I'm 20 from C&S Company, I am the program 21 manager for the County overseeing the 22 Amphitheater Project. Ben Brezell is 23 here with me this morning, he is from 24 EDR Companies, and the two of us are 25 just going to give you a very brief 10 1 Duclos 2 overview of the EIS process and then 3 turn it over to you to make your 4 comments. 5 I just want to thank everybody for 6 coming on behalf of the County, we do 7 appreciate your comments. Today is an 8 opportunity for you to have your 9 comments expressed relative to the DEIS. 10 But outside of today obviously we 11 encourage you to submit written comments. 12 There is a formal process for doing that 13 and a mechanism set up for you to 14 provide your comments on the EIS. And 15 Ben will explain to you when he's done 16 how the best way to go about doing that. 17 Very briefly what we're going to 18 cover in the next 18 and-a-half minutes 19 is just to walk you through really three 20 things. First of all, where are we in 21 the SEQR process, what has been 22 accomplished to date, where are we today 23 and what are the remaining steps that 24 are to be completed as part of the EIS 25 and SEQR process. 11 1 Duclos 2 Many of you have heard quite a bit 3 already about the Amphitheater Project. 4 So I'm just very briefly going to give a 5 quick overview of what it is and then 6 we'll get into the meat of the EIS. And 7 that's what Ben is going to do. Because 8 really very briefly give you a sense for 9 what is in the EIS and what it addresses 10 and not going to go through the details 11 of that per se today. And then lastly 12 and really most importantly is to 13 explain how to provide your comments to 14 the project team in the County as part 15 of the project. 16 One thing I will mention I know it 17 is probably quite hard to see the content 18 that's up here today, so what I would 19 like to make sure you're aware of is on 20 everything that you see on the screen 21 here today will be available on the 22 County website, you can download it as a 23 PDF file and look at it at your leisure 24 as you can with the full content of the 25 EIS and the other documents related to 12 1 Duclos 2 the project. 3 Very briefly, the SEQR process is a 4 New York State process. Where are we? 5 Or actually what has been completed to 6 date so far with regard to SEQR? As you 7 know back in February of this year 8 Onondaga County declared itself and was 9 formalized as the lead agency for the 10 project under SEQR, so Onondaga County 11 is the lead agency who is responsible 12 for complying with the SEQR process 13 related to this project. 14 Back in April the County issued 15 what's called a positive declaration 16 under SEQR. And really essentially what 17 that means is given the scope and 18 magnitude of the project that's being 19 undertaken and the location that it's 20 being undertaken at, the County felt it 21 was wise and prudent to have an 22 Environmental Impact Statement prepared 23 based on the size and magnitude of the 24 Amphitheater Project. 25 Lastly, in May there was a formal 13 1 Duclos 2 scoping process was submitted. And 3 basically what that was, was to give the 4 public an outline of what the contents 5 of the Environmental Impact Statement 6 would be. And give the public an 7 opportunity to comment on what the scope 8 of issues that should be addressed as 9 part of the Environmental Impact 10 Statement. 11 Where are we today? At the last 12 Legislative meeting back in July the 13 County deemed the Draft Environmental 14 Impact Statement suitable for public 15 review. It was officially made 16 available for the public to comment on 17 after that point in time. What I will 18 mention is that the Draft EIS was 19 published on the County website back in 20 the early part of June. So it was 21 actually available back prior to the 22 July 1st time frame. 23 The EIS is available in a number of 24 locations. It's on the County website. 25 You can download the entirety of the 14 1 Duclos 2 Environmental Impact Statement, and 3 there is also a hard copy of that 4 document available at the Village of 5 Solvay Public Library. 6 The public comment period began back 7 in early July and currently it's 8 scheduled to end on August 11th. So we 9 would encourage your comments both today 10 and after the meeting as well. 11 What are the future steps? So 12 basically during the month of August we 13 will be continuing the public comment 14 period where after today you'll have the 15 opportunity to submit comments to the 16 County. As I said a minute ago, that 17 will conclude on August 11th. During 18 the period of August to November is 19 where all of the public comments that 20 are received as part of the EIS process 21 will be cataloged and reviewed by the 22 project team, members of the County, and 23 ultimately a Final Environmental Impact 24 Statement will be prepared during the 25 period of August to November where the 15 1 Duclos 2 comments are reviewed, they are 3 responded to, and a responsiveness 4 summary is prepared as part of the EIS. 5 So all of the comments will be widely 6 available to see what they were and how 7 they were responded to as part of the 8 EIS process. 9 What is the purpose and need of the 10 project? One part of the SEQR and 11 Environmental Impact Statement is to 12 state or make clear what is the purpose 13 and need of the project. And relative 14 to the Amphitheater Project there are 15 three primary objectives or purposes and 16 needs of the project that have been 17 identified in the very beginning of the 18 EIS. 19 You can see what those are here. 20 Number 1 is to enhance public access to 21 the west shore of Onondaga Lake. To 22 take advantage of new opportunities 23 created by the remediation efforts that 24 really have been ongoing for 15 years 25 relative to the Honeywell cleanup 16 1 Duclos 2 improvements as well as the significant 3 improvements that were made by Onondaga 4 County relative to the CSO program. 5 Lastly, it's to further economic 6 opportunities in the Village of Solvay 7 and the Town of Geddes, and there is a 8 second initiative that is being under- 9 taken related to the project, related to 10 the revitalization of the Solvay and 11 Bridge Street area. 12 Most of you probably know where the 13 project is located. As I said, it is 14 located along the west shore of Onondaga 15 Lake. Lakeview Point is really located 16 in the middle of Onondaga Lake along the 17 western shore. And it protrudes out 18 into a small portion of the Lake here. 19 As Ben will describe through his 20 presentation, that we've been through 21 the locations and sites and that were 22 some that were considered along the west 23 shore with regard to siting of the 24 facility and that was considered as part 25 of the EIS. 17 1 Duclos 2 The recommended alternative or 3 option as explained in the EIS and was 4 explained in the public meeting a week 5 and-a-half ago is to locate the facility 6 in the Lakeview Point area. 7 Lastly, what is the project 8 description or in a nutshell what does 9 it consist of? As you probably heard it 10 is an outdoor amphitheater venue that 11 will accommodate approximately 17,500 12 concert goers or attendees at the 13 facility. Some of those will be located 14 under a covered pavilion and the 15 remainder would be located on lawn 16 seating that you might have had the 17 opportunity to attend at similar 18 locations throughout the state. 19 Really a key component of the 20 project is really to enhance the area as 21 public park land. The land is owned by 22 Onondaga County, so the site master plan 23 that is shown in the EIS and in the 24 other documents relative to the facility 25 don't solely focus on the amphitheater 18 1 Brazell 2 but focus on other amenities that the 3 public and the community continue to use 4 along the west shore, such as the bike 5 trail that was opened in May of this 6 year and other things along the west 7 shore. 8 So that is a project description in 9 a nutshell. And what I'd like to do, 10 we're going to do a microphone shift 11 very quickly. Ben Brazell from EDR is 12 going to very briefly talk you through 13 the contents of the EIS. And then we 14 will conclude and open it up for your 15 comments. So thank you. 16 MR. BRAZELL: Thank you, Bob. 17 Before I get into the content of the EIS 18 I very quickly want to describe how the 19 document is structured. There are three 20 main organizational components of the 21 EIS. There is the DEIS text; there is 22 the DEIS figures and there is the DEIS 23 appendices. 24 The DEIS text which includes the 25 cover page, the table of contents, 19 1 Brazell 2 executive summary, the references, 3 totals 174 pages. The DEIS text is 4 followed by the figures throughout the 5 text in various stages. A given figure 6 is given to help facilitate the 7 discussion; there are 20 figures 8 following the DEIS text. After the 9 figures are the DEIS appendices. There 10 are nine appendices, appendix A through 11 appendix I. 12 Specific to the DEIS text, as I 13 mentioned there is an Executive Summary, 14 that's Section 1.0. There is also a 15 Description of the Proposed Action 16 that's Section 2.0. All the information 17 that Bob just summarized through the 18 SEQR process to date, various SEQR 19 steps, project description, etc., that's 20 located in Section 2.0. 21 Section 3.0 is what I refer to as 22 the meat of the document. It's titled 23 Existing Conditions, Potential Impacts, 24 and Mitigation Measures. It identifies 25 14 subcategories, each of which is 20 1 Brazell 2 evaluated through those three processes. 3 Those 14 categories are identified up on 4 the slide right here. The last category 5 on the bottom right, Alternatives. As 6 Bob mentioned those were evaluated in 7 the DEIS, that has its own dedicated 8 section, that's not a subsection of the 9 3.0. 10 So what I'm going to do very 11 briefly, I had a little more detail 12 planned but I'm basically going to flip 13 through each of these slides to outline 14 the meat of the DEIS, subsections within 15 3.0, so you understand how it's 16 organized and where you can find 17 specific information that you may be 18 interested in. 19 So DEIS Section 3.1 is Geology, Soil 20 and Topography. As I said I was going 21 to get into a little more detail on each 22 of these slides, however in the interest 23 of time to facilitate initiation of the 24 public hearing I'm just going to flip 25 through the titles. 