Families for Lead Freedom Now

 Appendix E
Response to DGEIS Public Comments
E-1
Appendix E – Response to DGEIS Public Comments
Complete text of written comments and a transcript including all comments expressed at the February 12,
2020 public information meeting are provided in Attachment A with page numbers noted below in the
Comment Identification Table.
Comment Identification Table
Public
Comment # Name Affiliation Format Date Page #
1 Peggy Liuzzi Resident Written 2/20/2020 E-A-1
2 Jesse Harasta Cazenovia College Written 2/11/2020 E-A-2
3 Patrick E. Strodel LeadSafe LLC Written 2/5/2020,
2/6/2020 E-A-20
4 Daniel Izzo Resident Written 2/6/2020 E-A-22
5 Jamie Howley TNT Southside Housing
Taskforce Written 2/13/2020 E-A-23
6 David Michel Housing Visions Written 2/12/2020 E-A-24
7 Adam L. Wekstein Hocherman Tortorella &
Wekstein Written 3/2/2020 E-A-26
8 Travis Hobart and Elizabeth
Domachowske Central/Eastern New York
Lead Poisoning Resource
Center Written 3/5/2020 E-A-30
9 Mary Cunningham Resident Written 3/4/2020 E-A-33
10 Ellen Morrissey Families for Lead Freedom
Now Written 3/4/2020 E-A-34
11 Leslie Paul Luke St. Joseph’s Hospital Written 3/3/2020 E-A-35
12 Margaret Bombard Resident Written 3/3/2020 E-A-36
13 Mary Carney Resident Written 2/29/2020 E-A-38
14 Feruzi Murairi Resident Written 2/24/2020 E-A-39
15 Letitia James, Marissa
Lieberman-Klein, and
Jennifer Nalbone New York State Attorney
General’s Office Written 3/5/2020 E-A-40
16 Aggie Lane Resident Written 2/25/2020 E-A-46
17 Peter Resident Written 2/26/2020 E-A-47
18 William J. Scott Syracuse Teachers
Association Written 2/5/2020 E-A-48
19 Richard Puchalski Syracuse United Neighbors Written 3/3/2020 E-A-49
20 Peter King Resident Written 3/5/2020 E-A-51
21 Ellen Morrissey, Feruzi
Arnold, Oceanna Fair,
Aurora Pille, Bonfrida
Kakwaya, Gabriel
Mkandama, Darlene Medley Families for Lead Freedom
Now! Written 2/25/2020 E-A-54
22 Jamie Hauley TNT Southside Housing Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-78
23 Palmer Harvey TNT Southside Housing Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-78
24 Jeanette Zoeckler SUNY Upstate Medical Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-79
25 Jesse Harasta Cazenovia College Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-80
26 Oseanna Fair Families for Lead Freedom Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-80
27 Charlene Fair Resident Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-81
28 Matracia Powell Democratic Socialists Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-81
29 David Michel Housing Visions Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-81
30 Peter Knoblock ACTS Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-82
31 Marianna Kaufmann CNY Solidarity Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-82

E-2
32 Crystal Cosentino Home Headquarters Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-82
33 Bobby Carroll Resident Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-83
34 Mary Cunningham Resident Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-84
35 Evan Brzostowski American Iron Front Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-84
36 Nathan Currier American Iron Front and
SRA Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-84
37 Mary Traynor Syracuse Tenants Union Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-85
38 Greg Smith Resident Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-85
39 Stephanie Kenefic Socialism & Liberation Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-86
40 Rich Puchalski Syracuse United Neighbors Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-86
41 Brendan Brooks Interfaith LLC Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-87
42 Peter King Resident Public Info Mtg 2/12/2020 E-A-87

E-3
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Peggy Liuzzi
Comment 1A: (Summary) The commenter expresses support for the proposed lead ordinance, citing the
dangers unmitigated lead has on children. Reducing the number of children exposed to lead
may be one of the most important tools available to support school success and poverty in the
City of Syracuse. Syracuse is a city that has shown it can work with partners to take on big,
complex problems and implement effective solutions. Childhood lead poisoning is one of those
problems. Syracuse has built a coalition of ready community partners willing to help. Please
ensure that Syracuse City government has the tools it needs to play a leadership role in
protecting children from the terrible damage of environmental lead exposure.”
Response 1A: Comment is noted.
Jesse Harasta, PhD
Comment 2A: The commenter conducted a study in Fall of 2019 analyzing the microgeography of the City to
determine the factors that influence high cases of lead poisoning. Their research indicates that
the proposed legislation is necessary, though likely insufficient.
Response 2A: Comment is noted.
Comment 2B: The written standards in the Ordinance fail to meet the current federal standards set by HUD
and EPA for detecting dust-lead hazards through the use of dust-wipe sampling. In the
ordinance, Section 54-7(D) "Clearance Standards," section (1) gives three values for dust
sample results: (a) For floors: 40 μg/ft2 (40 micro-grams per square foot): (b) For windowsills:
250 μg/ft2; (c) For window troughs: 400 μg/ft2. However, effective January 6, 2020, both the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development
revised those standards to make them more stringent and more effective in clearing a dwelling.
The new dust-lead hazard standards are as follows: (a) For floors: 10 μg/ft2; (6) For windowsills:
100 μg/ft2. The Ordinance should be revised at Section 54-7(D) to meet EPA/HUD standards.
Also, make the window trough standard more stringent - it should be lowered to 100 μg/ft2.
E-4
Response 2B: Comment is noted. Because the comment is legal in nature or relates to construction of
the Draft Ordinance, it extends beyond the scope of public comment on the DGEIS and
the City is not obligated to address it at this time. The City will be accepting public
comments on the Draft Ordinance at a future date.
As a courtesy, the updated Draft Ordinance (Appendix A) includes updated Section 54-
7(D) clearance standards aligning with current EPA/HUD threshold levels as described in
40 CFR 765.
Comment 2C: There are several points that allow landlords to pass substandard work off or to delay work for
an unacceptable period. 54-6-B allows the inspector to release the property if "interim controls
have been implemented", but interim controls are by their nature temporary; similarly 54-11- B
allows for a delay of exterior abatement because of inclement weather, but does not recognize
that inclement weather can last for months while children are still being exposed. 54-8-A states
that abatement work must be done by someone with the proper EPA certification, but has a
loophole for work done by the landlord or unpaid family members of the landlord. Do not allow
for inspectors to release properties when only interim controls are in place. Require the
placement of interim controls in the case of weather of over a week. Remove the loophole for
abatement work done by landlord or unpaid family members.
Response 2C: See Response 2B regarding comments of a legal nature or which relate to construction
of the Draft Ordinance.
As a courtesy, the City offers the following response: Section 2.2 of the DGEIS identifies
the conditions and actions which require the performance of a lead inspection. Relative
to landlords/rental properties, inspection is required upon renewal applications for the
Rental Registry and Certificates of Compliance for rental properties at three-year
intervals, as well as in response to the filing of a complaint. Insufficient abatement
measures may be reported at any time, and periodic inspections are intended to ensure
that owners maintain ongoing compliance as property conditions may change over time.
Comment 2D: The bill defines its goal is to create “permanent” protection from lead. Just as the only safe level
of lead in the blood is having no lead in the blood, the only true permanent solution is the removal
of lead from walls and soils. But the bill defines “permanent” as lasting 20 years. Yet, we know
that no painted porch surface lasts twenty years in Syracuse. This means that buildings who
have been encapsulated are exempt permanently from the Ordinance’s oversight, yet the
E-5
“permanent encapsulation” of porches may only last a few years. Definitions of “permanent” and
“encapsulation” are found in 54-2. Redefine "permanent" as lead remediation: the permanent
removal walls or soil bearing lead paint. Define "encapsulation" as "abatement," and require
properties through paint encapsulation be returned to the oversight of the bill with the following
language: "given environmental conditions from Syracuse weather, houses remediated via paint
encapsulation shall continue to be inspected every 6 years."
Response 2D: See Response 2B regarding comments of a legal nature that relate to construction of the
Draft Ordinance. As a courtesy, the City offers the following response.
The purpose and need for the Ordinance as described in the GEIS is as follows:
The need for a lead ordinance is based on the significant impact that lead exposure
has on residents, especially children. The City of Syracuse Proposed Lead
Ordinance's main objective is to reduce the rate of lead exposure in the City.
The Draft Ordinance provides mechanisms to ensure ongoing compliance as property
conditions may change over time. The term “permanent” as used in the GEIS relates to
lead abatement and is defined by EPA/HUD regulations.
Comment 2E: There are two alternative versions of the bill. One (Alternative 1) is significantly stronger and the
other (Alternative 2) is weaker and would not have sufficient strength to deal with the crisis.
Alternative 1 includes dust wipe sampling. Dust from lead paint is a major contributor to lead
poisoning and should be included in any lead ordinance. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1
except that there is NO dust wipe sampling in Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would be a much
weaker choice of Ordinance for protecting children. Under Alternative 1, lead wipe sampling will
occur in those areas defined as "high risk". Lead dust wipe sampling is a more comprehensive
inspection as compared to visual inspection alone. Dust wipe sampling can identify small
particles of lead contaminated dust not visible to the naked eye.
Response 2E: Per DGEIS Section 2.2, visual assessments performed in designated “high risk” areas
will include dust wipe sampling. This aligns with Alternative #1 as described in Section
1.5.
E-6
Comment 2F: Currently information about abatement and violations is publicly available but only to those who
can come in to the office during business hours. This is not sufficient transparency when
affordable digital options are available. Section 3.3.2.1 "Property Transfer and Notification" (pp.,
43-44) states the following: "...the City will maintain a database, accessible to the public, of all
residential properties where lead hazards have been identified, reduced and controlled…The
City shall further maintain a database of all residential properties granted a certificate of
occupancy. These databases will be available to “walk-in” inspection by the public.” Why are
these two databases only available for walk-in inspection? Why shouldn’t residents have access
to his information about safety (HUD work is public dollars) and licensing of rental units (a public
action)? It is recommended to make the data not just public, but to place it in an electronic
database.
Response 2F: DGEIS Section 3.3.2.1 identifies federal notification and disclosure requirements for
property rental and sales transactions. City databases will be made available to the public
on a walk-in basis and there will be no requirement for Freedom of Information requests
in order to access database information. Information regarding all code violations
including lead-related violations will continue to be made publicly available through the
Syracuse Open Data online portal.
Comment 2G: Incomplete definitions for Commissioner, Director, and Department. The ordinance does not
provide definitions for these key terms and it is possible that this could lead to legal challenges
that defeat the Syracuse Lead Ordinance in a court of law. The ordinance does not provide
definitions for these key terms and it is possible that this could lead to legal to challenges that
defeat the Syracuse Lead Ordinance in a court of law. Section 54-7 (I)(7) refers to
"Commissioner"; however, Commissioner lacks mention in Section 54-2, leaving the term
meaningless in the ordinance legislation. Sections 54-4(D), 54-5(a), and 54-7(H) refer to an
entity called "Department." However, "Department" is undefined in Section 54-2, DEFINITIONS,
and, in spite of contextual material in the ordinance, the word is extremely unclear, if not
meaningless in each of those references. The term "Director" is mentioned in 54-2 (in the
process of defining the term CERTIFIED); 54-7(H), and; 54-7(I) (1 through 7). However, the term
is undefined in Section 54-2, DEFINITIONS, and its meaning cannot be understood in context
(except that its capitalization distinguishes it from "director") and is practically meaningless. To
avoid legal challenges on this simple point, clearly define, in Section 54-4, the terms
“commissioner”, “director”, and “department”.
E-7
Response 2G: See Response 2B regarding comments of a legal nature or which relate to construction
of the Draft Ordinance. As a courtesy, the City notes that these definitions are included
in Section 54-2 of the updated Draft Ordinance (Appendix A).
Comment 2H: Protection for tenants against retaliation is below NYS legal standards. New York law regarding
tenancy changed in 2019 and this ordinance reflects the old standard. Section 54-13 should be
strengthened to protect tenants. Specifically, 54-13 (B) only grants protection for six months
while current NYS law (passed after the Rochester version of this bill) gives a full year of
protection including for circumstances specifically exempted from this law. In Section 54-13 (B)
the text should change the time period for the rebuttal presumption for six months to one year,
to be consistent with NYS law (see: https:/www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/RPP/223-B). It
should also be made stronger to protect tenants from retaliation (for one year) if they contact the
Onondaga County or NYS Department of Health in connection with concern over childhood lead
poisoning. Language that should be stronger would be to use the phrase "any governmental
agency (City or County or State)": "There shall be a rebuttable presumption that any attempt...
to evict a tenant within one year after any report to any governmental agency (City or County or
State) or the owner or any enforcement action in connection with...." Additionally, because of
the many challenges to the warranty of habitability of many Syracuse rental units, for which
tenants often withhold rent to encourage a landlord to make proper repairs, Section 54-13 (B)
should strike the phrase: "except that in instances of nonpayment of rent".
