Highway Committee

April 1, 2004

8:30 a.m.

DRAFT Minutes

Present were: Paul Allen, Chairman; John Steger, Vice Chairman; Larry Cornell; Merwin Armstrong, Scott Elston, Steve Dafoe

Others present: Ann Homer; Don Chambers; Joe Eggleston; Bob Buerkle; Scott Schrader; Tom Huttleston, Amanda Barber, Eric Mulvihill

Absent: Dan Tagliente

Chairman Allen called the meeting to order at 8:36 a.m.

On motion of Mr. Cornell,, seconded by Mr. Armstrong, minutes on March 4, 2004, meeting were approved as printed.

Resolutions

Award Material Bids, Highway Department – Mr. Cornell moved adoption, seconded by Mr. Allen. Mr. Eggleston asked if there is interest in seeking two-years bids on these items instead of an annual bid. The committee agreed that Mr. Eggleston could investigate two-year bids from the vendors. All members voting in favor, none opposed. Motion adopted.

Authorize Design Build Agreement – Mr. Cornell moved adoption; seconded by Mr. Elston. Mr. Dafoe asked about the insurance funding received. Mr. Schrader explained where we stand to date on that issue. Approximately $500,000 was received in 2003. The consensus of those involved is to rebuild on the site with a similar, but much improved, structure. Mr. Steve said for cost efficiency, it is time to move forward on this issue. All members voting in favor, none opposed. Motion adopted.

1. Highway Improvement Plan – 10 Year – The "life cycle" replacement plan was distributed. Mr. Buerkle explained the specifics of the plan. The majority of our roads were constructed in the 1930’s and the majority have not been re-done or rehabilitated since that time. The cost for a 10-year program will be about $4,000,000 per year; a 20-year program would be about $2,000,000 per year for roads only. Mr. Buerkle will be getting more information from the Towns/Villages about the year of construction for their bridges. He will submit this to Mr. Schrader within the next couple of weeks. The total life cycle of a bridge is 75 years. Rehab should recur at about year 50 and reconstruction at year 75. McGraw-Marathon is a 2004 project; we will be bidding this project soon; currently is it an 80% Federal and 20% local cost. Hopefully, we will received Marschiselli funding for this project. Large culverts are bridge-like structures that are less than 20 feet. There are more large culverts than bridges in the County’s infrastructure. Mr. Cornell moved that we adopt the 20-year life cycle program and gear energy and budget toward that plan. Seconded by Mr. Allen.. Mr. Elston said that he can’t sit in this meeting and support that. He would like to form a subcommittee to look at a compromise between nothing and the 20 year plan. Mr. Cornell feels we should adopt the 20 year plan. Mr. Armstrong said that he doesn’t feel that we can afford this but he doesn’t feel he has a choice. Mr. Schrader indicated that he will be developing a capital plan and will be taking this information into consideration. He will be working on a 5 to 6 year capital plan. Mr. Dafoe asked if we have to commit to the 20 year program; we’ve also been provided a 10 year program and 20 years is a long time. Mr. Schrader indicated that we can’t realistically build a 10 year life cycle in to our funding stream. Mr. Cornell and Mr. Allen withdrew the motion.

2. RFP - Specialized Engineering Services –Mr. Buerkle explained that this is actually for the Highway Department and the variety of specialized engineering services that we require. An example of this is dam inspection; another example is environmental engineering. This is approximately $1,000 to $2,000 per year. The consensus of the committee is that the Highway Department can prepare the RFP.

3. Railroad Project – Gravel Needs – Mr. Buerkle explained he was approached by Owego and Harford Railway Company regarding the mine pit. They would like to secure gravel from our pit in Harford due to proximity of the pit to the project. Mr. Buerkle said we have a lot of time and effort involved in the source. It is a valuable source for us. There may be room for the railway there. There would be about 50,000 yards left after the railway removes 5,000 yards. Mr. Eggleston said that the Highway Department is trying to work with the property owner. The consensus of the committee is that Highway Department can go ahead.

4. Road and Bridge Condition Maps – Done in conjunction with number 1 above.

5. Dam Inspection on Little York Lake – There are 2 dam structures; this is the larger one. This is used to maintain lake level. A chunk of concrete fell off the face of the dam. Mr. Buerkle said this dam has seen its better years. Highway Department would like to solicit outside assistance (under RFP) to have dam inspected by an expert. This is FYI only. There are no safety issues at this point in time. Mr. Dafoe said that time is of the essence.

6. Landfill Well Monitoring and Reporting – Mr. Allen said we need authority to enter into an agreement to monitor leach aid. Mr. Chambers has proposals. Authority to enter agreement not to exceed $42,000. This is a requirement of DEC. Mr. Elston moved approval of the agreement, seconded by Mr. Allen. All members voting in favor, none opposed. Motion adopted.

7. Container Service for Garbage at Landfill-Going out to open bid April 8, 2004 – Mr. Chambers explained that these are containers at the resident area for people who are not capable of getting in to the pit or weather conditions are not conducive to getting to the face. Consensus was okay to go ahead with this issue. Resolution will come after the bids are opened.

8. Tire Removal Contract – Open April 8, 2004 – Service to remove tires from the landfill. We can only have 1,000 maximum on site. With amnesty day coming up on May 12, we will get thousands of tires, so we need a contract in place so we can remain in compliance.

9. Recycling Options – Mr. Allen thanked everyone who has worked on this project. See resolution number 2.

10. Alternative Landfill Cover (C & D) – Processed construction and demolition materials. Proposal is to apply for a BUD (beneficial use determination) to use process construction debris for daily cover over the landfill. We are required to put 6 inches of cover over the garbage on the landfill on a daily basis. This would allow us to use processed C & D instead of virgin on site materials to cover landfill. The BUD could generate some landfill and Mr. Chambers would like to see that revenue placed in the equipment account for the landfill. Chenango County currently has a BUD, so Mr. Chambers does not anticipate any problem with acquiring a BUD. Mr. Chambers indicated that a "tip fee" could be set for this C & D. Chenango County charges about $14.00 per ton. They realize about $100,000 in revenue from processed C & D. This is a win-win situation. Mr. Chambers would be able to search a variety of vendors rather than sign a contract. The testing of materials for contaminants will be borne by the vendor. Mr. Steve indicated that this could solve several issues for us, particularly in manpower. Mr. Allen indicating that earmarking the revenue for equipment replacement makes a great deal of sense. Permission to pursue BUD given.

11. Concessions at Dwyer Park – Mr. Eggleston explained that we currently have a concession provider who we have licensed to concessions at the park. She will be out this year and there are a number of events that happen at Dwyer Park, including the car show in September. Mr. Eggleston is getting inquiries about what is happening at Dwyer Park with her gone. Mr. Eggleston said he believes the County will not allow use of the kitchen on the first floor. He has a letter asking what is going to happen in future years. Mr. Steve indicated that there are ways to do concessions in trailers. Mr. Eggleston will put together a document reflecting the use of the park so we can move forward with a plan for future years to provide concessions for the events. Mr. Eggleston will work on provision of concessions.

Meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.