►
Description
The Committee discussed and adopted a proposed resolution for the Inlet Island Urban Renewal Project's Disposition & Development Agreement (DDA). In April 2021, the project's Sponsor, Finger Lakes Development, LLC (FLD), submitted its initial proposal to develop 2.5 acres of underutilized land on Inlet Island. At its 8/23/22 meeting, the Committee reviewed the Sponsor’s updated proposal against pre-identified development and feasibility issues to be resolved and also determined: which issues have been satisfactorily resolved; which issues can be reasonably expected to be resolved in the future; and which issues require further negotiation prior to executing the DDA. More information about the project and the approval process can be found at: www.IthacaURA.org. The Committee also briefly reviewed a written Public Comment from Sunny Days of Ithaca (https://sunnydaysny.com), expressing its concerns with a member of the FLD ownership and development team; and also calling attention to the need for public restroom facilities in the project design.
B
A
We
are
going
to
get
started
so
I'll
call
the
meeting
to
order.
This
is
the
august
23rd
meeting
of
the
iua
economic
development
committee,
nells
agenda
additions
or
deletions.
I
have
no
changes
to
the
agenda.
No,
I
just
flagged
for
committee
members.
There
was
a
revised
packet
sent
out
just
a
few
hours
ago
with
a
revised
resolution
related
to
inline
island,
so
that
will
be
discussed
later.
Charles
public
comments,
written
nor
verbal.
B
A
A
A
B
A
Okay,
I've
read
the
letter
dog
charlotte
for
you
guys.
Let
me
just
give
me
a
thumbs
up
when
you're
good,
good,
okay,
great
charles,
let's
make
sure
it's
added
to
the
record
for
the
meeting
and
shout
out
accordingly
is
just
before
we
go
to
minutes.
Does
anybody
on
the
committee
have
a
comment
or
a
response
question.
A
You
know
all
those
favor
great.
That
is
unanimous,
and
I
should
just
note
for
everyone
who's
here
and
for
the
record.
Leslie
ackerman
has
recused
herself
from
this
meeting.
She
is
employed
by
ethical
neighborhood
housing,
which
is
engaged
in
the
development
team
for
inlet
island
urban
renewal
project,
okay.
So
that
brings
us
to
our
main
agenda
honor
for
today,
which
is
several
actions.
Several
discussion
items
related
to
the
renewal
project.
We
have
several
members
of
the
development
team
here
as
well.
A
Maybe
first
I
mean
I
think
what
I'll
have
nells
do
under
a
is
just
give
us
kind
of
a
project
update,
but
maybe
before
we
do
the
project
update,
maybe
it
would
just
be
useful
for
members
of
the
development
team
just
to
kind
of
go
around,
so
we
just
introduce
who's
here
because
I'm
sure
we'll
be
hearing
from
you
throughout
so
maybe
from
the
team
of
widdham.
You
want
to
start
and
then
we'll
go
around
the
room.
C
A
A
F
Okay,
thanks
yeah,
we
executed
an
exclusive
negotiation
agreement
in
december
and
it
had
a
clock
for
managing
the
negotiation
process
and
that
clock
started
after
the
appraisal
was
completed.
So
it
took
us
several
months
to
get
an
appraiser
under
contract
and
complete
that
work.
They
did
it.
They
did
accomplish
that
task.
F
Finally,
it
the
appraisal
came
back
at
22.50
per
square
foot
of
land
when
you
looked
at
the
entire
parcels
holdings,
and
then
that
started
a
hundred
day
clock
for
the
developer
to
submit
a
revised
development
program
and
additional
materials
that
are
that
are
cited
in
the
ena,
primarily
the
issues
to
be
resolved
components
as
well
as
a
revised
development
program.
The
developer
did
accomplish
that
task.
F
On
on
august
8th,
we
received
that
information,
so
the
next
step
in
this
process
is
is
a
30-day
period
for
the
ira
to
review
the
material,
and
it
was
structured
that
the
we
would
positively
figure
out
a
way
to
bring
the
sites
together
and
within
30
days,
issued
to
the
developer.
A
disposition
and
development
agreement
proposed
disposition
development
agreement.
F
If
the
ira
agrees
with
the
proposed
disposition
and
development
agreement
that
was
signed
by
the
developer,
but
not
signed
by
the
ira,
since
the
ira
is
proposing
the
disposition
and
development
agreement,
it's
it's
presumed
that
there's
a
good
chance.
The
agency
would
support
that,
but
the
issues
come
up
under
public
hearing
following
that.
You
know
if
the
agency
signs
agrees,
approves
it
but
doesn't
sign
it.
F
One
way
to
think
of
it
is
it's
a
purchase
and
sale
agreement
and
the
ira
is
a
seller
and
the
developer
is
the
purchaser
and
the
seller
is
going
to
impose
a
series
of
contingencies
prior
to
closing
on
the
agreement.
Some
of
the
contingencies
are
going
to
be
procedural,
such
as
common
council
approval
and
public
hearings.
Others
could
be,
you
know
more,
you
know,
planning
board
approval
of
a
site
plan
could
be
what
would
be
a
likely
contingency
to
the
to
the
disposition
development.
A
Great,
thank
you,
nelson
yeah,
so
just
to
kind
of
frame
this
and
then
I'll
see.
If
there's
any
questions
from
charlotte
or
doug
is
you
know
we're
going
to
review
the
revised
program
submitted
by
the
developer
on
the
8th
and
really
kind
of
go
through
that
list
of
issues
that
have
been
identified
in
the
ena
and
if
and
if
we're
satisfied
that
everything's
been
met,
then
we
can
move
forward
with
a
draft
tda.
A
F
And
so
you
can
see
on
this
plan
that
the
yellow
bounded
area
is
essentially
where
the
building
is
now.
This
is
superimposed
over
the
early
version
of
the
development
program,
and
that
dc
is
is
open
to
transferring
that
property
to
the
city
for
inclusion
in
the
project.
They
also
have
some
of
their
own
objectives
they
want
to
accomplish,
which
is
to
provide
some
logistical
support
for
their
maintenance
of
the
flood
control
channel,
as
well
as
for
some
of
the
dredge
activities
that
are
proposed
in
the
near
future.
F
So
conceptually
you
can
see
here
the
boundary
lines
where
that
boundary
site
is
where
there's
a
yellow
era
going
down
from
the
top
that's
kind
of
where
the
building
is
currently
but
the
triangle
of
land
that
the
dec
controls
goes
north
towards
the
point
in
a
kind
of
a
triangle
fashion,
and
you
can
see
where
those
little
green
arrows
are.