Response 2H: See Response 2B regarding comments of a legal nature or which relate to construction
of the Draft Ordinance. As a courtesy, the City notes that Section 54-13 (B) of the updated
Draft Ordinance (Appendix A) has been revised to extend the rebuttal presumption time
period from six months to one year. The Draft Ordinance remains subject to revision, and
New York State law remains applicable even if not directly referenced or included in the
Draft Ordinance.
Comment 2I: Section 1.1 of the Executive Summary states that the 2018 numbers for cases of new poisoning
is 446 (or 10.47%). These numbers are correct, but are significantly lower than previous years.
The most likely reason for this decrease was fewer children tested, rather than an actual
decrease in the number of new poisonings. It is better to use the 5 year average poisoning,
rather than the most recent year. This issue also underlines the need for universal testing,
E-8
including a reinstatement of WIC testing; without a continuation of previous testing standards,
there can be no way to determine whether this ordinance will be effective.
Response 2I: Comment is noted.
Comment 2J: In Section 1.1 of the Executive Summary, the discussion of costs to the tax payer and New York
State is based upon the 2003 Swindburn study. While this study has usefulness because it is
focused upon New York, it is currently 17 years old. A more recent (2016) study worth looking
at is the Michigan Network for Children’s Environmental Health entitled “Costs of Lead Exposure
and Remediation in Michigan: Update”. This study includes all of the same costs as the New
York study, but also includes other factors including: the treatment of ADHD 21.1% of children
with ADHD in Michigan have EBLLs), includes estimates of adult crime that occur at higher rates
among those poisoned as children (the New York study focuses only upon youth crime), and
argues that an average of nine years (rather than three in the New York study) of special
education is more realistic for poisoned children. All of these factors point to the argument that
the Swindburn study underestimated the social costs of lead poisoning.
Response 2J: Comment is noted.
Comment 2K: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-1-J: While it is useful to estimate the cost of the legislation on the
city’s rental housing market, it would also be useful to estimate the potential cost to the City and
its residents for inaction. In the introduction to the Draft GEIS, it is estimated that “New York
State may have observed loss of nearly $78 million in tax dollars” from lack of future earning
alone. This does not include the “need for special education” or “additional tax payer costs
associated with criminal activity”. Unfortunately, the Draft GEIS does not go further with local
estimates.
Response 2K: See Response 2B regarding comments of a legal nature or which relate to construction
of the Draft Ordinance.
As a courtesy, the City offers the following response: Section 1.1 of the DGEIS discusses
a study conducted by Professor Katrina Smith Korfmacher which assesses the economic
impacts of lead poisoning in New York State. The DGEIS does not estimate economic
impacts at the local level, however such impacts are likely to be qualitatively similar to
those described in Section 1.1.
E-9
Comment 2L: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-7-D-1: Minimum lead dust sample results listed are all well above
the established threshold for safe lead exposure which is 0 μg. There is no safe level of lead.
Response 2L: See Response 2B.
Comment 2M: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-2: The definition of "permanent" is a 20-year encapsulation.
Encapsulation involves covering, not removing, lead and should never be considered to be
permanent. Even if one is willing to consider a 20-year encapsulation to be "permanent," it is
clear that exterior paint in Syracuse - especially the crucially important front porch paint never
lasts anywhere close to twenty years. We run the risk of having buildings noted as "permanently"
repaired and removed from the purview of the bill and then once again becoming the source of
poisoning in four or five years’ time when the porch begins to peel.
Response 2M: See Response 2B regarding comments of a legal nature or which relate to construction
of the Draft Ordinance. As a courtesy in response to this comment, the City notes that
the term “permanent” as used in the DGEIS relates to lead abatement and is defined by
EPA/HUD regulations.
Comment 2N: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-6-B: This section allows for a "violation...to be removed" if "interim
controls have been implemented". However, under the earlier definition of interim control it notes
that they are "measures designed to temporarily reduce human exposure". While this may be
an important tool, a "temporary" solution does not meet the Ordinance’s standard of
"permanency." If it is possible for inspectors to remove violations for interim controls, there will
be no way to ensure that permanent treatments will ever be established.
Response 2N: Comment is noted. Because the comment is legal in nature or relates to construction of
the Draft Ordinance, it extends beyond the scope of public comment on the DGEIS and
the City is not obligated to address it at this time. The City will be accepting public
comments on the Draft Ordinance at a future date.
Comment 2O: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-7-B-3-A: Why is there a limit of "no more than four rooms"? Why
not allow inspectors to determine the number of rooms based upon their judgement with a
minimum of four rooms including one bedroom and the living room?
E-10
Response 2O: See Response 2N.
Comment 2P: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-7-H: No timeline is given during which the complaints of tenants
can be heard.
Response 2P: See Response 2N. As a courtesy in response to the comment, the City notes that it will
provide guidance on procedures for the filing of complaints prior to the Ordinance taking
effect.
Comment 2Q: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-7-D-1: These thresholds are out of date and too high.
Response 2Q: See Response 2B.
Comment 2R: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-8-A: This section states that “any home improvement contractor,
property management firm, handyman, or other person compensated for renovation work…Must
possess an EPA RRR certification.” Many landlords – or their uncompensated family members
– handle maintenance on their properties. I would suggest the language here be altered to also
include property owners and to replace the term “compensated for renovation work” with “other
person, compensated or not, who completes renovation work”.
Response 2R: See Response 2N. As a courtesy in response to the comment, the reference to
compensation has been removed from Section 54-8(A) of the updated Draft Ordinance
(Appendix A).
Comment 2S: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-8-C: If the ordinance requires that the precise language of the sign
be provided in both English and Spanish, why not provide the Spanish translation as well? This
would save landlords paying for translation and potentially providing poorly translated
information. We also suggest the use of visual images depicting poison toxins in order to convey
the message to the speakers of any of Syracuse’s dozens of other languages.
Response 2S: See Response 2N. As a courtesy in response to the comment, the City notes that it will
address topics related to translation prior to the Ordinance taking effect.
E-11
Comment 2T: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-8-D-1: Like in 54-8-C, why not provide the Spanish text as well as
the English text? In addition, the final sentence of the letter reads "Retaliatory action against
tenants is prohibited by 54-13 of the Municipal Code". This sentence could be re-written to be
more user friendly and to assist tenants in understanding their rights. A potential rewrite could
be: "It is unlawful for a building owner, or any person acting on his or her behalf, to take any
retaliatory action toward a tenant who reports a suspected lead-based paint hazard to the owner
or to the City. This includes rent increases, non-renewals of leases or interference with the
occupants’ use of the property.” This language is drawn from Section 54-13 of the bill.
Response 2T: See Responses 2N and 2S.
Comment 2U: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-9: This section is misnumbered. It is listed as "55-9".
Response 2U: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, section numbering has been updated in the revised
Draft Ordinance (Appendix A).
Comment 2V: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-9-A-2: There is no standard here for where the tenants will be put
up nor an explicit statement that this will be done at no cost to them.
Response 2V: See Response 2N.
Comment 2W: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-9-A-2-D: This exemption is confusingly written and could be
strongly disruptive to tenants' lives. There is too much opportunity for landlord abuse as the
standards of "safe daily access" are not defined.
Response 2W: See Response 2N.
Comment 2X: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-9-A-4: This section does not account for the fact that work may be
completed but done to unfit standards. We recommend altering the first sentence to read: "In
addition to the protections afforded elsewhere by law, if interior hazard reduction activities will
not be or are not completed within 60 calendar days, or are completed but fail to pass inspection
within 60 days, occupants...”
E-12
Response 2X: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the revised Draft Ordinance (Appendix A) provides
updated language in Section 54-9-A-4.
Comment 2Y: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-11-B: This section allows for a delay of abatement because of
weather conditions. However, inclement weather that prevents exterior painting in Syracuse can
last for months. Instead, we recommend that the bill require the implementation of “interim
controls" under its own definition after a maximum delay of a week for inclement weather.
Response 2Y: See Response 2N.
Comment 2Z: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-13-A: The protections from retaliation are too constrained as they
only protect against reporting of suspected lead to "the owner or the City". We suggest
expanding this to include the County Department of Health, their medical practitioner, and
legitimate researchers and journalists.
Response 2Z: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the City notes that Section 54-13-A of the updated Draft
Ordinance (Appendix A) has been updated to list the Onondaga County Department of
Health and medical practitioners, and tenant protections would apply to tenants reporting
suspected lead-based paint hazards to these parties.
Comment 2Aa: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-13-C: The section that reads "tenancy was terminated pursuant to
the terms of a lease as a result of a bona fide transfer of ownership" leaves open the very real,
and very common, practice of landlords moving properties between various anonymous LLCs
that they wholly own. Until we can ensure complete knowledge of the ownership of all LLCs, we
can never guarantee "bona fide transfer of ownership". Therefore, this clause should be
removed.
Response 2Aa: See Response 2N.
Comment 2Ab: [Draft Ordinance Section] 54-14: The incorrect chapter is included in this section, it should refer
to "54-4", not "45-4"
Response 2Ab: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the section reference has been updated in the revised
Draft Ordinance (Appendix A).
E-13
Comment 2Ac: 54-15-B: Why is public access only available through walk-ins? Why not start in the digital age
with an online database from day one?
Response 2Ac: See Response 2F.
Patrick E. Strodel
Comment 3A: Summary: Comments are in regard to Appendix A. In section 54-2, the definition of “dust-lead
hazard” refers the reader to 54-7D and the levels listed there are incorrect. EPA reduced the
hazard levels effective 1/6/2020 to Floors – 10 μg/ft2, windowsills – 100 μg/ ft2. The dust
clearance levels were left unchanged so the levels at 54-7 are correct for clearance only.
Response 3A: See Response 2B.
Comment 3B: The definition of “encapsulation” should be revised. Change the first sentence to “The application
of a coating or adhesively bonded material or coating…” to eliminate the word “covering” to avoid
confusion.
Response 3B: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the definition of “encapsulation” is updated per
HUD/EPA definition in the revised Draft Ordinance provided as Appendix A.
Comment 3C: The definition of “HEPA Vacuum” should be replaced in its entirety with “A vacuum cleaner which
has been designed with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter as the last filtration stage/
A HEPA filter is a filter that is capable of capturing particulates of 0.3 microns with 99.97%
efficiency. The vacuum cleaner must be designed so that all the air drawn into the machine is
expelled through the HEPA filter with none of the air leaking past it. HEPA vacuums must be
operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.”
Response 3C: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the definition of HEPA vacuum is revised per HUD/EPA
in the updated Draft Ordinance provided as Appendix A.
E-14
Comment 3D: The definition of “lead-based paint” should be revised to append the following sentence to the
end: “Unless the federal standard is lowered, then the more stringent level shall apply.” EPA and
HUD are revising this standard and failure to include this may require revision in this Ordinance.
Response 3D: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the definition of lead-based paint has been revised in
the updated Draft Ordinance provided in Appendix A.
Comment 3E: The term “lead sampling technician” should be changed to “lead dust sampling technician”.
“Lead sampling technician” is an archaic term.
Response 3E: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, this content has been revised as noted in the updated
Draft Ordinance provided in Appendix A.
Comment 3F: [Ordinance Section] 54-7A: Add “(3) lead dust sampling technician (non-abatement clearance
only – Report must be signed off by Risk Assessor or Inspector)”.
Response 3F: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, this content has been revised as noted in the updated
Draft Ordinance provided in Appendix A.
Comment 3G: 54-7B.(3)(b): Change “lead sampling technician” to “lead dust sampling technician”.
Response 3G: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, this content has been revised as noted in the updated
Draft Ordinance provided in Appendix A.
Comment 3H: 54-7B.(3)(c)[3]: Change to “Put on nonlatex, non-sterile, powder-free disposable gloves…”
Response 3H: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, this content has been revised as noted in the updated
Draft Ordinance provided in Appendix A.
