The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLandfill Proposal Groton & Danby 1986 & 1987'OCT lig 1986 TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Frank R. Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning MEMORANDUM TO: Town and Village Clerks FROM: Barbara Eckstrom PI anner )"t -'Lt` C RE: Public Information for Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Program DATE: October 14, 1986 I've enclosed five copies of an informational brochure and newsletter on the County Solid Waste Management Study. Please make these copies available to the public. If you need additional copies, please contact me. We appreciate your help. BE/mdg enc. Biggs Center, Building A, 1283 Trumansburg lid., Ithaca, New York, 14850 (647) 274-5360 Jv ! Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Committee SOLID MASTS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT #1 Tompkins County has retained the consulting firm of O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. of Syracuse, New York to assist the Solid Waste Management Committee in developing a Solid Waste Management Plan. The scope of work associated with the first phase of plan development includes prospective landfill site identification and screening, preliminary site evaluations and environmental assessments, and comparison of options available to reduce the volume of waste ultimately requiring landfilling. Assistance will also be provided to the Tompkins County Department of Planning in connection with the public information aspects of the project, including the preparation of printed information and participation in public informa- tional meetings. The Phase I program is scheduled for completion by the end of 1986. Landfill Siting Phase Tompkins County has been offered ten sites for consideration in locating a new sanitary landfill. However, the Solid Waste Management Committee is screening the entire County in order to choose the optimal sites to accommodate municipal solid waste and sewage sludge disposal needs. In order to identify areas within the County suitable for new landfill development, criteria have been tentatively established defining minimum requirements for various physical land characteristics and site development factors. Where applicable, these minimum requirements have been based on New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regula- tions and policy. Using existing data and information compiled by the Planning Department and other available sources, areas within the County not satisfying the minimum requirements will be identified and will be initially excluded from further consideration, or qualified as appropriate. Such areas will include: sites located over principal aquifers areas immediately adjacent to classified surface waters areas having shallow depth to bedrock (<10 feet) areas having a shallow water table (<5 feet) 100 year flood plains areas having steep slopes (>20%) designated freshwater wetlands heavily developed areas parks and recreational land - areas within one-half mile of a presently designated site of major historical/cultural significance, pursuant to State or Federal criteria - critical habitats of endangered or threatened species - areas in close proximity to public water supplies - active farmland within legislated agricultural districts having soil groups 1 and 2 - areas within 5,000 feet of airport runways (10,000 feet if turbo- jets are used) Field inspection of the remaining potentially suitable locations will be made to verify collected data and information. These locations will then be qualitatively evaluated with respect to their suitability based on development and operational factors as well as their physical land characteristics. In order to make a comparative evaluation of the merits and drawbacks of the various locations, a rating will be applied to each of the factors being considered. These ratings will then be weighted based on the relative significance of each factor, and a cumulative score developed for each location. The various factors proposed for the suita- bility evaluation include the following: proximity to unconsolidated aquifers underlying soil types depth to bedrock depth to water table distance to -classified surface water bodies or streams flood potential location with respect; to significant water supply recharge areas bedrock permeability slope land use - vegetation screening and buffering - usable area availability of daily cover - haul distance - road access - neighborhood - accessible ownership development and operational costs - other Based upon tax mapping and other real property information, specific parcels of land, or groups of parcels that have sufficient available acreage, located within areas having the highest total scores will be identified. In selecting specific parcels, consideration will be given to those proper- ties previously offered to the County for landfill development. Once specific sites are selected they will be rated and scored according to the suitability factors taking into account refined site specific condi- tions. The weighted rating system allows the general suitablity of prospec- tive sites to be determined and compared. This system does not eliminate the need for site specific studies which are necessary for ultimately selecting a site. However, it does provide a systematic method.for identi- fying those locations within the County that are likely to be most suitable for landfill development. A limited -number of sites having the highest scores will be recommended for further detailed investigations during the next phase of the program. Any comments regarding the site identification and screening factors or methodology should be directed to the Department of Planning or the Solid Waste Management Committee members, prior to October 15, 1986. Timely input is necessary in order that the factors and screening methodology can be finalized and the evaluation process started. Volume Reduction Study The Volume Reduction Study involves the generic evaluation of alternate technologies for reducing the volume of wastes currently disposed of includ- ing such options as baling, waste -to -energy plants, recycling, refuse -deriv- ed fuel, and composting. The study will evaluate those alternatives which are economically and environmentally feasible. At the present time, reports previously prepared for the County on various volume reduction technologies are being reviewed. Information contained in these reports will be updated to reflect changes in *technology•and cost since the time the studies were completed. Background information on other available volume reduction alternatives is also being gathered. TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING BIGGS CENTER BUILDING A 1283 TRUMANSBURG ROAD ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 r r SUITABILITY FACTORS FOR IDENTIFYING PROSPECTIVE LANDFILL SITES Most More Least Suitable Suitable Suitable Factor (Rating #3) (Rating #2) (Rating #1) Unconsolidated Aquifers Soil Type not present near vicinity clay -rich, compact clay & silt -rich matrix matrix, non - compact >50 feet 30-50 feet deep intermediate Depth to Bedrock Depth to Watertable Distance to Classified Surface Water Body or Stream Flood Potential Significant Water Supply Recharge Area Bedrock Permeability Slope Land Use Vegetation Sc.reeni ng & Buffering Usable Area Available Daily Cover Haul Distance Road Access Accessible Ownership Neighborhood >500 feet 300-500 feet none rare not present adjacent area very low low 0-8% 8-15% low moderate sparse moderate ample moderate >200 acres 100-200 acres on site, <500 ft. on site, >500 ft. short moderate state road, no state/county village roads, hamlets readily available available low density, moderate density, least impact moderate impact adjacent area silt & sand matrix, non - compact 10-30 feet shallow <300 feet occasional present moderate 15- 20% high dense limited <100 acres off site long county/town roads, villages doubtfully available high density, great impact Development and Operation Costs low intermediate high Other no known minimum site possible severe limitations difficulties conflicts The most desirable site characteristics are shown under the column heading "most suitable" and are given ratings of 3. k SAMPLE SCORING MATRIX This is an example of how a relative comparison will be made of the various prospective landfill locations. WEIGHTED SCORE* SIGNIFICANCE FACTOR WEIGHTING SITE A SITE D SITE C Unconsolidated Aquifer 3 9 3 6 Bedrock Perme- ability 2 6 2 4 Soil Type 3 6 3 3 Depth to Bedrock 3 6 3 3 Depth to Water Table 2 4 4 6 Distance to Surface Water 2 2 6 6 Flood Potential 2 2 6 4 Recharge Area 2 6 2 4 Slope 1 3 3 1 Land Use 1 3 3 1 Vegetation 1 2 2 1 Haul Distance 2 6 2 6 Neighborhood 3 9 6 6 Ownership 2 6 6 2 Costs 2 2 4 4 Useable Area 1 2 1 3 Access 1 3 2 3 Cover Avail- ability 2 2 2 2 Screening & Buffering 2 2 2 4 Other 1 2 1 2 TOTAL SCORE 83 63 71 The site(s) with the highest total weighted scores will be considered for further detailed investigation in subsequent phases of the project. Weighted Score = Factor Rating X Significance Weighting Tom kips Count Solid Waste Mana • ement Committee - EZA p y g SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT 12 The Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Committee and its consultants .are continuing to make progress toward developing a Solid Waste Management Plan for the County. The landfill siting and volume reduction studies are continuing on schedule. Programs for closure of the Landstrom and Caswell Road landfills in an environmentally sound .manner are also.proceeding as planned. LANDFILL SITING PHASE At the second public information forum held on. September 30, 1986, minimum requirements and suitability factors for identifying prospective landfill sites were presented. After public review and comment, a few changes were ma<1e to address the concerns of the .publ.i c. The significance weighting of the factor of t"Proxi rrii ty to Significant Water Supply Recharge Area" was changed from 2 to 3 in order to better -reflect. the relative importance of protecting groundwater supplies.' "Prevailing Wind Impact", with a weighting of'3, was added to the list of factors to account for potential impacts of odor and dust on downwind residences. Suitability ratings for this factor of low, moderate, and high were established for the most to least suitable conditions, respectively. The .available existing mapping of groundwater