On
the
right
hand,
side
of
the
image
shows
where
that
that
triangle
is
so,
if
charles
v
advance
to
the
next
image
on
the
next
page,
it'll
show
it
in
greater
detail.
F
So
what
dc
is
proposing
is
this
is
oh
well,
I
should
say
they're
open
to
a
transfer
of
property
at
a
kind
of
a
fair
exchange
of
values
and
oops.
What
happened
there?
We
shifted
around
the.
What
they
would
like
is
to
retain
a
portion
of
the
site
for
logistical
purposes
and
convey
the
yellow
bounded
area
to
the
city,
and
also
they
would
want
to
see
that
any
encroachment
of
the
existing
building
into
the
easement
be
removed,
which
would
probably
require
some
either
partial
demolition
or
full
demolition
of
the
building.
F
So
they
would
have
a
full
easement
area
open
and
unimpeded
and
secondly,
that
they
would
gain
an
access
right
somewhere
else
on
the
island
and
the
barge
canal
side
for
for
dredge
purposes,
which
would
be
on
city
property,
not
on
developer
property.
So
this
this
discussion
has
been
moving
forward
positively
and
I
think
it's
likely
we
can
come
to
some
agreement,
but
there
are
details
that
need
still
to
be
worked
out,
and
the
state
also
has
a
process
for
property
transfers.
F
So
there's
a
timeline
associated
with
this
once
conceptual
issues
are
are
agreed
upon,
but
generally
speaking,
it's
they.
The
dc
indicates
that
there
could
be
a
fair
exchange
which
may
not
involve
a
whole
lot
of
dollar
exchange
if
the
value
that
is
provided
to
them
is
equivalent
or
to
the
value
of
the
building.
In
other
words,
by
removing
a
portion
of
the
building
into
the
encroachment
area
and
by
the
city
providing
an
access
easement
to
the
barge
canal
system,
there
may
be
a
very
close
to
fair.
F
You
know:
zero
dollar
exchange
or
very
modest
exchange
amount
yeah.
So
that's
that's
a
positive
aspect.
The
questionable
issue
is
to
make
sure
that
the
dec
acquired
portion
of
the
site
doesn't
somehow
detract
from
the
overall
development
of
the
island
because
their
their
interest
is
in
logistics,
and
you
know
kind
of
maintenance
issues
and
we're
trying
to
upgrade
the
entire
experience
of
the
island.
So
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
potential
for
a
mismatch
there
and
we're
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
can
work
out
those
issues.
A
F
Bit,
okay,
so
the
state
of
new
york
owns
the
entire
yellow
areas
of
the
site,
the
boundary,
as
well
as
the
purple
area
that
so
it
becomes
a
very
tight
triangle
right,
it's
wide
where
the
building
is,
and
it
comes
to
a
point
at
the
north.
That's
the
parcel
that
we're
talking
about
when
we're
talking
about
the
coast.
Guard
auxiliary,
parcel.
A
F
Correct
but
they
would
offset
the
purchase
price
based
on
the
cost,
to
remove
the
infringement
into
the
easement
that
that
portion
of
the
building
that
intrudes
into
the
flood
control
channel
and
also
provide
recognizes
value
access
to
another
part
of
to
the
barge
canal
through
city
property.
At
the
southern
part
of
the
island.
F
And
there's
also
a
little
bit
of
a
a
former
building
foundation,
just
south
of
the
marine
building
that
you
that's
not
detailed
on
this
plan,
but
is
shown
just
immediately
south
of
the
coast
guard
auxiliary
property,
which
also
infringes
into
the
easement.
It's
only
a
foundation
wall
at
this
point,
but
that
could
be
another
value
to
the
dc
to
remove
that
from
the
flood
control
easement,
because
they
essentially
try
to
treat
the
flood
control
easement
area
as
an
area
with
no
vertical
features
at
all.
Just
grass.
G
F
No,
in
fact,
the
the
current
trail
we
have
along
the
flight
control
channel
is
within
that
easement
dc
has
permitted
those
kind
of
of
improvements
the
again
provided
it
doesn't
have
vertical
features.
That
would
be,
I
guess,
viewed
as
a
snake
hazard,
should
there
be
trees
and
debris
coming
down
the
flight
control
channel.
So
our
current,
our
current
waterfront
well
promenade
there
are,
is
located
within
that
easement
and
because
that's
land
owned
by
the
city
with
an
easement
to
dec.
F
A
F
Are
they
are
aware
of
the
development
plan
and
we
haven't
finalized
negotiations
regarding
the
floating
dock
area,
but
they
seemed
very
open
to
the
idea
of
a
kayak
style
dock
on
that
on
that
location,
but
we
have
not
formalized
anything.
I
was
still
working
through
the
big
issues
and
I
think
we
view
that
as
a
small
issue,
but
a
very
important
issue
for
public
public
access,
because
those
stocks
have
been
there
so
long
already
it,
it
seems
quite
likely
that
they
will
agree
to
continue
some
of
those
those
stocks
on
that
area.
F
I
think
it
was
partially
related
the
fact
that
they're
planning
to
dredge
operations
in
this
area-
and
they
may
view
that
as
an
obstruction
during
dredging
activities.
On
the
other
hand,
you
know
it
is
kind
of
a
shoal
out
there
right
now,
and
it
would
perhaps
you
know
benefit.
So
we
want
to
continue
discussions
on
that.
Especially
steve
had
some
ideas
about
how
a
doc
could
extend
out
that
might
they
may
find
more
acceptable
in
a
different
kind.
F
You
know
a
particular
alignment,
so
I
think
that's
something
we
still
want
to
take
a
look
at
while
that
that
doc
is
shown
on
the
development
program
plan
site
plan.
You
have
at
this
point
in
time.
We
don't
have
any
formal
commitment
by
the
developers
to
develop
that,
because
dc
was
not
enthusiastic
in
early
discussions
about
that.
So
that's
an
that
might
be
an
issue
we
need
to
want
to
revisit
at
some
point.
F
A
F
They
can
get
back
with
some
detailed
kind
of
proposals
just
last
week
to
us
and
I
think
we
can
respond,
and
I
responded
that
where
there
were
some
concerns
about
one
aspect
of
their
proposal,
but
I
think
we
are
going
back
and
forth.