Comment 3I: 54-7D.(2): Revise the last line to add the italicized “…dust wipe samples shall be taken in the
subject areas until all said areas are found to be below the listed thresholds unless EPA lowers
the standard then the more stringent level shall apply.”
E-15
Response 3I: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the City notes that Section 54-7D(1) and (2) of the
updated Draft Ordinance (Appendix A) have been revised to address consistency with
federal standards in the event that threshold levels become more stringent in the future.
Comment 3J: 54-7I.(1): Please clarify what qualifications the “hearing officer” should possess with regard to:
“The Commissioner shall offer the issuer an opportunity to be heard, at which a hearing officer
appointed by the Commissioner who is not a City employee shall preside.”
Response 3J: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the term “hearing officer” has been defined in Section
54-2 of the updated Draft Ordinance (Appendix A).
Comment 3K: 54-7D: US EPA is considering lowering the clearance levels for lead in settled dust on floor and
windowsill surfaces. EPA reduced the Dust-Lead Hazard levels effective 1/6/2020 to Floors –
10 μg/ft2, windowsills – 100 μg/ft2. However, they failed to lower the Clearance standard to match
the Dust Lead Hazard levels. By failing to change the Clearance level for floor and windowsills
to match the Dust-Lead Hazards level for these surfaces, it leaves us in an awkward position.
Thus, we are making a determination that the lead dust on floor surfaces present a hazard when
the lead dust level is 10 μg/ft2 and the lead dust on windowsills present at hazard when the lead
dust level is 100 μg/ft2. However, under the current federal clearance levels, we are going to
allow for the unit to pass clearance when the level of lead dust level on windowsills is below 250
μg/ft2. While it is not required for the Ordinance to be more stringent than the federal law, I
recommend the Ordinance set the Clearance standards for floors and windowsills to match the
Dust-lead Hazard Levels. (10 μg/ft2 and 100 ug-ft2, respectively) and set the window wells to
100 μg/ft2. These levels have been required since April 2017 for the HUD guarantees. The HUD
grants that the City of Syracuse and Onondaga County have are subject to these levels.
Response 3K: See Response 2B.
Comment 3L: In Section 54-8A after “…EPA RRP certification” add “and said person must be employed by an
EPA certified firm.” Federal law requires every project must be conducted by an EPA Certified
Firm and that firm must utilize EPA RRP certified individuals.
Response 3L: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, this Section 54-8A content has been revised as noted
in the updated Draft Ordinance provided in Appendix A.
E-16
Comment 3M: In Section 54-12C Question: Why are “complexes with 10 or more units” exempt? Lead hazards
are just as likely to be present in complexes as can be found in housing that does not meet the
definition of complexes.
Response 3M: See Response 2N.
Daniel Izzo
Comment 4A: (Summary) The commenter is opposed to requiring owner occupied housing units of One or
Two Family homes in the City of Syracuse New York that are exempt and not part of the rental
registry program be required to have their homes inspected for lead paint if there is no evidence
of minors living at or visiting the property of an owner occupant of a one or two family dwelling
in the City of Syracuse.
Response 4A: The Ordinance does not apply to owner-occupied properties. DGEIS Section 2.2 states
that inspections will be conducted for property owners seeking a Rental Registry
Certificate or Certificate of Compliance for rental properties.
Jaime Howley
Comment 5A: (Summary) Commenter is speaking as the Co-Chair of the TNT Southside Housing Taskforce.
26% of the children in the Brighton Neighborhood have been identified with lead levels over 10.
It is important to note that the acceptable blood lead level in NYS was lowered as of October
2019 when it dropped from 10 to 5 in order to match the levels acceptable lead levels according
to the EPA and the CDC. With the lower level of 5, even more of our children in Syracuse are
going to be identified as having childhood lead poisoning. The Brighton neighborhood (roughly
equivalent to census tract 54) has many substandard rental units and vacant or abandoned
houses with deteriorating lead paint on the interior and the exterior. The NYS law was also
written so that when that when the EPA and the CDC lower the acceptable lead level, NYS will
automatically drop to that lower level. Remember that there is NO safe level of lead. The
acceptable lead level has been continually reduced and children can still present with issues
caused by lead even at levels under 5. Commenter encourages the City to pass Alternative #1
E-17
because it is the strongest option to protect our children now and in the future. This is absolutely
a social justice issue. Syracuse must protect our youngest, most vulnerable citizens.
Response 5A: Comment is noted. The purpose of the Lead Abatement and Control Ordinance is to
identify and correct lead-based paint hazards, in order to prevent human exposure to
such hazards. Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns with Alternative #1 as
described in Section 1.5.
David Michel
Comment 6A: (Summary) The commenter, who has worked in Community Development and Housing, would
like to recognize the seriousness of the problem of lead poisoning that affects young children;
particularly those in the City’s most distressed neighborhoods.
“We support the proposed Lead Paint Ordinance – alternative #1.”
“…for this ordinance to be effective, there must be sufficient resources to provide for effective
code enforcement and the necessary training and staffing. The announcement that two new
housing inspector positions will be created in the division of Code Enforcement is welcomed.
We urge the Council, in addition, to adopting this ordinance, to provide these resources as you
consider future City budgets.”
Response 6A: Comment is noted. Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns with Alternative #1
as described in Section 1.5.
Adam Wekstein
Comment 7A: The criteria specified in the DGEIS for designation of “high risk areas” are internally inconsistent,
amorphous, inappropriate, and conflict with those in the draft lead ordinance itself (which is
DGEIS Appendix A). In particular, the DGEIS states on pages 9 and 14 that factors to be
considered in delineating and designating high risk areas include, among others, Onondaga
County Health Department inspections and elevated blood test levels observed during New York
State mandated testing and that such factors will be used in concert with HUD guidelines for
neighborhood revitalization strategy areas (“NRSA”). Similarly, pages 53 of the DGEIS states
that the lead ordinance will authorize city officials to identify high risk areas, “based on a number
of factors including but not limited to, Onondaga County Health Department inspections, and
E-18
elevated blood-test levels observed during New York States mandated testing”. In contrast, the
draft lead ordinance itself (Section 54-6) states that the high risk areas will be based on the
County Health Department inspections in conjunction with the elevated blood level tests
(exclusively).
Response 7A: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the City offers the following in response to the
comment:
Section 54-5 of the updated Draft Ordinance (Appendix A), previously listed as Section
54-4 in the Draft Ordinance, now reflects the DGEIS wording concerning the identification
of high-risk areas. Section 54-7, previously listed as Section 54-6 in the Draft Ordinance
provided in DGEIS Appendix A, concerns standards for clearance examination and
report, not the designation of high-risk areas.
Comment 7B: NRSA designation criteria are not relevant; they relate to identifying distressed areas to allow
greater flexibility in use of Community Development Block Grants in the specified
neighborhoods. See DGEIS Appendix B. They should not serve as a basis for determining high
risk areas to advance the entirely-different purposes of the lead ordinance.
Response 7B: NRSA boundaries represent only one of the multiple factors used to determine high-risk
areas. The NRSA boundaries are a useful tool in designating these areas because 50% or
more of the structures built within those areas predate the 1978 federal ban on the
commercial use of lead-based paint.
Comment 7C: The designation of an area as an NRSA is unrelated to any finding that there is an enhanced
risk of lead contamination/exposure, particularly to young children, in comparison to other areas
of the City.
Response 7C: With reference to Response 7B, the NRSA boundaries are a helpful tool in identifying
areas where a substantial number (>= 50%) of residential structures were built prior to
the 1978 federal ban on commercial use of lead-based paint. Therefore, the NRSA
boundaries help identify areas within the City at risk of having deteriorated lead-based
paint. The risk that structures built prior to 1978 pose to children is reflected in in the
data found within the DGEIS: 87% of all children with elevated blood lead levels (EBLL)
in Onondaga County reside in the City of Syracuse, where there is a concentration of
E-19
residential structures built prior to 1980 relative to other municipalities located in the
County. As described in DGEIS Section 2.2, areas with a high density of these structures
present greater levels of risk for lead exposure to children.
Comment 7D: If employed by the lead ordinance, the criteria used to identify an NRSA may lead to designation
of portions of the City as high risk areas, that do not present an enhanced risk to the primary
target group—that is, children of less than six years of age—and, indeed, could result in
designation of areas with low concentrations of children.
Response 7D: Comment is noted. See Responses 7B and 7C.
Comment 7E: The criteria currently included in Section 54-6 of the draft lead ordinance—that is, reliance solely
on the Onondaga County Health Department inspection data and elevated lead blood levels
tests gathered through New York State mandated testing—present appropriate standards and
should serve as the exclusive criteria for delineating and designating high risk areas.
Response 7E: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the City offers the following in response to the
comment:
The City believes high-risk areas should be established based on the best available data.
The Onondaga County Health Department inspection data and elevated lead blood level
tests represent some of the best available data the City can use. The NRSA boundaries
also provide the City with valuable data, as discussed above. Additional information may
also be valuable in establishing high-risk areas. For this reason, the City does not wish
to limit itself to one source of information in establishing high-risk areas. Instead, it seeks
to utilize various credible sources.
Comment 7F: The DGEIS states at page 14 that “the means and methods for visual assessment, designation
of high risk areas, and dust wipe clearance requirements will be established by the City, and will
evolve as appropriate as a result of future health testing results, unknown data/research findings,
budgetary considerations, or other unforeseen matter”. The draft lead ordinance includes no
such language suggesting that the designation standards will evolve. The criteria for designation
of high risk areas should be precisely specified in the lead ordinance, and should not be subject
to modification by the Mayor or other administrative officials of the City. If the standards for
designation of high risk areas are to change, such changes should occur only by future
E-20
amendments to the lead ordinance adopted by the City Council, actions which, in and of
themselves, would be subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Act (“SEQR”;
collectively referring to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 N.Y.C.R.R Part
617). Unless the lead ordinance definitively establishes standards to designate high risk areas
which are not subject to modification absent legislative action, the current SEQRA review of the
proposed action would be incomplete and inaccurate. Depending on the standards employed to
designate high risk areas, impacts on issues such as abandonment of rental housing, community
character, the patterns of community growth and development and fiscal impacts on the City,
could vary wildly. As a matter of equity, any changes in such criteria should be the subject of
public notice to the potentially-effected land owners and residents.
Response 7F: Comment is noted. The high-risk area to be identified by the Mayor or the Mayor’s
designee shall be based on relevant factors including, but not limited to, the use of the
Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area and the County Health Department
inspections data in conjunction with its elevated blood-lead level data. The need for
future SEQR review with respect to potential changes to the definition of “high risk areas”
will be based on SEQR regulations. As noted in the NYSDEC SEQR Handbook, Fourth
Edition dated 2019, the City as lead agency will examine whether changes in the project,
newly discovered information, or a change in circumstance have the potential to result
in new, previously undisclosed or unevaluated impacts that may or may not have a
significant adverse impact, and will identify whether a supplemental GEIS is warranted.
Comment 7G: The DGEIS expressly declines to assess the total potential costs that could be incurred by
property owners and residents or the economic consequences that may result from testing and
remediation of lead conditions. (See, for example DGEIS page 44). Therefore, it fails to provide
any meaningful evaluation of the potential for: (i) abandonment of rental housing both in high
risk areas and other portions of the City; (ii) disinvestment in high risk areas and reallocation of
investment to other areas in or outside of the City and the resulting impacts on business; (iii)
impacts on availability and condition of housing stock; (iv) economic impacts on landlords; and
(v) impacts on housing costs, in general, and the amount of rents, in particular. Once again, all
of these issues relate to areas of the environment which must be studied, including impacts on
neighborhood and community character, the pattern of growth and development and the fiscal
impacts on the City (resulting from potential changes in the City’s revenues and potential
increases in municipal costs). The draft lead ordinance itself appears to recognize the
E-21
importance of such economic data by including a blank space for such information. Section 54-
1(J), part of the “Legislative Findings” in the draft ordinance, states: “[a]ccording to the
environmental impact statement, proposed lead-based paint poisoning legislation could have a
cost impact on the rental housing market as high as $____________ depending on the
alternative chosen.
Response 7G: Comment is noted. As explained in DGEIS Section 2.4.1, public scoping was conducted
as part of the SEQR process as set forth in 6 NYCRR Part 617.8(f). A public comment
period was provided to allow agencies and the public to comment on the identification of
significant environmental conditions and resources that may be affected by the proposed
action, and the extent and quality of information necessary to address those issues
during the SEQR process. The Final Scoping Document was released on 12/17/2019, and
Section 3.3 Growth and Community Character of the scoping document identifies the
topics and content that are included in the corresponding DGEIS Section 3.3.