within the County does not differentiate between seasonally wet soils and permanently 'high groundwater. As a result, it was determined to be more appropriate to consider "Depth to Groundwater" during subsequent site assessments utilizing available site specific information. Similarly, existing information on "Depth to Bedrock" permits the identification of shallow bedrock to depths of. only up to four feet. Therefore, for the purposes of -this initial county -wide screening of prospective landfill site areas, the.minimum required depth to bedrock was changed from ten feet to four feet. Additional bedrock information that is available. on a site specific basis will be used for the more detailed site evaluations which.will follow this initial screening.. The entire'County has been evaluated -with respect to the finalized minimum requirements for landfill siting as described above. Those areas having the highest potential for locating a suitable landfill site are shown as white on the attached map. Areas of the County initially excluded from further consideration based on the minimum criteria appear as blacked -out regions. The gray regions, referred to as qualified exclusions, are those which would generally be considered incompatible with landfill development, but may be usable if special design provisions are made or if other additional measures are taken to offset potentially negative factors. For the time being, the gray areas 'are also being excluded from further cons derati un . However, they may be reconsidered at a later date .if subsequent investigations prove the high potential areas of the County to be not•as 'suitable as currently indicated. Several sources of information were consulted for the compilation of the composite map. Much of the information -was provided by the County Department of Planning, including locations of: specified aquifers, wetlands, agricultural districts, unique areas, development intensity, historic and cultural resources, soils, slopes, and pre-emptive use. The New York State Departments of Environmental Conservation and Transportation provided useful information concerning the County and public use airports. . The Fish and Wildlife Office was contacted for critical habitat and endangered species locations. Public- Water Supply Information was obtained from the Health Department. and Agricultural District information was supplemented by the Soil Conservation Survey. Raw data being compiled by the US Geologic Survey in connection with a hydrogeologic study of the County, being undertaking in association with the Planning Department, was also consulted. If anyone has additional information that would help *to better define areas of the County with respect to the minimum landfill siting 'requirements, particularly with respect to active soil group 1 and 2 farm land within an agricultural district, please contact the Department of Planning or the Solid Waste Management Committee members prior.to December 19, 1986. Your timely input is necessary in order to finalize `the composite map and begin the ranking of specific locations. P• VOLUME REDUCTION STUDY There are several -reasons for the County to explore volume reduction -of the solid waste stream. By reducing _the volume required for landfilling, land resources can be conserved and the costs to develop, operate, and maintain a sanitary landfill can be reduced. Volume reduction, in -many cases, -also enhances landfill operation by changing the character of the waste and '.thereby reducing the possibility of odors, birds, insects, rodents, and leachate production. A number of proven_processes are available for volume reduction. These .include mass burning,, refuse Jeri-ved fuel (RDF) production, baling, recycling,. composting. and combinations of these methods. Mass burning refers to the burning of unprocessed solid. waste in modern, efficient incinerators. This process necessitates landfilling the. ash ,residue and unburnabi:es. In RDF production, size reduction and classification techniques are used to separate -the solid waste into various components including a burnable fraction and heavier, non burnable fractions. The burnable portion can be sold as a fuel to utilities and industries for use as a supplement or replacement for coal or -oil in properly equipped. existing hoi.1 ers Four detailed studies have been completed for the County on volume reduction options. In 1975� the possibility of involving Cornell. University or the NYSEG Milliken Station in the use of RDF produced from Cayuga, Cortland', and Tompkins Counties was investigated. In 1979, Tioga County: was included with the others in a study of a mass burning facility to provide steam to -Cornell University. However, the recommendations contained in these studies failed to be- implemented because of the history of technical failures of RDF plants., the high cost of meeting stringent air pollution control requirements, and the overall poor economics of these systems when compared to landfilling. In a 1981 'r.eport, other options were- reviewed: mass burning at the Biggs complex; densi f.i ed-RDF to fuel a coal burner at .-Cornell- University; -mass bu.rni ng- 'to "produce steam for sale at Cornell; and two mass burning -options to either.*produce steam for Cornell or -electrical power for NYSEG. However, concerns over air pollution, increased traffic, high capitaT costs, high net annual costs of' 'refuse disposal and other technical and economic issues made these options .unappealing. Finally, an outside vendor in 1981 proposed a joint solid waste management project* in which the vendor would have constructed and operated a special RDF-recycling plant for Tompkins and Cortland Counties. However, large amounts of ash residue and other residuals requiring landfilling, as wei'l as economic factors distracted from implementation of this project. Other alternatives that are currently being considered in the volume reduction study i ncl-ude baling,.. recycling',.. and.:.._comhosti..ng... _Baling.,_. the...pro.c.ess.::_af compacti ng...*sol i d'. wat.te_._w into dense bales, can be donee a.t the landfill or .a transfer station in combination . 'with recycling to remove reusable components from the -waste such as glass, aluminum, and paper. Composting .'is the biological process of treating organic matter (leaves, wood chips, grass, etc.) to recycle decayed material: into the soil. Co -composting of organic matter and sewage sludge is another alternative being explored. LANDFILL CLOSURE PLANS . There are five main elements of. a closure plan for a sanitary landfill: grading. and drainage, capping., leachate control, water quality monitoring, and maintenance. Closure plans incorporating ea-ch of these elements are being developed for the Landstrom Landfill by the County's consultant. At the Caswell Road Landfill, drainage facilities have been improved to more efficiently collect and hold 'stormwater run-off. The entire surface of the site has been regraded to promote drainage, and two of the three layers of compacted soil .that will ultimately seal the" landfill -from infiltration of snow melt and rainfall are in place. The final soil layer and seeding of the completed surface will be completed this coming Spring. The County and the New York State Department. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) have met to review the monitoring program for the site. . JOMPKINS COUNTY LANDFILL SITING STUDY. Composite map identifying potentially suitable areas for landfill siting based upon the finalized minimum requi16 rements` LEGEND Black = Areas initial! excluded from further consideration Gray = Qualified exclusions White = Potentially suitable areas MAR Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Committee SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT #4 Phase I of the Solid Waste Management Program has been completed. This phase of the program involved a Landfill Siting Study and a Volume Reduction Study. The development of the Landfill Siting - Study identified twenty -'three candidate site areas within Tompkins County as a result of two distinct processes: the initial screening process and the eval- uation of candidate site areas with respect to specific suitability factors based on evail,a.ble existing information. In order to`develop a program - for satisfying the solid waste disposal needs of Tompkins . County,., while making. best use -of available landfill space, a Volume Reduction Study was. also conducted of various .waste volume reduction methods. The study included an evaluation of previous and new alternate volume `reduction technologies based on generic cost, technological and environmental considerations. This -evaluation was used to identify one or more alternatives that appear to be feasible for implementation in Tompkins County. LANDFILL SITING STUDY The first step of the Landfill Siting Study established a set of criteria defining minimum requirements for various physical land characteristics and site development factors. These criteria were presented for public review and comment at the second public information forum held on September 30, 1986. Using existing data and information, areas within the County not satisfying these minimum requirements were excluded from further consideration for landfill. development. Other criteria drew attention to features that were undesirable but Sub;ect to correction. Areas within .limits defined by such criteria were considered generally incompatible with landfill . development and also initially excluded from further consideration. These qualified exclusion areas, however, may be considered further if suitable sites cannot be found in the remainder of the County. The result of the initial screening process was the composite map of ' the County presented to the, public at the third public information forum held on December . 