►
From YouTube: IURA Board Mtg.
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Okay,
great,
we
have
a
quorum
and
it's
8
30,
so
I'm
going
to
propose
that
we
get
started
and
call
this
meeting
of
the
iura
to
order.
This
is
the
august
25th
meeting.
We
have
a
pretty
focused
agenda
today.
Nelson,
are
there
any
additions
or
deletions
from
the
agenda
or
any
suggestions
from
anybody
else?
To
add
anything?
A
A
A
That
is
unanimous,
four
to
zero.
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay.
We
have
one
major
item
of
business,
which
is
a
report
from
the
economic
development
committee
on
the
inlet
island
urban
renewal
project.
A
You
have
a
fairly
substantive
amount
of
material
in
your
packet
and
then
a
revised
resolution
that
nell
sent
out
late
yesterday
that
we
will
consider
under
number
two
so
5a2,
but
I
think
first
probably
a
little
discussion
as
necessary
under
5a1,
and
I
note
that
steve
flash
representing
the
development
team
has
joined
us
as
well
nels.
Could
I
just
give
you
an
opportunity
to
maybe
just
remind
everybody,
the
where
we
are
in
the
process
and
the
timeline,
and
then
I
can
maybe
summarize
where
we
landed
in
the
economic
development
committee.
B
Sure
yeah
that'd
be
helpful.
I
think
to
give
a
little
framework,
so
the
developer
in
the
iura
signed
an
exclusive
negotiation
agreement
back
in
december
and
that
set
up
a
series
of
milestones
to
move
us
through
the
negotiation
process.
It
also
identified
issue
issues
that
needed
to
be
resolved
during
the
the
development
of
the
project
and
and
established
kind
of
the
responsibilities
of
both
the
ira
and
the
developer,
going
forward,
leading
towards
a
potential
disposition
and
development
agreement,
agreement
and
conveyance
of
ira
and
city
of
ithaca
property
on
inlet
island
we're
at
this
day.
B
So
the
clock
started
when
we
signed
the
negotiation
agreement,
but
it
had
a
tolling
period
while
we
waited
for
the
appraisal
to
come
in
which
turned
out
to
it
took
four
and
a
half
months
before
we
get
the
appraisal
completed,
it
came
back
at
22.50
per
square
foot
of
valuation
and
and
then
that
triggered
a
100
day
period
for
the
developer
to
submit
a
revised
development
program
to
the
ed
committee
and
they
met
that
timeline.
On
august
8th,
they
submitted
the
proposal,
which
is
in
your
packet
and
per
the
exclusive
negotiation
agreement.
B
So
we're
at
a
point
now,
where
it's
passed
from
the
responsibility
of
the
developer,
to
submit
materials
to
the
ira
to
propose
a
disposition
and
development
agreement.
However,
as
you'll
see
in
the
resolution,
the
ed
committee
did
not
feel
that
all
the
issues
have
been
resolved
yet
satisfactorily
to
move
there.
So
therefore,
there's
the
question
of
the
time
extension
of
the
exclusive
negotiation
agreement.
B
Should
we
get
past
that
phase
to
a
disposition
development
agreement,
then
the
developer
would
have
another
series
of
time
to
go
through
the
environmental
review
process
and
the
site
plan
review
process,
eventually
moving
towards
a
public
hearing
and
a
common
council
review.
So
that's
a
quick
summary
of
the
sequence,
which
would
really
take
us,
even
in
the
best
case
scenario
for
well
into
2023.
For
the
final
disposition
agreement
to
be
approved.
B
A
Before
we
pick
up
the
substance
of
the
program,
it
would
be
comfortable
with
where
we
are
process
wise,
okay,
so
maybe
I'll
report
out
then,
where
we
are
with
the
economic
development
committee
and
maybe
there's
one
other
thing,
that
kind
of
maybe
straddles
process
and
substance
here
nells,
which
is
to
successfully
execute
this
program,
also
requires
that
the
city
take
possession
of
lands
that
are
currently
owned
by
new
york,
state
and
managed
by
dec
and
the
developer
and
iura
and
city
staff.
A
I
think
have
been
having
what
sounds
like
to
me:
now's
productive
conversations
about
how
to
do
that
transfer,
but
dec
has
some
there's
some
additional
things.
A
The
dc
wants,
as
part
of
that
that
has
still
not
sort
of
worked
out,
and
I
think
so
that
will
probably
be
another
piece
that
will
need
to
put
either
conditionally
into
the
dda
and
or
affect
the
timeline
which
is
rightfully
the
developer
doesn't
want
to
get
their
clock
started
again
and
start
spending
additional
money
on,
say,
site
plan
review
until
all
of
the
property
line
boundary
issues
are
resolved
and
would
confirm
that
we,
the
dec,
will
transfer
property
to
the
city,
which
would
then
get
transferred
to
the
developer
exactly
what
the
footprint
of
that
transfer
would
look
like
and
importantly,
what
is
the
we
are
confident
that
we
will
get
a
clean
piece
of
property
that
without
environmental
degradation
in
the
and
the
parcels
that
the
state
controls
so
is
all
that
accurate
nells.