These costs are not required to be included in the Ordinance, and the City has removed
the section previously listed as Section 54-1(j) in the updated Draft Ordinance (Appendix
A). Cities that have implemented similar laws, such as the City of Rochester, have not
experienced a reduction in available rental housing or a loss of investment in the City.
Finally, the City of Syracuse has opted to link its standards to those of the EPA, standards
which units in the City of Syracuse are already obligated to adhere to. The Ordinance
provides a means to enforce those standards.
Comment 7H: The DGEIS is silent as to the number of additional employees and resources which will be
needed to implement the lead ordinance, and the concomitant costs which may be incurred by
the City is undertaking activities associated with the Ordinance, including, but not limited to,
inspections, review of certifications and test results and enforcement. Nor does it discuss what
additional revenue sources, such as new fees or tax increases, will be used to fund the City’s
fulfillment of its obligations under the lead ordinance. Again, this information is relevant to
assessment of fiscal impacts on the City, and the potential diversion of resources currently used
for other City programs and functions.
Response 7H: See Response 7E relative to scoping. The Ordinance will be enforced through the City’s
Rental Registry, which will cover the operating burdens of implementing the Ordinance
E-22
for the City. The City will address staffing and funding considerations prior to the
Ordinance taking effect.
Comment 7I: To the extent of any additional fees or taxes may be imposed on landowners or residents their
identification and quantification is necessary to assess the lead ordinance’s impacts on the
pattern of growth and development and neighborhood character.
Response 7I: See Response 7E relative to scoping. The Ordinance does not impose additional fees on
landlords or residents. The Ordinance will be enforced through the City’s Rental Registry,
which outlines applicable fees which are already enforced in the community.
Comment 7J: The DGEIS includes no rational explanation for the exemption of owner-occupied housing from
compliance with any of the meaningful requirements of the lead ordinance; in particular, the draft
lead ordinance would exempt such housing from the requirements of Section 54-4 through 54-
6. Of course, such homes, particularly in areas that are designated as “high risk”, have a
significant likelihood of being occupied by the most at risk population—that is, children under
the age of six. At bare minimum, the lead ordinance should require that all residential buildings,
rather than just non-owner-occupied ones, be maintained so that there are no deteriorated paint
violations in accordance with Section 54-4. In addition, in order to constitute an effective means
to combat the lead hazard, the lead ordinance should require visual inspections for deteriorated
paint conditions and bare soil violations any time an owner-occupied dwelling undergoes an
inspection in connection with the issuance of a building permit and/or certificate of occupancy,
and, if required, associated dust sampling, in accordance with the same requirements imposed
on non-owner-occupied homes. The complete exemption for owner-occupied housing is also
conceptually irreconcilable with the other exemptions in the draft lead ordinance for housing for
seniors and all studio apartments. Such exemptions simply eliminate the requirement for dust
sampling for such dwellings, but do not exempt them from the requirements of Section 54-4, that
all buildings constructed prior to January 1, 1978 must be maintained so that no deteriorated
paint violations exist. Clearly, the generic class of owner-occupied dwellings would have a higher
likelihood of being inhabited by children younger than six than would senior citizen housing and
studio apartments, yet the former is subject to less stringent restrictions than the latter. The
disparate treatment has no logical, environmental, or legal basis.
E-23
Response 7J: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the City provides the following in response to the
comment:
Lead paint from old housing places a disproportionate burden on low-income and
minority children, and in the City of Syracuse, most low income residents reside in rental
units. The City’s focus on renters provides an effective means to address the issue of
deteriorated lead paint and resulting exposure among vulnerable populations. As a
principle underlying the ordinance’s emphasis on rental units, tenants should not be
subjected to dangerous environmental conditions and associated health impacts in
income-generating properties for which the owner holds control. In many cases, there is
little or no financial incentive for the owners of income-generating properties to incur
costs related to lead abatement, and the tenant rather than owner is the primary
beneficiary of measures taken and costs incurred to improve environmental conditions.
This dynamic is structurally different than in owner-occupied housing where the owner
incurs both the costs and benefits of abatement activities and is thereby incentivized to
make changes to deteriorating lead-based paint in order to reduce personal exposure as
a resident of the structure. Tenants may be unaware of the existence of lead paint in their
rental unit, while an owner – either a landlord or an owner in an owner-occupied dwelling
– should have knowledge of the existence of lead paint and bear responsibility for
addressing the issue. Additionally, many renters cannot afford or are unable to attain
home ownership. They rent units that they can afford, which often are in areas of the City
that are at high-risk of lead-paint deterioration. For these reasons, rental properties are
viewed as a high priority and addressed by the Draft Ordinance. In the future, the City
may seek a means of addressing owner-occupied dwellings. However, it first seeks to
address those who are at the greatest risk with no means of enacting change: renters.
Travis Hobart
Comment 8A: (Summary) Commenter shared personal experience and perspectives on the effects of lead
exposure on children, including health and developmental effects as well as economic
implications. Expressed support for the proposed ordinance and stressed its importance to the
City’s children. An attached resolution from the Pediatric Society of Onondaga County dated
May 2018 documents this organization’s support for the implementation and enforcement of
regulations protecting children from lead exposure.
E-24
Response 8A: Comment is noted.
Mary Cunningham
Comment 9A: I am writing to support a lead remediation ordinance that supports the lowest amounts of lead
dust in the environment. I also recognize that as the homeowner of old homes in the city for 43
years, that is wishful thinking that painting the outdoor porches, house windows will last for 20
years and thereby encapsulate the old lead paint. That is not substantiated by my experience or
by many of us. When paint is used to encapsulate lead, it should be recognized that it is
temporary at that regular 3 year inspections should be part of a permanent follow up.
Response 9A: See Response 2C. Per Section 2.2 of the DGEIS, inspection is required upon renewal
applications for the Rental Registry and Certificates of Compliance for rental properties
at three-year intervals, as well as in response to the filing of a complaint.
Comment 9B: I would also like there to be recognition that the money allotted to lead remediation is insufficient
for the problem, but is a good beginning. However, we have thousands of children and young
adults with permanent lead poisoning who need special services and support for the rest of their
lives-through special education services in school, job training as young adults, mental health
remediation for many, supportive living services for some for their whole lives and unfortunately,
criminal enforcement services for those who cannot control their behavior. The expense and
loss of skills and independence for so many is a burden on the individual, the family and the
society. Somehow we need to make sure we spend money NOW to ensure that we do not
perpetuate the creation of people with disabilities and that we create people who can be part of
and contribute to our community. This would be priceless. We need to push for remediation for
people as well as homes
Response 9B: Comment is noted. The Draft Ordinance provides a mechanism to identify and reduce
human exposure to lead in the community.
Comment 9C:. Lastly, I hope that remediation at some point, makes protection for tenants who blow the whistle
on landlords and also protect them from being priced out of newly remediated apartments.
E-25
Response 9C: DGEIS Section 3.3.2.3 addresses measures to protect tenants from potential retaliation
by landlords in response to the reporting of suspected lead-based paint hazards to the
property owner or City.
Ellen Morrissey
Comment 10A: (Summary) I am deeply concerned that the proposed lead ordinance fails to allow for, or
encourage, lead hazard reduction in every unit of a two, three, or four unit dwelling, once one of
those units has poisoned a child’s family. Just as all the electrical wiring should be inspected
throughout a home if one unit has old wiring whose age threatens to cause a fire, every unit of
a dwelling should be inspected for lead hazards if any single unit is discovered to have lead
hazards. …it is completely reasonable to assume that a multi-unit dwelling where lead hazards
are present in one unit will most likely have serious lead hazards that need fixing in all other
units. Additionally, if a potentially hazardous unit is rented by adults without children, it is
unsound, and potentially reckless, policy to await the arrival of a family with children before
taking action to inspect for fixable lead hazards. As a result, I wish to recommend that the
Syracuse Lead Ordinance include language requiring Code Enforcement inspections for lead
hazards in every unit of a multi-unit dwelling (located within the high risk area) when any one
unit is discovered to have a lead hazard. And, further, that the presence of such lead hazard
shall be communicated to the current tenant(s) and fixed immediately.
Response 10A: Section 2.2 of the DGEIS identifies the conditions and actions which require the
performance of a lead inspection. Inspection is required upon renewal applications for
the Rental Registry and Certificates of Compliance for rental properties at three-year
intervals, as well as in response to the filing of a complaint. Each unit of a multi-unit rental
property is subject to inspection.
Leslie Paul Luke
Comment 11A: This letter is to confirm support from St. Joseph’s Health for the proposed lead ordinance in the
City of Syracuse. Allowing code inspectors to take dust wipe samples in pre-1978 structures—
even where deteriorated paint is not visible—is a common sense environmental health mitigation
tool that will serve the best interests of our city’s most vulnerable residents. This new law will
hold property owners accountable for ensuring that the residences they maintain for rental will,
E-26
in short, no longer poison our community. Setting a standard to clear properties for residency
with a contingency on lead testing further protects our community members who rely heavily
upon rental properties and those who maintain them. As one of the Central New York region’s
largest and most comprehensive health systems, St. Joseph’s Health understands that good
community health is about so much more than clinical care. Population health is largely
dependent upon the social determinants of health, including access to affordable and safe
housing. The data is clear; lead continues to poison our children in particular, resulting in
behavioral, and neurological effects that impact a child’s educational and decision-making
aptitude. This lead ordinance has the potential, therefore, to impact the life trajectory of
generations of children who will inhabit apartments in our city today and in years to come. In
addition to offering a mitigation effort to protect the health and safety of our city residents, the
new lead ordinance also give voice to community members who continue to be
disproportionately impacted by numerous social and environmental health risks. While this
ordinance alone will not address the whole of challenges faced by many City of Syracuse
residents living in poverty, it is a critical step in support of health equity. In alignment with our
mission to improve the health of all populations we serve, St. Joseph’s Health fully supports the
proposed City of Syracuse lead ordinance.
Response 11A: Comment is noted.
Margaret Bombard
Comment 12A: After reading the ordinance, I would like to register my support for “Alternative 1” which allows
for the designation of higher risk areas which would receive stricter guidelines-again, the
statistics from the health dept. make it clear this is needed.
Response 12A: Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns with Alternative #1 as described in
Section 1.5.
Comment 12B: The track record of local landlords also makes me feel that extending the retaliation period to at
least a year rather than six months is necessary.
E-27
Response 12B: See Response 2H. DGEIS Section 3.3.2.3 addresses measures to protect tenants from
potential retaliation by landlords in response to the reporting of suspected lead-based
paint hazards to the property owner or City.
Comment 12C: Also, as a long time homeowner in Syracuse I know that it is very unlikely that any type of paint
encapsulation would last 20 yrs. I hope that properties that have been “cleared” due to painting
remediation will continue to be inspected at least every 5 years or so.
Response 12C: Per DGEIS Section 2.2 and Draft Ordinance Section 54-5(a), inspection is required upon
renewal applications for the Rental Registry and Certificates of Compliance for rental
properties at three-year intervals, as well as in response to the filing of a complaint.
Periodic inspections are intended to ensure that owners maintain ongoing compliance
as property conditions may change over time.
Comment 12D: Lastly, the city has such a great amount of information available on their website that I was
shocked to hear that the lead violation and abatement information is not available online for
parents to access.
Response 12D: See Response 2F.
Comment 12E: I do have one other separate idea I would like to propose that maybe the health dept. could
consider: mandatory pre-discharge education for mothers leaving our hospitals with newborns
about the danger of lead.
Response 12E: Comment is noted.
Mary Carney
Comment 13A: Given the devastating consequences of childhood lead poisoning, the City should make every
effort to enact the strongest possible ordinance. For this reason, I support the option that
includes designation of "high risk" areas and subsequent dust-wipe sample clearance protocols
(Alternative 1).
E-28
Response 13A: Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns with Alternative #1 and includes dustwipe sample clearance protocols in high-risk areas as described in Section 1.5.
Comment 13B: Concern #1 is that landlords will not strictly follow Lead Safe Work practices, even though they
are required to do so by law. Having personally participated in the multi-day training on lead safe
work, I know how stringent Lead Safe standards are. If the ordinance allows abatement work to
be performed by a landlord or unpaid family members, it is highly unlikely they will follow the
strict standards, because they are significantly more onerous than typical work. Unsafe work
can do more harm to vulnerable tenants and their children, so I think the law should require the
work to be done by certified professionals.