We've
had
very
good
cooperation
from
the
regional
director
who's
involved
in
the
discussions,
and
I
think
I
think
we
are
getting
where
we
can
make
progress.
You
know
quite
quickly,
given
the
fact
that
it's
involving
a
state
agency
and
a
municipality
and
a
developer,
all
included
in
the
discussions.
F
A
A
F
And
the
division
we've
had
so
far
is
that
the
transfer
would
the
developer
would
be
responsible
for
removing
the
infringement
into
the
building
and
that
the
demolition
of
the
building
would
be
used
as
as
an
offset
for
the
purchase
price.
So
the
city,
the
city
and
ira's
role,
would
be
as
a
pass-through
to
the
developer.
F
A
E
But
what
is
what
is
not?
What
would
not
be
a
pass-through
I
think
which
bears
some
discussion
is
any
environmental
cleanup
that
would
be
required.
We
don't
know
that.
There's
any.
I
believe
many
years
ago
the
state
has
at
least
verbally
stated.
Oh
no.
No,
we
don't
have
any
contamination
back
when
we
were
cleaning
up
the
boatyard
grill
site.
E
F
A
B
H
So
yeah
we
put
together
a
brief
presentation
to
go
through
some
of
the
changes
that
have
been
made
since
the
that
older
site
plan
that
you
saw
briefly
underlaid
below
some
of
the
other
documents
earlier.
We
we
did
want
to
do
a
quick
walk
through
of
some
of
the
other
site
constraints,
just
so
that
everyone
is
aware
of
what
is
driving
some
of
the
design
decisions
and
the
locations
of
the
buildings
and
and
the
overall
programming
of
the
site.
H
So
the
main
constraints,
as
many
of
you
are
probably
already
aware,
are
the
new
york
state,
dec
easement
for
the
flood
control
channel
on
the
west
side
of
the
island
and
then
also
the
nice
egg.
Easement
is
also
a
fairly
major
legal
constraint,
as
well
as
a
physical
constraint,
with
the
those
existing
overhead
power
lines.
H
H
So
this
is
the
50-foot
street
right-of-way,
approximately
I
say
approximately
50
feet
because
it
is
not
consistently
50
feet.
Wide
50
feet
is
the
standard
city
right-of-way
for
a
city
street,
but
the
old
tiganic
boulevard
right
away
does
not
follow
this,
but
just
just
for
reference.
This
is
the
shape
of
that.
H
H
H
As
as
we
just
discussed,
the
dec
access
and
staging
area
is
shown
this,
this
is
you
know,
approximate
and
clearly
still
in
conversation,
but
also
the
area
below
that
in
blue
is
space
that
is
necessary
not
just
for
the
dec
access,
but
also
for
emergency
vehicle.
Turning
at
the
end
of
the
right-of-way,
and
that
is
incorporated
into
portions
of
the
parking
lot
that
exists
at
the
north
end.
H
H
H
Specifically,
one
of
the
major
changes
is
the
demolition
of
that
that
existing
building
in
the
dec
parcel
and
how
that
impacts.
The
stay
tell
building
what
we're
calling
the
stays
currently,
so
that
footprint
has
shifted
a
little
bit
to
reflect
an
ability
to
move
a
little
bit
further
north,
which
opens
up
some
more
space
towards
the
south
end,
and
also
some
shifting
of
that
second
half
of
the
building
to
be
a
little
bit
closer
to
the
water
to
add
a
little
more
interest
to
the
just.
H
The
overall
building
mass
and
footprint,
the
the
anchor
building
also
has
been
shifted
a
little
bit.
We
have
tom
kinslow
here
from
halt.
They've
been
working
on
some
preliminary
programming
and
design
for
floor
plans
for
the
inhs
building,
which
we're
calling
the
anchor
here
as
just
a
temporary
label,
and
so.
H
Access
aisle,
which
will
also
other
than
that,
however,
for
the
most
part,
the
plan
remains
more
or
less
the
same.
There
are
some
other
adjustments
I'll
point
out,
such
as
relocating
the
drop-off
zone,
on
the
stays
to
the
corner
of
the
building,
which
creates
more
of
a
an
exclamation
point.
If
you
will
on
that
corner
and
also
works
a
little
bit
better,
with
the
way
that
the
width
of
the
parcel
that
we
have
to
work
with,
there
works
as
it
sort
of
narrows
down.
H
At
the
end,
we
also
made
some
adjustments
to
the
layout
of
the
pedestrian
walkways
to
accommodate
this.
We
adjusted
some
of
the
locations
of
the
crosswalks
with
an
eye
for
safety
and
just
generally
have
made
tweaks
throughout,
but
but
by
and
large,
the
plan
has
remained
more
or
less
the
same.
This
diagram
illustrates.
H
C
We've
we've
had
a
great
meeting
on
site
with
our
catholic
way
and
aaron
cady
talking
about
some
of
the
constraints
and
some
of
the
desires
that
all
of
us
have
for
connectivity
through
here
as
the
building
footprints
get
finalized
and
we're
able
to,
as
I
say,
move
into
more
detail,
this
will
be
further
refined,
but
this
is
where
we
stand
right
now:
ife
any
further
additions
that
you
want
to
add
and
then
we'll
hand
it
back
to
you
jacob.
To
finish
up,
I.
I
D
H
Okay,
just
just,
I
would
also
add
that
we,
we
did
submit
a
preliminary
zoning
analysis,
chart
identifying,
building
setbacks,
building
height,
total
parking
quantities,
and
things
like
that.
I
I
don't
know
that
we
need
to
get
into
that
in
any
great
detail
at
this
meeting.
That
will
certainly
be
something
that
is
addressed
by
the
planning
board
and
and
the
city
staff
when
they
review
this
for
zoning
compliance.
H
There's
no
required
parking
minimums
for
this
area
and
there's
no
minimum
setbacks
from
from
the
property
line,
at
least
generally
there's
some
nuance
to
that.
But
but
it's
it's
fairly
loose.
The
building
height
is
limited
to
five
stories
and
we
are
planning
to
to
build
up
to
that
limit
both
in
the
story
height
and
there's
also
a
building
height
foot
limitation,
and
we
expect
to
come
close
for
for
the
five-story
limit
one
other
one
other
thing
I
would
point
out
in
previous
plans.
H
F
It
is,
but
I
wanted
I
I
just
wanted
to
clarify.
I
guess
you
mentioned
in
the
proposed
pedestrian
improvements.
It
seemed
like
some
of
the
lighter
colored
blue,
which
was
the
proposed
improvements,
went
along
the
existing
waterfront
promenade
trailer
are
you?