3, 1986. The areas having the highest potential for landfill development were depicted in white, while excluded areas were in black and qualified exclusions were in gray. The candidate site area identification process involved the evaluation of potentially suitable areas with respect . to suitability factors. Thesefactors incorporated geologic, development and operational considerations which focused on the suitability -of specific areas that had not been excluded during the initial screening process. Each suitability factor was assigned a significance weighting based upon its relative importance and impact on landfill development. Three suitability ratings were established for each factor to identify least, more, and most suitable conditions • for that factor. Within the potentially suitable areas on the composite map, specific candidate site areas were identified based on a preliminary evaluation of the suitability factors. The preliminary evaluation of the potentially suitable areas resulted in the identification of, twenty-three candidate site areas in _ Tompkins County. Each candidate area was re-evaluated to reflect more refined assessment of the suitability factors. A weighted score was obtained for each factor by multiplying the significance weighting by the suitability rating determined for that site. A total score for each candidate site area. was then cal- culated by adding together all of the weighted scores. The candidate sites are located on Figure 3, taken from the Phase I Report, and a summary- of the ratings is presented in Table 3. Site areas having the higher total scores are those which, based on available existing information, are I-ikeiy to have the greatest potential for development as a landfill. This potential must be confirmed through on -site investigations and additional studies which are to be conducted during Phase Ii of the landfill site development process. Recommendations The County. should proceed with Phase 11 of the Solid Waste Management Program. Specif- ically, baseline inventories of environmental; ..social, and economic resources and field inves- tigations should be performed on candidate' site areas to verify existing data. Viand obtain additional site -specific information. VOLUME REDUCTION STUDY The major alternatives considered in the Volume Reduction Study were waste -to -energy systems, including mass burn and RDF (Refuse -Derived Fuel) technologies; materials recov- ery and recycling; composting; and baling. These alternatives are not considered to be mutually exclusive and, therefore, can be combined to achieve the greatest overall volume reduction. Of the waste -to -energy options available, mass burning of solid waste is the most proven „ technology. The net cost for building and operating such a system in Tompkins County would be on the order of $40 to $60 per ton of refuse processed, which would be about vdouble the cost of .landfilling. RDF systems have historically experienced higher operation and maintenance costs,. and a number of these systems have ceased operation for technical and economic reasons. Previous studies completed for the County evaluated mass burn and RDF alternatives. However, for various social and economic reasons, none of the previous- ly proposed alternatives warrant further consideration at this time. Materials recovery and recycling using source separation techniques warrants further con- sideration on a County scale. Due to the variability of secondary material markets, it is difficult to estimate the net cost of implementing a =materials recovery program based upon published data for other communities. However,'based upon the experience of the City's recycling program, Ithaca Recycles, it is anticipated that the cost of an effective recycling program could approach the cost of landfilling. on a unit cost basis. The specific economics of such a program would need to be determined through more detailed studies and market analyses. Composting of the complete solid waste stream has not as yet been proven on a large scale in a climate similar to that of Tompkins County. Co -composting of sewage treatment plant sludge , with certain components of the waste stream, however, may be feasible. The co -composting project to be undertaken by the County in cooperation with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) should be beneficial in determining the technical and economic feasibility of this volume reduction technique. In -vessel composting of sewage sludge and/or other selected components of the solid waste stream may be a viable option and should continue to be .considered. baling is also an effective means for effecting a significant reduction in the volume of solid waste to be disposed of in landfills which may have an application in Tompkins County. Due to the increased density of the baled waste and the lower requirement for daily cover material, baling can increase the life of a landfill by over 50 percent. The cost of baling, excluding hauling considerations, is expected to be about $10 to $15 per ton. A baling system could be operated either at the landfill site, or at a transfer station. Each of the alternatives considered can be implemented in combination with one or more of the other processes. The solid waste management program should, therefore, include those volume reduction options which are technically and economically feasible, or offer some other inherent benefit acceptable to the community. Based on the work of this study, it is concluded that recycling, co- composting and baling all appear to have reasonable potential for application in Tompkins County. The successful implementation of a program combining these alternatives could potentially reduce the overall volume of material ultimately requiring disposal in a landfill by 40 to 50 percent. It should be recognized that implementation of these volume reduction options would not preclude undertaking additional volume reduction measures in the future as technical or economic conditions become more favorable, or as sociopolitical factors prescribe. Recommendations Phase II investigations and studies on volume reduction should be initiated as follows: a. Recycling - further technical and economic study of alternative recycling options and market analyses should be conducted in order to outline specific recommenda- tions for a recycling program to be implemented in Tompkins County. b. Co -Composting - further evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility of co -composting on a large scale in Tompkins County should be made through the proposed NYSERDA project. Windrow and in -vessel systems, as well as static pile systems, should continue to be evaluated. C. Baling - further studies should be conducted to determine specific costs associ- ated with implementing a baling operation in Tompkins County. These studies should be undertaken in concert with the evaluation of transfer station alterna- tives. By following the above recommendations, Tompkins County can be assured of ultimately selecting a volume reduction program that is technically sound, economical, and implementable. Such a program, in conjunction with establishing the new landfill sites), will provide an overall solid waste management program that meets the needs of the County and makes best use of available landfill space. Table. 3 Rating of Candidate Landfill Site Areas Site Designation Location GR-3 Southwest corner of Spring Street Extension and County Route 178 DA-2 Miller Road between Troy Road and top of Steventown Hill- EN-2 Borders Black Oak Road and Harvey Hill Road DA-1 Gunderman Road between Jersey Hill and Comfort Road LA-1 Brown Hill'Road DR-4 • a •d Between Bone Plain Road and West Dryden Road NE-1 Borders Benjamin Hill Road, South of Shaffer Road GR-2 Spring Street Extension and Bossard Road EN-3 Sheffield Road and Enfield Road EN-4 Hines Road between Trumbell Road and Porter Hill Road DR-3 Route 34B and Caswell Road GR-4 Southeast Corner of Spring Street Extension and County Route 178 DR-2 Corner of Wood Road and Peruville Road GR-5 Sovocool Hill Road and Cobb Street DR-1 Route 34B and Sheldon Road DR-7 Southeast of Wood Road and Freeville Road EN-1 Southeast Corner of Podunk Road and Aiken Road GR-1 Borders West Groton Road and Devlin Road DR-5 Caswell Road just South of existing Landfill CA-1 South Road opposite Gulf Hill Road DR-6 Hanshaw Road between West Dryden Road and Niemi Road LA-2 Conlon Road North of Buck Road GR-6 Buck Road and Cobb Street Total Score 102 99 98 96 96 93 93 92 92 92 91 91 91 90 90 88 87 86 86 85 84 84 81 Note: Site designation letters correspond to the first two letters of the name of the town in which the candidate site area is located. The numeric portion of the site'designation reflects location and does not denote a rating or ranking. --- -- - K' 'itl� 2sc„+tr.✓4 — -.tr td] aye. �"'.t°v' 1 ``rr Vimm/ Y y AAA "1 A t..... 'I 6. 'ilk owl ��. w.f.�CbY3S+�YJ.xop'. m • ^l>` J,S� ,{� �: %'d`� •' N �.. �� W H. • , � ..:• ......... . of _ =1 .. ,. " .. e k RL palm 79 .19 ¢ to �; • t •� t ,%srr+pit , � % � � vR'� � �'� e = } g � ✓ � ,fit t'�, .!//� , w t �'�'a, �� r.. � �., F,. � i P L;ti � t4'.:.'& �a,c� ,Y- S�'�. �'0>> < •. ,,y �'t ("... �. t.'•� '.a6. t . �. e _. , . _ f .•.r �� Zia ;?A �. z :xFs r TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING BIGGS CENTER BUILDING A 1283 TRUMANSBURG ROAD ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 (607) 274-5360 Colleen Pierson Groton Town Clerk 101 Conger Boulevard tarot an, NY 13073 MAP.20`81 FINALIZED SUITABILITY FACTORS FOR IDENTIFYING PROSPECTIVE LANDFILL SITES Most More Least Suitable Suitable Suitable Factor (Rating #3) (Ratinq #2) (Ratinq #1) Unconsolidated Aquifers not present near vicinity adjacent area Soil Type clay -rich, compact clay & silt -rich silt & sand -rich matrix matrix, non- matrix, non - compact compact Depth to Bedrock >50 feet 30-50 feet 4 - 30 feet Depth to Water Table deep intermediate shallow Distance to Classified Surface Water Body or Stream >500 feet 300-500 feet <300 feet Flood Potential none rare occasional Significant Water Supply Recharge not present, adjacent area present Area Bedrock Permeability very iow low moderate Slope 0-8% 8-15% 15 - 20% Land Use low moderate high Vegetation sparce moderate dense Usable Area >200 acres 100 - 200 acres <100 acres Screening and Buffering ample moderate limited Available Daily Cover on site, <500 ft. on site,.>500 ft. off site Haul Distance -short moderate long Road Access state road, no state/county county/town village roads, hamlets roads, villages Accessible readily available doubtfully Ownership available available Neighborhood low density, moderate density, high density, least impact moderate impact great impact Development low intermediate high and Operation Costs Prevailing Wind Impact low moderate high Other no known minimum site possible severe limitations difficulties conflicts The most desirable site characteristics are shown under the column heading "most suitable" and are given ratings of 3. FINALIZED ASSIGNMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE WEIGHTING Factor Proximity to Unconsolidated Aquifers Proximity to Significant Water Supply Recharge Area Prevailing Wind Impact Neighborhood Soil Type Depth to Bedrock Bedrock Permeability Depth to Water Table Flood Potential Haul Distance Accessible Ownership Costs to Develop Distance to Classified Surface Water Body or Stream Screening and Buffering Available Daily Cover Slope Land Use Vegetation Usable Area Road Access Other The more significant factors are given a weighting of 3. Significance Weightinq 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jv ! Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Committee SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT #1 Tompkins County has retained the consulting firm of O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. of Syracuse, New York to assist the Solid Waste Management Committee in developing a Solid Waste Management Plan. The scope of work associated with the first phase of plan development includes prospective landfill site identification and screening, preliminary site evaluations and environmental assessments, and comparison of options available to reduce the volume of waste ultimately requiring landfilling. Assistance will also be provided to the Tompkins County Department of Planning in connection with the public information aspects of the project, including the preparation of printed information and participation in public informa- tional meetings. The Phase I program is scheduled for completion by the end of 1986. Landfill Siting Phase Tompkins County has been offered ten sites for consideration in locating a new sanitary landfill. However, the Solid Waste Management Committee is screening the entire County in order to choose the optimal sites to accommodate municipal solid waste and sewage sludge disposal needs. In order to identify areas within the County suitable for new landfill development, criteria have been tentatively established defining minimum requirements for various physical land characteristics and site development factors. Where applicable, these minimum requirements have been based on New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC ) regula- tions and policy. Using existing data and information compiled by the Planning Department and other available sources, areas within the County not satisfying the minimum requirements will be identified and will be initially excluded from further consideration, or qualified as appropriate. Such areas will include: - sites located over principal aquifers - areas immediately adjacent to classified surface waters - areas having shallow depth to bedrock (<10 feet) - areas having a shallow water table (<5 feet) - 100 year flood plains - areas having steep slopes (>20%) - designated freshwater wetlands - heavily developed areas - parks and recreational land - areas within one-half mile of a presently designated site of major historical/cultural significance, pursuant to State or Federal criteria - critical habitats of endangered or threatened species - areas in close proximity to public water supplies - active farmland within legislated agricultural districts having soil groups 1 and 2 - areas within 5,000 feet of airport runways (10,000 feet if turbo- jets are used) Field inspection of the remaining potentially suitable locations will be made to verify collected data and information. These locations will then be qualitatively evaluated with respect to their suitability based on development and operational factors as well as their physical land characteristics. In order to make a comparative evaluation of the merits and drawbacks of the various locations, a rating will be applied to each of the factors being considered. These ratings will then be weighted based on the relative significance of each factor, and a cumulative score developed for each location. The various factors proposed for the suita- bility evaluation include the following: proximity to.unconsolidated aquifers underlying soil types depth to bedrock depth to water table distance to -classified surface water bodies or streams* flood potential location with respect to significant water supply recharge areas bedrock permeability slope land use - vegetation screening and buffering - usable area - availability of daily cover haul distance - road access neighborhood accessible ownership development and operational costs other Based upon tax mapping and other real property information, specific parcels of land, or groups of parcels that have sufficient available acreage, located within areas having the highest total scores will be identified. In selecting specific parcels, consideration will be given to those proper- ties previously offered to the County for landfill development. Once specific sites are selected they will be rated and scored according to the suitability factors taking into account refined site specific condi- tions. The weighted rating system allows the general suitablity of prospec- tive sites to be determined and compared.. This system does not eliminate the need for site specific studies which are necessary for ultimately selecting a site. However, it does provide a systematic method for identi- fying those locations within the County that are likely to be most suitable for landfill development. A limited -number of sites having the highest scores will be recommended for further detailed investigations during the next phase of the program. Any comments regarding the site identification and screening factors or methodology should be directed to the Department of Planning or the Solid Waste Management Committee members, prior to October 15, 1986. Timely inputis necessary in order that the factors and screening methodology can be finalized and the evaluation process started. Volume Reduction Study The . Volume Reduction Study i nvol'ves the generic evaluation of alternate technologies for reducing the volume of wastes currently disposed of includ- ing such options as baling, waste -to -energy plants, recycling, refuse -deriv- ed fuel, and composting. The study will evaluate those alternatives which are econdmically and environmentally feasible. At .the present time, reports previously prepared for the County on various volume reduction technologies are being reviewed. Information contained in these reports will be updated to reflect changes in 'technology and cost since the time the studies were completed. Background information on other available volume reduction alternatives is also being gathered. TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING BIGGS CENTER BUILDING A 1283.TRUMANSBURG ROAD ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 0 SUITABILITY FACTORS FOR IDENTIFYING PROSPECTIVE LANDFILL SITES Most More Least Suitable Suitable Suitable Factor (Rating #3) (Rating #2) (Rating #1) Unconsolidated Aquifers not present near vicinity adjacent area Soil Type clay -rich, compact clay & silt -rich silt & sand matrix matrix, non® matrix, non - compact compact Depth to Bedrock >50 feet 30-50 feet 10-30 feet Depth to Watertable deep intermediate shallow Distance to Classified Surface Water Body or Stream >500 feet 300-500 feet <300 feet Flood Potential none rare occasional Significant Water Supply Recharge Area not present adjacent area present Bedrock Permeability very low low moderate Slope 0-8% 8-15% 15-20% Land Use low moderate high Vegetation sparse moderate dense Screening & Buffering ample moderate limited Usable Area >200 acres 100-200 acres <100 acres Available Daily Cover on site, <500 ft. on site, >500 ft. off site Haul Distance short moderate long Road Access state road, no state/county county/town village roads, hamlets roads, villages Accessible Ownership readily available doubtfully available available Neighborhood low density, moderate density, high density, least impact moderate impact great impact Development and Operation Costs low intermediate high Other no known minimum site possible severe limitations difficulties conflicts The most desirable site characteristics are shown under the column heading "most suitable" and are given ratings of 3. SAMPLE SCORING MATRIX This is an example of how a relative comparison will be made of the various prospective landfill locations. WEIGHTED SCORE* SIGNIFICANCE FACTOR WEIGHTING SITE A SITE B SITE C Unconsolidated Aquifer 3 9 3 6 Bedrock Perme- ability 2 6 2 4 Soil Type 3 6 3 3 Depth to Bedrock 3 6 3 3 Depth to Water Table 2 4 4 6 Distance to Surface Water 2 2 6 6 Flood Potential 2 2 6 4 Recharge Area 2 6 2 4 Slope 1 3 3 1 Land Use 1 3 3 1 Vegetation 1 2 2 1 Haul Distance 2 6 2 6 Neighborhood 3 9 6 6 Ownership 2 6 6 2 Costs 2 2 4 4 Useable Area 1 2 1 3 Access 1 3 2 3 Cover Avail- ability 2 2 2 2 Screening & Buffering 2 2 2 4 Other 1 2 1 2 TOTAL SCORE 83 63 71 The site(s) with the highest total weighted scores will be considered for further detailed investigation in subsequent phases of the project. Weighted Score = Factor Rating X Significance Weighting Tompkins County Solid V'aste Management Committee SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT #3 Progress is continuing on the landfill . siting phase of the solid waste management program. Areas within the County that are potentially suitable for landfill development were identified at the third public information forum on December 3, 1986 and in Progress' Report #2. These potential site areas are being, studied further as part of the overall process for developing a modern, engineered landfill for Tompkins County. , WHAT 1S A MODERN,' ENGiNEERED SANITARY LANDFILL? Continuing advancements in our understanding of how landfills work have gradually necessitated more stringent controls in landfill siting and design to ensure that the environment is protected to the best of our ability. With improvements in technology, landfill disposal sites are continually being improved to make them more compatible with the environment. The following describes how today's modern, engineered landfi.l,l.s are designed, constructed, operated, and closed. Environmental permits are required . by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) before a landfill can be con- strutted. All design plans must be reviewed and approved 'by the NYSDEC as part of the permitting process. There. are a number of components to a properly designed modern landfill. Three major ones are: the liner system, control of leachate (contaminated liquid that drains from a landfill) and gas venting. The liner system, made of a layer of clay soil and/or synthetic plastic mate- rials, is required beneath a disposal