Response 13B: Lead hazard removal must be completed by certified personnel. This includes formal
abatement, or work covered under the Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rule.
See Section 54-2 of the updated Draft Ordinance (Appendix A) for definitions of “certified”
and “Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP) Certification”.
Comment 13C: Concern #2 is that landlords will retaliate against tenants who report concerns about lead
poisoning. As you are aware, landlords often raise rent, fail to do repairs, and evict tenants who
they unfairly blame for causing the expense and legal hassle of having their property cited for
code violations. I am not a lawyer and don't know the best legal mechanisms for protecting
tenants from these issues, but I urge you to make sure the ordinance is as strong as possible
on tenant protection.
Response 13C: Tenant protections are addressed in Section 54-13(B) of the updated Draft Ordinance
(Appendix A) and addressed in DGEIS Section 3.3.2.3. These protections are consistent
with New York State law.
Feruzi Murairi
Comment 14A: I am writing out of deep concern over the crisis of childhood lead poisoning in Onondaga County,
and particularly among families in Syracuse, New York. I hereby submit a public comment
related to the proposed Syracuse Lead Ordinance. As you may know, when Rochester, New
York passed their Lead Ordinance in 2005, they used up-to-date scientific standards for finding
dust lead hazards. Today, those scientific standards have been updated once again. However,
E-29
the current version of the Syracuse Lead Ordinance uses the old, less-safe standards. This is
unacceptable. The Syracuse Lead Ordinance should include the most up-to-date safety
standards for finding dust lead hazards that are recommended by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The updated
dust-lead clearance standards from EPA and HUD are: Floors: 10 micrograms per foot square
(ug/ft2); Windowsills: 100 micrograms per foot square (ug/ft2); Window trough: 100 micrograms
per foot square (ug/ft2). Please be informed that the updated standards can be found at these
websites: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0166-0360;
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-and-hud-announce-new-lead-dust-standards-protectchildrens-health; https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/LEADDUSTCLEARANCE.PDF
Please apply the most up-to-date standards for lead dust clearance levels to the Syracuse Lead
Ordinance. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of these recommendations.
Response 14A: See Response 2B.
Office of the New York Attorney General
Comment 15A: The New York Attorney General’s Office strongly supports the adoption of a lead ordinance by
the City and appreciates the consideration of tenant protections in both Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2. Deteriorating lead paint from old housing stock places a disproportionate burden
on low-income and minority children, and so we strongly recommend Alternative 1 due to the
recognition of environmental justice concerns in the designation of “high-risk areas” for
additional inspections.
Response 15A: Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns with Alternative #1 as described in
Section 1.5.
Comment 15B: First, inspections should take place every three years and at tenant turnover.
Response 15B: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the City notes that per DGEIS Section 2.2 and Draft
Ordinance Section 54-5(a), inspection is required upon renewal applications for the
Rental Registry and Certificates of Compliance for rental properties at three-year
intervals, as well as in response to the filing of a complaint.
E-30
Comment 15C: Second, all inspections should include mandatory dust wipe sampling.
Response 15C: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the City notes that per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft
Ordinance requires dust-wipe sampling to be conducted as part of all visual assessments
occurring in designated “high risk” areas.
Comment 15D: Third, landlords should bear the burden of lead abatement related relocation costs.
Response 15D: See Response 2N.
Comment 15E: Finally, a private right of action for tenants should be established to prevent retaliatory action by
landlords.
Response 15E: See Response 2N.
Comment 15F: The City requires rental properties to register with the City every three or five years, depending
on the size of the dwelling and the location of the property.6 Both Alternative 1 and Alternative
2 mandate that as part of the registration, rental properties built before 1978 must be inspected
for lead paint hazards. However, any property can be subject to heavy wear and tear, especially
properties with child occupants and properties with heavy turnover. Families may also move
more often than every three or five years, especially low-income families. Under Alternatives 1
and 2, properties would be inspected more often only if a tenant makes a formal complaint,
which also requires that the property be inspected. This schedule of inspections can be
strengthened by requiring inspections every three or five years and at tenant turnover. Given
that the dwelling is empty at turnover, it is an ideal time for any lead paint abatement, if any is
necessary. Because the City cannot be expected to monitor tenants’ activity, landlords should
be responsible for initiating inspections at turnover.
Response 15F: See Response 15B.
Comment 15G: When any inspection is performed, a copy of the inspection report should be filed with the City.
All inspections should be performed by an EPA certified inspector. The City should impose a
penalty for landlords if they fail to comply with these inspection requirements.
E-31
Response 15G: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the City notes that inspectors will be EPA certified; the
Draft Ordinance provides for the issuance of penalties in response to violations.
Comment 15H: We strongly support the requirement of dust-wipe sampling in these high-risk areas as required
in Alternative 1. We recommend that the dust-wipe sampling as defined in the ordinance be
expanded to all inspections, irrespective of what geographic area the dwelling is in or whether a
visual assessment identifies any interior deteriorated paint violations. Dust wipe sampling is a
vital part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent lead poisoning, as the City acknowledges itself.
Response 15H: See Response 15C.
Comment 15I: In Section 55-9 of the proposed ordinance, occupant protections during lead hazard reduction
activities are laid out. Item A(2) states that “occupants shall be temporarily relocated during
hazard reduction activities . . . and occupants who relocate to a unit not owned by their landlord
shall not be liable for rent accruing during that time.” DGEIS, Appendix A: Draft Lead Ordinance
at 18. However, neither Section 55-9 or elsewhere in the ordinance does it explicitly state that
the landlord must pay any costs associated with relocating the tenant, including any rent owned
to another landlord--or rent paid to a relative or friend if the tenant selects to move in with one--
during relocation. Nor does it explicitly protect tenants from eviction by that other landlord if the
original landlord does not pay the rent. Both of those protections should be made clear in this
section of the ordinance. Furthermore, it should also be stated that the tenant must be relocated
to a comparable apartment in the same general location.
Response 15I: See Response 2N.
Comment 15J: Section 55-9(A)(3) states that “occupants’ belongings in the containment area shall be relocated
to a safe and secure area outside the containment area, or covered with an impermeable
covering with all seams and edges taped or otherwise sealed.” Id. at 19. Tenants should have
some agency over what happens to their personal belongings over what may be a prolonged
period of time. If the hazard reduction activities will cause the tenant to be relocated from the
unit for a prolonged period of time, then the tenant should have the option of storing or relocating
their belongings at the landlord’s expense.
Response 15J: See Response 2N.
E-32
Comment 15K: Further, Section 55-9(A)(4) states that “if interior hazard reduction activities will not be or are not
completed within 60 calendar days, occupants shall have the right to terminate their lease and
shall have no further obligation to pay rent under their rental agreement. . .” Id. While tenants
should have this option, landlords could use this provision to force tenants out by not completing
the work in a timely fashion. Landlords could also fail to renew month-to-month leases while
hazard reduction work is being performed. The ordinance should also affirmatively protect the
tenant’s right not to terminate and, if on a month-to-month tenancy, to renew the lease, and
landlords that attempt to perversely use the ordinance to evict tenants should be penalized.
Response 15K: See Response 2N.
Comment 15L: Section 54-13 of the ordinance prohibits landlords from retaliating against tenants for reporting
suspected lead-based paint hazards to them or to the City. Retaliatory actions include “any
actions that materially alter the terms of the tenancy (including rent increases and non-renewals)
or interfere with the occupants’ use of the property.” Id. at 21. The ordinance creates a rebuttable
presumption “that any attempt by the owner to raise rents, curtail service, refuse to renew or
attempt to evict a tenant within six months after any report to the City or the owner or any
enforcement action in connection with a suspected lead hazard is a retaliatory action in violation
of this section . . .” except if the tenant is not paying rent or is committing waste. After six months,
retaliatory eviction is still available to the tenant as a defense, but there is no benefit of
presumption. While the existence of this presumption for six months is a benefit to the tenant,
more can be done to protect tenants from retaliatory action by landlords. First, six months is not
aligned with New York state law. State law on retaliation by landlords against tenants creates a
rebuttable presumption of retaliation for one year after a tenant makes a complaint or takes
action to secure their rights. The ordinance should not be less protective than state law, it should,
at a minimum, be consistent.
Response 15L: See Responses 2H and 2N. As a courtesy, the City notes that Section 54-13 of the updated
Draft Ordinance (Appendix A) has been revised to extend tenant protections against
retaliatory actions by landlords to one year, consistent with New York State law. State
law remains applicable even if not directly referenced or included in the Draft Ordinance.
E-33
Comment 15M: Just as importantly, in its current form, the ordinance only protects tenants once they are brought
to court by their landlord. Some tenants may never get to that point. If the landlord raises the
rent beyond what the tenant can pay, the tenant may choose to move rather than be sued by
their landlord. The private right of action should allow tenants to sue their landlords if, within a
year of a tenant reporting a suspected lead hazard to the City or the owner is subject to any
enforcement action in connection with a suspected lead hazard, the landlord attempts to raise
the rent unreasonably, curtails service, refuses to renew the lease or attempts to evict the tenant.
The tenant should be given the presumption that the landlord’s action was retaliatory, and the
landlord should have the burden of proving that the action was not retaliatory. If the tenant wins
in any action about retaliatory behavior, whether the tenant is the plaintiff or the defendant, the
landlord should be required to pay the tenant’s attorney’s fees and a statutory penalty to the
tenant.
Response 15M: See Response 2N.
Comment 15N: If adopted and implemented, Alternative 1 will reduce the likelihood of tenant exposure to lead
and elevated blood lead levels in children. We urge its adoption, along with the
recommendations articulated above, to better protect the citizens of Syracuse.
Response 15N: Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns with Alternative #1 as described in
Section 1.5.
Aggie Lane
Comment 16A: I am writing out of deep concern over the crisis of childhood lead poisoning in Onondaga County,
and particularly among families in Syracuse, New York. I hereby submit a public comment
related to the proposed Syracuse Lead Ordinance regarding two items: One, the standard for
the presence of lead dust in the city-proposed Lead Ordinance needs to be updated to the EPA’s
and HUD’s standards.
Response 16A: See Response 2B.
E-34
Comment 16B: Two, the tenant protection in the proposed lead ordinance needs to be strengthened so that
tenants worried about the presence of lead in the rental can contact any city, county, or state
agency without fear of eviction by their landlords.
Response 16B: See Response 2Z.
Comment 16C: This Lead Ordinance will also create local accessible job and contracting opportunities.
Syracuse Build and the CNY Community Foundation should team up to train and place city
residents wanting to be included in this lead abatement work. Reducing poverty in city
neighborhoods through good jobs goes hand-in-hand with lead poisoning reduction.
Response 16C: Comment is noted.
Peter
Comment 17A: I am writing in concern pertaining to the General Environmental Impact Study that was recently
released. It is quite obvious from the study that the dust wipe sampling is clearly out of date.
Please see that the window trough standards become more stringent.
Response 17A: See Response 2B.
Comment 17B: It is imperative that loopholes allowing landlords to pass insufficient work must be amended.
Several areas of the current law allow landlords to sneak by with out-of-code work and easily
push to ‘delay’ work as they see fit. Allowing the landlord time to complete his/her job is not in
complaint, it is the clear obstruction of justice for those most affected by these acts-the low
income and disparaged sections of our city.
Response 17B: See Response 2N. As a courtesy, the City notes that the comment does not refer to
specific provisions that present loopholes or are otherwise considered problematic.
DGEIS Sections 3.2.6.1-3.2.6.3 summarize the standards to be applied to lead abatement
activities under the Draft Ordinance.
Comment 17C: Seek to be a champion of change regarding transparency of the information collected
concerning lead poisoning in our city. Make the data public. These are our children. These acts
E-35
are shameful and steeped in the greed and selfishness of the landlord(s). Data made public
makes the community stronger.
Response 17C: See Response 2F.
William J. Scott
Comment 18A: (Summary) On behalf of Syracuse Teachers Association and its 3,200 members, the commenter
encourages the Common Council to pass the proposed lead ordinance. Educators working in
the City observe firsthand the significant impact that exposure to lead has on our residents, and
are especially concerned about the impacts to children. This legislation is a necessary and
important step in the direction of helping to keep families and children safe from the dangers of
lead contamination and the members of Syracuse Teachers Association fully support the
ordinance.