Are
there
proposed
improvements
in
those
areas,
or
is
that
just
identifying
that
as
or
maybe
my
my
color,
my
color
sense
is
a
little
off,
but
it
seemed
like
those
were
areas
that
were
no
that's
slow.
H
H
A
Just
to
clarify
that
one
more
time
to
make
it
like
super
simple
you're,
not
proposing
any
improvements
along
to
the
promenade
along
the
western
edge,
just
keeping
that
as
is
and
so
from
lookout
point
back
around
you
would
add
something.
But
from
the
bridge
to
lookout
point
you
plan
to
use
what
is
existing.
A
A
J
D
D
J
H
We
had
shown
some
additional
space
around
the
the
exterior
of
the
anchor
building
as
as
public
amenities
space,
but
I
I
think,
as
lin
said,
there
is
some
nuance
there
to
what
what
can
be
public
and
private,
depending
on
the
ownership
and
control
of
that.
So
at
the
moment,
we've
sort
of
backed
off
from
getting
too
specific
in
the
programming
and
design
of
those
spaces
until
the
the
programming
and
function
of
the
buildings
themselves
is
a
little
farther
along.
C
J
G
I
think
planning
staff
raised
this
question
too.
I
just
wanted
to
understand
why,
from
the
original
plan,
the
buildings
were
all
in
an
alignment,
and
now
they're
shifted
off
one
another.
It
seems
like
there
would
be
benefit
to
having
more
open
space
on
the
flood
control
side
than
between
parking
and
buildings.
H
That
building
going
away
sort
of
shifted.
Some
things
at
that
end,
which
which
led
to
a
bit
of
a
a
domino
effect
of
adjustments
to
the
floor
plan
and
how
it
relates
to
the
width
of
that
that
space
and
and
and
really
that
that
led
to
us
re-examining
the
way
that
the
masses
were
going
to
be
sitting
on
the
site
and
just
looking
for
a
way
to
improve
the
space
between
the
two
buildings
to
allow
greater
access
to
the
visual
access
to
the
waterfront
between
the
two
buildings.
H
They
had
previously
been
shown.
Much
closer
together
as
well
and
we'd
actually
also
found
that
the
the
footprint,
the
overall
footprint
of
at
least
the
inhs
building,
is
actually
smaller
than
had
previously
been
proposed.
And
so
we
had.
We
had
pulled
it
a
little
bit
further
away
from
the
parking
area
to.
I
guess
allow
a
little
bit
more
breathing
area
in
that
space
and
to
improve
just
the
visual
access
to
the
waterfront.
C
And
doug
to
your
point,
while
still
maintaining
a
really
robust
green
edge
to
the
to
the
water
as
well
as
much
as
possible,
so
that
that
means
something.
So
it's
not
broken
up
too
much
the
area
between
the
buildings
connecting
then
along
green
space
and
again
this
will
be
further
designed
we're
just
showing
a
color
and
some
trees,
but
to
have
that
again
have
enough
punch
and
not
be
broken
up.
A
H
A
A
You've
indicated
in
some
areas
where
you
think
the
submission
is
resolved,
or
at
least
has
a
clear
contingency
in
other
areas
where
maybe
we
need
to
have
more
discussion,
so
I
would
suggest
I
realize
it's
already
420,
but
that
we
start
at
a
and
just
try
to
see
how
efficiently
we
can
work
through
a
to
m
and
then
see
where
we
are
on
the
other.
Whereas,
but
let
me
first
go
through
a
through
m.
F
Right
the
proposal
here
is
that
the
agency
looks
at
the
issues
that
the
agency
has
primary
jurisdiction
over
and
defer
issues
that
can
be
resolved
by
another
approval
agency,
like
the
planning
board,
provided
the
basic
framework
is,
is
supportive
of
the
agency's
vision
for
the
urban
renewal
project,
so,
in
the
case
of
project
massing,
my
recommendation
is
to
consider
that
satisfied,
because
the
issue
will
be
further
refined
at
the
site
plan
review
stage
and
the
the
issues
here.
A
through
m.
Some
of
them
were
feasibility
issues,
and
some
of
them
were
issues
to
work
out.
A
But
obviously,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
common
council
has
to
approve
the
dda
with
these
buildings
at
the
zoning
envelope,
which
is
just
what
I'm
hearing
the
development
team
is
proposing,
and
I
think
there
was
some
discussion
in
a
prior
meeting
with
the
developer
saying
yeah.
We
could
look
at
it
baby
and
I
think
what
we're
saying
is
no.
This
is
the
program,
it's
five
stories
63
feet
and
we're
going
forward
with
that.
F
And
there
was
some
discussion
about
the
size
of
the
affordable
housing
project
at
one
point-
and
this
is
my
recollection-
is
55
units-
maybe
it's
53,
which
is
this
scale
that
was
viewed
by
some
kind.
When
council
members
is
very
acceptable
to
be
able
to
fit
into
a
neighborhood
or
into
a
you
know,
a
development
area,
50
52
units.
A
B
A
F
A
A
I
don't
know
if
I'm
going
to
be
able
to
find
it,
but
you
we,
it
was
the
issue
of,
like
you,
know,
kind
of
potentially
having
some
common
parking
management
system
and
I
assume
you
were
used.
You
were
referring
to
something
like
park
mobile,
so
maybe
you
could
just
kind
of
clarify,
there's
that
it's
like
one
or
two
sentences
and
I'm
sorry.
If
I
can't
find
the
exact
page,
we
were
talking
about
how
parking
should
be
consistent
or
managed
across
the
site.
A
C
E
E
E
You
know
if,
for
example,
it's
the
boatyard
or,
however,
that's
going
to
work-
I
mean
it's
not
obviously
not
finalized,
but
it
would
be
coordinated
with
the
city.
When
I
propose
that
we
have
some
discussions
about
how
that
could
be
done,
and
if
an
enforcement
is
done
by
the
city,
then
the
city
can
collect
the
collective
fees
on
that,
all
of
which
would
have
to
be
worked
out.
But
it
was
an
idea
to
prevent
the
parking
wars
that
the
current
system
is
designed
to
do
and
that's
what
works
now.
A
E
A
F
Yes,
they
have
they
they're
open
to
different
models.
They
actually
are
working
with
their
consultant
stantec.
On
looking
at
different
models
for
parking,
I
think
that
the
initial
advice
they
received
from
the
consultant
was
it
does
make
sense
to
have
common
management
of
all
parking
or
public
parking,
whether
that's
the
developer,.
