Highway/Solid Waste/Airport Committee

March 6, 2007 - 7:30 am

Legislative Chambers

DRAFT MINUTES

 

 

Present:                      Dan Tagliente, Chairman; Merwin Armstrong, John Daniels, Tom Hartnett, John Steger and Newell Willcox

Others present:          Scott Schrader, County Administrator; Katrina Spicer, Secretary to County Administration; Richard Van Donsel, County Attorney; Dennis Whitt, County Auditor; Donald Chambers, Superintendent of Highways; Bob Buerkle, Deputy Superintendent of Highways; Charles McDermott, C & S Engineers; Steven Babcock, C & S Engineers; Tom Huttleston, Safety Officer; Eric Mulvihill, WXHC; Corey Preston, Cortland Standard; Julian Wright, Mark Skodzinsky and Kevin Mack

Absent:                       Steve Dafoe

Mr. Tagliente called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m.

Mr. Armstrong moved adoption of the minutes of the February 6, 2007 meeting; seconded by Mr. Steger.  All members voting in favor; none opposed; minutes approved as printed.

 

PRESENTATION:

 

OCM BOCES Students of Tim Sandstrom - Composting MachineMr. Sandstrom and students were not in attendance due to the fact that area schools were closed. 

RESOLUTIONS:

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

 

1.         Transfer Funds – Mr. Armstrong moved adoption; seconded by Mr. Hartnett.  Mr. Chambers explained that several proposed projects had been budgeted for and now the department has received hard numbers and needs to transfer funds to cover these various projects.  All members present voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

 

2.         Award Service Contract – Tree Removal Service – Mr. Armstrong moved adoption; seconded by Mr. Daniels.  Mr. Chambers expressed that this resolution is for tree service and is done annually.  He further explained that this is to put a contract in place that is supplemental to the regular crew.  He explained that six firms were contacted and only one responded.  Mr. Willcox inquired as to who marks the trees to be removed.  Mr. Chambers explained that the Cortland County Highway Department does.  All members present voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

 

3.         Authorize Contract/ Highway Department, United Stated Department of the Interior – Mr. Armstrong moved adoption; seconded by Mr. Daniels.  Mr. Chambers discussed monitoring of wells to measure the ground water elevation.  All members present voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

 

4.          Authorize Agreement/Environmental Compliance Audit – Mr. Armstrong moved adoption; seconded by Mr. Willcox.  Mr. Chambers explained that several new regulations have been put in place in regards to the EPA for municipal facilities.  He additionally explained that with this audit areas that are found out of compliance would be able to be corrected before fines were imposed.  Mr. Willcox inquired about what would happen if the County does not do this.  Mr. Daniels expressed that if the corrections are made yourself then the EPA would not be likely to impose fines.  Mr. Chambers expressed that this is money well spent.  He added that this is a self-audit and is viewed favorably by the EPA.  He also expressed that this firm he is proposing to hire, is up to speed on the issues related to EPA compliance.  Mr. Willcox inquired as to when the last time was that this type of audit was done.  Mr. Chambers expressed that he did not recall.  Mr. Buerkle explained that this firm would audit the County facilities and let the department know what is not in compliance.  Mr. Chambers further explained that this was a topic of discussion at a meeting he recently attended in Albany.  He added that the discussion also included the EPA fines being significant.  Mr. Buerkle discussed some of the buildings being built prior to EPA regulations being established but still need to be in compliance with these regulations.  Mr. Tagliente, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Hartnett and Mr. Steger voted in favor; Mr. Willcox was opposed; resolution adopted.

 

LANDFILL

 

5.         Authorize Agreement (Environmental Monitoring) Highway Department/Landfill – Mr. Armstrong moved adoption; seconded by Mr. Daniels.  Mr. Chambers explained that in 2003 the Highway Department began consulting with Cortland County Soil & Water Conservation District in regards to the landfill.  He added that this is a permit requirement through the DEC.  Committee members and Mr. Chambers discussed monitoring wells quarterly and leachate weekly.  Mr. Willcox inquired if this was done last year.  Mr. Chambers expressed that it was.  All members present voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

 

PRESENTATION:

            Cortland County Airport – Obstruction Study, C & S Engineers (Charles R. McDermott and Steven Babcock) – Mr. Tagliente explained that about twenty letters were sent out to residents with property around the airport.  Mr. Daniels expressed that the obstructions have been looked at and expansion is not an option.  He explained that there is too much property involved and to purchase this tremendous amount of property would cost the County too much money.  Mr. McDermott and Mr. Babcock explained that in 2001, New York State undertook an obstruction study for obstructions that exist at each end of the airport.  They also discussed the findings adopted regarding the Airport Master Plan in 2005 and described the plan laid out and approved by the FAA and Cortland County.  They expressed that the FAA’s primary concern is safety. 

 

Mr. McDermott and Mr. Babcock explained that C & S Engineers undertook and validated the New York State Obstruction Study.  They discussed the obstructions that exist today and explained the following options:

 

1.      Removal of any and all obstructions.  Estimated cost $325,000

2.      Displacement of the threshold.  Estimated cost $86,000.

3.      Installation of Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI).  Estimated cost $102,000.

 