Response 18A: Comment is noted.
Richard Puchalski
Comment 19A: Dust wipe sampling: Lead Ordinance should be the highest level implemented by HUD.
Response 19A: See Response 2B.
Comment 19B: Provide proper definition in Section 54-4: Commissioner, director, and department.
Response 19B: See Response 2G.
Comment 19C: Executive Summary: should provide more historical figures of children under 6 years old with
elevated blood lead levels in the last 6-8 years.
Response 19C: Comment is noted. DGEIS Section 2.2 references statistical information about lead
exposure in children, including children under age six. The FGEIS Executive Summary
provides an expanded description of lead exposure statistics and historic context.
E-36
Comment 19D: List all neighborhoods including those with high number of vacants where lead remediation is
needed—estimated costs to remove lead.
Response 19D: Comment is noted. See Section 2.2 of the DGEIS, which includes a description of HUD
guidelines for designation of Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas (NRSAs),
which are among the criteria to be considered in designating “high risk” areas.
Comment 19E: Alternative 1: includes dust wipe sampling. Dust from lead paint is a major contributor to lead
poisoning and should be included in the lead ordinance.
Response 19E: See Response 2E. Per DGEIS Section 2.2, visual assessments performed in designated
“high risk” areas will include dust wipe sampling.
Comment 19F: Section 54-13 (B) Prohibition of Retaliatory Action—Inconsistent with Tenant Protection Act of
2019.
Response 19F: See Response 2H.
Comment 19G: Section 54-13 (B) Prohibition of Retaliatory Action: Governmental Agencies.
Response 19G: The substance of this comment is unclear as presented.
Comment 19H: Make the data about lead hazards and Certificate of Occupancy not just public but place it in an
electronic database.
Response 19H: See Response 2F. DGEIS Section 3.3.2.1 addresses the maintenance of City databases.
Comment 19I: Getting the word out about the lead ordinance once it is passed in targeted neighborhoods like
the near westside, Skunk City, southwest and southside. There shall be a robust door to door
effort to make the tenants and homeowners aware of this ordinance, with door to door flyers,
banners posted across the street along with a city mobile van full of instructional literature on
how one can obtain grants and even loans to remove lead in their homes. This effort would be
staffed by up to five city employees including housing inspectors. Community residents shall
attend meetings with presentations as well as visit the ban to obtain information about the lead
E-37
program. The Fire Department would join in this effort to educate and install fire and carbon
detectors in occupied homes where there is none. There is no reason why this effort should be
repeated on the other sections of the city.
Response 19I: Comment is noted. The City will take measures to promote public awareness prior to the
Ordinance taking effect.
Peter King
Comment 20A: “…I support this document and ordinance going forward, and I support the more stringent "1st
alternative" proposed on page 15, including a prioritized focus on 'high-risk' areas, over a less
targeted, more generalized "2nd alternative".”
Response 20A: Comment is noted. Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns with Alternative #1
as described in Section 1.5.
Comment 20B: (Summary) Commenter expressed a number of views with regard to 1) The soil ~vs~ paint
concern. In the Common Council's excellent public discussion session about the DGEIS on
Thursday, Feb. 12, 2020, at least one landlord raised a concern that landlords cannot control
loose soils from entering tenants’ living spaces and this may occur despite a landlord’s best
efforts. Commenter disagrees with stated assumptions on DGEIS page 42 under part 3.2.5
'Environmental Conditions' about paint being the only source for lead dust. Studies are cited
which identify sources of lead dust exposure such as soils contaminated through historic leaded
gasoline use, resuspended lead dust occurring on hot and dry days. While the lead in leaded
paint is often much more concentrated, the lead in soils can often be more immediately
bioavailable. Dr. David Johnson of SUNY-ESF in Syracuse co-authored one key paper
demonstrating how hot, dry weather was most strongly connected with seasonally high
Children's blood lead levels in Syracuse, Indianapolis and New Orleans (Laidlaw et-al, 2005).
Lead in soils can accumulate from multiple sources, including leaded gasoline, deteriorated lead
paint, and former lead-generating industrial operations. These different sources can often
combine in urban soils, concentrating lead in dangerous levels. Also, local construction and
poverty conditions can increase bioavailable lead concentrations in soil. Anecdotally, housing
demolitions in Syracuse may occur without regard for the resulting dust from flaking paints and
without adequate personal protective equipment. Play areas for children may expose them to
E-38
lead contamination, and Norway and New Orleans have adopted lead standards for
playgrounds. Levels of lead in soils have declined over time. The I-81 viaduct project could
expose residents to lead dust contamination. New York City and other cities have developed
policies which can prevent exposure from lead dust during development activity.
Response 20B: Comment is noted. Dust wipe sampling to be conducted in high-risk areas will determine
lead concentrations, without consideration of the origin of lead found to be present.
Comment 20C: My second concern is, 2) Avoiding targeting low-income areas too harshly, without providing
support in what we would hope ultimately becomes a positive transition. In implementing policies
which will drive off some landlords and attract new ones, can the policy find ways for preventing
harm on residents from this intensive process? For example, rapid construction can generate
harmful lead dust, while people are nearby. Improving neighborhoods creates amenities, which
can potentially attract wealth. One 'second-order' social effect from this ordinance might be,
accelerating gentrification in Syracuse, before residents can match rising costs with rising
incomes. Methods for countering accelerating gentrification might include, providing some
resources for residents interested in becoming adequately trained and credentialed in EPAcertified lead-safe practices.
Response 20C: Comment is noted.
Families for Lead Freedom
Comment 21A: (Summary) EPA and HUD dust-wipe sampling standards have been updated as of January 6,
2020. These standards should apply to Alternative 1 in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement. The comment provides updated values of 10 µg/ft2 for floors, 100 µg/ft2 for
windowsills, and HUD’s standard of 100 µg/ft2 for window troughs. The Ordinance should be
revised at Section 54-7(D) to meet EPA/HUD standards, including the HUD standard for window
troughs. References to resources documenting change to EPA/HUD standards are provided by
the commenter.
Response 21A: See Response 2B.
E-39
Comment 21B: (Summary) There are incomplete definitions for “Commissioner”, “Director”, and “Department”
in the Draft Ordinance, and the commenter is concerned that failure to provide proper definitions
could make the Ordinance unenforceable, unworkable, or otherwise encounter serious legal
challenges. References are made to Draft Ordinance sections where these terms are used. The
commenter recommends that definitions for each of these terms be clearly defined in Section
54-4.
Response 21B: See Response 2G.
Comment 21C: (Summary) The first paragraph, third sentence of the DGEIS Executive Summary “woefully
under-represents the seriousness of the problem we face in Syracuse.” The DGEIS states the
number of Syracuse children with elevated levels detected in 2018 by the Department of Health
was 446, but the commenter references an online source indicating the number is actually 498.
This is also a historic low, although the reason for this is unclear. These numbers should not be
used without proper context. A single number does not account for the long-term harm to
community residents over time. The full picture is important to have when arguing for the
necessity of a strong lead ordinance. Any change in the number should have a corresponding
change in the estimated percentage of children under 6 tested in Syracuse who have an
elevated blood lead level the cited figure of 10.7% appears inconsistent with the longer-term
trend of lead poisoning faced by Syracuse families. A series of figures is provided for
consideration.
Response 21C: Comment is noted. Lead exposure is an extremely serious problem that has affected
children living in the City of Syracuse for decades, often with lifelong impacts. The DGEIS
provided an inaccurate number of positive tests for elevated blood lead levels among the
City’s children in 2018 – the Onondaga County Department of Health indicates that the
correct number is 498 children, and this number is significantly lower than historic
counts. With reference to the charts provided by the commenter, more than 10% of
Syracuse children have tested positive for elevated levels in each year dating back to
2012. The 2018 value of 10.4% is significantly lower than in each of the six preceding
years. The FGEIS Executive Summary and corresponding text in Section 2.2 provide
updated content in response to the comment.
E-40
Comment 21D: (Summary) Alternative 1 would include dust wipe sampling and the designation of “high risk
areas”. The applicable DGEIS passage is cited. Common councilors who are serious about
addressing childhood lead poisoning in rental housing should approve Alternative 1, which is
feasible, cost-effective, environmentally sustainable, and best for the health of Syracuse
families.
Response 21D: Comment is noted. Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns with Alternative #1
as described in Section 1.5.
Comment 21E: (Summary) Commenter is concerned that data about lead hazards identified, reduced, and
controlled with HUD funding, and information about Certificate of Occupancy compliance, will
not be accessible unless it is placed on a digital platform. DGEIS Section 3.3.2.1 “Property
Transfer and Notification” and Section 54-15 of the proposed lead ordinance are cited. Concerns
are stated that walk-in access to databases would be insufficient and may be unavailable to
most parents. In addition to a walk-in database, it is recommended that the information be made
available through a digital portal which is accessible through the internet.
Response 21E: See Response 2F.
Comment 21(F): (Summary) Section 54-13(B) “Prohibition of Retaliatory Action” is inconsistent with the Tenant
Protection Act of 2019. Commenter recommends that this paragraph be re-written to align with
Section B of the NYS Real Property Law. In Section 54-13(B), the text should change the time
period for the rebuttable presumption from six months to one year.
Response 21(F): See Response 2H. As a courtesy, the City notes that Section 54-13 of the updated Draft
Ordinance (Appendix A) has been revised to extend tenant protections against retaliatory
actions by landlords to one year, consistent with New York State law.
Comment 21(G): (Summary) This comment is related to the very real matter of too-frequent breaches of warranty
of habitability in Syracuse by landlords. In many cases where a breach of the warranty of
habitability occurs, tenants withhold rent to encourage a landlord to make proper repairs. Section
54-13(B) should eliminate the phrase “except in instances of nonpayment of rent”.
Response 21G: See Response 2H.
E-41
Comment 21H: (Summary) Section 54-13(B) “Prohibition of Retaliatory Action” fails to include additional but
relevant governmental agencies. Commenter believes this section could be made stronger to
protect residents from retaliation which could result if they contact either Onondaga County or
the NYS Department of Health in connection with a concern over childhood lead poisoning.
Recommendation is to use language that includes communication with all governmental
agencies at every level of government short of the federal leave. Specifically, it is recommended
that Section 54-13(B) should read as follows: “There shall be a rebuttable presumption that any
attempt … to evict a tenant within one year after any report to any governmental agency (City
or County or State) or the owner or any enforcement action in connection with …”.
Response 21H: See Response 2H.
E-42
PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
Jamie Hauley
Comment 22A: I'm Jamie Hauley. Paula and I are co-chairs of TNT South Side Housing Task Force. The first
thing that I want to talk about is the fact that no one has mentioned that New York State, in
October of 2019, lowered the acceptable blood lead level from 10 to 5. That means that under
this new blood level more children in Syracuse will be identified with lead poisoning. More
children in the school will require special services, there will be more work for Deb Lewis as well
and for the inspectors. That’s a very important issue to raise. When you look at what’s going on
in Flint, Michigan, and we may not be in exactly the same situation, but recently I’ve been reading
about the problems that they’re having there. They don’t have enough staff in the schools to
handle the number of children in need. These are very serious questions that need to be
included. And because of that, a child with lead poisoning in Syracuse is a very serious issue.
And I want to urge the strongest measure you can pass to protect the children, and seniors, too.
The lead Ordinance is really an essential. And so it's also a moral question, and a social justice
issue. We must protect the youngest most vulnerable citizens.
Response 22A: Comment is noted. The purpose of the Draft Lead Abatement and Control Ordinance is
to identify and correct lead-based paint hazards, in order to prevent human exposure to
such hazards. The prevention of lead exposure in children is an extremely important
issue in the City of Syracuse, and the Draft Ordinance seeks to address this issue.
Palmer Harvey
Comment 23A: I'm also the co-founder, and I have a little problem, seems all of this stuff is internal that you
guys are asking for. I have more of a question. I notice like a lot of apartments have exterior
problems with lead on the outside. So it seems to be is there going to be testing on the outside?