F
G
F
A
Anybody
else
want
to
chime
in
on
parking.
That's
one's
favorite
topic,
okay,
public
street
circulation.
Again,
we're
kind
of
saying
planning
board
is
better
positioned
than
ira
to
get
into
the
final
details
of
this
with
transportation
staff.
Right.
That's
what
we're
saying
here:
correct,
okay,
okay,
so
marina
operations
is
the
first
area.
We
have
a
question
and
I
think
I
think
after
I
mean
my
big
question
is:
is
it's
still
a
little
unclear
to
me
and
I
was
alluded
to
in
the
presentation?
A
B
E
You
know,
wherever
along
the
private
property
site
that
you
see
where,
where
there
are
pictures
of
it
or
into
the
shed
or
they
get
take
to
wet,
get
carted
away
on
the
trailer
to
our
off-site
storage,
the
transfer
from
hauling
it
the
vehicle
holding
hauling
it
out,
which
has
a
large
circuit.
You
know
large
rotating
area
takes
place.
Basically
in
that
area
of
that
circle,
and
just
north
a
little
bit.
E
A
A
Out
of
there
right
so
you've
thought
about
sorry
for
monopolizing
the
questions
here,
but
you
guys
have
thought
about
the
fact
that
there
would
be
increased
traffic,
both
pedestrian
and
vehicular,
on
the
site.
With
these
two
developments
and
therefore
add
additional
complexity
to
the
timing
and
the
movement
of
both
in
and
out.
E
Yes,
yes,
we
have
and
that's
the
reason
why
the
pedestrians
are
moved
south,
so
they're,
not
in
the
hall
launch
area.
You
see
right
there.
The
way
south
blue
line
comes
here
goes
around
stays
there
right.
There
crosses
it,
can
cross
over
and
then
yep
right
over
there
and
also
that's
the
reason
for
the
two-way
rate.
Right
above
where
it
says
marina.
E
A
G
A
F
Yeah,
I
think,
defining
the
location.
You
know
clarifying
what
you
just
said
steve
in
terms
of
like
kind
of
kind
of
memorializing.
That,
in
terms
of
you,
know
the
change
from
the
current
conditions,
with
lots
of
boat
storage
and
a
lot
of
cradle
storage
to
what
you're
proposing,
I
think
is,
is
one
of
the
frameworks
that
could
move
this
to
a
yes.
F
I
think
there
were
some
other
related
issues
related
to
the
boating
center,
that
there
were
some
discussions
early
on
about
the
solar
which
we've
discussed,
but
there
also
was
an
effort
to
kind
of
upgrade
that
boat
storage
building
where
it's
got,
some
pretty
large
oxidized
roof
panels
and
looking
at
maybe
some
sort
of
a
overall
upgrading
of
some
of
the
visuals
of
the
building.
I
know
you've
done
some
improvements
in
terms
of
landscaping
and
some
street
frontages
on
the
building,
and
then
there
was
a
a
little
bit
of
on.
F
E
Didn't
explain
what
that's
going
on
if
you
want,
I
can
pull
it
if
you
pull
up
that,
drawing
again
that
last
one,
just
real,
quick
so
up
at
the
north
end
in
the
boathouse
down
a
little
bit
from
there
right,
yeah
right
in
there,
okay.
So
currently
there
is
a
shed
roof
that
comes
out
parallel
with
it's
hard
to
explain
where
that
parking
is
where
the
numbers.
I
can't
see
how
many
yeah
right
now
that
shut
roof
extends
over
the
parking.
E
You
know
that
that's
under
the
shed
roof
would
be
in
some
fashion
removed
or
made
less
of
an
obstruction,
so
pedestrian
can
get
some
sense
of,
and
so
you
can
get
some
sense
of
view
to
the
water
through
there
and
that's
that's
that
primary.
I
think
that's
the
primary
improvement
and
as
far
as
the
solar
i2
was,
was
hoping
that
the
the
solar
would
be
able
to.
E
You
know
whole
way
by
somebody
else
and
it's
not
as
though
they
can
rent
the
roof
so
and
and
can
also
do
it
with
financing.
So
the
roof
you
know
is
certainly
we
cannot
make
a
commitment
as
part
of
this
project
that
we
would
redo
the
roof.
It
is
what
it
is.
We
have
spruced
up
the
the
and
brought
in
a
new
retailer,
that's
more
towards
the
south
end
krenzer
marine
is
in
place,
and
that
is
spruced
up
now
and
the
boats
where
it
says
marina
operations
will
be
display.
A
A
Okay,
so
next
was
ground
level
activity
right.
I
think
if
this
may
be
one
of
our
bigger
questions
here,
so
it's
a
lot
of
discussion
in
the
process
of
getting
to
the
ena
and
getting
to
hear
about
how
how
the
current
residents
of
ithaca,
who
are
not
living
on
the
site
and
not
staying
overnight
in
the
stays,
would
benefit
from
this
project
by
increased
year-round
activity,
and
I
think
this
was
keenly
an
instance
of
common
council
as
well,
and
I
don't
see
much
on
the
revised
submission
that
addresses
this.
C
E
So
the
the
major
increase
in
ground
level
activity
is
going
to
be,
you
know,
cleaning
it
up,
so
it's
not
rather
intimidating
a
bunch
of
you
know:
boat
storage
equipment.
You
know
where
the
stays-
and
you
know
is
right
now
and
as
far
as
taking
advantage
of
it
for
not
people
who
aren't
staying
in
the
stays
and
or
not
you
know
at
the
anchor.
E
E
C
C
If
you
don't
know
it
well,
particularly
if
you're
walking
or
on
a
bike
and
so
to
continue
to
look
at
ways
that
make
it
really
clear
of
the
access
to
the
water
through
the
site,
access
to
the
boatyard
grill
to
the
commercial
facility,
the
marina
facility,
as
well
as
the
newly
reopened
dock.
I
think
it
has
a
name
now.
It's
just
reopening-
and
I
can't
remember
that
name.
A
Yeah
well,
I
welcome
welcome
comments
from
the
other
committee
members.
I
mean
my
thoughts
are
the
following.
The
the
first
is,
I,
I
think,
there's
a
missed
opportunity
with
up
not
upgrading
the
part
of
the
promenade
that
is
on
the
easement
and
and
that's
because
you
know
the
change
in
going
from
sort
of
to.