21 1 Brazell 2 DEIS Section 3.2 is Water Resources. 3 DEIS Section 3.3 is Climate and Air 4 Quality. Section 3.4 is Biological, 5 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology. And 6 this is just a brief depiction of some 7 of the existing conditions on the site. 8 This information is all taken from the 9 EIS, and this just basically shows some 10 of the existing disturbance from the 11 trail, ongoing disturbance associated 12 with remediation activity, etc. 13 Section 3.5 is Visual and Aesthetic 14 Resources. There were multiple analyses 15 conducted to evaluate this resource. 16 This is just a depiction of a couple of 17 staff members actually filling a large 18 balloon with helium. That balloon was 19 then flown at the anticipated maximum 20 height of the amphitheater structure. 21 And then photographs were taken using 22 high resolution digital SLR photography 23 from various locations around the Lake. 24 DEIS Section 3.6 is Historic, 25 Cultural and Archeological Resources. 22 1 Brazell 2 DEIS Section 3.7 is Open Space and 3 Recreation. 3.8 is Traffic and 4 Transportation. 3.9 is Noise and Odor. 5 Just briefly, this also is a graphic 6 from the DEIS. This comes from a 7 project specific sound propagation 8 analysis. It compares the sound 9 propagation associated with the State 10 Fair facility in comparison to the 11 proposed amphitheater facility. 12 Documented Environmental Conditions 13 are addressed in DEIS Section 3.10. 14 Public Health and Safety is addressed in 15 DEIS Section 3.11. I just want to 16 briefly note this website, this is a 17 link to the Environmental Protection 18 Agency's website. It's on the bottom of 19 page 119 I believe of the DEIS 20 documents. It takes you to the EPA's 21 website, which is just a screen shot of 22 the EPA's website where the EPA prepared 23 a supplemental human health risk 24 assessment specific to this proposed 25 project. So that link can take anybody 23 1 Brazell 2 directly to the EPA website and anybody 3 can then download this document. 4 Land Use and Zoning, DEIS Section 5 3.12. Growth and Character of the 6 Community, Section 3.13. And the last 7 subsection of Section 3 is Community 8 Facilities and Services. 9 Now as mentioned, alternatives are 10 addressed in the DEIS. There is a 11 dedicated section alternatives is 12 Section 5 from Section 5.0 to 5.4. The 13 specific alternatives that were 14 addressed were Alternative Project 15 Location, Alternative Project Design and 16 Scale, and the No Action alternative, 17 which is a requirement of the SEQR 18 process. 19 So looking into alternative project 20 location, County owned land along the 21 west shore of Onondaga Lake was 22 evaluated. Two potential spots were 23 identified. The Lakeview Amphitheater 24 spot on Lakeview Point, and Maple Bay. 25 As a result of some of the constraints 24 1 Brazell 2 associated with Maple Bay, namely it 3 cannot accommodate parking, and there 4 are numerous mapped wetlands at Maple 5 Bay, therefore that site has the 6 potential to result in a significant 7 adverse impact to ecological resources. 8 The Lakeview Point location is 9 deemed the preferred location. With 10 respect to Alternative Project Designs, 11 two designs have been proposed. The 12 Beacon concept and Cove concept. The 13 Beacon concept places the amphitheater 14 atop Lakeview Point. It's more 15 prominent, more visible. The Cove 16 concept places the amphitheater on the 17 north side of the point, it's 18 essentially tucked into the existing 19 topography that's there now. 20 The Cove concept results in less 21 physical disturbance to the site, less 22 fill having to be brought in to 23 accommodate the amphitheater, and it's 24 less visible. Therefore, the Cove was 25 determined to be the preferred 25 1 Brazell 2 alternative. 3 That concludes the brief summary of 4 the contents of the DEIS. As mentioned, 5 the DEIS in its entirety can be 6 downloaded from the County amphitheater 7 website. A printed copy is available 8 for review from the Solvay Public 9 Library. Through August 11th public 10 comments in written form will be 11 accepted after today. Those can be 12 mailed or hand delivered to Dave Coburn 13 at the address right there. And can be 14 e-mailed to Dave as well. I'm going to 15 leave this slide up throughout the rest 16 of the hearing so people can write that 17 down if need be. That concludes the 18 presentation. Thank you. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Bob. At 20 this point we'll start the public 21 comment period. Our first speaker is 22 Robert Papworth from the organization 23 CCE. And Robert, if you could you come 24 on up and if you could just, your 25 organization and title, spell out what 26 1 Papworth 2 CCE stands for the public because they 3 don't know. 4 ROBERT PAPWORTH: Okay, thank you 5 for the opportunity. I was prompted to 6 be here by Linda DiStefano of CCE, which 7 is Citizens Campaign for the 8 Environment. I'm a trustee for the 9 Nature Conservancy in Western New York, 10 which is a chapter that runs from about 11 Utica to Lake Erie and from the 12 Pennsylvania border up to Canada. 13 What I'm going to propose here is 14 not to cancel this project that's been 15 outlined or throw away all the hard work 16 that's been done, but to delay it for a 17 year in order to get time to clean up 18 the waste beds 1 through 8 using plasma 19 gasification technology for the purposes 20 of destroying the chemicals in the site 21 without toxic residue of any kind. 22 Plasma gasification and pyrolysis 23 technologies have been developing for 24 the last couple of decades so that an 25 entire industry has developed. There 27 1 Papworth 2 are numerous vendors working here in 3 North America and around the globe. 4 Toxic waste landfills are not 5 permitted in Japan or in a number of 6 European countries, and they're 7 discouraged in England by a landfill tax. 8 Here in the United States we continue to 9 use open landfills because we're just 10 extravagant with our land, and that's 11 the situation we find ourselves in. 12 Let me very briefly read to you a 13 list of some of these companies. The 14 first is Phoenix Solutions Company, 15 they're based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 16 I've talked with Dr. Gary Hanus, who is 17 a senior VP and chief technical officer. 18 They do a lot of work in Japan, they've 19 also done work for the army logistics 20 agency, destroying at this point, a 21 large amount of asbestos. 22 A second company InEnTec of Oregon. 23 They're owned by Waste Management. A 24 third company Westinghouse Plasma Corp. 25 is owned by a firm in Canada. Maybe the 28 1 Papworth 2 world's most widely developed or widely 3 deployed plasma technology. 4 Advanced Plasma, Ltd. from Swindon, 5 England. Has a new contract to supply 6 an MSW plant in Port of Hamilton, 7 Ontario, a community of about 550,000 8 people. That system is valued at a $34 9 million purchase price. 10 Next company is Tetronics, another 11 English firm. Another firm is 12 Pyrogenesis of Canada based in Montreal. 13 PEAT International based in Northbrook, 14 Illinois. I have had quite a bit of 15 dialogue with them. Another firm is 16 EnterSol Technologies based in Fairfax, 17 Virginia. Another firm based in 18 Switzerland, INEOS Bio. JFE Engineering, 19 a firm based in Japan with worldwide 20 offices, an American office in Long 21 Beach, California. 22 Chinook Sciences based in 23 Nottingham, England, with an office in 24 New York and New Jersey. They have just 25 announced a $300 million project for the 29 1 Papworth 2 Emirate for municipal solid waste 3 destruction in the Emirates. 4 TopLine Energy Systems in Florida 5 and Plasco Energy Group from Ottawa. 6 While that's 14 companies I eliminated 7 already half a dozen firms based on such 8 factors as inaccessibility and financial 9 weakness and to just try to bring down 10 the list. It would be very easy to take 11 this list and bring it down to four or 12 five most likely candidates that you 13 would like to speak to to have them, 14 give them an opportunity to come in here 15 and explain here in Onondaga County what 16 they can do. 17 We have a number of categories of 18 problems with waste beds 1 through 8 19 appears to be a nearly of pure chemicals. 20 In contrast to what he said, the waste 21 beds created up the hill to receive the 22 material from the bottom of the Lake is 23 going to be mixed sediment with sand and 24 chemicals co-mingled. The same would be 25 true for Nine Mile Brook stream and also 30 1 Papworth 2 for Ley Creek on the opposite side of 3 the Lake. 4 When there is a lot of sand mixed 5 in, it's the practice to treat the 6 material at a temperature that is not 7 plasma level, which is a very intense 8 level of treatment but rather at a lower 9 level, to try to destroy the chemicals 10 without melting all the sand. Because 11 you wind up with a great mass of 12 vitrified matrix that you would have to 13 cart away someplace. So from what I can 14 tell so far the waste bed 1 through 8 15 site, which is the site under discussion 16 here, is nearly pure chemicals and could 17 be treated with plasma gasification. 18 I don't really have a table of 19 constituents, I have a FOIL request in 20 to DEC to request any information that 21 they might have. So far as I can tell 22 at the present time the core samples 23 that were taken were forwarded to a firm 24 in Massachusetts called Bio Remediation 25 Laboratory, which reported back on the 31 1 Papworth 2 biological or human health consequences 3 of the material. But it does not really 4 address the specific nature of the 5 chemicals to be able to forward that to 6 a plasma gasifier, nothing to do with 7 that. So maybe the DEC would have 8 information, to manage to get it out of 9 the files, we'll do so as quickly as 10 possible. They have a deadline to get 11 back to me by August 19th. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Bob, you have one 13 minute. 14 ROBERT PAPWORTH: Let me ask if 15 anybody wants to shoot out a question 16 about this concept, maybe I can handle 17 it very briefly. I'm not an engineer by 18 training I'm an economist by training. 