1. Authorize Rental Contract, Highway Department – Mr. Cornell moved adoption; seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Allen indicated that this is a bargain as far as the amount of space we rent. Mr. Cornell asked if this was for the winter season only? Mr. Buerkle indicated the equipment is placed in the fall and removed in the spring. All members voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

2. Authorize Contract, Highway Department (Columbia Natural Resources) – Mr. Armstrong moved adoption; seconded by Mr. Cornell. Mr. Elston asked what this is for? Mr. Chambers indicated that they are looking for natural gas, but it covers other minerals as well. This is not on our property; it is on adjacent property. All members voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

3. Authorize Right-of-Way Purchase, Highway Department (Page Green Road Project) – Mr. Armstrong moved adoption; seconded by Mr. Tagliente. Mr. Allen asked if these were the balance of the right of way acquisitions? Mr. Buerkle indicated that this is for the portion of the road between Page Greed Road and Congdon Lane and includes all parcels in that stretch of road. It is because we are widening and changing the profile of the road. All members voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

1. Update Recycling Center – Mr. Chambers provided an update. There was a pre-construction meeting yesterday, November 3, 2004, to review the contractor’s schedule. They have been sent back to the drawing board to work on the schedule. As it stands right now, they have us taking possession of the facility in March, somewhere between the 4^th and the 15^th. We anticipated being in the facility in January; however, this is where the contractor stands with their schedule. The contractor will be starting on Monday.

2. Permit and Tipping Fees – Mr. Chambers put this on the agenda because the County Administrator wanted to discuss tipping fees. He is not here this morning, so Mr. Chambers is not certain what Mr. Schrader wanted to discuss. Mr. Tagliente asked Mr. Chambers to give the research on Ithaca. Tompkins County right now ships its garbage to Seneca Meadows via contractor who handles the waste from the transfer center and recycling center. They have different rates for haulers and residents. The residents are charged more than the haulers. Mr. Chambers believes it is $55 for residential and $45 for commercial. Their recycling is contracted out. Mr. Tagliente indicated that the nice thing is that Tompkins County doesn’t have to mess with the landfill. Mr. Allen is asking if there is interest in not having the landfill. Mr. Tagliente indicated that Seneca Meadows is accepting trash at a reduced rate. What is the sense of filling up our landfill and having to build another cell. Would it be cost-effective and efficient to put the landfill on hold for a while. The leachate problem is not going to go away. If we are going to do a pipeline, we should do it and not wait until the last minute. Mr. Chambers indicated that the Pine Tree landfill produces 1 million gallons of leachate per year and it is capped. There is infiltration of groundwater. This is not going to go away. It has consistently been 1 million gallons since we capped it years ago. It is a perpetual thing that there will be 1 million gallons of leachate to deal with. Mr. Tagliente indicated that when we increase the size of the landfill we will have more leachate. Mr. Allen indicated there is no reason we shouldn’t look in to these issues and get some cost figures. There are some other issues regarding efficiency at the landfill that would make it more cost-effective than it currently is. He has heard of other landfills that roll out a membrane over the landfill instead of having daily cover, which is added to the landfill. Mr. Tagliente said we should look at whether we want to increase our capacity at the landfill by adding more cells v. shipping materials out of county and he feels we should look at getting control of the leachate problem. Are we going to truck it to that location forever? Mr. Allen indicated that we are not going to be able to walk away from the leachate. Mr. Schrader joined the group and indicated that he felt that temporarily closing the landfill and going elsewhere would mean contracting with someone to haul the waste, which will increase our cost and we will still have work related to a closed landfill. If we let the haulers take care of hauling themselves, we would lose the revenue. This year, we are planning on a $600,000 surplus from the operation of the landfill, which will be used to offset the tax levy. If we close the landfill, we will lose that revenue and the tax rate will have to increase. Mr. Tagliente feels that we should not decrease the tipping fees. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Tagliente if he is saying we should look at not having the garbage go to the landfill? Mr. Tagliente is concerned because we have a hauler who will be opening a transfer station not that far from the landfill. Mr. Allen indicated that he has done extensive research on the cost of operating a transfer station and making money and the hauler with the transfer station would have to get nearly all of the trash in the county delivered to the transfer station to make it a profitable operation for him. Mr. Schrader indicated that we are in this business, like it or not. We have expenses that have to be covered related to the landfill. We need to be competitive and operate this as a business, which is how it was designed. We are not necessarily budgeting this year, but that is how it is designed. We have to strike a balance between operating it efficiently, taking care of the solid waste in the company, and making it cost-effective in the long run. Having a hauler leave the operation is not in the best interest of the operation. Mr. Elston feels that we need to stop using the landfill revenue to bolster the general fund – that is what needs to be balanced. You can’t do it in one year, but as a Legislature we should set a goal that we stop using the landfill revenue for the general operating fund. Mr. Cornell feels we need to start putting money back in to the reserve fund for equipment replacement at the landfill.

