Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sustainability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairport trustees debate limits of authority, incentives and geothermal options in sustainability plan review
Summary
At a June 22 work session trustees edited draft sustainability language to favor recommendations and incentives over mandatory requirements, raised legal limits tied to the New York State Building Code, and asked staff to arrange expert briefings on community geothermal and funding options.
Trustees and staff at the Fairport Village Board work session spent the latter portion of the June 22 meeting reviewing a draft sustainability plan and debating what the village can reasonably require versus recommend.
Multiple trustees objected to language that would 'require' measures such as all-electric building mandates, passive-house standards or net-zero requirements, noting the village must follow the New York State Building Code and that some provisions may exceed local authority. "I can't commit to making it a requirement if I don't know if we have that scope to do that," Mayor Damrath said while discussing the all-electric building act language. Trustees generally favored changing mandatory language to 'recommend' or 'incentivize' and requested follow-up with staff and the village attorney on legal authority.
The board spent considerable time on geothermal options. Staff described limitations to individual residential geothermal—many Fairport lots are too small—and outlined examples of community-scale thermal energy networks in other cities. Trustees asked staff to arrange an explainer session with outside experts or local practitioners (the board referenced Matt Haggerty and FMC as potential explainers) to understand funding, governance and technical feasibility before adding commitments to the plan.
Other changes the board proposed included replacing 'require Energy Star appliances' language with a recommendation and cross-referencing the Independent Energy Efficiency Program (IEEP) materials provided at the meeting. Trustees also asked that examples in the plan (such as the Village Landing and the Box Factory) be framed as exploratory 'what if' illustrations tied back to the comprehensive plan and zoning, not as firm commitments to redevelop private property.
Board members requested clearer goal statements, responsibility charts that assign departments or partners for implementation, and more concise, action-oriented text in chapters covering land management, parks, transportation, and water conservation. On water, trustees noted primary responsibility for supply and billing lies with the Monroe County Water Authority and said the village should limit language to encouraging conservation and partnering with the authority.
What happens next: staff will meet with departments and the board asked the clerk to collect comments and bring a revised draft (including a goal/responsibility chart) to a future meeting. Trustees also asked staff to research grant opportunities and to arrange a presentation on geothermal or thermal-energy-network models.
