Call To Order

 Mr. Randall Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m.

Changes/Additions to Agenda

There were no changes/additions to the agenda.

Persons Wishing to Address the Committee

 No persons wished to address the Committee

Minutes of August 8, 2006

 It was MOVED by Ms. Mackesey, seconded by Ms. Kiefer, and unanimously approved by voice vote by members present, to approve the minutes of August 8, 2006, as amended.

Commissioner of Planning and Public Works Report

 Mr. Marx reported there would be a Public Hearing regarding the Coddington Road project at 7:00 p.m. this evening at the Nazarene Church.  Mr. Booth asked if sidewalks were being considered for the project and if so, would the town contribute to the cost of them.  Mr. Marx stated the Hanshaw Road project sidewalk inclusion would have contributions from the Town of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights for the local share portion.  Mr. Booth believes if the municipality desires a sidewalk or bikeway it is appropriate to share the expense.  The Coddington Road project may include a walkway; Warren Road does not have a walkway.

RESOLUTION NO.      - AUTHORIZING SUPPLEMENTAL CONSULTANT AGREEMENT NO. 1 WITH C&S ENGINEERS, INC., FOR PHASE II OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR OBSTRUCTION REMOVAL AND RUNWAY SAFETY AREA IMPROVEMENTS – ITHACA TOMPKINS REGIONAL AIRPORT

It was MOVED by Mr. Booth, seconded by Ms. Mackesey, to recommend approval of the following resolution to the full Legislature for approval.  A brief discussion regarding the attached accounting took place, noting that the slightly higher figure of the resolution included administration of the supplemental work on the project.  Mr. Randall expressed concern with regard to the expense of scaling trees to determine the height of obstruction rather than utilizing GIS that can determine height fairly accurately.  Mr. Marx indicated that Mr. Potter, Director of Information Technology Services, said although measuring of individual trees through use of GIS systems is accurate within two to five feet; the accuracy diminishes when there are multiple trees/objects.  Mr. Booth reiterated if it were not a unique area he would not support the expense for this method of measurement.

A voice vote on the motion resulted as follows:  Ayes – 3 (Legislators Booth, Kiefer, and Mackesey); Noes – 1 (Legislator Randall); Excused – 1 (Legislator Shinagawa).  RESOLUTION ADOPTED.

 A request was made to place it on the next Committee agenda for reconsideration.

      WHEREAS, the Legislature, through Resolution No. 127 dated July 5, 2005, approved an agreement with C&S Engineers, Inc., for $175,000 to conduct an Environmental Assessment for an Obstruction Clearance project at the airport, and
      WHEREAS, in the process of completing said environmental assessment, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that the airport address its two non-standard Runway Safety Areas, and
      WHEREAS, bringing the Runway Safety Areas in line with FAA requirements requires changing the runway configuration and this affected the delineation of obstructions at one end of the runway, and
      WHEREAS, local stakeholder concern about sensitive areas within the obstruction clearance project require a change from the original scope of services, and
      WHEREAS, the funding of this additional environmental assessment effort for the Runway Safety Area extension and Sapsucker Woods is as follows:

     FAA (95%)                                                                        $56,662.00
     NYSDOT (2.5%)                                                               $  1,491.00
     Local (Operational Budget)                                               $  1,491.00
                                                                                                $59,644.00
, now therefore be it
          RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Facilities and Infrastructure Committee, That Supplementary Agreement No. 1 with C&S Engineers, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $59,644 be and hereby is approved and that the County Administrator is authorized to execute the required documents,
      RESOLVED, further, That the Finance Director is authorized to advance payment for these services until reimbursement is received from the FAA and NYSDOT.
SEQR ACTION: UNLISTED
TYPE 1 - 6

Explanation:  Of the amount, $40,177 of the increase is for the runway safety area extension; the balance of $19, 467 is associated with obstruction clearance within designated area 32-11 (Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary).

General Discussion Regarding C&S Engineers, Inc., Presentation

 A brief discussion took place regarding the C&S Engineers, Inc., presentation at the previous meeting.  Committee members expressed disappointment with the lack of clarity and contradictions in C&S’s presentation relating to the supplemental agreement.  Mr. Nicholas indicated he has spoken to Ron Peckham, Vice President of the company, and requested an internal investigation of the matter.  He also noted the work shown is not typical of the work provided by the firm in the past and is perhaps due to the complicated nature of the particular projects.  Mr. Nicholas informed Mr. Randall that the firm would contact him following completion of the investigation.  Ms. Mackesey noted this type of situation shows the possible need to seek bids from other constituents, as Ms. Kiefer has suggested in the past.