A
It's
a
great
that's
a
very
good
summary,
yes,
okay,
so
that
is
is
doesn't
exactly
show
up
in
the
edc's
resolution.
But
we
had,
you
know
some
good
discussion
with
a
developer
about
that
on
tuesday,
and
certainly
we're
totally
in
agreement
with
the
developer,
to
be
amenable
to
the
timeline,
to
make
sure
that
you
know
that
that
we
have
that
all
parties
have
clarity
as
to
what
that
transfer
would
look
like.
So
we
believe
it
will
happen.
A
We
believe
the
state
is
interested
in
moving
the
process
forward,
but
you
know
the
process
of
doing
that
at
the
state
level
is
not
exactly
probably
swift,
so
just
keeping
that
in
mind
for
everybody.
A
So
in
terms
of
the
report
out
from
economic
development
community-
and
I
think
the
resolution
that
nels
devastated
and
put
in
front
of
you,
I
think-
does
a
pretty
good
job
summarizing
it
I'll
focus
primarily
on
the
second,
the
last
two
whereases
so
where
I
would
say
we're
spending
them
where
we
spent
the
most
time,
and
we
still
owe
the
developer-
probably
a
maybe
a
memo
that
summarizes
everything
we
sort
of
talked
about,
and
so
I
think
we'll
try
to
get
that
done
this
week.
I'll
work
with
nels
on
that.
A
We're
primarily
focused
on
the
concerns
and
issues
that
are
remaining
related
to
the
ground
level,
access
and
activation
of
the
site
and
how
that
relates,
perhaps
to
a
few
of
the
circulation
issues
for
pedestrian
bike
and
other
mobility
access
on
the
site.
So
the
core
of
the
program,
of
course,
is
the
hotel,
the
the
the
hotel
hotel
and
the
affordable
housing
project
being
managed
by
inhs.
A
Those
two
proposals
are
largely
unchanged
in
what
you
have
in
front
of
you.
There
are
some
minor
footprint
issues,
there's
some
minor
changes
in
terms
of
numbers
of
units,
but
substantively
it
is
the
same
program
that
was
proposed
before
you
might
remember,
from
prior
ira
meetings
or
for
those
of
you
who
are
on
common
council
at
the
time.
A
There
was
a
strong
desire
to
see,
however,
making
sure
that
we
were
addressing
the
needs
of
the
you
know:
the
broadest
possible
community
access
to
the
site,
because
this
is
such
a
visible
kind
of
link
in
the
waterfront
properties
at
the
southern
end
of
cuba
lake.
So
I
so
I
think
the
concern
is
is
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
this
program
proposal
is
as
strong
as
possible
and
addressing
issues
that
have
come
up
here
and
have
come
up
at
the
ira
and
that
we
believe
is
going
to
take.
A
I
mean
common
council,
and
so
we
think
that
is,
you
know,
is
still
not
developed
sufficiently
in
this
particular
program.
We
talked
about
it
at
the
edc.
I
think
the
development
team
was
gonna,
take
one
more
crack
at
looking
at
some
of
the
issues
there,
and
so
that's.
A
That
is
where
the
majority
of
the
issues
that
are
unresolved
from
the
ena
are
sitting,
and
then
the
last,
whereas
that
nels
indicates
here,
is
around
the
environmental
cleanup
and
improvements
in
the
public
right-of-way,
and
I
think
mostly,
what
we
just
need
to
do
is
agree
on
language
and
with
the
developers
so
that
we
can
clarify
the
right
things
in
the
dda
around
this.
So
I
don't
think
it's
I
think.
At
the
end
of
the
meeting,
I
don't
think
there's
there
are
substantive
disagreements.
A
I
think
it's
just
clarifying
exactly
the
language
of
what
the
city
would
be
accountable
for
and
what
the
developer
would
be
accountable
for,
and
there's
a
little
bit
of
inconsistency
in
language,
or
maybe
lack
of
clarity
in
language
in
the
ena
about
the
public
right-of-way,
and
I
think
we
clarified
it
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
which
is
it
will
be
the
city's
responsibility
to
make
improvements
in
the
street
of
old
toganic
boulevard.
You
will
see
in
the
site
diagram
that
the
developer
is
proposing
some
improvements.
A
It
was
always
assumed
that
the
developer
would
deduct
the
cost
of
the
environmental
cleanup
that
is
needed
on
city
and
or
ira,
I'm
not
sure
which
it
is
owned.
Properties
from
the
agreed
upon
sale,
price
they've,
given
us
guidance
as
to
what
we
think
that
is,
I
think
we
just
want
to
make
sure
we
kind
of
clarify
some
language
as
to
what
we
consider
to
be
a
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
word
is:
an
accurate
and
attributable
cost
of
that
environmental.