First
of
all,
you
go
to
the
bridge.
The
bridge
presents
a
visible
obstacle
into
of
itself
right,
and
then
you
go
from
asphalt
to
stone
dust.
A
So
it
kind
of
sends
this
message
that
maybe
I'm
not
in
a
place
where
I
should
be
right
and
I
think
of
other
places
that
have
been
upgraded.
You
know
the
the
north
part
of
truman,
marina
and
even
that
trail
to
the
farmers
market.
They
used
to
be
like
a
herd
path
right.
You
make
those
things
kind
of
like.
A
Do
I
belong
here
right?
So
that's
one
comment
I
would
have,
and
the
second
is
I'm
a
little
worried-
and
I
know
common
council
raises
too-
is
that
the
nature
of
the
hotel
and
the
anchor,
if
there's
no
clear
way
for
the
public,
to
access
that
and
and
understand
the
issues
around
the
anchor,
but
is
you
have
then
these
restricted
areas?
So
the
playground,
the
pool?
A
You
know
amenities
for
the
people
who
are
using
those
properties
and
it
again
sort
of
sends
a
mixed
message
about
whether
or
not
the
public
is
welcome
on
this
site
or
whether
I'm
kind
of
you
know
interloping
in
a
in
a
private
property
kind
of
situation,
and
so
having
you
know,
definitive
things
that
are
designed
to
actually
attract
the
public
to
the
site.
You
know
kind
of
overcome
that,
whereas
the
passive
uses
make
it
more
more
difficult
in
my
view,
but
let
me
open
it
up
to
the
rest
of
the
committee
for
additional.
G
Yeah,
I
would
totally
agree
with
you
chris
about
the
you
know
along
the
canal.
There
you
know
talking
to
rick
manning
of
the
french
stork
park
and
the
waterfront
trail
is
10
to
12
feet
wide
in
most
places.
I
think
we
should
you
know,
see
it
at
least
that
wide
along
that
whole
western
side
and
I'd
even
like
to
see
the
crosswalks
from
toganic
boulevard
that
wide
across
rather
than
just
sidewalk
with.
G
I
think
that
will
you
know,
make
much
better
public
access
to
the
waterfront
there
and
and
better
connections
back
over
to
buffalo
street
and
the
waterfront
trail
going
across
there.
My
wish
list,
in
addition
to
other
public
amenities,
would
be
a
public
restroom
and
access
to
some
kind
of
cafe
that
the
public
could
use
there.
J
J
I
I
I
strongly
agree
with
that.
It
is
a
lot
better
than
it
is
now,
but
it
is
public
land
and
we
can
make
it
even
better,
so
figuring
out
a
way
to
make
it
open
to
everybody.
You
know
wider
wider
trails
in
between
the
buildings,
certainly
like
lawn
space
or
like
an
inviting
public
space
to
have
a
picnic
or
do
a
pop-up
shakespeare
show
or
something
like
that.
The
flex
space
on
the
reinforced
lawn
there's
a
lot
of
green
space
there,
and
can
we
do
something
with
that
cafe?
J
You
know
a
cafe.
I
know
that
was
like
kicked
around
and
there
were
like
more
like
where's
the
ice
cream
shop
kind
of
comments
earlier
in
this
process,
and
I
still
love
that
conversation,
but
you
know
I
also
understand
we
all
you.
You
all
got
a
development
to
run
here,
so
I
mean,
I
think,
if
you
could
make
it
a
little
bit
more
appealing,
and
you
got
a
lot
of
green
space
to
do
that,
so
that
that's
my
input,
yeah
and
certainly
a
a
public
restroom
or
something
like
that
would
be
great.
J
So
if
there
is
kind
of
a
way
to
more
clearly
integrate
it
into
the
waterfront
trail
system,
either
signage
or
something.
I
think
that
would
help
a
lot
and
it
would
actually
increase
business
and
flow
of
traffic
across
to
the
boatyard
grill,
and
things
like
that.
So
the
more
people
that
come
here
that
don't
actually
live
here
or
stay
at
the
stays
or
the
anchor
the
better
and
just
by
way
of
question
the
anchor
the
anchor
building
there.
That
parking
is
all
underground
at
the
anchor.
Is
that
correct?
J
D
C
J
J
So
to
the
extent
we
could
just
include
something
that
says:
hey
we're
going
to
consider
the
public
and
but
the
the
restroom
thing's
a
little
harder.
I
I
do
actually
really.
There
is
really
a
lack
of
of
restrooms
out
that
side
I
mean.
There's
a
public
restroom,
that's
occasionally
open
where
the
softball
fields
are
on
the
other
side,
but
I
don't
know
about
here
through
the
later
hours
in
a
day,
but.
D
F
My
understanding
is
that
we
have,
we
would
need
dec
approval
for
anything,
that's
above
ground
and
they
have
not
historically
been
open
to
things
like
light
poles.
So
when
the
design
of
that
promenade
was
presented
to
dec,
it
moved
all
the
kind
of
amenities
just
outside
the
20
foot.
25
foot
wide
eastman
area,
so
you
can
get
really
close
to
it
but
you're.
You
know
you're
25
feet
from
the
edge
of
the
water
yeah.
So.
E
You
know
public
restrooms,
you
know
present
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
issues.
You
know
liability
and
maintenance
and
so
on
so
forth,
and
you
know
12
foot
wide
sidewalks
when
you
have
a
15
or
25
foot,
one
running
the
length
of
the
project.
In
any
event,
despite
I
think
scott
said,
there'd
be
a
lot
of
green
space.
A
E
A
Think
you're
right
steve,
I
mean,
I
think,
we're
not
asking
you
guys
to
design
this
on
the
spot
by
any
stretch,
and
I
think
we're
gonna
have
to
buy
a
little
time
anyway
to
work
through
a
couple
of
other
issues.
So
you
know,
but
I
would
say
I
would
say,
give
it
one
more
like
good,
creative
brainstorm
and
see
what
you
can
come
back
with
and
again.
Yes,
there
was
men,
all
kinds
of
talk
about
ice
cream
shops
and
whatever,
like.
A
A
It
seems
like
you're
suggesting
it
the
option,
at
least
for
the
coast
guard
auxiliary,
to
continue
to
kind
of
use
space
at
the
stays
it
sounded.
Maybe,
though,
a
little
conditional,
so
I
think
maybe
we're
just
trying
to
kind
of
clarify
what
exactly
is
going
to
be
available
to
them
have
do
they
are
have
they
input
it
into
that
or
not.