3. Town of Homer request for the County to work on the Pine Street Bridge rehab project. Mr. Buerkle indicated that John Phelps has contacted him and asked if the County thought the referenced bridge should be rehabbed. The report reflects that it should be. It is currently posted for 3 tons. The Town would like to keep that 3 tons but rehab it so it is in better shape. The Town of Homer has requested that we design the rehab. In the past this is what we have done and have not charged them for it. We have assisted in past projects with staff and have not charged them for the project. However, the Town also assists us with hauling blacktop, etc. and is very cooperative. Mr. Buerkle is looking for committee approval to assist the Town of Homer. Mr. Dafoe asked if this bridge is eligible for state or federal funding. Mr. Buerkle is not aware of what bridge money is currently available. However, using the current formula, this bridge would go in to the mix with other bridges. There is competition for funding and whether this bridge would "win" the competition is questionable. Mr. Buerkle does not believe that the bridge would be eligible for funding. Mr. Phelps has presented this to his Town Board last night. Mr. Elston asked what the cost would be? Mr. Buerkle indicated he could provide the numbers to the committee via e-mail. Mr. Buerkle reviewed several projects that have been done with similar cooperation over the past several years. Mr. Allen believes this is a good thing, but said that moving forward this must be able to be quantified. Records should be kept on what it costs us to provide services, and what services the municipalities provide in return. Mr. Allen asked if this could be captured in a snapshot for the past few years. There was discussion about authorizing Mr. Schrader to respond to this request with specifics about what services we have already provided and what we contract with Town for to do for us. Mr. Schrader and Chairman Steve indicated that this cooperation appears to be one-way. The towns/villages are happy when we are helping them but then they do not want to help us. Mr. Dafoe feels that Mr. Buerkle should respond to Mr. Phelps and talk to Mr. Forbes. The inquiry was made of Mr. Buerkle so he should respond. The decision was that Mr. Schrader will respond to Mr. Forbes.

4. Little York Dam Update – B & L is the engineer. They are working the DEC to ensure that what we are going is in compliance with funding streams. They have done some preliminary studies. Mr. Elston has visited the dam and there is no question in his mind that we, the County, own the dam. We own the property on both sides and in his mind it is clear that at this point we own it. Mr. Allen indicated that he has been in contact with the NYS Park Department Regional Office to pursue perhaps making Dwyer Park a State Park. They would then look at the possibility of taking over Dwyer Park. Mr. Allen would like to see them build something new in state forest land in the County. Is the committee interested in having Dwyer Park designated a State Park? Chairman Steve indicated that he doesn’t have a strong feeling on whether it should be Dwyer Park or on the state forest land. Chairman Steve indicated that Dwyer Park costs us money to operate. He doesn’t want to lose the asset, but if the State is willing to make it a State Park and operate it, we really don’t lose by that. Mr. Dafoe asked about getting a harvester in Little York Lake since the water level is now so low. Mr. Schrader indicated that unless there are water chestnuts, it will be difficult to get a harvester. Mr. Steger indicated that the Soil and Water Conservation Districts have provided funding for the harvesting of Tully Lake. Mr. Allen asked if we should wait until the B & L estimate returns before he contacts the State about taking over Little York Lake. Mr. Allen indicated that the State is going to want to have the County provide certain items before they would take it over.

5. Mr. Allen addressed for Mr. Jones’ benefit, that the lease for MH-1 will be sent out for one-year without the renewal clause. Mr. Bardsley will get this out the lease for bid one year in the very near future. Mr. Allen indicated that in the interim, Mr. Jones has invested money in aircraft for field instruction. Mr. Jones indicated that he has flight instructors on the field, which requires no building. He would like to meet with someone in the near future about making modifications to his T-Hangar for the interim to hold him over so he can do the 100 hour inspection on his flight instruction aircraft. Mr. Jones would like to put in a heating system in his T-Hangar. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Schrader what would be needed to allow Mr. Jones to do the improvements he is requesting. Mr. Schrader will look in to it.

6. Mr. Allen discussed the forthcoming holidays. There is a new holiday on December 31 that is not in the original agreement. Mr. Chambers indicated that we were just notified in the last week or so that there will be a holiday on December 31. We previously discussed opening the landfill on the opening day of deer season (November 22) which is a holiday for the landfill. Haulers are also asking about opening the landfill on Monday, December 27, which is a County holiday. Mr. Chambers indicated that he does have staff available and willing to work those days. Mr. Chambers asked the committee if they want us to address the requests of the haulers and be open those days. By general consent, the committee agreed to keeping the landfill on those days and compensate them in accordance with the labor contract.

7. Mr. Allen reviewed the letters that Mr. Armstrong distributed from his towns regarding amnesty day. Mr. Allen indicated that the cost of one day is approximately $10,000. Chairman Steve indicated that at the CTVS, the towns indicated that they did not want an amnesty day as it cost them too much. A majority of the attendees at the CTVS meeting agreed that one amnesty day per year was enough. The towns can offer their own amnesty day and then absorb the tipping fees themselves.

8. Ms. Bean indicated that the MUNIS training was helpful and should address several of their questions.

9. Mr. Chambers is preparing to get permits printed for 2005. There has been some discussion about permit charges being changed, which was brought up by the haulers. Mr. Chambers needs to know if there is going to be a change before he has the permits printed up. He needs to be ready to sell permits on January 1. Residential permits are $10; business/commercial are $30. The haulers are suggested that the residential permits be raised to be the same as the haulers. There is no committee interest in raising the residential permit fee. Mr. Schrader indicated that the residents don’t make money from hauling; the commercial haulers do. Mr. Allen believes that we should insist on the permits being affixed to the vehicles. Mr. Chambers indicated that you will get many complaints as residents don’t want to affix them to the vehicles. There was a suggestion that colored stickers be issued to be placed on the rear view mirror and that the license plates of the vehicles be referenced.

The committee adjourned at 9:42 a.m.

BACK