A
And
that
there's
no
misunderstandings,
you
know
several
months
down
the
road
about
what
everybody
meant
in
terms
of
environmental
cleanup,
but
substantively
we're
in
agreement
that
it's
the
ira
and
the
city's
exposure
here,
and
that
will
that
the
it'll
be
deducted
from
the
the
sale
price
of
the
parcels.
A
So
again,
I
will
look
to
nails
to
say
at
least
had
a
high
level
summary.
Is
there
something
missing.
B
Chris,
I
just
think
it's
important
to
make
clear
on
that
division
of
costs
associated
with
improvements,
the
city,
the
developer,
is
not
being
expected
to
make
improvement.
Well,
I
guess
I
should
say
the
city
has
to
agree
to
make
any
improvements
in
the
right-of-way.
That's
it's
not
automatic
that
was
ever
shown
on.
The
plan
will
be
accomplished
by
the
city
of
the
city's
cost,
so
in
in
essence,
the
the
default
position
should
be.
Don't
expect
the
city
to
make
improvements
unless
they
have
agreed
to
those
in
the
right
of
way.
A
Okay,
I
think
that's
a
better
way
of
explaining
it,
but
there's
a
couple
other
details.
I
realized.
I
think
I
want
to
explain
and
then
we'll
open
it
up
for
discussion.
There
are
a
few
issues
that
we
think
ultimately
will
get
resolved
by
the
planning
and
development
board
during
site
plan
review,
so
we
are
deferring
on
some
of
those.
So
just
some
of
the
details
around
you
know
where
exactly
parking
will
go
and
there
has
been
a
meeting
between
the
transportation
department
and
the
developer.
A
A
A
But
I
think
what
we
are
concerned
about
is:
if,
if
those
are
the
only
amenities
on
the
island
or
or
in
this
on
these
parcels,
then
I
think
it.
It
undermines
the
public
benefits
that
we're
trying
to
create
on
the
island,
and
I
think
there
were
concerns.
In
fact,
I
think,
raised
a
common
council
and
donna
and
laura
you
guys
were
there.
A
So
you
can
refresh
my
memory
that
in
fact,
people
might
perceive
this
as
a
private
development
and
not
want
to
access
the
site,
and
I
think
the
presence
of
private
secured
amenities
that
are
not
available
to
the
public.
You
know,
I
think
the
edc
is
a
little
concerned
about
that.
So
I
think
that
those
are
the
issues
that
we'll
try
to
document
a
little
bit
more
clearly
this
week,
so
the
developer
can
address
them.
A
We
talked
a
lot
about
the
western
promenade
which
runs
along
the
flood
control
channel,
and
you
know
potential
desire
to
have
that
upgraded,
so
it
connects
more
clearly
into
the
waterfront
trail.
There
are
definitely
other
pedestrian
connections
that
the
developer
has
proposed.
We
want
to
think
those
through
and
make
sure
that
they
connect
the
waterfront
shell
properly.
A
We
also
talked
about
a
bit
about
access
to
the
kayak
dock
that
you
will
see
also
on
the
diagram
in
the
in
the
flood
control
channel.
So
I
think,
there's
a
bit
more
work
to
go.
We
think
we
can
get
this
done
in
the
timeline
that
you
have
now
seen,
which
would
bring
this
back
to
your
for
your
approval,
probably
in
the
last
meeting
in
october,
so
you're
looking
at
about
two
more
months
of
getting
this,
hopefully
to
the
finish
line.
A
So
with
that,
let
me
see
if
there's
questions
or
discussions
first
about
the
substance
of
the
revised
program,
and
then
we
can
talk
about
the
resolution
for
the
extension
of
the
timeline
which
the
developer
in
principle
has
agreed
to.
So
I
see
donna's
hand
first.
So,
let's
start
there.
A
What's
being
shown,
is
you
know,
obviously,
overall
improvements
to
the
site,
lots
of
open
grassy
areas,
some
additional
pedestrian
connections
from
the
roadway
over
to
the
promenade
and
an
upgrade
of
that
kayak
dock
and.
C
C
Okay,
so
my
recollection
is
that
I
voted
against
that
additional
requirement
on
the
development,
because
I
thought
we
were
already
asking
way
too
much
of
the
developer
in
this
case-
and
this
was
this-
this
requirement
that
there
be
ground
level
access
for
the
public,
I
thought
would
make
the
whole
thing
impossible
and
my
my
recollection
is
also
that
common
council
didn't
give
specific
guidance
to
the
developer
about
what
for
the
for
those
people
who
were
in
favor
of
this,
it
wasn't
clear
what
they
meant.
Did
they
mean
shops?
C
So
in
my
mind,
since
this
is
a
mixed,
private
and
public
place,
it
seems
fine
to
me
that
sure
there'd
be
a
private
swimming
pool
and
a
private.
Well,
I
don't
know
about
a
private
playground
and
then
sufficient
access
for
the
public
to
get
to
the
kayak
dock
walk
around.
C
C
Picnic
whatever
I
don't
know
what
further
to
expect
from
the
developer
regarding
public
access.
So
what
further
ideas
have
been
tossed
around.