site to. protect the soils and groundwater below. A drainage layer of gravel, placed immediately above the liner, directs the flow of leachate into collection pipes. The leachate is then transported - to a collection point for subsequent treat- ment. During the construction of the liner and: .leachate control,, sys- tems, rigorous field testing of all the .materials ensures the effective- ness of the systems. Vents are installed in the landfill in order to relieve the build up of gases produced as a result of refuse decompo- sition. An operating plan is also included in the design of a modern landfill. This plan describes how the refuse. is to be deposited to ensure the orderly, sequential development of the landfill in an environmentally safe manner. Contingency plans are included in the operating plan that outline the steps that would need to ' be taken if any problems occur. The operating plan details .how the landfill will be filled. By working on one portion of the site at a time, the "active area" of exposed refuse is kept as small as possible. As refuse is deposited, it must' be com- pacted and covered on a daily basis to control the litter; bird, insect, rodent, and odor problems previously. associated with disposal sites. Drainage patterns are established to divert surface water away from the active landfill area and to reduce the .amount of water that can seep into the refuse. The entire landfill site is routinely inspected during its operation. Groundwater is sampled every few months from monitoring wells which have been strategically placed around the edge of the entire landfill.. These samples are analyzed for potential contaminants as required by the NYSDEC. If any contamination is detected, the contingency plans outlined in th.e operating plan are implemented. Traffic patterns and road conditions to the landfill are also considered to minimize the impact of the landfill operation on local • residents. Restrictions are established on hauling routes and trucks, where war- ranted, to prevent excessive litter, noise, and dust. As each portion of the site is completely filled, refuse disposal in that area stops. An impermeable _,cap, such as a layer of clay soil, is then placed over the completed portion to prevent water from seeping into the refuse, thereby minimizing leachate that is .generated. The protec- tive cap is routinely inspected and maintained to ensure that no- cracks develop which would allow water to enter the capped area. Grass is established on the capped area to minimize erosion. Even .after the site is closed, any leachate still being generated must be collected and treated. Water quality monitoring of the site continues for as long as necessary to ensure that the landfill is environmentally safe. LEACHATE TREATMENT CAP \ i A; i/ t REFUSE � � ^•`. . SOLID WASTE LANDFILL `-LEACHATE ER SYSTEM COLLECTION SYSTEM The ultimate goal is to develop a landfill that will meet the County's solid waste disposal needs in a way that is environmentally sound and socially acceptable to the community. Although this requires design, construction, and - operation which is more costly than in the past, modern sanitary landfills provide more protection for both the environ- ment and the community. LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Developing a modern landfill is a complex and time consuming process which requires that a number of steps be taken. These include: public information, site screening study, detailed study of candidate sites, environmental impact assessments, conceptual design, public hearing, permitting, final design, bid documents, and construction/start up. The time it will take to complete the process for this project is anticipated to be two to two and one-half years, as shown in the accom- panying project time schedule. The first and continual step in the process is to establish good commu- nication between the County representatives and the community. It is critical that the community be kept well informed of key project devel- opments and be given opportunity throughout the process to voice concerns. A site screening study is currently being conducted to identify which areas in the County are suitable for new landfill development. This study is being undertaken to compare the relative suitability and draw- backs of various locations in the County for landfill development. The objective of this study is to narrow down the field of all possible land- fill sites to a limited number of candidate sites that are likely to be found most suitable. Progress Reports C and 2, describe the details of the site screening study. Based on the results of the site screening study, a detailed inves- tigation of the limited number of candidate sites will begin. These investigations will include studies of the site geology and soil con- ditions, and the acquisition of additional site specific information required to complete a thorough environmental assessment of each site. Preliminary engineering data, including design considerations and developmental cost for each site, will be prepared in sufficient detail to permit an in-depth comparison of the candidate sites. Using this information, a detailed environmental impact assessment can be made for each site which will evaluate potential impacts on ecological, water, atmospheric, earth, and community resources. This assessment will enable the selection of the best landfill site. Engineering plans will be prepared showing the design concepts that will be used in developing a landfill at the selected site. These plans will show sufficient detail to allow a technical review of the proposed project by the NYSDEC in order to secure required construction and operating permits. The conceptual design plans and environmental impact assessments will be mcd:e available to the community as well as the NYSDEC. As part of the permitting and review process, a public hearing will be held to provide a forum for hearing outstanding issues and concerns on the proposed project. The input provided by the public at the hearing will be used by the NYSDEC in making their decision whether or not to approve the construction of the proposed landfill. Following permit approval, the County will prepare final design and bidding documents for construction of the landfill. Subsequent to review of the final plans and specifications for the landfill by NYSDEC, the contract documents will be sent out for bid and the construction begun. Throughout the construction phase of the project, thorough testing and inspection of the work will be conducted in order to ensure that the liner system and other key elements of the landfill are con- structed to conform with the approved plans and specifications. Following completion of construction, a permit to begin operating the landfill will be issued by the NYSDEC based on their on -going surveil- lance of the construction work and certification by the engineer that all construction work has been properly performed. TC)'M KINS COUNTY , SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSED LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS . i 1. PUBLIC INFORMATION _ :: -A 2. SITE SCREENING STUDY i 3. DETAILED STUDY OF I CANDIDATE SITES 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT s ! ASSESSMENTS 5. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN I 6. PUBLIC HEARING 0 1' 7. PERMITTING , ! 8. FINAL DESIGN LI 9. BID DOCUMENTS Ce, 10. CONSTRUCTION 1 START-UP July 86 Jan 87 July 87 Jan 88 July 88 Jan 89 e is t„w TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF-PLANNING-- BIGGS CENTER ` BUILDING A FEB 26'87 1283 TRUMANSBURG ROAD=' f 1i ITHACA'S NEW YORK 14850� -: �'�--� (607) 274- 5360 - ect -1014ri clerk Grotoln levard 1C1 Glrotolng 14Y l3C-73 _ e The Town Board pE Gqo �h ooFF!CT y/ ERECTED 1817 'o O��s CO U Nt�'t► 101 ' Conger Boulevard Groton, N. Y. 13073 Tompkins County Department of Planning Biggs Center, Building A 1283 Trumansburg Road Ithaca, New York 14850 ATTENTION: Frank R. Liguori Commissioner of Planning Dear Mr. Liguori: Town of Groton April 23, 1987 Please forward a list of property owners for the proposed six landfill sites located in the Town of Groton. We are requesting this information under the Freedom of Information Law. Your prompt attention in providing us with this information will be appreciated. Sincerely yours, , Teresa M. Robinson Supervisor TMR : cp �_ -. �� - .:_.. .. - - �•. - - - _ - - _ ,_ .. _ -. - - ..,_—... .�,.w.^c- .Yr"•tit Saeoplesa�r she's - LE��S - - . ; • - :: be allowed. to .have + = _ But once. upon a Gr_otol rejects landflil: y �'�_� ;=0izx ticounty: tax:: rate .cari b� ad- Your wexe`admired foi -p g_n lS itwitil: Of��:against use Justed'so-that the Town"of Groton yS' Dana f�S�d _ brood- with: ferocity .: b:.. resident. ;. L, assume you =Tompkins Cotirit'. tR,, •beazsxno -part of the expense of our_ y' . _ - Whitehead isr&thc _ T Y 'new,_county landfill. All cominer, 'Concerning the Iaridrill informs whose mother -love residenfs :'are-; alli�'awaie that`s nur`�:•'_ . - ;.'. _ #' '�"� vial banters. in" Tompkins y . • tional . meeting held; deb: t in the crazy in the-i ace-oi } _ " couht3, representiatives;. with 'the' , . ^ p. ns Count g het " o£- the engineering`irni Hof; would`b notified that. no gazbage. . old'_'. Danhy school:: =Reading be- _perceived as. a_ send t Q would be a:cee ted from tYte Town - tweeri the lines it- is clear 'that Dan child. `A .teenaged; �5 0_ en.. and .Gere"from Syracuse,, y,, - �._ f P b nia once a sin become tTie' fuJ' ' Late 'sexual -Y, are logking'for a,site for our-° cottnj4;:of?roton, and violators would be y .. Y . g - . = ' Baby,11�I s' otYier i e finial an x t s'tliiidLsanitarX:l"alridfill '.�,,ii- ;Y r,',yba red €rom..usin the landfill ture_custodiail,'pf=all the.garliage in Stern has. held u ,::- P ` , p: aline taus :as a`: xett drastic the county. : The Jolles family. was . suiro ate arentin )-get, some • . - Nobbi likes a l drill;• an`d` -`-`� 4 '• 1 P y, _ t d told that to Iand S P. F =.t '_'9ft shon, ut* ou calinot'have it u onEast IViiller has. even displayed body wants: a' landfil s near 'tlie SFr °-r g�e X _ i Rdad is "second ' ' i rse�;a 9, agree::r Bud if you. take real -stir both'= a- s°�Eithe ,., m' nit �. throu bout the coil 4 �� y .s yotr are��vitl-,usl•. = P Y•_'� g evolution;; Fn look: at . the � problems Tompltii s _ as'rp t. of, county,: of. ypu,dre•' Does,'this.m�an second choice, for .