19 But I have a computer industry 20 background, so I plunged into the 21 technology issue and applied technology 22 questions, which I have a lot of 23 familiarity. And I think the solutions 24 here are easily available and 25 accessible. And so this project ought 32 1 Heath 2 to be delayed for a year or two to give 3 an opportunity to bring those 4 technologies to bear on the problem. 5 Thank you. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Bob, if you have any 7 notes or written statements if you want 8 you can leave them here and make sure 9 they're in the minutes. 10 ROBERT PAPWORTH: I gave a copy of 11 this document to her. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Bob. Our 13 second speaker will be Joe Heath, 14 general counsel for the Onondaga Nation. 15 JOE HEATH: Good morning, appreciate 16 this opportunity to be heard. I haven't 17 been in here since I think 2008 when we 18 were talking about green infrastructure. 19 I really appreciate the sequence of 20 pictures we have here, because it 21 reminds us that this is a sacred Lake. 22 This is where the Peacemaker formed the 23 Confederacy and where the Haudenosaunee 24 came together under the Great Law of 25 Peace. Congress has recognized the 33 1 Heath 2 Haudenosaunee's contribution to western 3 democracy. And we shouldn't treat it as 4 a waste bed. 5 I hope you all take a very close 6 look at that as you leave, because 7 that's what we're going to leave in 8 place for our children and our 9 grandchildren and we're just going to 10 cover it up. 11 I probably have been out on those 12 waste beds close to 50 times in the last 13 10 years. But I learned a great deal 14 about them in the last month or so as 15 we've taken a closer look at this 16 proposal. This is the last major 17 section of the shoreline of the Lake 18 that we have a chance to really reclaim 19 and restore. And so we really ought to 20 take a look at whether or not we could 21 really clean that up and restore it to 22 the park land that the County has 23 designated it to be. 24 The Nation believes that the Lake is 25 a living organism. It supports the 34 1 Heath 2 fish, the animals and the reptiles. 3 This waste is harmful to the natural 4 world, it sucks the water out of eggs. 5 The amphitheater will clearly disturb 6 what little wildlife is left there. 7 I learned a term over the last 8 months called co-disposed waste. Kind 9 of an Orwellian term. What that means 10 is that when Solvay was dumping their 11 waste there for decades they also dumped 12 almost any other chemical that they had 13 or that any other company had. So we 14 have a list of chemicals within the 15 Solvay waste, which is really very 16 chilly: Benzene, carcinogen. Chromium. 17 Actually the chromium is in the Crucible 18 Steel pocket. When you look at the 19 diagrams you'll see a baseball shaped 20 field of green in the middle. That's 21 Crucible Steel's waste. Chromium in 22 there, with a cap and a very thin layer, 23 so that you can't have trees growing 24 down through the cap because that would 25 get you down into the toxins. We're 35 1 Heath 2 going to make that permanent as well. 3 You have ethyl benzene, naphthalene, 4 PCBs, PAHs, there's some sewage sludge 5 in there which says we know contains 6 heavy metals. Toluene, xylene, DDT. 7 This is why when the EPA did their 8 amended human health risk study they 9 recommended that construction workers 10 wear haz mat material. This is where 11 we're going to invite families on top of 12 which most of those very serious 13 chemicals and carcinogens vaporize. 14 So the answer to that we're going to 15 put 15 feet of dirt fill, up to 15 feet 16 I think is what it is. But the waste is 17 so unstable and sponge-like that it will 18 depress it 6 feet. This is not a stable 19 area. The report says that a temporary 20 road would have to be four to five feet 21 deep and that then it would sink. 22 Otherwise there have been troubles with 23 trucks sinking up to their axles here. 24 It's also a very expensive place to 25 build because the waste is salty and has 36 1 Heath 2 other corrosive properties to it. So it 3 will corrode any steel pilings that are 4 mandatory for this construction. You 5 have to have especially coated steel. 6 And it will cure concrete, which makes 7 one wonder if this is the best place to 8 build it. 9 We also need to comment about we 10 need more public input. We need more 11 time. I would ask you to consider 12 extending the public comment period to 13 ninety days. That you have public 14 hearings, not during working hours. You 15 have them after working hours, and I 16 would hope as a taxpayer that you would 17 think about whether or not this could 18 ever make money. You're going to take 19 $30 million, two and-a-half million a 20 year from the casino settlement. I can 21 say right now that from what we've seen 22 there is no business plan. That's 23 another problem. Seriously. 24 As I sit on the board of directors 25 of a small local manufacturing company, 37 1 Heath 2 if I brought a $30 million proposal to 3 that company with no business plan, I'd 4 have another job. So I think before you 5 spend taxpayer money, that's what this 6 is, it would be good to see whether or 7 not this could ever make money. And 8 these amphitheaters around the country, 9 other speakers will get to that, 10 consistently lose money. Saratoga loses 11 money. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: One minute, Mr. Heath. 13 JOE HEATH: Thank you. I just leave 14 you with a number of questions that we 15 have heard over the last few weeks. 16 What's the rush? Do we really need an 17 amphitheater? You've allocated a half 18 million dollars to have concerts at the 19 baseball stadium; you had one. Is this 20 the best place for an amphitheater or 21 should we upgrade the State Fair 22 Grounds, which would bring all of the 23 benefits to the local area that 24 certainly are something to look at. 25 So do we need an amphitheater? 38 1 Lowry 2 What's the rush. And is this the best 3 place? Let's reclaim that and celebrate 4 the fact that this is a sacred Lake. 5 Thank you. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Heath. 7 If you have any comments for the record 8 Mr. Heath, please feel free to drop them 9 off at the clerk. Our next speaker is 10 Alma Lowry. You're with the law office 11 of Joseph Heath. 12 ALMA LOWRY: Good morning, thank you 13 for the opportunity to speak to you 14 today. My name is Alma Lowry, I'm an 15 environmental lawyer, I've been working 16 in and around Syracuse for the last 17 decade. Most recently working with Joe, 18 representing the Onondaga Nation, 19 primarily around the restoration and 20 remediation of Onondaga Lake. 21 And I'm not going to belabor the 22 point that Joe made but I do want to 23 emphasize that the DEIS and related 24 documents you're looking at really need 25 to recognize the nature of this site. 39 1 Lowry 2 It is not simply man-made land as 3 described in the DEIS, it's not simply 4 an area that was previously used as a 5 landfill. It is an industrial waste 6 landfill which is 60 to 70 feet of 7 contaminants piled on top of what was 8 previously wetland. They're filled with 9 hazardous levels of contaminants. And 10 moving forward to the Amphitheater 11 Project, means that we're going to 12 freeze this landscaping in place. We're 13 going to maintain this landfill 14 underneath whatever you build on top of 15 there for the foreseeable future. 16 Joe mentioned co-disposed waste, one 17 of my biggest concerns with the DEIS 18 really fails to acknowledge the 19 seriousness of the contaminants in the 20 co-disposed waste. The list of 21 contaminants as Joe mentioned is long, 22 those are hazardous contaminants, those 23 are the contaminants that are found in 24 exceeding state defined soil clean up 25 objectives that are determined to be 40 1 Lowry 2 relevant to the site and relevant to 3 this use that is being proposed on the 4 site. 5 What's important about this 6 co-disposed waste it's that they're 7 randomly deposited around the site. 8 They're not in a particular pocket that 9 we can identify and attack, they're 10 scattered all over. And so where large 11 areas of the site remain 12 uncharacterized, say for example, the 13 interior of waste bed 6 where you're 14 talking about putting picnic areas and 15 trails and lawn seating and a community 16 theater building. That area is probably 17 one of the least sampled areas on the 18 site. So we don't really know where the 19 co-disposed waste and contaminants might 20 be within that area. 21 When the gentleman described the 22 DEIS mentioned the human health risk 23 assessment that the EPA adopted for use 24 for this project, that human health risk 25 assessment is only as good as the data 41 1 Lowry 2 that goes into it. So the fact that we 3 don't have a lot of data about the 4 interior of waste bed 6 it's important 5 that we understand how effective, how 6 accurate that health risk assessment is. 7 When the bike trail went through 8 there was a lot of additional testing 9 that was done along the perimeter of the 10 bike trail. That's when you were 11 bringing hundreds of people onto the 12 site over the course of the year to walk 13 on a paved trail and maybe have a few of 14 them stray off. Now you're talking 15 about thousands of people onto the site 16 on a regular basis and there is no 17 additional testing done to determine 18 whether the interior of that site is 19 really safe. 20 And the human health risk assessment 21 also failed to consider exposure levels 22 and risks to children under the age of 23 six. Those children were not considered 24 to be likely to stray off the bike trail. 25 They were not part of the human health 42 1 Lowry 2 risk assessment that was done for the 3 bike trail, they're not being considered 4 now. 5 You also are relying on a remedial 6 action plan to try to, in the DEIS, to 7 ensure to prove there is no threat to 8 human health care. Keep in mind the 9 remediation plan is not developed yet. 10 Right now what we have is a range of 11 proposals. Putting down a vegetative 12 cover. And the fact that you're moving 13 forward with the DEIS before you have a 14 remediation plan which means you don't 15 really know what's going to happen on 16 that site, you don't know how it's going 17 to be controlled, you don't know how 18 your plans are going to interact with 19 those controlled plans. You don't know 20 how long it's going to take for the 21 remediation to be effective. What we do 22 know based on those alternatives that 23 were discussed is already disconcerting. 