Highway Committee

January 6, 2005, 8:30 a.m.

DRAFT Minutes

Present were: Paul Allen, Chairman; John Steger, Vice Chairman; Merwin Armstrong, Dan Tagliente, Scott Elston; Steve Dafoe; Scott Steve, Chairman of the Legislature

Others present: Ann Homer; Don Chambers; Bob Buerkle, Scott Schrader, County Administrator; Brian Liberatore

Absent: Larry Cornell

Chairman Allen called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.

Mr. Elston moved the adoption of the minutes of the December 2, 2004, meeting; seconded by Mr. Armstrong. All members voting in favor; none opposed; minutes approved.

 

1. Authorize Agreement/ Environmental Monitoring, Highway Department/Landfill – Mr. Elston moved adoption; seconded by Mr. Tagliente. Mr. Chambers explained that with the new permit in place, the DEC may require us to put in some additional monitoring wells, which is why this is an estimated amount. Last year, we were a little over $40,000; but we are awaiting the update of the Solid Waste Management Plan and the response from the DEC as to what the requirements will be. The amount could be slightly less or slightly more. All members voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

 

2. Modify Refuse Disposal Fee, Highway Department/Landfill – Mr. Armstrong moved adoption; seconded by Mr. Elston. Mr. Schrader indicated that based on the previous discussions of the committee, the 2005 budget reflects a tip fee of $47.00 per ton. Based upon the adoption of the budget, we have to adopt a resolution modifying the tip fee. He made the assumption that the $47.00 tip fee adopted in the budget was acceptable, which is what generated the proposed resolution. Mr. Dafoe said he thought we had discussed this last year and the decision was to leave it alone. Mr. Elston indicated that he remembers talking about it. He thought that someone was going to do an analysis on revenue so you could see where the line crosses with a lowered tip fee and more trash being brought to the landfill. Mr. Dafoe asked what the rate for the residents (private) will be. Mr. Schrader indicated that that will be up to the private sector. Mr. Dafoe asked why we are doing this? Mr. Schrader responded to be competitive with facilities in other counties. Mr. Schrader indicated that when a hauler leaves the County, it will cost them about $15.00 per ton. Seneca Meadows charges a tipping fee of $30.00, so with the$15.00 added, at $47.00 per ton, we become competitive. Mr. Schrader indicated that the educated assumption is that we will gain some of the trash that is currently leaving the system. There is one hauler who is building a transfer station with the intent to leave the system. If we become competitive, and he still leaves the system, then Mr. Schrader feels that we will need to legislatively impose flow control. Hopefully, we don’t have to do that, but if pushed, we should do that. Mr. Elston asked if our ultimate goal is to have the Landfill not being a revenue-generating system for the general fund. Mr. Schrader indicated that is a true statement. Mr. Tagliente asked if the one hauler leaves the system, how much tonnage would we lose. Mr. Schrader indicated 4,700 tons were generated by that hauler last year. Mr. Steger indicated that Blue Moose hauler is leaving the system. Chairman Steve indicated that dropping the tonnage rate means we lose $300,000 in revenue. However, we are not funding the general fund. If we drop the tonnage and lose the hauler, we will lose over $500,000. Chairman Steve indicated that the biggest problem is that if someone can get rid of the trash cheap, they can make a good profit in the County because others are paying $60.00 per ton. If we decrease the rate, there will be some pressure put on the haulers who are making the money now, as the other haulers will be making money with a reduced fee. Chairman Steve feels some haulers will be affected negatively and others will be affected positively. You then come back to the question of whether this money should be used to fund the general fund or should we just give it back to the taxpayers directly. Mr. Tagliente feels that the haulers will become more competitive. However, Mr. Tagliente feels that this will not work. Mr. Dafoe agrees. Mr. Tagliente doesn’t understand how we can lose a substantial amount from one hauler and make it up with another hauler. Mr. Schrader indicated that this is when we would have to impose flow control. We have an obligation regardless of how many tons are brought in. Mr. Elston stated that in principle, he believes in flow control, and that just didn’t happen last year. Mr. Chambers indicated that Seneca Meadows fees are based on volume. Chairman Steve asked why we couldn’t do that – offer a volume discount. Mr. Chambers indicated how he would know what the tonnage per hauler is going to be until the end of the year. Mr. Schrader indicated that in similar systems he has been involved with, there is a contract with the hauler requiring a certain amount of tonnage per year. However, his experience is that haulers are hesitant to enter into "put or pay" contracts. Mr. Armstrong is concerned about how this will affect the smaller hauler. Mr. Allen indicated that 45 days ago, he visited both transfer stations in Tompkins County and he hadn’t heard about the rate increase. Mr. Schrader indicated that the radio station called him because Tompkins County is doing the exact opposite of what we are proposing. Mr. Allen asked each member for their feeling at this point in time. Mr. Elston indicated that the lower tip fee is in the best interest of the towns he represents; he would probably support it, but is concerned about the loss of revenue if the tonnage doesn’t increase. Mr. Armstrong would like to see the lower tip fee; with the fees being increased around us, we could see more brought in. That is against our permit, so it is not feasible. Mr. Armstrong would like to see a chart with a graduated fee. Mr. Tagliente believes if we drop the fee, we are only going to suffer the loss; the transfer station is probably going to hurt us. Mr. Dafoe moved we go into Executive Session for possible litigation discussion; seconded by Mr. Elston. (9:25 a.m.) Out of Executive Session at 9:35 a.m. Mr. Elston feels we are not gaining anything by reducing the fee. Mr. Schrader indicated what we gain is further refuse leaving the County. All members voting in favor except opposed; resolution . It is understood that this will be re-evaluated between three and six months.

 

3. Accept Bid, Authorize Agreement, Highway Department/ Airport (Seven Valley Aviation –One-Year Lease of Hangar "MH-1") – Mr. Elston moved adoption; seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Schrader explained that there is a resolution with blanks in it, but given the circumstances, we don’t have a choice. Mr. Schrader has drafted a letter, which will be sent today to Mr. Lissberger. The current lease allows Mr. Lissberger to match the high proposal. Mr. Schrader has phoned Mr. Lissberger and informally, he has indicated to Mr. Schrader that he will not be meeting the high proposal and will not be exercising his right of first proposal. Mr. Schrader is 80% certain that we will fill the blank with Mr. Jones’ name, but he does not want to insert that information until he has written confirmation that Mr. Lissberger will not be exercising his right of first refusal. Mr. Schrader recommends that the committee approve this to move it to the Legislature with the understanding that by the Legislative Session, we will be able to insert the name of the lessee. Mr. Chambers indicated that his department will go through the buildings and provide the committee and Legislature an estimate on the repairs required. All members voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.