PUBLIC WORKS / LANDFILL SUB-COMMITTEE

FEBRUARY 17, 2010

** NOT APPROVED **

---

Members Present: D. Fanton, M. Healy, A. McGraw, C. Crandall

Others Present: M. Alger, M. Cole, A. Finnemore, K. LaForge, J. Mancuso, T. Palmiter, D. Pullen, D. Roeske, F. Sinclair

Call to Order: 9:05 a.m. by Committee Chairman Dwight Fanton

Landfill Closure Project, Phase II:

Public Works Deputy Superintendent John Mancuso presented information regarding the next capping procedure for the landfill. Bids for the project will be opened on March 10. Mr. Mancuso indicated the various areas of the landfill on a map. The Phase I Closure Project, completed three or four years ago, involved about 8.5 acres and capped the first three cells. This Phase II Project will close cells four and five, and it includes roughly five acres. Mr. Mancuso explained the fill, grading, and cover process, and showed what the final closure would look like. They will be putting four gas wells in this area. There are no final plans yet for gas collection, so the wells will be used for passive vents. When Phase II is done, the County has permission from the DEC to complete one more closure project, encompassing the entire remaining area of about 11 acres, or that plan may be changed to break it out into two more projects. Normally it would be more economical to complete the remaining area in one project, but the DEC may not want us to wait six or seven years.

Superintendent David Roeske noted that the County has saved about $200,000 by doing some of the grading in-house, and the barrier protection material has been started. We will save even more by having the cover material screened, tested, and ready to place. Mr. Mancuso explained the storm water terracing for erosion control. When questioned about maximum grade, Mr. Mancuso noted that the height of the landfill is limited by the width of the site and the property length set-back regulation. You can only go so high because you have to have a certain slope on the final cover. The Hyland facility indicated that over a period of 15 years, as material decomps and settles, they would go back over and put in more fill. Mr. Mancuso stated that they could only do that by recirculating leachate. The County’s landfill originally included a Phase II fill on top of Phase I, but that plan had to be scrapped due to the height restrictions. There’s not much settlement in the way landfills are built today, and our compaction rate is very good.

Funds for this closure project are coming from an established account, which started out at about $2 million, prior to some engineering and design expenses. There may be more state funding available. The County received $1.3 million from the state for the first project, and according to regulations, there’s $2 million available per landfill for closure. Mr. Fanton questioned the funding for the next closure project, necessary in three or four years. Mr. Mancuso replied that it would probably be local money, unless the state appropriates more for closure projects. The $2 million state aid figure is an “old” number. Recycling Coordinator Tim Palmiter is researching grants. Chairman Crandall commented that we’ve never come close to covering the cost of landfill operation, let alone funding for closure costs. Money should be budgeted every year toward the next closure. Mr. Fanton referred to Committee of the Whole discussion on the County’s fund balance, noting that landfill closure is an area that needs to be taken care of. If funds are placed in a capital project account, it doesn’t go against the unappropriated fund balance.

Public Works Office Building Proposed Near Landfill:

Mr. Roeske presented preliminary plans for construction of a Public Works office building by the landfill. It would free up space in the County Office Building, consolidate Public Works operations all in one area, and the site will allow replacement of the highway shop in Friendship which is 100 years old and in bad shape. Putting the office out near the highway shop and solid waste operation would provide better contact and control. The landfill site would be preferable over the Friendship site because even after the landfill is closed, the County will still be maintaining it, we’ll still be operating a transfer system, there’s more space for material storage, proximity to the records storage building, and it’s centralized. The County owns 49 acres there. CHIPS funds can be used to fund this project. There was $350,000 reappropriated from last year, and some can be added this year without hurting the road program. Mr. Roeske noted that they did a sample floor plan based on 5,000 square feet (it may be increased to 6,000) for an estimated $500,000 to $600,000. The building would be a pre-engineered steel building. DPW can do the site work and pad and will bid out the rest. Plans are to begin this spring. Mr. Roeske will present the project to the next Court Facilities and County Space Needs Committee meeting. Discussion took place on how these plans fit in with the County’s space needs study, and Chairman Crandall noted that the study will need to be updated and reworked considering the DPW space, utilization of the jail space, and spaces that will be vacated in the Court Facilities Project.

Solid Waste Transfer System User Fees:

Mr. Fanton reported that he spoke with County Treasurer Terri Ross about setting up a credit card system to assist customers in making payments for solid waste transfer tags and disposal tickets. The County is already looking into a credit card system and expects to have it in by the end of the year, soon enough to incorporate it into the transfer system. Since the County would already have the credit card system, the only cost for the transfer stations would be for the readers.

Committee members discussed the implementation of either the residential transfer system tags with an annual fee, or the disposal tickets/punch cards with a per-bag fee, or a dual system utilizing both (as is currently in place for 2010). A decision needs to be made soon to allow time to get something in place for next year. Discussion included:

· 400 more residential tags have been sold so far this year than at this time last year

· one of the advantages of transitioning into a completely per-bag punch card system is that there would be less cheating

· we need to decide whether to change the initial pricing on the per-bag system to include a lower fee for smaller bags

· if the dual system remains in place next year, the cost of the residential tags will have to be increased substantially

· punch cards will be more expensive for some families, and it will cause a dramatic increase in recycling

· if the cost of residential tags is raised, the disposal tickets should still be offered so people have a choice

· even if the cost of the tag is doubled, it would still be cheaper than anyplace else in the state

· the higher the residential tag fee is raised, the more cheating there will be

· the landfill will be closed in five or six years, and there will be a rude awakening when everyone has to pay market rate just like surrounding counties - it might be wise to initiate a gradual process to get where we need to be to get ready for that time - once the landfill closes, the County will have to pay to truck waste and tipping fees at another landfill, and we’ll need revenue to pay for it

· no matter which system is used, we should project it out for several years in steps

· the County’s present system appears to be better than surrounding areas, but we haven’t ever even come close to covering the cost of the operation of the system

· a pay-as-you-go system would be better, but we need to build in accessibility and ease, i.e. on-line payment/printing own tickets and various sites for ticket availability

· we need a better system of tag/disposal ticket distribution, i.e. Town Clerks

· consideration of possibly closing a couple of the transfer stations

· long lines are a concern with the punch card system – there may need to be a station at the gate to check people through

Mr. Mancuso was requested to prepare a three-year proposal to get the County solid waste system up to the point where it’s paying for itself. Mr. Mancuso’s recommendation, as well as the consensus of the committee, was to implement a completely disposal ticket/punch card system. Mr. Mancuso noted that he would know by budget time what the department would need for personnel in order to cover it. Right now they are using some part-timers plus existing staff with some overtime, but they still need to decide whether to use part-timers or full-timers and how many are needed.

Recycling Facility:

Public Works is considering building a recycling facility at the landfill. Recycling Coordinator Tim Palmiter is researching available grants. The biggest one is the Municipal Waste Reduction Grant through the DEC, the same grant that covers his salary. Another section of that grant program covers capital projects. The County would have to pay up front, and the grant reimburses 50 percent of the portion of the project that is for recycling. It covers equipment, trucks, compactors, and anything else needed for the facility. The EPA has some grants also, but funding is suspended. It possibly will open back up in July. Mr. Mancuso noted that at some point, we will want to look at this more closely to decide on the type of facility and cost. It will be a necessary thing because if we go to the per-bag system, people will be doing a lot more recycling, and we aren’t set up to handle it.

Next Meeting: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, at 9 a.m.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 a.m. following a motion made by Legislator Pullen, seconded by Legislator Healy and carried.

Respectfully submitted by

Adele Finnemore, Deputy Clerk of the Board