��;: He;. too; �loveg :the c Of contra 'Count mist' have -.a new sanit , o againsiaus; and;we•wish you luck''on;.:: a landfili`aite. The . informational cutie who.resemble .r for:pthis' landfill. None o€ our 'neighboring` -:Your nwn in the future., � �# ;'� ' f. meetinj,� Vasn'_t so informational on Whitehead. this oirit. ' was. 'safer . counties ' want our- garbage: With= Ouf: counip- . board cannot- solve•_, P . z . _ A judge will decic rumen are'-; out•questi'on, it is our�:problein; and'. our_common problems if. we'are.'.' This�,'naturally: tends #o; make ; -parent -Mother y going .to be nine d.towns and one ' „ people believe the worst:; -That there . ;. Father. Stern.— will I' ; w..only we can solve the problem. t • city, all: din in 10 different direc.' p~. Y oot to foist anotliz think -each of them is a cons irac of fie uncom The Grotoh Town Boazd,�at;the Y� g .• g ;, angled in-;; ` urging -;of 350 town =.residents,-- `ha' `. tions. The common good of all the. • er= dump -on: us. Well, don't, even' parent: One. hopes 1 )ea deliv= signed: a petition;- arid: with. the sup-:,. `' zesidents of Tompking : County . think: about it. We"refuse your fie= " prove, years from n i s to•their:: must come first.. We must work to-, :° fuse...a : ; ' - �; child's. best interest g port of their'county:representative, L - • Steve;Gilbert. But no decision c ,n, to, their passed: , a resolution unanimously ';tether,, otherwise; . we_ accomplish-, �; - ' stating `'that they did not want . a 't nothing. Danby ° =completely fair'to F %-h.ha"ve' no' advance inforriiation parent's. Stern and,' ,S.-directed county.:Iandfill�in the, Town of Gro- ,.. Tribute to Testa ' on an propose sites for our third ' " ' aren,'•t married to e� hais safety ton:' I_ suppose.if .y*ou.live in a rural,., : Y P P . •' = county -landfill. 'If- one of the ro an' enli htenin SHOW :.;; ; -' ° g in cor ,ue- among, , community. such' as' the Town of - ; _ P -enlightening have nathiii 1 .women Groton: you could, bury your bones, a" posed sites is in the -Town of Ithaca Jim . -Hardesty. and. I want " to than.a pretty; srnm Y bottles;: aiid°: plastic, dace-, •then -I, will' -support: the. -county'_ thank _The Ithaca '�ournal; .for. ifs::-.. matter.. who: ends `ur SIDS `is- an, . cans; p �, , yourAftchen wastes in; a.`conipost ` ,board of reps and'; their; consulting generous front-page coverage (Feb::' . -one will.win., and'or ter gambl- . P g y engineers. ' k�.: 19 of our tribute to Nikola'Tesla. , Pazerif4ill forever 1 _ ilea. "mulch` your aiden :with our ) newspapers,•aiid have:no need'fora : 'The,towns o€Dryden, and Danby:.; ' We' aXe •seeking other- Iocal groups ;a:: his or.her head. why fa. appear;= : ,':: :...._.., aim l talk �' .,` have' had landfill:` Maybe . arid, classes to present: it to.°and are ;belongs: P. Y . county landfill'. - . •- .' _ ' . t' '-� 'Biit; what about the elderly',:and� ',;,each -town in Tompkins County wild., sure'this publicity' will. help,.:' ~ <. :,Thai's! iW YY Pm h ex�ressirig'=�. - P, 4. z - t "have to take its�turn?:Tune will. tell'" • - dyke;: 3; � .infii`* th -=:hospital; . n�rsing�, : , _ However,' the • article did "not the boom Mahe sus ibis gap' in: r' homes,; elderly -=housing,' apartment:! -Good luck,- Town''.of Grotonl.': ; : point out that_ the, coils: and-;othef pali',enting business:, zd,; women dweller$;. - mobile .fiome park resit: °'• : ' Walter -4. Schwan' equipment° we',, demonstrated ;:were'' ` I agree, with thos< " ideiniCis:�`:"dent :' `Lercha'Ats, 'industry; _.,oui�-:. ,£;. ,, :•�,,.: ;i� C . >wown of lthaca°= designed and built by••Jim�Hardesq �'because.the technol eratioII. of '" tliree'.'colleges� qur• public schools;g;`.` - z 4 ;: ty, who did.the time-consuming re;-,1 stirrogaie parenting r . Danby will continue ` . ;, •i seazc into their rinciples and;con couples will. seelC,it :ept'}watch, �-dn •out village. and' city: dwellers.: ;wS° h, p t ry ;.What' do : tfieYe"do`' 'with'ttheir gar=:'t� to .protest a` landfill � struction: In fact; not on`y: did •Jiro � like it or not.'.But tl eirSSXp l�v� 67 tl.. 4.., f •: . .. _ :. bage? Wheredo tlie. •. bu,' it? : ':,� 'I. aai"inost �' roud�to: be art' o a; s an the tribute it .wliicfi was ,: has- persuaded me`tl aretalCers; -.,., Y rF R,.. Part! , s onsoied. by the- Cornell Amateur, couples should stay Y To: say ttiai the,,viewpoint.of the . ; commuiuty that turned out in P " ' r Towni,of Groton. is selfish Would be -..'son and in lar a numbers;.to rotest Radio Club, he also':came up;.with .,� surrogate pazenting, g p role: Iii putting t'miltlly This is31987 not:: Ah '.whole idea.. "_ ''.:.�` `� :..They should ask i yen s-• mag, �_ - z f; •the -building of a Infdfill xn Danby. `::. ` . :: t . 1'887t : • •1'` �>x:. •; :: _ - The. kid ' •asked arid: her, con .. Halving seen .the array ' o f '.other they have the" stoma Y ' : `• ;We' art aFriatiorii :of 50 states, andw%_; .cernsa raised;. ate.the- recen ' ,,"landfill ' coils Jirn. has constructed;.:; I. cart ::, that a reluctant: moi f m' Ossages �' ,,:: r _ ,. our- .grea ness. sand'.': our'; strength-.; inforinat onal';irieeting"�; were sill' = promise'.,.,,an:.-enlightening -perfor-' .child. Of the SOO su G1 - , , a f °""'' comes-. from:. a,;fiery sirimple. belief:: ;valid sincere and well,expressed: �; mance for any group. or class. Wish rangeinei�ts before thouglH, �•a_ « .., _ �z�. ,natural .mothers.cha nen.:°Even , United we;,:stand,,.'dNided we;�;�; ��,'I'his cominunity`:atood.'to�e&h ', inga unique:hourAs entertainments ��rt.. a. }.}, .... • :.,.. ;c.:- -:•. minds and ke t, thei waded or fall.: Are we "now going to• divided ...at. thafineeting, and will; continue Grady Wells. P . them fits . � Tompkins 'Cauiity? 'The:' A , W � - Town- of do `so''in: any, ay necessary -to pre- = "� ' ° k• v . . 1thadd-_,-:. means four natural '`� Groton is' trying; to;•;do' just that:_„`�veni ..-a:.landfilI 'front • bein ut in `� _- t' � � -.. wanted children bac ;The man' .r ,, - g- p y ThaniCln IICe fOf ' �t > airrange: for surrogai ;ct iumself They wisif: to`;'share„'our benefits,,:.. this. neighborhood: No. matter -what ,. z _ g ask;! <,.• :T., . :,...�.o ,, <. i .}µ`Haw axe'isolafed. fit ly.not ' x but'they do'.riot; wart to skate:°oiu=.we aze:told; :we ale aware that Lots: , fast j�IClCiap :of "a .ttiuClC<:�� - s� �u: , ^; ,..5� °:fix r. kids ' pro bably'fore` sociologi '' 0ioblelm, 4ru.� : ' ; t. _: f�,>;:_ of things can:go ,,wrong at-6 landfill..; s We :•would dike• ,to �expre'ss our~'° ' .� is a a �: r•tI• do not„often advocate punitive-� : site that result in' pollution: qr con dee : a reciatioa`fo the officers of Surrogate `parents P .f action' 'but:I think we: should take*",?Uminatio and can therefore. be a= the Itfiaca Cit Police De `artinerit ` sQ: ask.themselves AIDS' ;has - � . q i, �?�' `i.. Y. P , ,, ' ` expose' their person ion' upside, g �: some ,now•The .Town of Grotoir::: r threat.to a healthy enviroament.., fortheir fast work in retrieving our.`r =; •' }.. , court; to prove then ' hays said° ``We do not' want your°';, r The • people. ' on the Gomixutfee of social _ " _ a � r icku truck' 'wliicli someone.. had ; n • a arba e:1». ; ; ;'` ; pickup', ' . �l�iost of.'.us.W'd ace the�iiu= w g. g then7-_:*' <'the rest:::of,, - tl at -:•'will make' :the -•:decision . on a•.•. �:. � - - >. driven *off' with Our truck'wask-te= ,. :A'Tompkins Coimtiy"; ?should_ te11,`rthe:,?;`landfills site: should be,, aware' tlia�t�§: >'. �" :•� ..;,:seeretswT suc;:as^Ei heralded;; ,y c >,, �« R f �, .; ; f ; . , t turned: to iis; within; a: few Shoiirs. . ; r, multiple'scleross = ;m? �',Town F. of: Groton;p, Since that, is ; Danby': does not want :to be the host• ; ' ",We`'aire ' very fortunate:° to. .have, `y ' liow the.town:feels':our:new fount communit fo'r.' .a landfill= and will ' • d :�-:front pages aro�ind urespo°nsit t- ` ^ ?' . `such dedicated offic`ersfin:ouz,coin- 'Ariid'they'shioiild b r'4 :. :'. Tandfill: when=i o ' ens:ina cou 1`e offi lifts ai st: itall• the wa taut ¢;'' , ,. ,' y: :i -•`2 .f• P •.. -d • , A 34:0 g p n y' •, w�."1 ' munit z' '• F •: , ptn . }: r.•.a+iG}" b 8 7F1 _� s y:' • if�tf, is all;that`i�mpoi 'ears wilhbe. closed;to'.the: Town�of }. Ga Huddle s.w'� r .�. 7� Glade:: = • y _;. - i. •- �. ,a_,. ,7t, .. F• :, f Q.. d5 .,,'. ,;:�. Y v ��llbert' and Margaret Ma6feit..._ �r� 3;; .:, i �,.... -t ',:.'.,; • :� v;;.z child they raise" fie �•a .Gt ton , , Dahby 4. <•a fa 3.,t_ _►: ..� • .. • . s' , , .� •..r. ,, _ . 1 . .. ¢, Enfield;. . �: Y::..�s ; ' : �. . �• _, : , , t t:. _ ,ti.... h . ;, Adoption.;i's' ant' optic +•.g. tisf ..i.a... t..."ry}. J� .#�°�r�t s b.: : A. r� i �l' M i ; Wit'.:•:. Ii,� sM1w a � `' .. :.ra:. '3'.� i . ' � "" .,b � :n., w �r s„/.}, '1 �+ :.? •t°:,. °5 t •.+°°t'_.-; W. :.°� .'{•'=•'. ••S:• .t_„ri :fir: •.••. ;(: J:` + ;E,.1'. •-.' -;.t «,`. :•<: r :,; ° ..w:�.� �; �: � � . ; :, . ,,t � _ � �.' , s :� '�': ': z -=.;a �- couples:.like the. Stec . - o )) 011, t,1 ',.. r.. ..},is"":• +,"s.. •.:Ia ;±, }}�rj.•.a• 7ti': •t`,i. t�� itd .'�: •k{.i�.1'•t-+.^.• .e_., 1�14•,.1„d. ..�, r:a ,'.f_^ ■/L/TN�}� SIB r •. .'i+.i. .5: �.,._w:t e.Y.'.. -• 11, lit i- '��:N "tP :�i::l.'. ''4• •... .. "G :•... . ` ��•r.♦ `•• • •:T.1' a. .gJ C9 i.. -i1 • !n • '. A. �;li -�.•3 ..undOii Vte�y�ailld u'•. 'i ♦ •.t' •. ... . .Z .•il _... s w ... r'.'.. ".p 1'. as a _ • - . .. . .. .l.i` , .�:,: {;: .4 ,•.z'.: :rr. f r., ,1. , _ rs is- a �t;s7:, a `,; �„ .'1;1.E'�er .,�- 4^ ` _"�' ".i: F' •-.� f,.P g .i Y, 7KAf� �Y'=� UAYSI�EAY/��p/�: •, .IUHRTit..'I " {f•w,: aHOI+(l:.-;,W ABOUF , IT'S'COM/MG ' F. /�Q� �/]/[ _ .iAl'C '3'; -.,c..i• r^ '` ,ti _ Y'L .'r'';•a '/'1•�'Ir�S�.. "y, s.9°' ...-�•f`'hfE/SAND; ��•ti•.An&Vdoption;.is:a bf>flRB5-n'.`'Sl/l +=s,• Ki�IOYU/iI,GYU;,k'ZON65:.70 Dbl�l/1WGET ;�hto1�K AUT;A,;::l!X/1;..SA 9�CCiN/1VG� :IM6OWH/5' S/R.:'s BUTIGOTTA.=: ';HE�j6::fX�IR'S, ,fi ?j('a.. ,ar7 F ..t• :UCZ: t� s,'pJ`/L�.t1•' - ;f-IY�rw7�F�7L:.«L�Y�xfI�iIlp�CAL/fAZ;:R}.:.f/E,a.:1.7'T: ,' :i> i8 's- P •;�, i..��'J7/.'>''�` ,� 7r�jyt•� ' j-F 5,4lATNt /WRZTNIUA C7/Rj,-�c• ':.ci.ht. �itlhda:itltH.Tot.:'rpireoedv�isd-ie,+4s',' _ ..fir ; r, jj �O r z . /:<• +• t.. - • ' _ ' t: " a '!'9' �,•,surr� ��.�/(yyw�{-/` •'• .ti•'� `.�,` .i:}'',e -+1' fd' a`a ,x. ,. `�;;�-, i;•tic �d. t ougi:!a ili,r .v,•+,'K +.'�I !�?G eA�/S _ :r. 't (ZOV3/0/ --'%; r:..� :�.�' z :,'V�!Yi•-//rw,,.!vj-. :: .``Y•': ( •'t �'." 'J. a .$. ''!. 1 •• � •; �� :: _-: ,2' .. 