A
Yes,
so
I
recall
donna
your
point
of
view
on
that
and
I
would
agree,
I
don't
think
common
council
was
as
clear
as
they
could
have
been.
My
concern,
though,
is
I
don't.
I
am
concerned
about
the
developer,
spending
more
time
and
effort
on
a
project
that
ultimately
would
get
rejected
by
the
common
council,
and
I
also
know
that
this
is
a
different
common
council.
A
That's
going
to
approve
this
than
the
one
that
approved
the
ena,
and
so
I
think
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
gray
area
and
at
the
moment
we
haven't
gotten
any
other,
any
additional
ideas
from
the
developers
to
what
that
could
be,
and
I
think
I
just
want
to
be
clear.
I
think
I
don't
think
anyone
is
opposed,
certainly
to
the
pool,
I
don't
think
one's
opposed.
A
I
think
there
are
questions
around
the
playground,
as
you
noted
donna,
and
I
think,
finding
ways
to
work
with
iura
and
the
developers
so
that
the
playground,
we're
public
and
not
part
of
the
affordable
housing
is
something
I
think
we
definitely
want
to
explore,
and
I
think
that
would
be
something
that's
very
useful
and
then
I
think
it's
a
matter
of
okay.
Let's,
let's
try
to
then
identify
what
as
it
could
be
a
draw.
A
A
But
I
welcome
other
views
and
if
this-
and
if
the
agency
you
know,
is
largely
on
board
with
the
view
that
don
has
put
out
there-
which
I
don't
think
is
unreasonable,
that
would
be
good
feedback
for
us
to
have
as
well,
so
that
we
can
guide
the
next
couple
weeks
of
this
process.
A
F
I
I
agree
with
donna
that
I
would
like
to
see
the
playground
be
more
accessible.
That
feels
like
something
when
people
are
down
there,
maybe
they're
taking
their
kids
for
something
I
think
a
playground,
maybe,
and
that
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
just
the
developer.
F
However,
I
do
see
the
pool
isn't
as
a
different
issue
that
that
could
be
private,
that's
sort
of
a
normal
thing.
I
also
wonder
I
mean:
is
there
a
possibility
of
just
having
access
for
food
trucks
to
park
there
someplace
or
something
like
that?
That
would
make
it
feel
a
little
bit
more
open,
but
not
necessarily
be
a
big
deal
for
the
developer.
C
Sorry,
I
don't-
I
don't
want
to
hog
this.
I
I
think
my
recollection
is
also
that
during
common
council
deliberations,
I
thought
we
had
contradictory.
C
D
Yeah,
I
agree
with
donna
in
terms
and
tracy
in
terms
of
amenities
certainly
makes
sense
for
a
pool
to
be
specific
to
the
stay,
but
I
would
like
to
see
the
playground
be
more
public.
D
I
also
agree
that
council
had
great
concerns
about
traffic
congestion
and
not
wanting
to
encourage
large
numbers
of
traffic,
but
it
is
also
possible
to
access
the
island
by
foot
by
bike.
It
connects
to
the
waterfront
trail
so
that
public
access,
I
think,
is
still
important
and
one
of
the
ways
for
ensuring
public
access
was
also
the
dock
for
canoes
kayaks,
and
that
was
something
that,
as
I
recall,
council,
supported
that
amenity,
that
particular
amenity.
A
Yeah,
so
I
just
put
into
chat,
I
mean
we
actually
had
some
back
and
forth
with
council,
and
I
think
this
was
ultimately
then
agreed
with
the
pedc.
I
can't
remember
now
how
we
got
this
agreed,
but
but
this
is
actually
the
agreement
of
the
objective
that
was
added
as
a
result
of
all
that
common
council
discussion.
A
I
also
agree
with
what
you're
saying
about
there
was
concerns
about
traffic,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
this
is
what
was
memorialized
and
we're
trying
to
do
our
best
to
make
sure
that,
when
this
gets
back
in
front
of
common
council,
we
can
point
to
oh
and
a
and
b
and
c
and
d
were
the
things
the
developer
did
to
meet
this
objective
rather
than
get
to
a
place
where
we
get
there
and
people
say
well.
How
are
we
meeting
this
objective
and
we
actually
don't
have
a
great
answer
for
that.
A
So
ideas
that
are
being
discussed
here
are
great.
I
think
laura
we've
talked
and
I
think
the
kayak
dock
we
think,
is
a
positive.
I
think
we've
raised
some
concerns
with
the
developer
about
how
people
would
access
that
dock
are.
Are
the
pathways
correct?
You
know
how
people
parked
there
if
they
came
by
kayak
to
the
island,
what
are
they
accessing
there
once
they
get
there?
I
think
those
are
resolvable
issues.
I
don't
think
they
are
unresolvable,
but
I
think
it
requires.
You
know
more
clarity.
A
B
Yeah,
it
was
a
back
and
forth
because
it
was
originally.