24 The preliminary discussion of 25 wanting the preferred method, which is a 43 1 Lowry 2 soil and vegetative cover on the site 3 estimates it's going to take about three 4 years for that vegetative cover to be 5 fully protective across the site. Three 6 years from the time that it's implemented. 7 And the remedial action objectives will 8 take about six to eight years to be 9 fully realized from the time of approval 10 of the remediation plan. 11 You're talking bringing thousands of 12 people on the site within a year and-a- 13 half. And the remediation plan won't be 14 effective for three to eight years. 15 That's a concern. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: One minute. 17 ALMA LOWRY: There is a lot of other 18 proposed options that we rely on in the 19 DEIS. It talks about mitigation. The 20 site management plan, the landscaping 21 waste line design, all of these are 22 identified as waste mitigating impacts, 23 but we don't know what they are and 24 neither do you. These are hard for us 25 to comment on this without that 44 1 Lowry 2 information and hard for you to make a 3 decision without that information. 4 There is no discussion of impact on 5 wildlife as Joe mentioned. There is no 6 discussion of potential growth inducing 7 impact. The range of alternatives being 8 considered is being artificially 9 constrained by the purposes that were 10 put up on the site, which quite frankly 11 support lots of uses on the site other 12 than an amphitheater, and really should 13 be considering alternatives besides an 14 amphitheater on that site given the 15 purposes of that project. If you really 16 want an amphitheater, that's the 17 purpose, then you need to consider 18 alternatives off this site. 19 My final point is just the 20 difficulty of making comments in this 21 time frame. Part of the reason that I'm 22 able to make these comments is that I'm 23 familiar with the remedial 24 investigation, the feasibility study, 25 all the documents that Honeywell 45 1 Reap 2 produced over the years about this site. 3 And I've done the EIS's before and I 4 know what the system looks like. The 5 community doesn't. They need time to 6 talk and they need time to ask questions, 7 they need informational meetings and 8 some additional time to get their 9 thoughts in order. And I really urge 10 you to extend the time to at least 11 ninety days and some additional public 12 hearings for that kind of conversation 13 to take place. Thank you. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: If you have any of 15 those notes for the record please feel 16 free to submit them. Joshua Reap, 17 Associated Builders and Contractors. 18 JOSHUA REAP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 19 and members of the County Legislature, 20 it's nice to be here today. Associated 21 Builders & Contractors, calls Central 22 New York our home, our corporate 23 headquarters are right over here in East 24 Syracuse. 25 And today we want to applaud the 46 1 Reap 2 County administration and this 3 Legislative body for discussing this 4 project. ABC supports the construction 5 of the amphitheater if it's built openly 6 and competitively, because it will 7 create many construction jobs in the 8 community, and the lasting effects of 9 the finished project, if done right, 10 will help improve the quality of life 11 for the citizens in the region for 12 generations to come. 13 As part of that as well it's my 14 understanding this is the only public 15 hearing on this and I wanted to just 16 deviate from the study very briefly. 17 Today I would like to communicate with 18 you the thoughts, comments and concerns 19 that many within our membership have 20 expressed to me with respect to the 21 Amphitheater Project and some of the 22 discussions here that relates to design 23 build and possibility of moving forward 24 with that particular methodology. 25 ABC has long supported design-build 47 1 Reap 2 without any restrictions, such as 3 mandated project labor agreements, PLA. 4 Unencumbered design-build has been 5 proven to be an effective project 6 delivery technique that has proven to 7 lead to faster production times and 8 lower costs, and certainly seem to be 9 very tempting to use design-build on 10 this project. However when arbitrary 11 prerequisites like project labor 12 agreements are mandated by the government 13 are used on projects, it severely 14 diminishes the effects or benefits of 15 using design-build on public works. 16 A PLA typically requires that 17 virtually all workers utilized on a 18 project be hired through a local union 19 hall. ABC of course is comprised or has 20 merit shop contractors, and our members, 21 if any of them were to accept the PLA on 22 this job, such a mandate would require 23 their firms to lay off their own 24 qualified locally employed skilled, 25 highly skilled craftsmen and women. The 48 1 Reap 2 decision produces obviously, if they do 3 that, a negative direct impact on this 4 community. So that's a financial impact 5 on families and communities that we 6 don't want to see happen. 7 In effect the PLA mandate precludes 8 70 percent of the workforce. And 9 statistics, 70 percent of the 10 construction workforce in Upstate New 11 York has a direct relationship with 12 their construction companies. Put it in 13 other terms, mandating the PLA is like 14 telling a number 1 ranked basketball 15 team, such as what you have here, 16 telling the whole team to sit on the 17 bench and their all-star players have to 18 sit out the game and sub in other 19 players from other schools who have no 20 idea how the playbook works. I don't 21 know about you, but you can't really 22 build a project or play a basketball 23 game in this case, with a completely 24 different set of workers who may not 25 know how things function. 49 1 Reap 2 And I mention this because on a 3 design-build, if a contractor chooses to 4 use a PLA on their own when it's not 5 mandated, that's because they know what 6 works best for them. But when the 7 government comes in and mandates you, 8 that causes a lot of confusion and lot 9 of inefficiencies that leads to 10 disastrous complications on the project. 11 I raise that point simply because 12 the State of New York obviously is 13 authorizing this County use of design- 14 build needs permission from the 15 Legislature. That permission would 16 likely have to come from the Legislature 17 and I know the Governor can sign a bill 18 to allow that. That bill we see that 19 all kinds of power houses looked at it, 20 found that if you want to use 21 design-build it requires you to use the 22 project labor agreement. Among other 23 things that could be effectively 24 disastrous for serving public projects. 25 There is many different points in 50 1 Reap 2 that legislation, I know we provided 3 some of those to you guys already. But 4 they would diminish the effectiveness of 5 design-build for this project. 6 I would also like to note that many 7 other groups such as general contractors 8 from Upstate, Design-Build in America 9 which is a leading force of design-build 10 all oppose government mandated PLAs on 11 public works projects. I certainly 12 understand what is at stake here, but I 13 caution this Legislative body in order 14 to provide Onondaga County. We're 15 trying to get something done here for 16 the greater good of the community. I 17 just really encourage you to take the 18 time to look at all the avenues here and 19 oppose any kind of prerequisites that 20 will stifle competition and prevent 21 people from a fair opportunity of public 22 works. 23 So with that said, in the alternative 24 I encourage you to continue to move 25 forward here with the comments today, 51 1 Monostory 2 and thank you again for letting me speak. 3 And if this body or anyone else is 4 wanting to know more about our position 5 we have specifically with the Legislation, 6 which again are in the public record 7 written already that I've provided to 8 the clerk. Thank you, very much. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Josh. Les 10 Monostory. Less is with Izaak Walton 11 Central New York Chapter. 12 LES MONOSTORY: Good morning. I'm 13 looking forward to presenting a point of 14 view I guess from the conservation 15 community here. A little background 16 information. I worked for Onondaga 17 County Environmental Management Council 18 basically since that Council was formed 19 back in 1973. I was involved with the 20 original Onondaga County Environmental 21 Plan in 1973, which provided the original 22 proposals for the Onondaga Lake cleanup. 23 And I have a personal history -- or 24 personal interest in water resources, 25 that's actually my area of expertise. 52 1 Monostory 2 And I have been following the Lake 3 cleanup activities for about 45 years 4 now. 5 The Izaak Walton Central New York 6 Chapter is something that I formed back 7 in 1989. When Allied Chemical closed in 8 '86, a year later Bob Brookberger, a 9 local conservationist, sportsman, and I 10 proposed that the Lake be reopened to 11 fishing. And we talked with then 12 Commissioner Williams. And he agreed to 13 reopen the Lake for catch and release 14 fishing. 15 The Izaak Walton Chapter has 16 sponsored ever since 1987 an annual 17 fishing, family fishing event. We had 18 our most recent one last weekend in June 19 with over 120 people participating. The 20 Chapter also been monitoring water 21 quality in the streams for the past 23 22 years I believe. We are also involved 23 with reclamation of Bear Trap Creek, a 24 tributary of Onondaga Lake that flows 25 through the Mattydale community. 