Mid-Year Status Report Public Works Department Goals and Objectives

 Mr. Marx said the mid-year review indicates that good progress is being made in many areas, while other goals and objectives will start later in the year or have been modified.
Solid Waste Division

Five-Year Budget Projection

 The Committee reviewed a five-year budget project for the Solid Waste Division, which included the assumption of a single-stream solid waste recycling program.  Ms. Eckstrom noted that debt service should reduce by $500,000 in 2012, followed by an additional $300,000 to $400,000 less in debt service on the recycling center several years later.  In addition, the capital reserve fund is in excess of $500,000.  Other items noted in the budget review included the following:

· An estimate of 2-3 percent annual increase in revenue from recycling is anticipated for several years, however the full impact of single-stream waste disposal makes it difficult to project tonnage accurately.
· Suggestions were made of ways to have the projection spreadsheet more easily understood.
· The Solid Waste facility is authorized to pay for commercial materials in order to maximize the use of the facility.
· The cost to dispose of trash is $69/ton; the cost to recycle is $39/ton.
· The full salary for the Director as well as a portion of the Assistant Director’s salary are now located under the Administration budget line rather than spread out among the various components of the Solid Waste Facility.
· A suggestion was made to add recycling processing and marketing costs to collection costs to indicate the total recycling cost to the County versus the total cost of constituent programs.
· Historically, Tompkins County tried to set the hauler’s fee to keep the smaller ones in business, and we dept the general public’s at $10 more.  Now Ms. Eckstrom thinks a $5 differential would be appropriatenow.
· An anticipated increase of $2 in the annual fee for the next two years has been used in calculating the projection.
· A fund balance of $570,000 exists at this time; presently the fund balance target is 10%, but it is at 20%.
· Recycling revenues were less than anticipated for the year; next year’s budgeting is more conservative in calculating income from recycling.

A brief discussion took place regarding the possibility of a decrease in the annual fee in future years as the debt service decreases.  In addition, it was noted that institutions pay for their share of the recycling facility and for the old landfill.  In addition, one-half the administrative cost is paid for by institutions as a result of a long-standing agreement.  Their fee does not currently include Residential Household Hazardous Waste Program or the waste reduction/recycling programs as they presently have their own.

PAR

 An updated request will be submitted to the Committee at a future meeting.

Single-Stream Recycling

 Matt Coz, who had been with New England CRINC when Tompkins County first contracted with them in September 1993 to set up our Recycling and Solid Waste Center, is now Vice President of Waste Management/Recycle America, a subsidiary of Waste Management, North America.  The international parent company is a $13 billion company, with 53,000 employees.  In the United States it operates 80 recycling facilities, of which 31 are single-stream.  He gave a powerpoint presentation on single-stream recycling  that provided information on how this type of program operates and the immense progress made over the years in machine capability with regard to sorting items.

With single-stream, all recyclables go into a single container, and sorted at the material recycling facility to separate containers from fiber.  Single-stream began in the west and southwest, and as of 2002 there was none in the northeast.  By now, 2006, there are two large, private single-stream facilities in New York State.   The present collection vehicles are considered very inefficient; they have two separate “bins”, one for paper and the other for “air”, i.e., empty plastic and some metal and glass containers.

Advantages of single-stream are said to be:  10-20 percent higher recycling participation, a 20-30 percent higher recovery rate, and a 10-30 percent reduced hauler unit cost.

In response to a question about disadvantages, Mr. Coz mentioned the amount of residue, i.e. material that doesn’t belong, which leads to rejected materials (1-6 percent).  The “Trojan horse” is, e.g., bits of glass with the paper, so the material quality for cardboard is not good.  But by now, he said, “paper manufacturers have surrendered”.  Most of the kinks have been worked out.

In response to a question about technology used to separate materials, he described use of screens, 15 feet long and 12 feet wide, with a series of shafts with rubber “stars”.  At the start of the screening process, cardboard is pulled out by hand; paper is moved forward and up by the stars; containers fall down and out.

Mr. Coz said their facility in Syracuse had a big fire 1.5 years ago.  It has been rebuilt as a single-stream facility, state of the art, and opened one week ago.

Ms. Kiefer commented that single-stream recycling seems counterintuitive -  mixing stuff that must later be re-separated, and that can get contaminated by the mixing.

Following the presentation it was suggested that a tour of a working facility might assist Committee members to better understand the process.  Ms. Eckstrom stressed that it is important to progress to this type of facility in order to maintain competitiveness with other operations that could possibly do the same.   A copy of the presentation is on file in the Legislature office with the minutes.

 The PAR B form for single-stream recycling is not yet ready and will be presented at a future meeting.

Highway Capital Projects Status Report

 The Committee was provided a written report.  It was noted that at this time it is unknown what progress is being made on the projects located in the Town of Groton.  In addition, the Committee was informed that an access/egress roadway for Ithaca College athletic fields will be located on Coddington Road.
Public Works Administration Annual Report

 Ms. Nelson handed out the Public Works Administration Annual Report, noting her position focuses across divisions and departments within Public Works.   She spoke of the NIMS training for emergency personnel.   In addition, Ms. Nelson spoke of heading the Emergency Safety Committee in order to provide consistent means of communication and planning for the Committee.

Adjournment

 On motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
 

Respectfully submitted by Karen Fuller, Deputy Clerk