I
think,
one
of
the
objectives
in
the
request
for
expressions
of
interest,
something
similar
to
this,
not
this
exact
language
to
activate
the
island
for
public
use,
and
then
we
moved
forward
with
the
ira
recommending
selection
of
finger
lakes
developments
proposal
with
some
with
some
kind
of
caveats.
I
guess,
or
some
concerns
one
of
them
was-
was
again
language
regarding
ground
level
activity.
B
It
eventually
got
approved
by
the
common
council,
a
different
language
that
was
a
little
bit
more
difficult
to
interpret.
So
we
brought
it
back
to
common
council
and
said
we
would
seek
some
clarity
on
the
language,
because
the
first
proposal
was
about
street
level
activity
kind
of
pushing
the
issue
of
ground
level,
first
floor
use
of
buildings,
and
the
agency
thought
that
you
know
it
doesn't
have
to
be
the
first
floor
of
a
building
to
activate
the
island.
B
It
may
be
amenities
like
the
dock
or
outdoor
activity,
so
it
would
evolve
to
the
language
you
see
now,
which
was
ground
level
activity
which
would
consider
birth,
both
both
the
first
floor
buildings
as
well
as
outdoor
activities
where
people
are
walking,
and
you
know
if
you're
walking
along
the
trail
or
the
island,
where
you
can
can
kind
of
be
stimulated
by
activities
or
drawn
to
a
destination.
B
A
G
First
I'll
say
I
I
agree
with
the
seems
to
be
the
prevailing
opinion
that
the
playground
should
be
public
and
I'm
fine
with
the
pool
being
private,
as
tracy
said,
that's
kind
of
common
to
to
hotels,
and
so
I
think
that's
this
would
be
the
expectation.
G
I
think
at
this
point
it's
difficult
to
predict
the
public
usage
of
the
the
public
areas.
You
know
waterfront
access,
the
public
will
decide.
You
know
how
populistic
popular
this
is,
and
so
I
think
right
at
this
point,
it'll
be
it's
tough
for
us
to
anticipate
what
the
traffic
load
will
be.
G
I
I
do
have
a
question
on
the
the
cleanup.
There
was
a
a
document
in
along
with
the
packet
that
showed
some
areas
that
needed
to
be
remediated,
I'm
wondering
if
that's
the
extent
of
their
remediation,
as
is
the
investigation
completed
and
that's
all
the
area
that
was
found
or
is
there
more
investigation
to
be
done.
B
The
the
investigation
and
borings
were
done
on
what
is
considered
considered.
The
egway
site,
which
is
just
south
of
the
coast,
guard
auxiliary
building
where
there's
significant
boat
storage.
It
was
a
former
egg
way,
fuel
storage
depot
and
that
area
we
feel
has
been
documented
quite
clearly
the
boundaries
of
subsurface
petroleum
contamination
on
that
site.
It's
about
a
half
acre
in
size
and
and
we've
in
that
investigation
identified
clean
boundaries
around
that
that
contaminated
soil.
B
So
we
feel
that
that
is
pretty
a
pretty
good
effort
to
define
the
boundaries
of
contamination
on
that
site.
What's
not
entirely
clear
is
whether
there's
any
contamination
on
the
dec
site.
They
indicate
that
it
is
a
clean
site
and
because
the
subsurface
investigation,
that's
in
the
in
the
packet,
is
immediately
adjacent
to
that
site.
It
does
have
a
clean.
You
know
it
doesn't
show
contamination
as
you
approach
the
boundary
line
between
the
two
parcels.
B
G
Site
and
another
question-
and
I
think
this
may
be
for
nils
also,
could
you
clarify
for
me
when
we're
talking
about
the
right
of
way?
Are
we
talking
about
just
the
roadway
on
the
the
east
side
that
extends
down
to
the
boat
yard,
or
else
to
talk
about
that
and
the
the
path
on
the
along
the
water?
On
the
west
side.
B
B
You
know
characterization
for
land
ownership,
because
there's
a
25
foot
wide
dec
maintenance
easement
along
that
entire
corridor
along
the
flood
control
channel,
which
prohibits
any
construction
in
that
activity
in
any
activities
above
grade
level.
Basically,
so
it's
a
very
much
dedicated
green
space.
My
understanding
is
that
that
the
property
boundaries,
the
underlying
property
boundaries
are,
are
varied
as
you
go
up
and
down
through
the
the
waterfront,
the
flood
control
channel
with
this
overlapping
easement
on
it.
But
then
the
tax
maps
show
it
as
a
separate
parcel.
B
It's
not
clear
who
they
show.
Ownership
is
so
we
need
a
little
more
research
on
that,
but
the
the
core
issue
is
that
it's
you
know
it's
protected
against
development
and
the
city
is
got
a
very
strong
interest
in
maintaining
you
know
public
access
for
the
waterfront
promenade
trail
built
in
that
area.
So
it's
it
functionally.
B
It
probably
should
be
viewed
as
a
public
area,
because,
if
and
and
in
fact
the
the
appraisal
that
was
done
in
this
property
assumed
that
that
area
that
25
foot
wide
swath
along
the
flight
control
channel
was
not
going
to
be
conveyed
and
that's
something
I
wanted
to
do
a
little
more
research
on.