53 1 Monostory 2 The Draft Environmental Impact 3 Statement is supposed to be the main 4 focus of this hearing. I do have some 5 comments specifically on that. But what 6 I would also like to comment on on behalf 7 of the conservation and environmental 8 community, who has not had an opportunity 9 to really review the plans. I mean 10 these plans came out of the blue earlier 11 this year and no one really has 12 discussed these plans and proposals from 13 the environmental community. 14 There will be comments from other 15 folks here today and have been on the 16 specifics of issues of the Draft 17 Environmental Impact Statement. Our 18 main concern is that the SEQR procedures 19 are not being followed here adequately. 20 And I have submitted comments to David 21 Coburn on the fact that Onondaga 22 County's Draft EIS for the Lakeview 23 Amphitheater is deficient in investigating 24 alternative sites for this project. The 25 County has only had one other site owned 54 1 Monostory 2 by the County, the Maple Bay site, and 3 it was determined not to be adequate for 4 the amphitheater. So we're looking at 5 this one option as the only one that's 6 really been reviewed by the County. 7 The SEQR Act requires under two 8 sections of the Scoping document, and 9 the preparation of the Final 10 Environmental Impact Statement that 11 under the Scoping part an EIS must 12 analyze the significant adverse impacts 13 and evaluate all reasonable 14 alternatives. The Scoping document says 15 that the final written scope should 16 include the reasonable alternatives to 17 be considered. We feel that this has 18 not been done and you know, the County 19 in effect only looked at one site here. 20 The major missing element from 21 Onondaga County's evaluation of 22 alternative sites is any evaluation of 23 potential sites located off the County 24 owned lands. This unreasonable decision 25 by the County has the effect of 55 1 Monostory 2 preventing any environmental or fiscal 3 comparison of either the cost or the 4 environmental impact of potential 5 amphitheater sites other than the 6 selected Lakeview site. In terms of 7 alternatives sites that could be 8 considered -- 9 THE CHAIRMAN: One minute left. 10 LES MONOSTORY: -- the present New 11 York State Fair Grounds on property 12 owned by the State of New York, the 13 Inner Harbor location in the city of 14 Syracuse, which is surrounded by bars, 15 restaurants, Destiny complex and other 16 facilities that concert-goers would find 17 attractive. Vacant lands in the 18 Lakeland community in the town of 19 Geddes, vacant lands south of the Erie 20 Boulevard. This site could provide an 21 economic boost for a central location 22 within the city of Syracuse. David 23 Coburn does have our comments. Thanks, 24 very much. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Les. Our 56 1 Robson 2 next speaker Lance Robson with New York 3 State Fish and Wildlife, a citizen 4 board. 5 LANCE ROBSON: Good morning, I'm 6 Lance Robson, the chairman of the Region 7 7 Fish and Wildlife Management Board. 8 Like to thank the Legislature for the 9 opportunity to speak today. We're a 10 volunteer board established by state law 11 made up of delegates representing the 12 nine counties of the DEC's Region 7. We 13 represent the interests of the land 14 owners, County government and the 15 sporting public, including 63,000 16 sporting license holders in Onondaga 17 County, in matters pertaining to fish, 18 wildlife and habitat management and 19 sporting access. 20 We're concerned about the rapid pace 21 of planning and developing a timeline 22 for the Lakeview Amphitheater. The 23 public comment period is for too short. 24 We're requesting a lengthier comment 25 period, additional public hearing to 57 1 Robson 2 address some of the concerns the Board 3 may have. Some of those concerns 4 include that the Scoping document was 5 not adequately detailed enough. The 6 final plan was only settled on a couple 7 weeks ago. So the Scoping documents 8 lack the design specifics and location 9 specifics necessary to produce a 10 competent Draft EIS. As a result, the 11 DEIS reads more like a generic 12 Environmental Impact Statement than the 13 site specific one required under SEQR. 14 We're concerned with the seemingly 15 casual approach in the DEIS in which a 16 large number of serious undetermined 17 construction design and safety 18 considerations were glossed over. The 19 number of important details left to a 20 later decision would seem to indicate 21 that the drafters did not know and 22 apparently still don't know exactly what 23 they were assessing. 24 The proposed avoidance of mitigation 25 practices are essentially one large To 58 1 Robson 2 Be Determined. How can you expect to 3 make a competent decision or have a fair 4 and open public comment process when you 5 haven't even published what it is we're 6 supposed to be commenting on? 7 We also have concerns along with 8 others about the design of the existing 9 cap being inadequate. The waste beds 1 10 through 8 are not fully mitigated yet, 11 remediated yet. We're actually gambling 12 that we're going to be able to do the 13 remediation at the same time as the 14 construction and maintain the health of 15 the construction workers, public health 16 going forward and not create other 17 issues. I would submit to you that 18 that's a big risk to be taken for 19 something that very few people see any 20 sense of urgency about this and why it's 21 suddenly so necessary to ram through in 22 a 16 or 18 month timeline. 23 We're also concerned, have the same 24 concerns that other have with the 25 existing human health risk assessment. 59 1 Robson 2 It was completely inadequate to deal 3 with heavy construction in the interior 4 of the project. We don't even know what 5 it is that we're going to be working on 6 and digging into. But the Draft EIS 7 defines the Solvay Process waste as 8 being of silt-like texture with little 9 or no structural development. That in 10 turn is sitting on what's listed as beds 11 of peat and moro. Moro is a clay and 12 sand mixture, a wet clay and sand 13 mixture probably in this case. 14 I see a lot of faces here that are 15 old enough to remember waterbeds. You 16 want to think in terms of a waveless 17 waterbed that you're going to try to 18 build this amphitheater and these other 19 stuff on top of it. Probably like 20 nailing jello to a wall frame. 21 Another concern is that we're 22 looking at the loss of what for years 23 has been intended to be a green space of 24 native wildlife and plants to be wild in 25 the area. This in turn leads to the 60 1 Robson 2 issue with the loss of the view-scape 3 and the long undeveloped Lake shoreline 4 and urban setting. This extremely rare 5 undeveloped urban landscape feature has 6 been touted and promoted for years by 7 the County and state as the centerpiece 8 of the Lake restoration efforts. 9 The radius considered in the DEIS 10 for these matters was only one mile. 11 The view across the Lake is far longer 12 than that, we feel that needs to be 13 expanded in an updated Draft EIS. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: One minute. 15 LANCE ROBSON: One social impact 16 that this, just will give you an idea 17 here, the waters immediately adjacent to 18 where this project is being planned are 19 open for lawful water fowl hunting. It 20 will continue to be after this is 21 developed. Just something to keep in 22 mind. 23 There appear to be far more suitable 24 locations for the project than the toxic 25 waste beds. We would like to see those 61 1 Robson 2 explored and we feel like with others 3 that that standard of SEQR and DEIS has 4 not been met. So for all this 5 unresolved and inadequately addressed 6 concerns we feel that the current 7 comment period is too short. It needs 8 to be substantially lengthened, needs to 9 be public hearings in the evening when 10 the majority of people can attend them. 11 And the Draft EIS needs to be 12 updated now that there is actually a 13 location and a plan. That should have 14 been done before the EIS was published, 15 frankly. It should have been gone back 16 and gone through the EIS, even if it 17 delayed it. I do thank you for the 18 opportunity to speak. I look forward to 19 speaking with any of you at any time on 20 this or any other matter. Thank you. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Lance. Our 22 next speaker is Hugh Kimball from 23 Baldwinsville, New York. 24 HUGH KIMBALL: Thank you. The plan 25 before you is a conceptual design, not a 62 1 Kimball 2 complete plan of a complex project. The 3 conceptual design talks about 4 alternatives that may be used as far as 5 protecting pilings from some corrosion. 6 It indicates a possible different 7 location for the docking area. Just to 8 mention two of many items listed in the 9 Environmental Assessment Form as To Be 10 Determined. 11 As a member of the Planning Board I 12 would be reluctant to hold a final 13 public hearing to finalize an EIS and to 14 approve a project without full plans 15 based on actual site information. I 16 would be concerned that our board could 17 be challenged by someone saying we did 18 not follow a proper process under SEQRA. 19 This does not mean that the design-build 20 process procedure cannot be followed. 21 But it indicates that the EIS and 22 project approvals need to be finalized 23 after most of the design phase is 24 completed. 25 I am not a lawyer, but I do advise 63 1 Kimball 2 caution against moving this SEQRA 3 process too fast. You should be 4 cautious to ensure that you are not 5 signing a blank check. Please allow 6 more time for the public and for 7 yourselves to get all the details. 8 I would add, this is not part of my 9 prepared, but I would add that since the 10 legislature is the lead agency in the 11 process I'm a little disappointed that 12 you are not fully represented here. 13 I have one other comment as long as 14 I have the time, I initially sent a 15 comment in on the Scope section and one 16 of those comments I was happy to see was 17 on dark skies downcast lighting. And 18 that made it to the next phase of the 19 DEIS. And yet we see a picture of the 20 amphitheater with lights going straight 21 out and lights going up into the sky. I 22 don't see that as dark skies. Thank you. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. James 24 Shults, Syracuse, New York. 25 JAMES SHULTS: Hi, my name is Jim 64 1 Shults 2 Shults. I do not come here with any 3 particular area of expertise. I'm a 4 retired teacher from the Syracuse city 5 school district. And I've been very 6 active in the arts community both as a 7 performer and as an advocate for many 8 years. 9 I actually came here today more 10 prepared to talk about this whole 11 project from the point of view of the 12 arts. But since this is not what we are 13 allowed to do in today's session I will 14 not do that. What I would like to do is 15 tell you that I have been, over the 16 years, I've been a very very frequent 17 concert-goer, in at least four or five 18 of these open type of summer theaters 19 all the way from the Buffalo area into 20 western Massachusetts. And I have a 21 good idea of what they are like and how 22 they were used. 23 What I would like to say is that the 24 life-blood of most of these places is 25 the area that is called the lawn, getting 65 1 Shults 2 a lawn ticket. So that you're not 3 sitting inside but you can come, sit on 4 the ground, spread out blankets and have 5 your family or your friends together 6 with you and have a picnic and listen to 7 whatever concert is being offered. 8 I would say that asking people to 9 come and go to a concert in an area 10 where there is some question or where at 11 least there is a public perception of 12 question as to whether the area is 13 polluted or whether the area is safe, 14 whether it is clean enough to do so is 15 going to, without proper education and 16 without a lot of convincing, cause people 17 to be hesitant to use the facility. 18 I haven't seen in the people that 19 I've talked to, a lot of enthusiasm for 20 the facility because of that reason, and 21 because of other reasons as well. I 22 would say that I would strongly 23 recommend that questions be encouraged. 24 That meeting times be set up in evenings 25 and weekends when people who are working 66 1 Miller 2 are able to come in and get their 3 concerns taken care of. And that 4 everybody get a chance to feel as though 5 they can be on board with the facility 6 that is going to be safe and healthful 7 and some place where you are going to 8 feel very comfortable taking your family 9 and your friends. Thank you. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, James. 11 Fred Miller, Nine Mile Creek Conservation 12 Council. 13 FRED MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman 14 for welcoming the community to observe 15 the process. My name is Fred Miller, 16 I'm president and founder of the Nine 17 Mile Creek Conservation Council. 18 Basically we're an all volunteer 19 non-profit corporation dedicated to the 20 preservation of Nine Mile Creek and 21 watershed issues. We've worked on 22 projects from Marcellus into the Lake, 23 although we don't get involved in the 24 Lake very much, we are strictly an 25 apolitical organization. 67 1 Miller 2 Going back right at 25 years it 3 seems, going back to the early days of 4 the Lake issues, it participated through 5 the Pirro administration up to the 6 present administration and with the 7 involvement of the Honeywell Corporation 8 on the cleanup. There was concern that 9 other organizations would be eliminated 10 but that was just contrary to what 11 actually happened. It was an outreach 12 into the public and into various 13 communities. The documentation for that 14 would be found in media files and 15 corporate files and even your own 16 Legislature files in hearings over the 17 years. That is substantiated as 18 evidence. 19 One of the critical things that I 20 find in the process that is disturbing 21 to our group is that primarily the 22 entire process for the many years has 23 been inclusionary. But this particular 24 rush seems to be odd. It's an 25 exclusionary process where whether you 68 1 Miller 2 spend federal, state or local dollars 3 those are taxpayer dollars. And it's 4 important that the people are involved 5 in this process. 6 One of the concerns is the DEIS, 7 that's a 654 page document. Now 8 everybody seems to ask for extra time 9 when they review these documents, but in 10 the context of let's say our normal 11 lives of working, traveling, in the 12 middle of the summer, vacations, elder 13 care, all sorts of issues in life, you 14 need to read through this document. If 15 you're not a scientist or an engineer, 16 where in our board we have the luxury of 17 having scientists and engineers so 18 they'll be able to understand it. But 19 for the average person, has anybody in 20 this Legislature, by a show of hands, 21 how many of you actually read that 22 document cover to cover in order to 23 understand it as if it was a legal case? 24 Raise your hand if you have read it. I 25 haven't. Now you're asking me in 69 1 Miller 2 three weeks, going on vacation, if I'm 3 going to be able to read through this. 4 An average person reading this will have 5 questions, they'll have to go back and 6 ask some of the specialists and see what 7 the pros and cons are and what the 8 positives and negatives are. What we're 9 concerned about are the negatives. 10 So asking for more time in that 11 context is the responsibility I think of 12 this Legislature and the elected 13 officials to let the community become 14 involved. Asking for more time is not 15 unreasonable by any means whatsoever. 16 The environmental community was involved 17 in the process, participation for the, 18 especially the area on the west shore. 19 A critical aspect that was involved 20 with this was throughout the area is 21 involved with the diversity of the 22 usability of the Lake. The highly 23 developed east shore, the quietness of 24 the last forest land between Lakeshore 25 Heights and Maple Bay on Onondaga Lake. 70 1 Miller 2 There is no other forest land. So it 3 was very appealing to the environmental 4 community to see that we could have 5 hotdog machines and soda machines on one 6 side of the Lake, but other people want 7 to use it in a quiet sense can go to the 8 other side. There is a lot of 9 interesting wildlife studies by ESF and 10 some other organizations including 11 engineering firms. 12 There is a lot of positive input to 13 be gathered and given to this Legislature 14 so that each of you can make an 15 intelligent decision on what you're 16 going to do when you actually are 17 spending taxpayers dollars you're 18 responsible to your constituents, and 19 I'm one of those constituents and so are 20 the other people involved. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: One minute. 22 FRED MILLER: In concluding that, 23 give the environmental community and the 24 conservation groups an opportunity to 25 read through this document and to come 71 1 Eckel 2 up with some ideas. They might be very 3 productive with the process, whether pro 4 or con results, that's what people are 5 asking for. I think you do owe it to 6 the people in this community to open up 7 that process. Make it inclusionary by 8 giving people more time. And I think 9 that is fair for everybody in this room. 10 That's all I have to say, thank you for 11 your time very much. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Miller. 13 Sarah Eckel, Citizens Campaign for the 14 Environment. 15 SARAH ECKEL: Hi, how are you all? 16 Thanks you for the opportunity to speak 17 today. My name is Sarah Eckel, I'm the 18 legislative and policy director on the 19 Citizen's Campaign for the Environment. 20 We're an 80,000 member non-profit 21 non-partisan advocacy organization. We 22 have 4,000 members here in Onondaga 23 County who work throughout New York 24 State. 25 First of all, we would just like to 72 1 Eckel 2 highlight the point made several times 3 already, and that is the extension to 4 the public comment period. As has been 5 noted, this is a 654 page document, 6 highly technical, and it's the middle of 7 summer. We think that people should be 8 given an opportunity to thoughtfully 9 review and go through this and ask 10 questions. We should have public 11 hearings that are accessible to the 12 working public. And that's a reasonable 13 request. 14 And it's something that should be 15 reflected in the fact that we're 16 developing the west side of the Lake and 17 the community cares deeply about. 18 Because as we have seen throughout the 19 remediation process people have been 20 involved and they've been showing up and 21 commenting, because we care about the 22 fact that we have this beautiful 23 treasure in our community, that we have 24 to decide how to move forward with it. 25 We should honor the public and let them 73 1 Eckel 2 have a part of that conversation with 3 this. 4 It's been mentioned before and I'll 5 highlight it again. We're moving 6 forward with this process in front of 7 the remediation process for the waste 8 beds. And that's putting the cart 9 before the horse. We should be 10 remediating those, we should go to the 11 process for remediating the process and 12 some of the options on the table should 13 those waste beds stay or go? By 14 necessarily approving this process we're 15 taking options off the table before that 16 process even has the time to go forward. 17 And again, the community needs to be 18 able to look and weigh the options in 19 front of them before they make a 20 decision with whether we're going to 21 build something on the west side of the 22 Lake. 23 Finally, just want to address the 24 point brought up earlier with the public 25 access, that's one reason why they want 74 1 Eckel 2 to develop the amphitheater. The 3 amphitheater's proposed site is going to 4 impact the bike trail that was just put 5 in place recently. So we're going to 6 cut off the bike trail that we just put 7 it in with gates, so we are going to 8 limit public access for something that 9 we just put in. And we're also going to 10 say that you can only come to those 11 spots if you have tickets. So we're 12 limiting public access, not improving 13 public access. 14 I think these are all the questions 15 that we need to put on the table and we 16 need to acknowledge. If we really want 17 to improve public access to the Lake 18 then we should encourage other options 19 that should be on the table besides an 20 amphitheater. Thank you. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sarah, and 22 just some of this is -- all of this is 23 being recorded. So what we'll do, some 24 of the comments or perceptions, we'll go 25 through with the experts to get some of 75 1 LeFevre 2 the clarifications on some of this 3 process and we'll make sure that's all 4 public. Next speaker is Amelia LeFevre, 5 Syracuse Peace Council. 6 AMELIA LEFEVRE: Hello, my name is 7 Amelia LeFevre, I'm here representing 8 neighbors of the Onondaga Nation and the 9 Syracuse Peace Council. First, I do 10 want to address concerns about the rush 11 to process here. With few exceptions 12 this isn't our paid, you know, the 13 community doesn't have a paid job to 14 spend time looking at the Draft 15 Environmental Impact Statement. We're 16 trying to fit this in looking at this 17 long technical document around our job 18 and our families. Thirty days is 19 insufficient time. One public hearing 20 during business hours is insufficient. 21 I'm asking for an extension of the 22 public comment period to ninety days and 23 at least two more public hearings and in 24 the evening, please. 25 The Chairman has asked us to limit 76 1 LeFevre 2 our comments to concerns about the DEIS. 3 It's not clear to me how the County is 4 being held accountable for responding to 5 other questions that are outside of this 6 comment period and process. So that's a 7 question. 8 And then concerns about the 9 environmental impacts. I'm very 10 concerned about potential impacts to 11 wildlife. As has been mentioned this 12 site, Lakeview Point, is one of the last 13 wild or you know, open wilderness areas 14 on the Lake. We're looking at 15 destroying that. I have questions about 16 impact on wildlife from the noise from 17 the amphitheater, traffic, vibrations, 18 people coming and going, you know, in 19 the evenings all throughout the summer, 20 I don't think that's clear. I don't 21 think we have had that answered. 22 I'm very concerned that this plan 23 is, you know, rests on a remediation 24 plan that hasn't been developed yet. 25 That doesn't make any sense to me. And 77 1 LeFevre 2 I can't understand how you all can make 3 a decision without knowing what the 4 remediation plan is. 5 I'm very concerned about building on 6 top of waste beds. Somebody else made 7 this point that, you know, once we build 8 on top of the waste beds if we don't 9 clean them up first we're saying that 10 we're going to keep that waste there for 11 a very long time. That's not what I 12 would like to see happen. I think the 13 public needs a chance to give you input 14 about what we would like to see happen 15 with that site. I also think more sites 16 need to be considered. I don't think 17 this is the right site for an amphitheater. 18 I think the question of whether the 19 County needs an amphitheater is a 20 question, but aside from that even if 21 the answer to that is yes, this is not 22 the right site for it. Thank you very 23 much. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Amelia. I 25 apologize, I don't know how to read the 78 1 Mager 2 next name. Last name Demi. The address 3 is 2013 East Genesee Street. 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think she 5 went to the restroom. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, if she comes 7 back we'll go to the next one then she 8 can come after that. Andy Mager, the 9 Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation. 10 ANDY MAGER: Good afternoon 11 Legislators and Chairman and others 12 gathered here, my friends who are part 13 of the public. For the last 15 years 14 I've been part of Neighbors of the 15 Onondaga Nation. We're a group of 16 Central New Yorkers who believe that we 17 have a debt to pay to our friends who 18 live just south of the city of Syracuse 19 now. 20 And we also believe that all of our 21 lives and our community can be enriched 22 by working together more effectively. 23 As we work with people in Onondaga we've 24 learned about the importance that the 25 Lake has for them both historically and 79 1 Mager 2 currently. Many of you probably know 3 that it's where the Haudenosaunee 4 Confederacy was founded some thousand 5 years ago. Many of you may not know 6 that that Nation just competed in the 7 world Lacrosse championship coming third 8 behind Canada and the United States. So 9 a real recognition that they have a 10 place in the table internationally. 11 About four years ago the Onondaga 12 released a document called their Vision 13 for a Clean Onondaga Lake. Our 14 organization along with Syracuse 15 University, the Forestry school and 16 others held an event at Syracuse Stage 17 to release that to the public. Where 18 they went through their vision of what 19 the Lake could be like. 20 Most of us here are probably aware 21 of what the Lake was like a hundred or 22 more years ago and assuming desecration 23 of the Lake. Fortunately we're in the 24 process of some revitalization of the 25 Lake and we very much support that work. 80 1 Mager 2 That evening the County Executive was 3 among a group of community responders 4 who heard the Vision and responded very 5 positively, saying that they would 6 really like to be part of supporting 7 that Vision and seeing it brought to 8 life. 9 I'm here in part to come back to the 10 County Executive and to you as the 11 people who are dealing with this SEQR 12 process to say that rushing this project 13 forward does not fit in with honoring 14 that Vision, with trying to work with 15 the Onondagas to carry out that Vision. 16 Others have emphasized, and I very much 17 agree that this process should require 18 some real deliberation and time. And 19 thirty days is fully insufficient for 20 that. So that's a really fundamental 21 piece that we ask you to extend the time 22 for consideration and comments and add 23 additional public hearings. 24 Others have mentioned issues of the 25 habitat along the lakeshore. About the 81 1 Mager 2 dangerousness of building on this waste 3 bed, and it's not only waste beds 1 4 through 8, but also the old Crucible 5 landfill that's under that area. And as 6 a father of an eleven year old who likes 7 to explore and move around places I 8 would hesitate taking him to a facility 9 that has a, you know, a foot or a few 10 inches of dirt on top of those dangerous 11 toxins that are buried there. 12 You know, part of why this is being 13 pushed appears to be a desire for 14 economic development. I'm currently 15 unemployed, which is part of why I can 16 be here, so I certainly share the need 17 for more jobs and economic development 18 in our community. And I think we need 19 to look at many ways to do that. There 20 is nothing that I've seen that describes 21 in any clear way the projected economic 22 benefits of this project. It's clear 23 that there would be significant economic 24 costs that the County will be paying. 25 My understanding is 70 million for the 82 1 Mager 2 construction and there will be 3 significant ongoing costs as well. To 4 the best of my knowledge there is no 5 business plan that people can look at 6 and say, yes, this is a good investment 7 or not a good investment of our tax 8 dollars. 9 So I want to close by saying that as 10 part of the publicity for the public 11 event that happened at Solvay high 12 school, people had asked the County 13 Executive about what seemed to be the 14 rush for this process. And she said 15 that the rush was in the sort of design- 16 build process. That there was a desire 17 once it was approved to move it forward 18 expeditiously. But she said that the 19 environmental review process needs to be 20 given its due time. Thirty days is not 21 due time for this process. So again, I 22 ask you to extend that time frame and 23 give the public ample opportunity to 24 weigh in and share concerns and dialogue 25 with people before moving ahead with 83 1 Chairman 2 this project. Thanks very much for your 3 time. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Andy. 5 Last name Demi, is she back? 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not back yet. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: She is in the 8 building though? 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She is. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any other 11 speakers that wanted to speak? Who have 12 not signed up? Okay. We'll wait for 13 the last speaker. If you have any other 14 questions or comments today's hearing 15 was about the DEIS, but there is various 16 other questions and points that were 17 made. If you could make them and e-mail 18 them to David Coburn. And also feel 19 free to e-mail these questions or 20 comments to myself and we'll work on 21 getting answers on them to you. 22 Clearly we're not going to vote on a 23 proposal without having a business plan 24 or knowing what the costs are or whatnot. 25 Any of these types of concerns clearly 84 1 Monostory 2 will be addressed before any allotment 3 of the monies are dedicated to the 4 building of this project. 5 But did our last speaker come back 6 into the room? No. Any other speakers 7 that want to come up? Yes? 8 LES MONOSTORY: I just want to make 9 a comment about the natural condition of 10 the west shore of Onondaga Lake. Again, 11 since I've been involved as a former 12 environmental planner and I guess a 13 constituent of the Lake usage for a long 14 period of time. The original purpose 15 and goals of the west shore trail that 16 was proposed around 1973 or 1974 was to 17 bring back the natural shoreline and to 18 sort of revitalize the ecology of that 19 portion of Onondaga Lake. 20 Probably the most significant 21 habitat along that west shore was the 22 wetland forest along the mouth of Nine 23 Mile Creek. A good portion of that 24 forest actually had to be taken out as 25 part of the Nine Mile Creek, really as 85 1 Monostory 2 part of the Honeywell cleanup of the 3 mouth of Nine Mile Creek, where mercury 4 deposits had washed down from Geddes 5 Brook to Nine Mile Creek to the mouth of 6 -- well, the mouth of the river Nine 7 Mile Creek where it enters Onondaga 8 Lake. 9 Probably that section of the Lake 10 was the most significant environmental 11 habitat. A good portion of that was 12 taken out in order to remove contaminated 13 soil in that area. The amphitheater 14 site right now faces that area that used 15 to be this very significant wetland 16 area. It has been replanted, it's going 17 to take another 50 or more years to 18 really bring back the wetland forest 19 that used to exist there. 