B
E
E
Hopefully,
the
dec
would
allow
those
docs
to
continue
probably
permitted
to
the
city,
though
I
don't
know
how
that
would
work
and-
and
that
is
it
they
already
have
and
and
new
york
state
parks
up
at
treeman
already
gives
them
a
place
from
which
they
can
operate
their
boat.
They
could
certainly
bring
their
boat
down
here.
You
know
for
classes
or
whatever,
but
they
don't
run
safety
patrols
out
of
out
of
this
boat.
E
Here
they
run
that
out
of
treatment,
or
at
least
they
can,
which
is
much
closer
to
the
lake,
which
makes
a
lot
of
sense
if
there's
any
kind
of
emergency,
but
that
would
be
the
extent
of
the
accommodation
that
coastal
auxiliary,
so
you
know,
but
we're
not
we're
not
reserving
for
them
like
a
continued
and
isolated
exclusively
controlled
by
them.
You
know
basically
a
clubhouse
which
I
recognize
they
have
now,
but
their
mission
regarding
safety.
E
F
I
think
we're
going
to
be
asked
what
are
the
exact
terms
that
are
being
offered,
and
I
think
we
need
to
provide
a
clear
answer.
You
know:
is
it
for
free?
Is
it
for
charge?
What
is
the
size
of
the
room
that
they
have
access
to?
You
know
those
are
going
to
be
kind
of
the
questions
I
expect
will
come
up
at
some
point
in
this
in
this
process
and
I
think
we
need
to
provide
a
clear
answer.
F
F
A
J
Chris
sorry
yeah
charlotte,
I
would
just
encourage
the
developers
to
talk
to
the
coast
guard
before
they
bring
it
back
to
us.
Just
it's
gonna
make
it
a
lot
quicker
because
they're
they're
not
shy
about
weighing
in
when
when
it
doesn't
work
for
them.
So
if
we
wanna
keep
this
on
track,
I'd
encourage
you
to
talk
to
them
sooner
rather
than
later.
J
A
F
Right
and
I
think
it
would,
it
would
benefit
under
the
understanding
of
the
site
plan
to
define
what
areas
of
this
site
are
actually
public
access
and
what
areas
are
clearly,
you
know
privatized,
there's
some
suggestions
that
the
walkways
are,
you
know
definitely
the
walkways
connecting
together
boulevard
to
the
waterfront
trailer
are
going
to
be
available
for
public
access,
but
I
think
it's
it's
it's
a
anybody's
judgment,
and
what
does
that
mean
in
practice?
Is
that
just
a
sidewalk
or
is
there
a
wider
swath?
Are
there
other?
F
You
know
those
kind
of
issues,
so
more
of
a
clarification
and
again
the
terms
of
the
ena
suggest
that
any
improvements
outside
of
the
right-of-way
are
the
responsibility
of
the
developer
so
anticipate
unless
we
hear
otherwise,
those
locations
of
those
connections
would
be.
You
know
responsible
to
the
developer,
both
for
construction
and
maintenance
unless
we
hear
otherwise.
E
E
F
A
Okay,
so
let
me
can
I
just
get
clarity
there,
so
what
we're
saying
is
improvements
for
pedestrian
and
and
and
bicycle
etc
within
the
project
site,
the
developer
has
confirmed
that
they
are
responsible
for
improvements
in
the
right-of-way.
The
developers
confirmed
that
he
that
that
is
the
city's
responsibility
which
we're
going
to
come
back
to
in
one
second
and
then
nels
and
steve
you're,
going
to
kind
of
clarify.
Where
is
the
property
line
on
the
west?
F
D
A
A
E
I
guess
I
just
want
to
be
clear.
I
mean,
if
there's
a
an
improvement,
you
know
along
the
border
or
something
we
have
to
put
granite,
curbs
or
something,
but
we're
not
we're,
not
rebuilding
a
roadway,
that's
not
something
that
we
can
do
and
that
road
you
know
find
them.
We
will
withdraw
the
the
drawings
that
that
show
a
nice
parking
along
the
road,
but
that
that
would
require
essentially
rebuilding
the
road
to
city
standards,
which
is
not
something
I
mean
we
don't
own
the
road
we
can't.
We
can't
do
that.
E
E
F
F
A
matter
of
just
withdrawing
that
that
phrase
that
the
upgrades
in
the
right-of-way
will
be
expected
to
be
completed
by
the
city.
I
think
it
could
be
through
a
negotiation,
because
the
city
does
recognize
that
that
roadway
has
gone
many
years
without
improvement.
But
I
don't
think
we
can
assume
that
the
city
will
undertake
the
improvements
shown
in
the
site
plan
that
are
located
in
the
right-of-way.
A
Yeah
that
seems
to
me
to
be
the
disconnect
right
is,
is
that
you
guys
are
proposing
one
you're,
proposing
a
specific,
specific
circulation
plan
with
certain
a
median
and
parking
in
a
certain
way
right,
which
may
or
may
not
be
what
the
city
would
do
if
the
city
on
its
own
were
to
basically
reconstruct
that
road
right.
So
I
think
we
have
to
kind
of
figure
out
how
to
fuse
those
two
things
together
and
then
becomes
another
issue
right,
because
then
that
becomes
right.
E
A
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
we
should
be
clear.
I
think
there
should
be
a
view
of
this
which
kind
of
connecting
the
last
issue
in
this
issue
right,
so
a
view
of
the
schematic
that
is
on
page
24
of
our
packet.
I
don't
know
where
it
is
in
your
stuff
right
that
shows
what
would
the
development
look
like
using
the
existing
right-of-way
right
and
which
doesn't
have
this
double
loop
road
and
these
trees
in
the
middle
and
all
of
that
right.
A
So
basically,
it
shows
that
and
then
makes
clear
that
if
there
are
any
other
improvements,
you're
expecting
the
city
to
make
in
the
rest
of
your
plan,
you're
clear
with
what
those
are
right.
So
we
just
talked
about
the
east-west
connectors
as
being
the
responsibility
developer,
etcetera.
So,
but
if
there
are
anything
residual
after
you
take
the
major
right
away
out
that
you
were
expecting
the
city
to
pay
for
figure
out
a
way
to
create
a
diagram
that
highlights
those
with
a
color
or
something
so
that
we
know
what
those
are.
A
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
scott
and
then
you
know
and
keep
this
right.
This
is
your
idea
of
how
you
would
like
the
circulation
on
the
floor
to
work,
but
yeah
you're.