But
that's
the
way
I
think
the
developer
views
it
as
well.
Is
that
right,
steve.
H
Yes,
yeah,
no,
absolutely,
and
we
wanted
to
be
public
too.
E
B
C
Maybe
it
would
help
if
you
pulled
up
the
map
on
the
screen.
I
lost
track
of
the
coast
guard
facility
and
if
there,
what
kind
of
discussion
has
there
been
about?
What's
called
the
flex
space
reinforced
lawn?
Is
there
potential
there
for
anything.
A
Yes
I'll
give
a
quick
summary
and
then
maybe
steve
can
jump
in
so
so
the
coast
guard
building
itself
needs
to
come
down
as
part
of
the
conveyance
from
new
york
state
because
it
intrudes
into
that
25
foot
easement.
That
nels
was
just
talking
about,
so
we
could
cut
off
a
corner
of
the
building.
A
I
guess
technically,
but
I
think
the
developer
has
determined
that
cutting
off
a
corner
of
the
building
renders
the
building
basically
obsolete,
so
that
building
would
come
down
the
developer
as
one
of
the
conditions
of
the
ena
had
a
requirement
to
provide
sort
of
alternative
space.
That's
one
issue
that
we're
just
again
trying
to
clarify
exactly
what's
being
offered
so
that
would
be
in
the
in
the
dda
so
that
coast,
guard
auxiliary,
could
continue
to
kind
of
provide
some
services
from
this
location.
A
H
Sure
so,
in
order
to
be
able
to
continue
the
boat
operations
and
that
activity
on
the
waterfront,
which
is
one
of
the
objectives
of
both
the
city
and
obviously
the
developer,
is
that
boats
in
order
to
get
them
out
of
the
water
need
access
up
to
both
the
shop,
which
is
directly
opposite
from
the
stays
building
and
also
a
pretty
wide
turning
radius
for
all
the
equipment
and
it's
a
part
of
hauling
and
launching
boats
and
so
the
flex
space,
because
it
is
straight
back
and
relatively
innocuous
hidden
by
the
route
89
would
temporarily
in
the
business
in
the
busiest
seasons
spring
and
fall,
you
know
be
used
kind
of
as
a
holding
place
for
equipment.
H
That's
then
like
used
the
next
day
or
for
a
large.
You
know,
you
know
piece
of
equipment
for
moving
boats
and
cradles
and
trailers,
and
so
yes,
there
that
is
a
flexible
space
and-
and
you
know,
hopefully
it
will
provide
some.
B
B
And
so
they
have
a
large
marine
lift
that
takes
the
boats
in
and
out,
and
it
needs
to
move
out
of
the
dock
and
the
water
area
there
and
temporarily
moving
them
to
that
flex.
Space
would
be
would
help
the
function
of
the
of
the
loading
operation
without
obstructing
the
road
for
for
more
time
period
than
would
be
necessary
as
they
cross
there.
D
Thank
you
following
up
on
that
last
question,
and
we
did
speak
about
this
before
needing
access
as
boats
come
out
of
the
water.
Would
there
be
any
boat
storage
on
that
flex
space
and
would
there
be
any
other
use
in
addition
to
the
boating
center
of
that
flex,
space.
H
There
would
not
be
any
seasonal
boat
storage
on
that
space.
There
might
be
something
from
one
night
to
the
next
that
sort
of
thing,
but
there
would
not
be
you
know,
boats
there
for
the
winter
boats
there
for
the
summer.
It
would
be
strictly
you
know,
kind
of
a
holding
pattern.
H
As
for
operations,
as
we
have
other
storage
spaces
over,
you
know
a
couple
other
areas,
both
in
the
city
and
outside
of
the
city
which
we
need
to
be
able
to
transport
boats
to,
but
that
transport
requires
equipment
and
kind
of
a
holding
pattern.
If
we
can
do
five
or
six
boats
a
day,
you
know
you
want
the
equipment
for
the
next
stage,
boats
to
be
ready
to
go,
and
so
there's
kind
of
a
moving.
It's
a
you
know.
It's
a
moving
operation.
H
It
would
not
be
exclusive,
I
mean
during
so
during
the
time
frame
when
you
know
we're
in
the
height
of
the
hall
out
or
or
launch
season,
it
would
be,
might
be
limited,
but
other
than
that
there
are
other
possibilities
and
in
fact
nelson
I
spoke
yesterday.
I
hope
I'm
not
talking
out
of
out
of
out
of
turn,
but
we
spoke
yesterday
about
possible
uses
to
resolve
some
of
the
or
meet
some
of
the
state's
demands
for
what
they
need
space
for
if
they're
going
to
be
dredging.
B
F
Yeah
yeah,
it
is
no
I'm
not
just
waving
around.
So
what
is
what
are
those
busy
haul
out
and
launch
seasons?
What
what
months
are
those.