They stressed that these options are subject to FAA approval and the number one priority of the FAA is safety.  Mr. McDermott and Mr. Babcock explained that C & S Engineers recommend option #3 – installation of PAPI System.  They explained that a PAPI System is already installed on one runway.  They additionally stressed that this is contingent upon FAA approval and added that due to the nature of the obstructions, they have no idea what the FAA would approve.  Mr. Daniels inquired about an appeal if the FAA findings are unsatisfactory.  Mr. McDermott expressed that he would need to see what the FAA based their decisions on.  Mr. Tagliente inquired about if the PAPI System were used, would some of the obstructions be eliminated.  Mr. McDermott explained that it would and added that the obstructions would be minimized.  Mr. Willcox inquired about what obstructions there actually are.  Mr. Babcock explained that the obstructions are mainly trees, but added that there is a utility pole and an antenna that are also obstructions.  Mr. Willcox expressed that trees would just keep getting worse.  Committee members further discussed the trees as obstructions.  Committee members discussed the berth of the runways and the angles to be set for the PAPI System.  Mr. Willcox inquired about if the County were to go with option #3, how long would it take for the FAA to get back with the County with its approval or disapproval.  Mr. McDermott explained that documents could be turned in as soon as possible and the FAA should return a decision in about 30 to 45 days.  He added that they might also request more information.  Mr. Willcox inquired about what the cost is to the County for installing this system.  Mr. Buerkle expressed that the County would need to cover the 2.5% local share.  Mr. Willcox inquired if option #3 were the best for the landowners and Mr. McDermott explained that it was.  Mr. Buerkle asked Mr. McDermott and Mr. Babcock if they could explain a bit more in regards to option #3.  Mr. Babcock explained the FAA Guidelines.  Mr. Tagliente discussed the obstructions and asked if the Committee wanted to endorse option #3.  Committee members discussed reasons to expedite this.  Mr. Buerkle explained that the FAA would like to address these obstructions as soon as possible.  He added that this would give the County an opportunity to present the options provided by the engineers.  He added that the FAA would like to resolve these obstructions.  Mr. Hartnett inquired as to what would happen if we decided to wait.  Mr. Buerkle explained that the airport could be closed to certain aircraft; most aircraft which use the airport.  Mr. Chambers explained that the installation of the PAPI System would increase the safety of the pilots and the safety of the residents around the airport.  He added that it would decrease the liability of the County.  Mr. Tagliente expressed that option #3 would have the least impact on the homeowners around the airport.  Mr. Buerkle agreed that option #3 would have the least impact on the residents and would increase the safety of the airport.  Dr. Mack asked if the FAA initiated these studies.  Mr. McDermott explained that the FAA initiated the obstruction study in 2001 and the County master plan concurred with that study and addressed the obstructions.  Dr. Mack inquired about this being a safety issue and that being why the FAA initiated it.  Mr. McDermott discussed the obstructions that were identified and the safety issues related to them.  Dr. Mack discussed the data used in the master plan.  Mr. Buerkle explained that the data was updated.  Mr. Babcock discussed studies that were done statewide regarding the FAA and airport safety.  He further discussed the need to keep the obstruction data up-to-date.  Mr. Babcock explained that a buffer has been built into the plan.  Committee members discussed the PAPI System and the approach surface.  They also discussed the monitoring of the airport obstructions.  Mr. Buerkle explained that there is no grandfather clause in regards to these safety issues.  Mr. Tagliente requested the Highway Committee endorse option #3 presented by C & S Engineers.  All members present agreed to support the endorsement of Option #3; none expressed opposition; the consensus of the Highway Committee was to endorse option #3 presented by C & S Engineers.

 

DISCUSSION:

  1.                  Rivertrail Project – Public Information Meeting –Mr. Chambers announced that he would like to hold a Public Information Meeting regarding the Rivertrail Project.  He added that he would like to have it in the evening sometime in April.  Mr. Tagliente expressed that he was disappointed that the trail would not be going under the bridge on Clinton Street because that is a high traffic area.  Committee members made no objections to Mr. Chambers holding a Public Information Meeting regarding the Rivertrail Project. 

  2.                  Jennings Creek Road Bridge Project – Public Information Meeting Mr. Chambers announced that he would like to hold a Public Information Meeting regarding the Jennings Creek Road Project.  He added that he would like to have an evening meeting later in March at the Town Hall in Marathon.  Mr. Tagliente suggested that he contact Mr. Cornell in regards to this project.  Committee members made no objections to Mr. Chambers holding a Public Information Meeting regarding the Jennings Creek Road Project. 

 

3.         Delinquent Accounts – Mr. Chambers provided Committee members with a list of delinquent accounts at the landfill.  Mr. Van Donsel explained the legal process involving Almost Anything Trash. 

 

4.         Airport, AWOS – Mr. Buerkle explained the AWOS System at the County Airport was replaced with new equipment with FAA funding.  He requested Committee approval to sell the used equipment.  Mr. Willcox inquired about how much money can be recovered.  Mr. Buerkle expressed between $8,000 and $10,000.  He also explained that he would go out to bid to sell this equipment.  The consensus of the Committee members was to allow Mr. Buerkle to accept bids for the sale of the used AWOS equipment.

 

5.         Highway Dept – Rubber Tire Excavator – Mr. Chambers explained that last month the Legislature approved the purchase of a rubber tire excavator.  He explained that he is seeking Committee approval to sell the used one that was replaced to a Town within Cortland County.  He explained further that he would set a minimum bid of $7,500 and open the bid to municipalities within Cortland County.  The consensus of the Committee members was to allow Mr. Chambers to request bids from municipalities within Cortland County in regards to the sale of the Rubber Tired Excavator.

 

4.         Litigation – County Attorney - Mr. Van Donsel requested that the Highway Committee go into Executive Session to discuss a litigation matter.

            Mr. Daniels made a motion to go into Executive Session to discuss a litigation matter; seconded by Mr. Armstrong.  The Highway Committee went into Executive Session at 8:36. 

 The Highway Committee came out of Executive Session at 8:47 and had nothing to report. 

Mr. Armstrong expressed thanks to the Highway Department for a job well done in regards to plowing and snow removal.

Mr. Tagliente adjourned the meeting at 8:47 a.m.

BACK