43d� `>,•� � :�. „ � . brm2s�'a IT BARBARA A. ECKSTROM TOMPKINS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION Bostwick Road Ithaca, -NX4 14850 TeIephbde (607) 213-6632 November 20, 1989 Colleen Pierson Town Clerk 101 Conger Boulevard Groton, NY 13073 Dear Ms. Pierson, DEC 8 1989 SOLID WASTE MANAGER Enclosed for your convenience are copies of the Landstrom Landfill's regulations for distribution to your town residents. Skn, rner SolidWaste Assistant enclosure LAW/mk REGULATIONS FOR USE OF TOMPKINS COUNTY LANDFILL 1. LANDFILL HOURS: Monday through Saturday - 7:00 am-3:30 pm. All vehicles must be off the landfill by closing time. The landfill is closed on the following holidays: *New Year's Day *Memorial Day *Independence Day *Labor Day *Thanksgiving Day *Christmas Day 2. Disposal of solid waste shall be limited to that generated in Tompkins County and Town of Spencer or by approved contract. 3. All vehicles must stop at gate attendant station. Dumping is permitted only when gate attendant is on duty. 4. Waste Disposal haulers shall be registered with the Tompkins County Health Department. 5. Loads must be securely covered and contained to prevent loss of debris in route to the landfill. 6. Collecting and salvaging of materials is permitted only with approval of the landfill supervisor or gate attendant. 7. The following wastes shall not be disposed of at the landfill: *Hazardous wastes, as defined by the NYSDEC, Part 360 regulations. *Septic tank wastes. *Radioactive wastes. *Motor oil. *Automobiles or other vehicles. *Fuel tanks. *Large dead animals (e.g. horses, cows). *Other wastes determined to be detrimental to the safe operation of the landfill. r 8. Batteries shall be placed in the designated location. No leaking batteries will be accepted. 9. Construction and demolition debris, and other bulky items shall be placed in the designated area. 10. Garbage shall not be placed with construction and demolition debris and bulky items. 11. No person shall dispose of hot ashes or cause a fire at the landfill. 12. Tompkins County reserves the right to inspect all • vehicles containing solid waste which enter the landfill to assure compliance with these regulations. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? It is anticipated that the Phase I effort will be completed by the end of 1986. Detailed field investigations will be needed to choose the best site(s) for the location of a new county sani- tary landfill. Such studies as environmental impact statements and hydrogeological tests, facili- tated by drilling bore holes to determine the underlying geology and the location and direction of flow of groundwater at a parti- cular site, will be needed. Final design plans and construction bid documents, as well as plans for volume reduction and operational details, will need to be prepared. Because the new sanitary landfills), will service all of Tompkins County, it will be necessary to carefully route collection vehicles to maxi- mize their efficiency. Furthermore, transfer stations may be required to enhance transportation efficien- cy. therefore, available options for waste transport will also need to be considered. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Throughout the project, the Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Committee will be actively solicit- ing public input and involvement. Your involvement is needed to help insure that the most economi- cal, environmentally sound and socially acceptable solutions are found. Public Information Centers for the distribution of the General Information Brochure and Progress Reports will be established at Village and Town Halls, the Tompkins County Public Library, and the Tompkins County Cooperative Exten- sion. Information and announcements about the project will also be published in local newspapers and broadcast over several radio and television stations. A series of public meetings will be held during the course of the project. Your involvement at these meetings will aid in the successful develop- ment of the Solid Waste Management Plan. A mailing list has been compiled to keep people informed about the project and its progress. ANYONE WISHING TO BE PUT ON THE MAILING LIST SHOULD CONTACT: TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING BIGGS CENTER BUILDING A 1283 TRUMANSBURG ROAD ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 (607) 274-5360 TOMiPKINS COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: - Frank P. Proto - Chairman - Kenneth Tillapaugh - Donald J. Culligan - Scott Heyman - County Administrator - Frank R. Liguori - Planning Commissioner - William J. Mobbs - Commissioner of Public Works - Madison Wright - County EMC Ex-officio Members: - John Andersson - Director of Environmental Health - Barbara Eckstrom - Planner Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Program Wp,S7E MAJVgGe4f zv � RINI, o 1. do b General Information Brochure In 1970, Tompkins County accepted the responsibility for the disposal of solid waste in the County under Local Law. While three sanitary landfill sites were established for that purpose, only one remains open to serve the County today. This disposal site, known as the Landstrom Landfill, is located east of New York State Routes 34/96 on Hill View and Michigan Hollow Roads in the Town of Spencer, Tioga County and the Town of Danby, Tompkins County. This site is also used by the Town of Spencer. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? The Landstrom Landfill does not meet current New York State Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation (DEC) regulations and a DEC consent order has established the site's impending closure at the end of June, 1988. Therefore, a plan is needed for the future disposal of all solid waste generated in the County after that date. WHAT'S BEING DONE? The Tompkins County Board of Repre- sentatives has delegated the respon- siblity for developing a County solid waste disposal plan to the Solid Waste Management Committee. The Committee, together with its engineering and legal consultants, is exploring the options available to Tompkins County for satisfying its future solid waste management needs. Over the next few years, Tompkins County plans the following: To locate and construct a new sanitary landfill in Tomp- kins County for the disposal of municipal solid waste and treated/dewatered sludge from municipal wastewater treatment plants located in the County. - To evaluate current solid waste management practices, including an examination of options to reduce the volume of waste that needs to be placed in a landfill. - To implement closure plans for the Landstrom Landfill and the Caswell Road Landfill which ceased operation in October, 1985. - To develop an overall solid waste management program including transportation and ultimate disposal of waste along with implementa- tion, financing, operational, and administrative plans for the next 30 years. PHASE I STUDY Phase I in the development of the solid waste management plan involves comparing the merits of different locations within the County for potential siting of landfill(s), and evaluating options for reducing the volume of waste which must be landfilled. Landfill Siting Many factors go into determining the best location for a landfill. These factors include, for example, the potential for the landfill to impact groundwater or surface water quality, the compatibility of the landfill operation with neighboring land uses, and expenses associated with constructing and operating the landfill. Based upon specific physical land char- acteristics and site development and operational considerations related to these factors, various locations within the County will be rated and their suitability and drawbacks compared. By compara- tive evaluation, those locations best suited for landfill development will be identified. Fortunately, much of the information needed to complete the Phase I evaluation is already available. However, some field inspections will be needed. Further detailed investiga- tions of the most suitable locations will be conducted in subsequent phases of the project and used in final site(s) selection. Volume Reduction In order to make best use of avail- able landfill space, the County is conducting a study on the eco- nomic and environmental feasibility of different waste reduction met- hods. Such methods can include, for example, one or more of the following: baling, refuse derived fuel processes, incineration, recycling, waste -to -energy plants, and composting. Because no one method or combination of methods is capable of eliminating 100% .of all waste, any long-term solution to solid waste disposal will require the establishment of a landfill for storing the residue. A PETITION We, the undersigned, oppose any plan by the To pkins County Legislature to develop a county landfill in lest Groton or anywhere else in the to of Groton. Any landfill tepresents a threat to the environmentland our children 4na. will surely decrease property values. 2) Igo z (15 -tr r5 to 7�.�—�c'J2 S s 12 Cco C2 14) A-7 ,� r y WO 17) 19 -e 20) /0 13 21) 22) C) 7!le If I CY �\J� 414 PETITION We, the undersigned, oppose any plan by the Tompkins County LeFi!::tlature to develop a county landfill in West Groton or anywhere else in the town of Groton. Any 14,Ln:dfill represents a threat to the environment and our children 4'nd will surely decrease nrooerty values. ' �/l/../ - � /ter.- f✓ . . Gq 2�� y 53��s7 f ' 4) PC1.c,,C 2 2 N 2- 2- 6J 3 ci Q,3 4 �c� - 9 94� CIA 7 Dk 4 8) 9) a., �0 a -CS ttvc CLI. 12) 02 13) 14 k 15) 1G2 17)9� 317 8% Tic l J .� / 44 19) 20) 21) V- 22) h1l q 7 18 3 (7 6 d 5) , �IyT CN wyr1 Yy P-J 7,33- &r6 93 I la-e? C6 Q 13.7 toy- LAJ CET -2 e3 C eAcr 1-4- kC, G C -yy\ 7 :3 tQ 6 /0/. r i PETITION Ile, the undersigned, oppose any plan by the Tompkins County LepiSlature to develop a county landfill; 'in West Groton or anywhere else ' in the townk of Groton. Any landfill represents ' a threat to the environment end our children and will surely ;. decrease property values. fi V: M1 ) // to - /Yc P1 C��"q 4/o 'I 7&/ ez,1V 12) i, 114) 15) 17) , jY4 19) 21 } ` 22 i ! i i i-i �i i,, i, .ue,, ., ... .. .n:..ai,y,AR,rY.^w lm.��. I..ali3i,:i..:.ea0.s1.:.as.i..:.,,i�..•.:..�..�.�,+�.W'�i..Jw,66.urwi�n.Jh.t'i �J4WVFMilbi if L::Eda.MlRµ!N�Id1t7.b"au.u.+'. ri �,. m.,a..,e ��,.. �.. .. ee Nt c:l a ic P&TITION f We, the undersigned, oppbse any plan by the Tompkins County Legislature to develop a county landfi�1 in I'Vest Groton or anywhere else in the town of Groton. Any Aindfill represents a threat to the environment knd our children and will surely jsj decrease property values. 