H
So
september
and
october,
or
probably
the
the
you
know,
mid-september
let's
say
to
mid
to
late
october-
would
be
the
busiest
for
the
pulling
out.
Launching
would
be
the
busiest
is
basically
april
into
well
may
this
april
and
may
are
probably
the
busiest
early
june.
F
Yeah,
I'm
also,
if
I
could
get
back
to
the
playground
for
a
minute,
I'm
looking
at
where
the
playground
is,
and
I'm
thinking
it's
near
the
water.
It
needs
to
be
fenced
and
it
seems
to
be
pretty
much
right
right
next
to
the
building.
So
it
feels
like
it
would
feel
private
there
anyway,
unless
it
was
clearly
marked
as
something
else.
F
I
mean
it's
the
same
thing
as
when
you
get
down
to
the
boatyard
grill
and
that
that
point
is
technically
open
and
public,
but
it
feels
very
private
when
they
have
a
lot
of
chairs
set
up
there
and
things
so
there's
a
private
feeling
and
a
public
feeling,
and
I
think
that
would
have
to
be
into
consideration
if
the
playground
was
going
to
be
public.
A
Yeah-
and
I
just
I
want
to
clarify
because
we
introduced
it
and
everyone
commented
on
it,
but
we
haven't
cleared
it.
So
my
understanding
from
the
representatives
of
inhs
who
are
on
the
meeting
the
other
day
is
if
this
is
built
by
inhs
using
the
funding
sources
that
they
have
available
to
build,
affordable
housing.
It
is
a
requirement
of
that
funding
to
it
that
it
not
be
open
to
the
public.
A
So
what
we
need
to
figure
out
is
a
funding
source
for
this
through
the
development
program
that
would
allow
us
to
detach
it
from
the
affordable
housing
project.
So
that
has
to
be
explored.
Now,
yes
and
and
then
your
issue
then
becomes
true
tracy
right
then,
but
then
does
it
still
look
like
it's
private
and
then
how
do
we
deal
with
that?
Is
it
different
yeah?
A
But
I
just
want
everyone
to
understand
that
as
proposed.
That's
why
it's
private!
It's
not
that
they're
trying
to
create
a
private
amenity.
It's
more
that
there's
funding
implications
from
the
sources
that
they
use.
I
assume
it's
some
of
the
state
sources
side,
nelson's,
yeah,
carl
back
to
you.
G
And
do
I
remember
correctly
that
the
parking
lot
to
the
south
of
the
anchor
is
also
private,
in
other
words,
restricted
for
the
inhs
tenants.
B
Oh
and
that's
not
correct
carol,
the
much
of
the
parking
for
the
inhabitants
would
be
under
at
the
ground
floor
round,
floor
of
the
building,
there's
18
or
so
parking
spaces
there.
The
larger
parking
lot
to
the
left
on
the
plan
is
intended
as
public
parking.
Oh
okay,.
A
And
we
did
talk
about
the
meeting
coordinating
between
the
developer
and
city
transportation
on
some
sort
of
coordinated
parking
management
system
that
is
tpc
and
doesn't
need
to
be
worried
about
here.
But
hopefully
we
wouldn't
have
a
kind
of
a
fragmented
approach
to
all
the
various
parking
on
the
island.
A
Okay,
unless
anybody
else
has
anything,
I'm
going
to
propose
that
we
look
at
the
resolution,
so
the
resolution
in
your
packet,
the
ac,
the
action
of
it
is
in
the
three
resolves-
is
really
to
say
that
doesn't
that
the
current
submission
does
not
satisfactorily
address
all
the
issues,
it
did
actually
address
many
of
the
issues,
but
it
did
not
address
all
and
we
don't
think
we
could
resolve
all
those
in
the
30-day
timeline
that
is
required
from
the
to
actually
produce
a
draft
dda.
A
So
therefore
we're
proposing
a
time
extension
such
that
we
would
receive
revised
development
materials
no
later
than
seven
days
prior
to
the
next
edc
meeting,
which
is
currently
october.
11Th,
there's
no
september
meeting
due
to
quorum
issues
and
then
so,
therefore,
ira
would
have
proven
an
amendment
to
the
ena.
This
is
the
second
resolve
to
extend
the
date
of
the
development
submission
of
reference
to
bob
and
modifies
the
date
for
the
ira
to
submit
a
proposed
dda
to
november
1st.
A
So
I
guess,
as
edc,
chair
I'll
move
that
resolution
and
look
for
a
second
thank
you.
Tracy
questions
about
the
resolution
itself.
A
That
is
unanimous,
five
to
zero.
Okay.
Thank
you
all
right,
so
to
be
continued
thanks,
everybody
for
your
dialogue
and
discussion
today.
It
helps
to
clarify
the
issues
even
further
chair
report
really
quickly.
Moving
on
to
other
business
by
steve.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
We
are
recruiting
members
for
both
the
neighborhood
investment
and
economic
development
committees.
We
had
a
good
interview
yesterday
with
someone
for
ni,
which
is
great
we're
in
this.
