Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Cleanup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges town to press IDA to clean longtime illegal dump, calls for IDA director's removal
Summary
A resident told the Town Board the long-running dump at 1577 Airport Road contains hazardous material and urged the board to ask the Industrial Development Agency to begin cleanup and to press for the resignation of IDA executive director Stacy Duncan; the board said it lacks authority to force the IDA to remove its director and advised residents to send letters and pursue legal avenues.
A resident told the Town Board on June 22 that the dump on IDA-owned land at 1577 Airport Road has been classified as an illegal dump for about 20 years and contains hazardous material, and asked the board to send a letter to the Industrial Development Agency (IDA) requesting cleanup and the removal of IDA executive director Stacy Duncan.
“The dump has hazardous material in it,” the resident said, and alleged much of the material came from a closed forge in Endicott. The speaker said they and others have gathered documentation, photographs and a petition with more than 300 signatures from residents surrounding the site and urged the town to “get aggressive” with the IDA and state oversight bodies.
Why it matters: The resident tied the alleged dumping to potential environmental and groundwater risks, and to broader concerns about the IDA’s spending and public statements about job creation. The speaker said the IDA had been claiming thousands of jobs — “7,000 jobs” in public remarks, while other presenters had used lower figures — and asserted there were unresolved discrepancies in IDA documentation and audits.
Town response and limits of authority: Board members and staff told the resident the town has limited formal authority over IDA personnel decisions. “The town doesn't have any particular standing” to remove an IDA director, a town official said, adding that residents may write letters or contact the IDA or state oversight offices. The board also noted that the town and citizens previously filed scoping comments on the IDA’s environmental review and later brought a court petition; a final court decision on that litigation was reported as still pending.
Documentation and next steps: The resident said they had been in contact with the state controller’s office and other officials, offered to provide photos and reports to the town, and urged board members to consider sending an official request to the IDA to begin cleanup. Participants suggested residents and the town could contact the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the EPA, and conservation groups such as the Sierra Club for further investigation and pressure.
What the board did: Board members did not take formal action at the meeting to send a letter or pursue disciplinary steps against the IDA director. Instead they clarified the limits of the town’s authority and encouraged residents to pursue letters and legal processes; the court case referenced by residents remained unresolved.
The meeting record shows broad resident concern and several proposed next steps — documentation provision, citizen letters to the IDA, and coordination with state agencies — but no formal board motion directing staff to send a letter to the IDA was recorded in the transcript.