Not,
I
guess
you
know
steve's
right
you're,
not
in
control
of
this
you're,
not
going
to
pay
millions
of
dollars
to
improve
this
road.
So,
let's
make
it
clear
what
you
are
willing
to
commit
to
and
differentiate
it
from
what
the
city
would
have
to
do.
A
F
A
E
A
F
H
So
so
that
that
area
is
a
it's
a
complicated
little
design
problem.
If
you
can
zoom
in
to
that
that
portion
a
lot
of
the
the
boatyard
grills
current
functional
back
of
house
happens
right
on
that
side
between
that
and
the
finger
lakes
boating
center.
There's
there's
dumpsters
in
that
location.
There's
some
existing
parking
spaces.
It's
also
where
they
get
deliveries
for
for
food.
C
A
C
E
Right
a
lot
of
that's
already
in
place,
though
just
so
you
know,
except
for
right,
around
the
dumpster
and
right
by
a
reconfigured
building
shed
area
and
going
across
the
street
or
across
the
parking.
Otherwise,
most
of
that's
there.
There
is
already
a
route
around
the
restaurant
and
a
parking
lot.
Oh
sorry,
a
sidewalk.
F
G
H
C
I
E
A
Yeah,
inevitably,
though,
people
will
probably
try
to
do
it,
so
it's
like
plan
for
it
now
or
deal
with
it
later
is
probably
what
would
end
up
happening.
Okay,
really
conscious
of
trying
to
get
us
to
wrapping
this
up.
I
think
the
only
thing
on
the
environmental
cleanup
costs
that
we
wanted
to
kind
of
clarify.
We
understand
that
you're
taking
the
cost
of
the
environmental
remediation
against
the
price
of
the
of
the
land.
I
think
we
probably
will
just
confess
my
language.
D
D
F
Yep,
I
agree.
We
need
a
little
more
work
time
to
work
out
the
details
on
it,
and
but
again
the
action
of
the
urban
renewal
agency
would
be
to
grant
a
time
extension,
so
we
would
to
be
able
to
work
to
address
the
issues.
So
the
table
is
not
critical
for
that
resolution.
Just
the
fact
that
we
haven't
reached
100
agreement
on
every
issue,
yet
yeah.
E
F
So
let
me
address
one
issue
at
a
time
here.
First,
one
is
that
I
think
chris
is
asking
the
non-dec
issues.
Can
they
be?
You
know
resolved
in
a
way
that
brings
forward
to
the
eda
edc
at
the
next
meeting
enough
information.
They
can
make
a
final
decision
without
you
know,
going
back
to
another
sequence
and
yeah
there's.
You
know,
I
think
that
that
submission
of
information
that
you
additional
information
provide
can
be
provided
throughout
the
next
couple
of
weeks.
F
It
doesn't
have
to
wait
to
a
deadline
date
and
we
can
work
on
issues
you
know
as
as
they
come
up,
and
so
we
can
be
ready
for
it.
So
I
think
that
would
be
the
best
way
to
work
through
these
issues,
because
there's
many
several
women,
some
they're
just
a
matter
of
language
and
some
require
significant
thought
on
your
part
about
how
you
want
to
respond.
F
And
then
the
point
you're
raising
steve
is
that
the
dec
transfer
is
not
finalized
and
in
fact
you
know
that
that
it's
difficult
for
you
to
move
forward
to
the
next
phase
of
this
project
without
knowing
to
incur
the
the
costs
of
site
plan.
Review
kind
of
you
know,
preparation
without
knowing
that
the
dec
transfer
is
going
to
go
through
in
a
in
a
agreeable
fashion.
F
So
I
think
what
would
be
something
to
consider
would
be
to
give
you
more.
You
know
to
provide
another
time
extension
once
the
agency
is
agreed
upon
a
disposition,
development
agreement.
To
give
you
more
time
before
we
start
the
clock
going
and
running
for
those
next
milestones,
because
I
think
you
do
need
to
have
some
assurances
that
the
dec
transfer
is
going
to
proceed
in
a
way
that
works
for
the
project,
but
that
could
be
a
future.
That
would
be
a
future
step
after
the
agency
has
proposed
a
dda
to
you.
F
A
Yeah,
so
it's
possible.
The
project
goes
into
some
sort
of
suspended
animation
right
a
period
of
time
right
we
get
a
dda,
but
then
until
we
can
resolve
the
dec
issues,
you're
not
moving
anything
forward,
you're,
not
putting
out
additional
resources
to
try
to
do
site
plan
review
et
cetera.
It's
pretty.
A
Okay,
so
are
the
rest
of
these
dates
workable
then
both
for
the
developer
and
nells.
You
know,
I
think,
as
you
rightly
point
out,
I
think
if
we
can
maybe
after
this
meeting
just
kind
of
clarify
a
memo,
maybe
to
them
from
from
you
to
them,
just
so
like
what
we
believe.
The
open
issues
are
like
go
through
charleston's
minutes,
etc.
A
A
A
A
Great
guys,
I
really
appreciate
that
this
is
tedious,
there's
a
lot
of
detail
here
and
it's
a
really
complex
site
and
you're
trying
to
do
the
best
you
can
within
this
complex
site.
I
really
do
think
we're
getting
close
to
the
finish
line
here
and
really
appreciate
you're,
just
sticking
with
it
a
few
more
weeks
here
until
we
can
get
it
there.
F
A
A
Okay,
if
you
need
more
availability
from
me,
let
me
know-
and
if
I
can't
remember,
if
charlotte
you
were
on
the
email
thread
where
doug
has
indicated,
he
wants
to
step
down
from
the
committee
once
we
get
a
suitable
replacement
which
yeah
totally
understandable
doug
for
how
long
you've
done
this
but
yeah.
So
then,
we'll
really,
then
we're
filling
the
empty
spot.
Doug
would
then
retire
or
whatever
from
the
committee,
and
then
we
would
replace
doug.
We
would
have
to
find
a
recruitment
placement.
Okay,.
J
A
J
J
I
mean
I'm
here,
I'm
here
at
least
through
the
next
several
months.
It's
it's
just
something
that
longer
term
the
committee
does
have
to
think
that
through,
and
then
I
think
maybe
I
mentioned
this
previously-
but
I'm
not
available
for
the
first
two
weeks
of
september
and
then
I'm
virtual
later
in
october,
but
I
should
be
able
to
make,
but
I
don't
think
that
affects
this
group,
so.