We
have
one
vacancy
currently
on
the
economic
development
committee,
we're
anticipating
actually
two
more
before
the
end
of
the
year,
which
would
render
the
committee
not
functional.
A
Actually,
so
I
just
again
kind
of
put
out
a
call
for
anybody
who
has
any
suggestions
of
anyone
who
might
be
interested
in
the
intersection
of
our
work
with
economic
development
in
the
city
and
isaiah
is
a
city
resident.
We
do
have
one
lead
that,
hopefully
we
can
bring
on
and
that
would
close
the
vacancy
we
have
and
then
we
would
move
to
filling
the
two
vacancies
that
would
be
open.
After
that.
That's
all
I've
got
for
my
chair
report
I'll
check
to
see
if
the
mayor
has
a
report.
D
Just
a
few
things
on
the
agenda:
there
are
two
special
committees
that
have
been
appointed
one
to
look
at
the
reimagining
public
safety
city,
recommendations
that
includes
council
members
and
then
a
special
committee.
Looking
at
the
work
plan
on
homeless
and
unsanctioned
encampments,
that
committee
will
be
comprised
of
council
members
and
staff.
D
Last
night
at
city
administration,
there
was
a
very
informative
presentation
on
a
from
an
organization
called
flock,
and
this
is
an
organization
that
looks
at
license
plate
readers
in
terms
of
safety.
We
on
council
well,
a
number
of
people
have
been
hearing
concerns
and
questions
about
violence
in
the
city.
D
Solving
of
crime
and
flock
is
an
organization
that
has
this
program
to
have
license
plate
readers.
The
primary
concern
is
for
privacy.
These
readers
can
be
used
to
identify
vehicles
that
may
be
involved
in
in
crime.
So
it
was
a
very
interesting
presentation
ethic.
A
green
new
deal
initiatives
are
moving
forward.
D
There
is
a
grant
that
will
has
been
offered
by
the
park
foundation
for
website
development
and
to
support
interns
working
with
the
other
green
new
deal
and
there's
also
a
grant
that
was
discussed
last
night
at
ca
for
safe
streets
and
roads
for
all,
and
this
involves
a
number
of
municipalities
with
the
city
of
ithaca
being
the
lead
on
on
this
application.
So
there
is
an
awful
lot
going
on
right
now
and
we
are
beginning
we're
in
the
early
stages
of
budget
2023
budget.
A
D
It
is
looking
at,
let
me
just
see
if
I
can
find
the.
D
D
A
G
D
Very
good
question
that
came
up
last
night
when
I
first
heard
of
flock
that
was
one
of
my
first
questions.
Data
is
owned
by
the
city,
it
is
not
sold,
it
is
not
shared
with
any
other
organization.
The
data
also
is
in
terms
of
data
security.
This
is
a
an
organization
that
their
presentation
was
very
thorough
and
they
really
are
concerned
about
security,
privacy
and
security.
The
data
remains
for
30
days
and
is
then
expunged,
but
it
is
fully
owned
and
controlled
by
the
city.
D
I
should
mention
that
cornell
is
also
installing
they
are
they're
in
conversations
I
should
say
for
use
of
flock
as
well.
A
Seems
like
a
slippery
slope,
but
let
you
guys
wrestle
with
that.
Any
other
questions
for
the
mayor.
A
Great,
thank
you.
Laura
rob
anything
from
common
council
liaison
nothing
to
report
this
morning.
Okay
and
staff.
B
The
only
thing
I
want
to
report
is
that
hud
has
reviewed
the
2022
action
plan
that
was
submitted
by
anissa
and
charles
and
has
approved
it.
So
we
have
now
reached
the
the
threshold
of
approval
of
the
2022
action
plan
that
I
think
was
you
know,
approved
by
the
committee
back
in
march.
It
takes
this
is
the
kind
of
the
time
frame
it
takes,
so
we
will
notify
applicants.
You
know
the
grantees
of
of
the
approved
action
plan
and
start
working
on
getting
contracts
and
getting
those
projects
underway
nissan.
E
I
just
want
to
add
that
the
funding
has
not
been
released
yet
for
the
action
plan.
So
our
current
plan
is
to
wait
for
a
few
weeks
until
the
funding
is
released
before
we
send
the
commitment
letters
just
because
that
creates
a
an
expectation
among
the
awardees
and
so
we'd
like
to
have
the
funding
more
available
for
them
when,
when
they
get
that
letter.
B
I
just
just
remind
folks
that
you're
not
available
for
the
next
ira
meeting
in
september,
so
we're
going
to
be
down
one
member.
So
if
anybody
else
has
a
quorum
here,
question
in
their
mind,
we
want
to
make
sure
we
have
at
least
three
members
for
that
meeting
and
I
think
carl
has
graciously
agreed
to
chair
the
september
ira
meeting.
B
A
D
And
we
won't
likely
know
until
september
14
if
there
will
be
yet
another
extension
on
virtual,
allowing
virtual
meetings.
A
A
All
right
good.
Thank
you
now
is
there
a
motion
to
adjourn?