Or what is another part? Why are we not doing before, like as part of the inspection. Or if you
have rental property, in general should we inspect it before this? Seems like everything we're
talking about today is reactionary and not preventative, and that's a huge problem. Because I’ve
met so many tenants whose mothers are crying to me about their children being lead poisoned,
and it's not stopping. They have gone through the process you guys talked about, and it's already
passed on the parents, of all the things that happened to their children. So has anything been
E-43
thought of in that way to have more a preventative measure than anything else? I mean yeah,
informational measures are good, but parents should know what we do as part of the Southside
Task Force. We should go outside every year to educate the neighborhood. But I think it's a
huge problem that we’re not doing more educating landlords themselves and the importance of
why to look seriously. Because the next step coming down the road is a lot of people are thinking
about basically suing the landlord because of the amount of care and medical costs. Because
the children after lead poisoning, they should put more thought into what they're doing to the
public, you know.
Response 23A: Comment is noted. With regard to questions about lead on the exterior of buildings,
DGEIS Section 2.2 the Ordinance “will require the presence of deteriorated lead-based
paint on the interior and exterior of pre-1978 residential structures and on the exterior of
pre-1978 nonresidential structures to be identified and correctly addressed.” The Draft
Ordinance provides a mechanism to identify and address lead exposure in
residential/rental properties, and represents a preventive measure because the intent is
to prevent human exposure to lead before it happens.
Jeanette Zoeckler
Comment 24A: So thank you everyone for paying attention to lead and children in this community. I am working
for SUNY Upstate, I'm trained in public health. My expertise though is really more around the
workers’ health and how the workers are affected who go in and abate lead. But I come to you
also as a mother today, because I was a mother raising children in the City with a child with
elevated lead. And so I sort of have training but I also have sort of a closed heart to it as well.
Just a quick pass over the Ordinance. I definitely go with Alternative 1, which has more strict
standards. And lowering the lead levels in children in this nation, and I hate to see Syracuse
missing out again on the best of what we can do. And I want to see this lead Ordinance brought
up to the standards that EPA and HUD have, while removing those barriers so eloquently
brought out tonight. That's what we see over and over again in the community. There is an
opportunity for some change, it's really secondary prevention. Some kids are already affected
when these matters are going on. When we know that these houses, all, many of them, almost
entire neighborhoods really need the attention. So while I commend this, I really do think in this
comment period this body should accept some more expertise to look over. And if I can find, just
quickly, that you know, we're going to need to have more stringent standard of a hundred
E-44
micrograms per square feet for the window trough. That’s what’s in play. So you have to be very
practical about this and come up with some penalties for landlords who don’t comply. But they
have this ability to just quickly get out of it. Those loopholes need to be closed. And if you want
to look to some people that have done this: In Utica, New York, low blood lead levels were
lowered and children's IQ points were raised. And also Rochester. So there is no reason
Syracuse can’t do this. I thank you for your time and energy on it. I look for greater collaboration
between the Department of Health and other bodies that I could name here. So we should work
a little more, but work quickly, because there just isn’t time.
Response 24A: Comment is noted. Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns with Alternative #1
as described in Section 1.5, which includes dust-wipe sampling in high-risk areas.
Regarding EPA/HUD standards, see Response 2B. The Ordinance applies to all City
neighborhoods and properties therein, with additional dust-wipe sampling to occur in
high-risk areas. The City will not issue a Certificate of Compliance or Rental Registration
Certificate for a property that is not in compliance with the Ordinance. The Department
of Codes Enforcement will retain the right to enforce penalties for failure to comply with
the Ordinance.
Jesse Harasta
Comment 25A: (Summary) Commenter is a Syracuse resident and professor of social science at Cazenovia
College. Commenter conducted a research project along with students in order to try to test the
questions about exactly what is it in the social context of high impacted neighborhoods that's
leading to greater amounts of peeling paints and that’s not present in similar neighborhoods
with low impact. Preliminary data suggest that the most significant factor between high impacted
and low impacted neighborhoods was peeling paint on the exteriors of buildings. This
demonstrates that if the City wishes to intervene and question about the rates at schools and
other settings are certainly important. But the first point of easiest intervention is to stabilize paint
in the buildings. One other piece emerging from the research, relates to lead poisoning in the
historic sense. Maps of elevated blood lead levels for 1998 show that the neighborhoods that
are today being discussed as high risk neighborhoods were seen as historical neighborhoods
for higher risk in 1998. 22 years ago researches identified those places as being problematic,
and still continues to be so today. Commenter believes this reinforces the fact that if we want to
E-45
intervene to stop lead poisoning we need to take a special microgeographical approach we're
looking at specific neighborhoods, and approve Alternative 1.
Response 25A: Comment is noted. The City appreciates the research effort described by the commenter.
The Ordinance is intended to prevent and reduce human exposure to lead paint by
addressing the presence of lead paint in and on residential buildings, in line with the
commenter’s suggestions. Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns with
Alternative #1 as described in Section 1.5.
Oseanna Fair
Comment 26A: I have a home on the south side of Syracuse that I first rented and then bought from the Syracuse
Land Bank. I am also a member of Families for Lead Freedom Now, I am the qualified branch
leader. I did not think 38 years later I would be standing before you still talking about lead
poisoning. Lead poisoning has now become generational for my family. I still take care of a 40
year old brother who suffered severe lead poisoning on the south side of Syracuse. And now 38
years later I find out that my granddaughter has lead poisoning from my own home. We have o
be better, we have to do better. Looking over the Draft Ordinance that you guys have out, the
outdated dust wipe clearance levels, the ones that are listed in the Ordinance have been
updated in January by HUD. So we need this language to be strong in this Ordinance. We need
that new information to be added to the Ordinance. Families with Lead Treatment Now prefer
that you have Alternative 1 of the Ordinance. My other question for this body is how do we plan
to enforce compliance with this Ordinance or enforce the inspection? Since compliance with the
Rental Registry is so low, how do we place to get this across? This is important. Our children
are suffering. Thank you.
Response 26A: Comment is noted. See Response 2B regarding alignment with EPA/HUD clearance
standards. Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns with Alternative #1 as
described in Section 1.5. The Department of Codes Enforcement will retain the right to
enforce penalties for failure to comply with the Ordinance.
Charlene Fair
E-46
Comment 27A: I’m Charlene Fair, and I do own a home in the City of Syracuse, and obviously it’s affected my
family. I’m in the Families for Lead Freedom Now. We do have concern. The landlords do not
complete work to proper standards. And the problem that is several points that allow landlords
to pass up standard work or to delay work for an unacceptable period. We want
recommendations: Do not allow inspectors to release properties when only interim controls are
in place. And to require the placement of internal controls in the case of inclement weather of
over a week, and to remove the loopholes for abatement work done by landlords or unpaid
family members.
Response 27A: Comment is noted. See Response 2N.
Matracia Powell
Comment 28A: I am basically working with the Democrat Socialist organization and I found out just how bad the
lead problem is in Syracuse, and I was absolutely shocked, and I really wanted to help do
something about that. So I really am happy that this Ordinance is now being drawn up. One of
our concerns is that the Ordinance doesn’t provide definitions for these key terms:
Commissioner, Director, and Department. And it is a problem that could lead to legal challenges
that would take the lead Ordinance in a court of law. So we think that it should be more creative
to find more. And support the Alternative 1 because we believe it is stronger than Alternative 2.
Response 28A: Comment is noted. See Response 2G. Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns
with Alternative #1 as described in Section 1.5.
David Michel
Comment 29A: I'll be very brief. I must say hearing this conversation of all the HUD requirements I'm glad I
retired. As some of you know, my wife Peggy used to work in childcare for 4K, and here's hers,
she can’t come tonight but here's her comments. I’ll be very brief. I think the people in the
audience and the report has described the problem is with lead paint. The surrounding support
for the lead paint Ordinance, particularly Alternative 1. As Peter Dunn in the Community
Foundation said, the missing link in the efforts to combat lead. As you heard a lot of things
coming out, more funding, a lot of collaboration a between the City and the County and that’s
good. -that’s good. I’m also on the board of Housing Visions, and their Syracuse project also
E-47
addresses the lead problem. In some ways in building new homes such as up on the Square
project and substantial rehabilitation of existing structures. The projects on the north and east
side of the City. Also collaborating with the City and Home Headquarters and the nearest new
initiative to build 200 new homes. Our only caveat, and I think Councilor Majok referred to this,
it is important when you pass this Ordinance that there be sufficient resources staff and training
to implement the Ordinance. I think a couple of you have said that. And was encouraged to read
in the paper that proposing two new inspectors. I hope in the budget you would keep that in
mind.
Response 29A: Comment is noted. Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns with Alternative #1
as described in Section 1.5. Staffing and funding considerations will be addressed by the
City prior to the Ordinance taking effect.
Peter Knoblock
Comment 30A: I’m a resident of Syracuse, I've been here for 60 years. 50 years ago in my capacity as a child
psychologist I began evaluating children with documented high levels of lead. And as has been
documented here today, their health and educational needs are extensive. Continued to see
these youngsters over the years. And the families struggle to find school programs and providers
who recognize their needs. I’m fond of the notion of pay now or pay later. And so I appreciate
your efforts to document and initiate the strongest possible initiatives.
Response 30A: Comment is noted.
Marianna Kaufman
Comment 31A: I’m a resident of Syracuse, I’m a physician, I’m a parent of two young children. I’ve sat on the
boards of the CNY Solidarity Coalition and currently on the Syracuse Peace Council, and I'm
active in several organizations that are concerned with social justice and interest in public health.
I commend the Council for taking this really important initiative to take a look at this preventable
crisis and to give it the appropriate concern that it deserves. I strongly support the Ordinance,
and I strongly support Alternative 1. I do have, in reading through the Ordinance, I do have one
concern about the definition of what is considered permanent. The bill defines its goal is to create
permanent protection from lead. The removal of the lead can be considered permanent. But
E-48
encapsulating the lead with paint should not be considered permanent. And especially paint that
encapsulates the lead on exterior surfaces in Syracuse is not going to be permanent, it’s not
going to last twenty years. It might last several years, especially on outside surfaces. So the
recommendation would be to redefine the term permanent as a lead remediation, the permanent
removal of walls or soil bearing lead paint. And that we should define encapsulation as
abatement. And so the language should be changed that encapsulation should be continued to
be inspected on a regular basis.
Response 31A: Comment is noted. See Response 2N regarding items of a legal nature or related to
construction of the Draft Ordinance. Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns
with Alternative #1 as described in Section 1.5. See Response 2C - the Draft Ordinance
provides mechanisms to ensure ongoing compliance as property conditions may change
over time. Inspections would occur upon renewal applications for the Rental Registry and
Certificates of Compliance for rental properties at three-year intervals, and the complaint
process empowers tenants to report concerns about sources of lead exposure. Use of
the term “permanent” is addressed in Response 2D.
Crystal Cosentino
Comment 32A: I work for Home Headquarters as a Deputy Director. Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight.
Home Headquarters has been committed to creating, preserving, and financing healthy housing.
Since we first opened our doors back in 1996. As a Community Development Financial
Institution we have often financed home improvements that not only improve the quality of
housing -- a new roof, repair sewer lines, new furnace, and also improves the occupants’ health.
In 2015, together with the CNY Community Foundation and many community partners, many of
them here tonight, we embarked on the creation of the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative of
Greater Syracuse. A national model focused on Coordination and collaboration and a single
stream intervention process to address green, health, and safety issues in the home. Our City
here and Our County along with nine other partners signed a compact committing to this work.
In 2017 Home Headquarters and the Green and Healthy Homes initiative of Greater Syracuse
facilitated several meetings to develop a prioritized approach to prevent lead poisoning. Our
vision was to see a decrease in lead hazards in the built environment and a decrease in the
number of children with elevated blood lead levels. While ambitious, we knew this would be
attainable. It contained four focuses areas: Policy and enforcement, the built environment,
E-49
health and medical and community awareness and education. Many activities are underway to
address lead and its impacts. The approach is multifaceted and comprehensive, and we are
beginning to see real impacts from our activities. The nearly 300 page Draft Environmental
Impact Statement outlines in detail the need for this. From understanding how lead, even in
small quantities, is impacting children in our community through data contributed by the local
Health Department to a scan of housing conditions here in the City. Currently we have a
reactionary system. A child is poisoned and then we mobilize services. Wouldn’t a system where
we address lead before it becomes a problem be a far better way of handling things. It would
reduce stress, health and economic impacts caused by lead poisoning. We echo others, like the
Community Foundation, who have already shared in other venues that an Ordinance such as
this will help us remain vigilant, proactive and collaborative. The City’s efforts, through this Draft
Lead Ordinance, will comprehensively improve housing quantity and resident health. Home
Headquarters is in support of the City amending its property conservation code to include
addressing and correcting the presence of deteriorated lead-based paint. And we appreciate
this public meeting to learn more, and we expect to submit written comments before the March
deadline.