20 But I mean this is just another 21 example of the history of trying to -- 22 the history of reestablishing natural 23 areas along that lakeshore. Honeywell 24 has proposed rebuilding wetlands at 25 several locations. Honeywell is also 86 1 Robson 2 restoring portions of the Lake bottom to 3 enable fish spawning and to reclaim 4 sections that were contaminated by 5 waste. They're going to put clean sand 6 and such new habitat along the shore. 7 So what I'm saying I guess is that 8 this project is going to have a 9 significant impact on what a lot of 10 people considered to be one of the 11 special features of Onondaga Lake is the 12 fact that the west shore had been 13 largely undeveloped. Thank you. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other 15 speakers? Hearing none, all right now 16 we have two people going on overtime. 17 LANCE ROBSON: Two issues I didn't 18 bring up need to be spoken about. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Two minutes. 20 LANCE ROBSON: Lance Robson, chairman 21 Region 7 of Fish and Wildlife Management 22 Board. One issue, I deal with funding 23 for public access projects around the 24 state as a major port of what our board 25 does particularly for sporting access, 87 1 Robson 2 but a lot of that involves all kinds of 3 recreational access, wildlife related 4 access, a lot like bird watching and 5 nature watching etc. 6 Just a thought, on whatever funding 7 you use for that Lakeside trail that 8 exists now, if any of that involved any 9 grants that were predicated on open 10 public access you might need to go back 11 and revisit those grants and do some 12 homework before you start restricting 13 access with gates around that amphitheater. 14 Because I've seen problems in a lot of 15 other areas. Make sure whatever you do 16 doesn't conflict with your previous 17 funding. 18 The last thing waste beds 9 through 19 15 which wrap around a good part of this 20 site, are part of the Honeywell consent 21 decree to which Onondaga County was a 22 party, that's a binding consent decree. 23 A major part of that deals with the 24 restoration of wildlife in that area. 25 Some of the species specifically 88 1 Papworth 2 mentioned in that decree are relatively 3 reclusive. We're talking about putting 4 that amphitheater right up against those 5 boundary lines. I would like to see 6 those matters addressed in an updated 7 DEIS. We would actually like to see an 8 EIS with some meat in it rather than To 9 Be Determined Later. Let's do the 10 process correctly we can talk about 11 specifics of the sites and the plan and 12 the process. Thank you. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other 14 new speakers? This is it, no more 15 overtime. I'm being very gracious here. 16 ROBERT PAPWORTH: Thank you, one 17 more minute. I neglected to mention 18 before that its obvious that the County 19 owns an incineration system. And that 20 it produces toxic ash. The toxic ash is 21 trucked to Rochester for disposal in a 22 landfill that's owned by Waste 23 Management. With a heavy disposal fee 24 and of course all the trucking 25 logistics. A new proposal includes 89 1 Papworth 2 Cortland County, which adds to the 3 quantity of more toxic ash to dispose of. 4 Plasma gasification is capable of 5 destroying this ash. There would be 6 nothing toxic remaining at all. If the 7 County owned a plasma gasifier and 8 Honeywell rented a time on it, Honeywell 9 could destroy the chemicals in a 10 responsible area, 1 through 8 waste 11 beds. Then the County would continue to 12 use the system long range. 13 Now, in talking with these vendors 14 these last few weeks I was asked by one 15 of them if I could set up an opportunity 16 for the vendor to make a web based 17 initial presentation to a group of 18 people. And I said I would try to see 19 if I could do that. Like to see if I 20 could get somebody from the County, from 21 the DEC, from EPA, who knows who else. 22 To sit down some place, maybe a County 23 office building to hear a web base 24 presentation about gasification, some 25 time in the next four weeks. So I 90 1 DiBlasi 2 propose that maybe we can make 3 arrangements to do something like that. 4 Thank you. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. At this 6 point we'll now call the public hearing 7 closed. 8 FOLLOWING ARE WRITTEN COMMENTS NOT SPOKEN. 9 JIM DiBLASI: I am writing to you today to voice my objection to the use 10 of a project labor agreement (PLA) on the proposed Onondaga Lake Amphitheater 11 Project, and any other project this county may undertake. As a taxpayer I 12 am opposed to government mandated PLAs because these agreements drive up costs 13 for taxpayers as they unnecessarily limit bidders. 14 As you are likely aware, state law 15 requires that anytime a government entity undertakes a PLA it must first 16 perform a feasibility study to determine if a PLA is beneficial. These studies 17 are subjective in the facts considered and often make a recommendation for a 18 PLA based on an assumption that PLAs will save money through measures such as 19 negotiated union work rules and assurances of labor harmony. There is 20 only one time a post-project audit has been performed to determine whether or 21 not a PLA necessarily accomplishes these and other pointed facts; that study took 22 place here in Onondaga County. 23 I would like to draw your attention to that the last significant project 24 this county undertook with a PLA was the ACJ Lake Improvement Project. After the 25 project was complete, the Comptroller, Robert Antonacci, performed an audit of 91 1 Cudney 2 the PLA to find that the "measured economic benefits of the use of a PLA 3 were not realized." Specifically the study revealed that the PLA did not 4 provide the county with the savings of nearly $12 million projected in the 5 feasibility study. Additionally, the report finds, the PLA was not a 6 necessary element to obtaining the work rules and concessions offered by the 7 local labor collective bargaining unit. It is my understanding this is the first 8 and only time a full audit of a PLA was performed and it was found to not be a 9 financial benefit to the citizens of Onondaga County. 10 As a taxpayer I seriously question 11 the use of a PLA on the Onondaga Lake Amphitheater Project and ask that you 12 oppose the use of a PLA on the project. It would make no sense for this county 13 to enter into another PLA when it was revealed that the last substantial 14 project governed by a PLA did not reap any of the benefits this governmental 15 body sought. I encourage you to vote no to wasting the money on a PLA 16 feasibility study and in the alternative simply bid the Onondaga Lake 17 Amphitheater Project using the traditional competitive low bid 18 methodology. 19 RAY CUDNEY: I am here today to voice my opinion on the proposed 20 Onondaga Lake Amphitheater project. I have been involved with design-build 21 projects for over 33 years, both as an owner of a 100+ person architectural and 22 engineering firm, and most recently as a project executive with a high-profile 23 design-build construction firm. I also serve on Governor Cuomo's 12 member NY- 24 Works task force. It is my hope that my comments will help guide this 25 Legislative body to make informed decisions that will protect the 92 1 Cudney 2 interests of County taxpayers. 3 Let me begin by stating that I am in support of the outdoor concert and 4 events venue. If done properly, it has the potential to provide a huge and 5 positive benefit for generations to come. It is a great opportunity to 6 serve as a catalyst for other high-profile projects that will help 7 revitalize the Onondaga Lake area. 8 What I am concerned about is the State's arbitrary prerequisite that the 9 County must use a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with design-build on 10 this project. 11 PLAs are anti-competitive special interest schemes that end open, fair and 12 competitive bidding on public works projects. They are wasteful and 13 discriminatory, and limit creativity and collaboration by their exclusionary 14 intent. As a result, PLAs drive up the cost of construction by reducing 15 competition and effectively excluding qualified and capable contractors and 16 their skilled employees from building projects paid for by their own tax 17 dollars. 18 PLAs are simply bad public policy. In my mind a PLA can't ever be justified 19 by anyone that fully understands the facts about PLAs and adverse 20 implications on cost and schedule. Certainly they can't be justified by 21 someone that has an obligation to uphold taxpayers interest. 22 Furthermore, the time and resources 23 that will be required to perform a feasibility study and share it with any 24 potential design-build teams will grossly affect the ability to deliver 25 the results you seek. In short, a PLA/ design-build methodology will only cause 93 1 Cudney 2 problems. 3 "Best Value" is achieved when an environment that encourages creativity 4 and innovation is established. The County will achieve the best balance of 5 cost, quality and schedule when the best and brightest are given an opportunity. 6 If the County is committed to achieving excellence on this project, then the 7 County should forego the PLA and open up the bidding to the largest group of 8 qualified architects, engineers and contractors using a traditional method 9 of delivery. It is then and only then that the County will realize "Best 10 Value" and the taxpayers dollars will be leveraged for maximum benefit. Thank 11 you. 12 * * * * 13 C E R T I F I C A T E 14 This is to certify that I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary 15 Public in and for the State of New York, that I attended and reported the above 16 entitled proceedings, that I have compared the foregoing with my original 17 minutes taken therein and that it is a true and correct transcript thereof and 18 all of the proceedings had therein. 19 _______________________ 20 John F. Drury, CSR, RPR 21 22 Dated: July 28, 2014 23 24 25