Call To Order

 Mr. Randall, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m.

Changes/Additions to Agenda

 Ms. Nelson noted that the next scheduled meeting of October 10 would conflict with the Expanded Budget meetings.  It was decided to amend the meeting time to 3:30 p.m. to 4:15 p.m., to be held if necessary and be an action only meeting.
 
Persons Wishing to Address the Committee
 
 There were no persons wishing to address the Committee.

Minutes of September 12, 2006

 It was MOVED by Ms. Kiefer, seconded by Mr. Booth, and unanimously approved by voice vote by members present, to approve the minutes of September 12, 2006 as amended.

Commissioner of Planning and Public Works Report

 Mr. Marx stated he would like to have the developer of property being considered for the Office for the Aging and other departments attend the October 24th meeting.  He noted it could require an executive session.  Members agreed with scheduling this item.

 Mr. Marx reported that at the last Public Works Cabinet meeting a Sustainability Committee was formed to develop services and policies that will assist in bringing about awareness in energy conservation, reduction of greenhouse gases, and developing green policies.  It is hoped that by Earth Day next year to have developed a purchasing policy and other initiatives.  Ms. Kiefer noted she had reported to the Environmental Management Council’s Environmental Review Committee that periodically Ms. Had said she would be bringing a green purchasing policy forward this fall.  Ms. Eckstrom said that project will be rolled into a more comprehensive sustainability policy.  The members of the committee include:  Ed Marx, Barbara Eckstrom, Skip Parr, Cheryl Nelson, Gay Nicholson, Mark Pierce, Arel LeMaro, Lisa Jehu, and Greg Potter.

 Mr. Marx indicated he recognizes the difficult work undertaken with the budget process and hoped that it is recognized that comments that could jeopardize the moral of staff do not occur.

Solid Waste Division

Five-Year Budget

 Ms. Eckstrom thanked Mr. Booth for his previous suggestions regarding the five-year budget.  She noted the changes in the projected budget include the projected figures for a single-stream recycling process.  Upon reviewing the budget it was determined that with a single-stream recycling program there would not be any increase in the annual fee above the $54 - $55 dollar range through years 4 and 5.
 Discussion occurred, during which the following was noted:

· Information on the assumptions made to build the projected budget will be provided.
· The formulas for schools and institutions will be provided.
· At the time single-stream recycling is undertaken the budget projections will be revised to reflect actual figures.
· Programming between public/private partnership has resulted in less expensive solid waste fees than other counties.
· The goal of Solid Waste is to provide the most efficient service to reduce waste to the maximum extent possible.  The educational programs provided are funded through the annual fee which when combined with the solid financial base provide for a fee that is lower than other municipalities.
· Mr. Booth stated the five-year plan should also provide financial projections that do not assume single-stream recycling will be in place.
· At this time 8 tons of material comes from the private sector, the other from commercial.  Ms. Eckstrom stressed the important to remain competitive with the private sector
· It was noted that the Solid Waste Facility contract is written to indicate that recycled materials collected will be bid out to the best possible user.
· Mr. Richardson noted that New York State no longer distinguishes between “reuse” and “recycle”.
· Ms. Mackesey asked if our goal for charges to haulers is to be cheap and Mr. Marx said the goal is to pay for the system.
· Ms. Eckstrom noted that only one-third of the waste stream goes through the Commercial Processing Facility, the rest goes directly to Superior.
· Mr. Marx asked if any counties have gotten out of this business and was told Chemung and Ontario have.

Single-Stream Recycling Presentation and PAR “B” Form

 Mr. Schmidt played a five-minute video of the new single-stream recycling facility in Onondaga County.  This presentation showed the set-up of the facility and Mr. Schmidt provided a narrative of each slide, indicating the various sorting steps taken to process the recyclables.  Items noted are as follows:

· To distinguish the value of glass, photographs are taken during the processing.  Glass upon purchase for reuse uses the photographs to determine the appropriate colors to add to get the desired color.
· The glass market has significantly dropped, making it less profitable for our present facility to resell.  These sorting areas are presently not used.
· The single-stream recycling being proposed for Tompkins County does not include all equipment shown; the main equipment will be the sorting screens.
· Ms. Eckstrom stressed the improvements made in single-stream recycling over the past years combined with the potential loss of the market to other single-stream facilities indicate this is an appropriate time to progress to the single-stream market.
· It is anticipated that the Department of Environmental Conservation will cover fifty percent of the cost of the facility, however, it would be a reimbursement.
· It is estimated that the cost to provide education relating to single-stream recycling is an additional $3,000 - $5,000.
· Ms. Kiefer asked how much of the County’s recyclables are reused rather than just recycled.  It was noted that while the exact figure is unknown, if not of reuse value the County would not be able to received revenue for them.
· It is expected the design phase to take place in 2007.
· It is not anticipated an environmental impact study would be necessary as this is an upgrade of the current facility.  It was thought by the County Attorney that an Environmental Assessment Form would be adequate.
· Upon approval of the Par “B”, the formal application for funds from the Department of Environmental Conservation for funding.

It was moved by Ms. Mackesey, and seconded by Mr. Booth, to approve and submit the following Par “B” form regarding single-stream recycling to full Legislature for approval.
 
 Ms. Kiefer asked if the Neighborhood Advisory Committee should be reconvened and was informed the modifications should not have any additional impact on the neighborhood.  Ms. Kiefer will work with Ms. Eckstrom to provide manifest changes within the Par “B” form to more accurately reflect the proposed project.

 Mr.Wood noted the proposed upgrade to the facility would also require an upgrade to the present contract.

 A voice vote on the motion resulted as follows:  Ayes – 4; Noes – 0; Absent – 1 (Legislator Shinagawa).  MOTION APPROVED.

Facilities

Resolution – Budget Adjustment

 It was MOVED by Ms. Mackesey, seconded by Mr. Booth, and unanimously approved by voice vote by members present, to approve and submit the following resolution to full Legislature for approval:

RESOLUTION NO.   - APPROPRIATION FROM CONTINGENT FUND EMERGENCY POWER GENERATION

WHEREAS, it is important to provide emergency power generation for County facilities in the event of an emergency or disaster situation, and
WHEREAS, the Emergency Management Strategy Group comprised of members from County Administration, Public Works, Health Department, Personnel, Information Technology Services, and Department of Emergency Response have presented a proposal for an emergency power generation plan for Biggs B, Mental Health, and Human Services buildings to be implemented over three years based on a Feasibility Report prepared by LaBella Associates dated June 27, 2006, and
WHEREAS, the first piece of the plan is for the design and installation of a portable 150 Kw emergency generator at Biggs B to serve the Health Department, totaling $90,000, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Facilities & Infrastructure and the Budget and Capital Committees, That the Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to make the following budget appropriation:
FROM:  A1990.54400  Contingent Fund  $90,000
TO:  A1601.59239  Construction Expense  $90,000
SEQR ACTION:  TYPE II - 20

Lowering Maintenance of Effort on Low-Volume Roads

 Mr. Sczesny provided the Committee with a list of low-volume County-owned roads (300 or less vehicles daily) that are under consideration for a low-maintenance program.  This program would be designed to provide only oil/stone or a chip seal treatment in order to reduce costs.  Ms. Kiefer requested that the Committee be provided with condition figures as well as the average daily traffic counts.  It was noted that the roads classified as collector may not be included in the final list.

 Mr. Booth was excused at this time (5:00 p.m.)

 A brief discussion occurred during which Mr. Marx noted that by lowering maintenance on low-volume roads it will assist in obtaining budget reductions sought.  This effort will affect approximately 20 miles of County roads.  The Committee requested the information be made available to the Expanded Budget Committee for review during their deliberations.  Committee members requested a copy of the Preventive Maintenance Schedule for review.  Ms. Mackesey asked for a more detailed description of the five-year Capital Program for Highway.

Highway Capital Projects Report

 Members reviewed the written report and noted the following:

· Ms. Kiefer noted the Ag and Farmland Protection Board is working with Mr. Schutt to address concerns regarding additional runoff due to field drainage.
· Spring Street Extension ditch was made with concrete to prevent erosion; it is anticipated a portion of the cost is to be reimbursed through FEMA.
· Warren Road – Ms. Kiefer noted that if it was thought the airport runway expansion would require modification of the design a portion may be refundable from the Federal Aviation Administration.

 Adjournment

 On motion the meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Karen Fuller, Deputy Clerk