Response 32A: Comment is noted. The purpose of the Lead Abatement and Control Ordinance is to
identify and correct lead-based paint hazards, in order to prevent and reduce human
exposure to such hazards.
Bobby Carroll
Comment 33A: My name is Bobby Carroll, I just moved here in August, I’ve been here in Syracuse. One thing
about that I wasn’t aware of was that there is like an online place you can look up where there
is lead poisoning in certain properties and whatever. If you have to go to a physical building to
do that, so for me coming from out of State, that’s kind of a burden, I’m sure other people have
an issue with that. Might be nice to know like from not only the community you're trying to rent
from that the entire property has issues with that. It would be nice to have a sort of transparency
in an online database, instead of a physical building. So just wanted to bring that point up. And
then wanted to reiterate that Alternative 1 should be considered. That’s the stronger option for
the Ordinance.
Response 33A: Comment is noted. See Response 2F.
E-50
Mary Cunningham
Comment 34A: I mostly agree with Marianna Kaufman who was talking about. I've lived in Syracuse in a 1914
house for years and a 1920 house for 13 years. The idea of encapsulating the outside paint is
a wishful thinking for twenty years. I know what it takes to take care of a house. So I want to
stress to you we really need to make it maybe what is suggested possibly every six years but
certainly needs to stay under regular supervision and not just be pushed under the bridge. One
of the things we know is that lead poisoning, we can only identify it in children, but it lasts their
whole life. And it affects them and their families and our community. That we are looking at not
418 or 468 children in the year, it's over 22 years, it’s over many years that we are accumulating.
We have a huge number of children, really incredible number of children who are affected their
whole lives. And the expense to their family and we as a community could be ameliorated if we
would take care of it and spend the money now and push for the County to put in more money.
There is more money there, there should be more than 3.5 million.
Response 34A: Comment is noted. See Response 2C – the Draft Ordinance provides mechanisms to
ensure ongoing compliance as property conditions may change over time. Inspections
would occur upon renewal applications for the Rental Registry and Certificates of
Compliance for rental properties at three-year intervals, and the complaint process
empowers tenants to report concerns about sources of lead exposure. Also see
Response 21C which addresses DGEIS content related to community impacts – the
FGEIS Executive Summary and corresponding text in Section 2.2 provide updated
descriptive information and additional context. Funding considerations will be addressed
by the City prior to the Ordinance taking effect.
Evan Brzostowski
Comment 35A: I'm a member of the American Iron Front, we are a group that’s kind of antifascists in the area.
And I was wasn’t really planning on coming up here today. But it really caught my attention and
to me it just kind of seems like a no brainer to be perfectly honest. As the professor over there
said, that this has been going on, the last study was in 1998. I was born in 1998, so this is
something that’s been going on since, you know, I was a little me down here you know.
E-51
Especially this should be put through. And Number 1 should be put through especially as well.
So that’s my personal opinion. Thank you for letting me come up here.
Response 35A: Comment is noted. Per DGEIS Section 2.2, the Draft Ordinance aligns with Alternative #1
as described in Section 1.5.
Nathan Currier
Comment 36A: My name Nathan Currier, I’m a student at OCC, part of the American Iron Front and SRA as
well. So I want to speak on the tenants’ rights issue. If there is any sort of legislation bill that
goes through involving this, tenants need workers’ rights for people that have to deal with the
lead paint removal should be one of the utmost priorities. I remember one of the Council brought
up that one of the tenants and landlord, pretty much being screwed out with tenants not being
able to receive any sort of help or aid due to that. That should almost be criminal. As someone
who is actively participating in the harm of others, without knowing the information of like what
lead can do.
Response 36A: Comment is noted. DGEIS Section 3.3.2.3 addresses measures to protect tenants from
potential retaliation by landlords in response to the reporting of suspected lead-based
paint hazards to the property owner or City.
Mary Traynor
Comment 37A: I’m here on behalf of the Syracuse Tenants Union, also an attorney with the Legal Services of
Central New York. And I was at the committee meeting this afternoon, which really had no
surprises. And I just really say that we need to focus on the enforcement mechanisms here. Our
Code Enforcement Department, well intentioned as it may be, is really failing this City in a big
way. The Rental Registry has not really worked the way it was intended to. I think that it could
be amended in many ways so that just to improve enforcement. And we need to get serious
about fines. You know, all these programs seem to be reactive, where they’re triggered by a
little child being poisoned. And then the big thing is how do we get the landlords to accept our
public funds, our money, okay? And if they don't do it, what happens? Nothing. So we really
need to look at that part, because if we're not going to follow through and make sure that the
buildings and the apartments are fixed, you know, the tenants will be evicted, there is no
E-52
protection from that. So they would be just, you know, one family move out and another family
move in. And nothing will change, you know. And the problem, I believe you said you had about
76 applications in, that 70 were not completed. So that’s not working. That's not working. And I
would hope that there is a new plan to fix that. Like I would hope codes has a plan to actually fix
these things. Instead of just, you know, continuing business as usual year after year. I know two
or three years ago you first started talking about lead and here we’re considering an Ordinance.
It’s a huge improvement.
Response 37A: Comment is noted. Staffing and funding for enforcement will be addressed by the City
prior to the Ordinance taking effect.
Greg Smith
Comment 38A: I’d like to talk about the dust wipes. Using the term investigation in finding what was the source
of a problem. And this is very much a forensic sort of thing. I've worked, I’m a landlord, and my
family and my crew and I have been working in the west side on a daily basis for 40 years
providing safe housing. But anyway, you have to find what the vector is, how the lead gets into
the kid. Now, dust on the floor. Little kids crawl around on a dirty floor, get dirty hands and dirty
toys in their mouth. That’s pretty simple. But how did the lead get on the floor? Now as far as
the dust wipes go, I think we need to differentiate between lead from an environmental source
and lead from the structural source. Now if you have deteriorated lead or any kind of a violation
or you've done any kind of renovation work. Yes, that falls completely on the owner, he owns
the problem. It’s your obligation to prove that you've done everything right and that you’ve
cleaned it up. But if you get a case where there is no visible deterioration, there is no, you know,
say for example, you've got a place that's been abated. And it has dust wipe fails. Well, clearly
the dust was tracked in. Now Home Headquarters has a very informative video. And one of the
things that they recommend for people to protect their kids is simply take your shoes off at the
door. Because there is a legacy of lead in our environment from leaded gasoline that was around
for years. And virtually all dirt has a certain percentage of lead in it. So the lead that gets tracked
in. Yes, this is an issue. It’s essential though a housekeeping issue. And the reason I feel we
need to distinguish this is, one, I don't view housekeeping as within the scope of the services
we provide. And I don't think any landlord does either, you know. If we make this something that
the landlord is responsible for, the protocol will be that every three years somebody goes in with
a mop, right ahead of the guy with the dust wipe, and wipes it up and you get a dust wipe and it
E-53
passes. You know, think back to when you were cramming on the last exam you took. Do you
remember any of that stuff? And that's exactly the analogy here. What you’ve got is every three
years you've got a very sterile surface that passes the test, but we don't address the ongoing
problem. Now we're patterning this after the law in Rochester which was very successful in
lowering high lead levels, but actually not so much on low lead levels. So they have an okay
program. But you know what, okay is not okay. If we're going to solve this problem, everyone
needs to work together. And what we need to do, we're going to be losing a teaching opportunity
if we convey the impression that these housekeeping things that are critically important to
reducing levels on the landlord issue, we need to use this opportunity to get the parents involved
in protecting the children also.
Response 38A: Comment is noted. See Response 20B.
Stephanie Kenific
Comment 39A: I’m a resident of Syracuse, I’m a teacher, and I am also a member of the Syracuse Party for
Socialism and Liberation. I want to really echo and amplify what Comrade Bobby Carroll
mentioned about the transparency of lead poisoning and abatement. Currently records are
public, but only to those that can visit the office in person during business hours. As a teacher I
know very well that information is not truly public until it is really accessible to all. That means
digitally and available in multiple languages. The Party for Socialism and Liberation that I
represent has experience in our neighboring Town of Geneva, New York addressing lead
contamination in homes. We know well the painful realization that families in contaminated
housing may face. That their homes can be poisoning them. It’s the City's responsibility to ensure
that families have all the necessary information in order to confront that terrible reality.
Response 39A: Comment is noted. See Response 2F.
Rich Puchalski
Comment 40A: Executive Director Syracuse United Neighbors. Been around for 42 years, active on the south,
near west side, Skunk City neighborhoods, where the highest concentration of lead houses are
located. You know, kind of interesting to show up here at noon, getting blocked out from
speaking on Council business. Now coming back and everybody has a lot of food for thought
E-54
for the Councilors. Do we thank Councilor Driscoll? Or did I get just lucky? You know, the Council
office has money. I see the budget. It’s too bad about 1,500 copies of the Ordinance on the
table, Mr. Driscoll. Now it’s too bad -- is it in the libraries? You know I understand the Ordinance
doesn't have the strictest federal EPA lead levels in the Ordinance. Put it in there. You know
after today the dust will settle, it will probably be a lot of lead dust. And where are we going?
You know, is the energy going to transform to the neighborhoods on the south and near west
side, for example? I want to see a public relations budget and an outline of what you are going
to do. You know, it’s kind of interesting you sometimes see banners downtown. Well, what about
banners in the neighborhoods to talk about this? Once upon a time I got lucky and I got on the
police van. That’s a pretty expensive piece of taxpayers’ money in the police van. Why not a
lead van that rolls around in the neighborhoods, stops, maybe a couple of workers that live in
that neighborhood that does outreach, and come on and see what the lead fight is all about. I
want to see a budget. I want to see fliers, you know, anyway. And lastly, my last point, since you
guys don't do anything, if you’ve got landlords that don t comply, send their name and address
to the SUN office 1540 South Salina Street. Because this is enough. This is criminal what these
landlords are doing.
Response 40A: Comment is noted. See Response 2B regarding clearance standards. Public outreach and
education will be addressed by the City prior to the Ordinance taking effect. Codes
enforcement reserves the right to enforce penalties associated with violations.
Brendan Brooks
Comment 41A: I'm Brendan Brooks from Interfaith, LLC. Hoping to move to the south side relatively soon here.
One of the things with the numbers. Three and-a-half million dollars, just looking at some of the
data, like you’re talking about addressing on average about 3 percent of the homes that are
possibly affected. And we’re only, if you don’t have 70 of the 76 in full, I mean if we don’t get the
money committed I don’t know how that works. I mean I’m a big proponent of supply and
demand. If you show the work, you know, you can go ahead and get more funding. That's
something I would really, if we canvass the neighborhood and get votes. If we go to the DSS
and they have voter registration on back packets, you know that there is correlation between
poverty and this issue. That’s a hit list right there. You know, people that are on Section 8.
People that are getting these services. Let's get out there and be proactive about it. That’s all
I've got.
E-55
Response 41A: Comment is noted.
Peter King
Comment 42A: I actually, from what I’ve read of the document and from what I understand from what I hear, I
completely approve of this as a first step. I think it’s an excellent step. Long needed in Syracuse.
And I think also that the comments made today also are very good at strengthening this
document. The one thing I might say also, I am a Syracuse resident, is that a lot of the problems
that seem to encompass or potential problem points relate to what’s called in the literature your
expose all. How an individual might come to be cumulatively affected by lead. And so these are
all kinds of sources. There is literature specifically about Syracuse and about, for example, the
soils, vacant lots. There is actually a number of ways that that can happen. And so just in the
sense of a liability, maybe to be aware of that literature. But also as in forward thinking, why stop
with just the housing, there is a lot of potential of remediating the soils. There is actually ways
to remediate soils that have been done in places like New Orleans, and also in Norway and
other countries. This is a worldwide problem. One concept which could be pursued is braiding
funding so that you have HUD funding, you have other kinds of funding, so you get funding from
different sources and you mix different educating the younger buyers before they buy these
homes before their children are affected, because I’ve seen it with my own eyes. I see it
happening. So I just want to let you know, you're preaching to the choir because I’m part of that
issue. So I do hear you and I appreciate everybody coming out and giving us your information
and our thoughts.
Response 42A: Comment is noted.