2) do 6),,99-7 Ae- ec A, T\C- i i 1 S Ide, the undersigned, oplJose any plan by the Tompkins 1 County Legislature to develop a county landfill in West Groton r or anywhere else ' in the town of Groton. Any landfill represents f a trreat to t e environmen and our children and will s}irely decrease p,,r 'erty values. Gip sl 70Le' � s i ol 10). k A") t 12) 13) S ' 15) Jt 1 L) 17 ^16-366i_Z 19 20) 21)22) L,� Vx 2.3 WL Vo r � i i .i tiA' . i . i Ilh 1:L'l11 Pl,.l1.IL, li�lwlY•.^M^'tii 4i.:.d.l Y1q{:IU'1�:�AW`A6N�N�uinYiiw7niilNP:.iMML,',1GW/MRMAw4W4w • i .. t ►'DTI TION /r We, the undersigned, oppose any plan by the Tompkins County Legislature to develop a county landfill in West Groton. or anywhere else ' in the tow-p of Groton. Any landfill represents e x a trreat to the environments and ;our children and ;will surely decrease property values. 4 ; 2 ,-- �—"lot/non, .s �€ 10 }IL i. 12) F 1314) 1F. 15) 16 } i 17) j.ym -Dn& j:�-n1 g a 19) 20) IC ,t 21)22 , F r . i � 9 u-5f- f � 0 � i .�. � i�... �n ire, � ,inii to ,J ,{.S.l .Ii�..J_i IdAldrJ.l'�MLtlIF!iirdveY,l l,wm,i.a.•��. �. .•.. �.. .I:r,ulr'�wl��.i..lw.Ii :nirwN�.71�_r��:ii, i..•.H i.o.� .i,,�.ri,��. +ii �u �wgy�ypypp„�.„uu„w.w_ � . PETI`rION 1-le, the undersigned, oppose any plan by the Tompkins County Legislature to develop a county landfill in 11est Groton or anywhere else in the town of Groton. -Any landfill represents e thredt to the environment and our children and will surely decrease property values. ) �".'. �..,� �ti'\.,. y,. ..sG I �+�.,, p� '�}.(.�i�,. _ �� -. � \�.+n �. •Y• Stv. M�� L i�.y�R�+�� 1K �� 1w/+ � F1'�� •Wp� •� ! 3) � J� e r .j s ~� A � 5) 6), 7) i e f-S PiSTITION 1.1e, the undersigned, oppose any plan by the Tompkins County Legislature to. develop a county landfill in West Groton or anywhere else in the town of Groton. Any landfill represents a threat to the environment and our children and will surely decrease property values. r-- f, 4) J 6) Y, ; j 9 10) 11) 12) 14) f 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) • 22) L:; , �� OW GROTON 101 COMER BLVD. GROTON, NY 13073 Tompkins County Landfill Siting GROTON BENEFIT -SHARING PLAN Teresa Robinson Supervisor Town of Groton With The Assistance Of Lyle S. Raymond Jr. Water Resources Institute Corned. Center for Environmental. Research Cornell University, Ithaca, NY January 1987 i Preface The Groton Benefit -Sharing Plan was developed to offset the perceived costs associated with the presence of a landfill. These costs are divided into two categories: impacts on nearby residents and impacts. affecting the Town where it is located as a whole. There are winners and losers in the landfill siting process. The winners keep the landfill out of their neighborhood, yet keep the right to dispose of their solid wastes in it. This is a positive gain for the winners, of course, with substantial benefits. The Groton Benefit -Sharing Plan places responsibility on the winners to share their benefits .with the losing community, ' and provides a method for doing this. It is called "benefit -sharing" because there must be greater recognition that waste disposal is everyone's responsibility, not something for which a few disgruntled people are "paid off" and forgotten about. That's why calling this process a "bribe" or "compensation" is not appropriate. These terms do not convey the fact everyone is part of the waste disposal problem, and that they must directly participate in resolving it. The Groton Benefit -Sharing Plan was developed for the Town of Groton, Tompkins County, with the assistance of Lyle Raymond, Water Resources Institute, Cornell Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University. It was presented at the January 28th, 1987 meeting of the Tompkins County Solid Waste Committee. This report is in two parts. The first part is a press release that explains the rationale for the Plan and briefly summarizes its principal components. The second part is the Groton Benefit -Sharing Plan. The Town Board .i/ ERECTED �yG 1817 �o 101 Conger Boulevard Groton, N. Y. 13073 January 28, -1987_ PRESS RELEASE Town of Groton For Further Information, Contact: Teresa Robinson, Groton Town Office, Tel. 898-5035 Lyle Raymond, Cornell Center for Environmental Research, Tel. 255-5943 Homeowners near a landfill site should not have . to bear the full cost of its presence for the convenience of everyone else in the county, says Groton Supervisor Teresa Robinson. Ms Robinson feels that the day is past when a community will accept a waste disposal site without some means of sharing in the winners' gains. The winners, of course, are the people in the rest of the county who escape the presence of a landfill in their neighborhood, while keeping access to it to dispose of their garbage. Ms Robinson has developed a benefit -sharing plan to correct this inequity. The Groton benefit -sharing plan was presented to the County Solid Waste Committee at its Wednesday, January 28th , meeting at the Biggs Center. Ms Robinson says that this is definitely not an invitation to locate the landfill in Groton. The landfill must go somewhere, however. The benefit -sharing plan is -a method for asking the winners to share their gains with the losing community. The perceived losses from the presence of a landfill in the neighborhood are clearly stated by opponents and those who now live near the old sites. They include reduced property values, fears of water pollution and littering, and deterioration of the roads. • Perhaps the greatest loss is the impact on the character of the whole area, causing a reduction. in its attractiveness for future development. The most obvious losers are residents who must live near the landfill site. The second loser is the Town, for reduced development potential and increased road maintenance costs. A special one -mile district would be created around the landfill, according to the Groton plan. Special programs to mitigate fears of water pollution and reduced property values would developed in this district. Other benefits would be provided to the Town as a whole. For homes and farms within the district, water supplies would be tested for selected pollutants. As many as 30 homes and farms would be involved, at an estimated cost of $15,900 a year. Permanent outside water taps would be installed to allow water samples to be - 1 - drawn without entering the home. The installation cost for 30 homes and farms is estimated to be about $4,500. . A private water well information survey would be conducted for homes and farms within the special one -mile district. This would include all available information on the 'well supply, including well depth, type of well, types of soil and bedrock penetrated by the well, and known nearby potential pollution sources. It is suggested that the information obtained in the well' information survey should be attached to the property deed for permanent reference. The cost of this survey is estimated to be about $15,000. Ten monitoring wells would also be installed within the one -mile special district, away from the influence of residences and farmsteads. Installation cost for these wells would be about $12,000. The monitoring wells would provide additional advance warning of groundwater pollution that may affect private wells, and provide an indication of prevailing natural groundwater quality in the area for comparison with test results from private wells. These monitoring wells would be tested three times a year for selected pollutants, and once a year for priority pollutants defined by the New York State Health Department. The total estimated annual cost is about $25,000 per year. The Groton benefit -sharing plan also includes $1,325 a year for at least five annual tests for selected pollutants in streams and wetlands within two miles of the landfill site. A special road crew would patrol all roads within two miles of the landfill site at least once a week to remove all litter. The plan also suggests that this crew would engage in additional roadside grooming to ensure an esthetically pleasing roadside appearance at all times in the vicinity of the landfill site. A town landfill inspector would be employed to investigate, monitor, and report on any aspect of the landfill operation that is of concern to Town officials or town residents. This would include identification of illegal wastes being deposited in the facility. It is estimated that a roadside cleanup and grooming crew would cost $20,000 a year, and that a town landfill inspector would cost a similar amount. Nearly half of the proposed benefit -sharing budget is for water pollution concerns, roadside cleanup, and a town inspector. Ms Robinson points out that most town roads were not built to handle high volumes of heavy truck traffic. Highway maintenance costs are also the largest item in a town budget. Changes in this budget can quickly influence town tax rates. The Groton benefit -sharing plan estimates that road maintenance costs will at least double on town roads converging on the landfill site. Even if the county - 2 - provides main access roads to the' landfill, it is felt that many trucks may use town roads as shortcuts. It was estimated that at least ten percent of the town road mileage in Groton may be affected if a landfill was located in the Town. A doubling of road maintenance costs on this portion would result in an increase of around $45,000 per year in the Town highway budget.; This figure is about 10% of the total Groton highway budget, including machinery upkeep. The plan also includes a benefit -sharing program for all town residents to mitigate the general effects of a landfill in the area. A water supply assistance program for town residents would be set up through the county Cooperative Extension office. The water. supply assistance program would provide private well owners with professional advice and assistance with their water supply problems. This would include water contamination, water treatment devices, development of new water supplies, and educational programs, including public schools. This program is estimated at about $24,000 per year. The detrimental effects of the presence of a landfill on future development in the town are difficult to estimate. There is no doubt, however, that they can be substantial, affecting development patterns in large portions of the town. Another name for this loss is intangible, or hidden, costs. The Groton benefit -sharing plan includes a sum of $29,825 per year to mitigate some of- this loss. This would be an undesignated benefit item, that the Town Board would use at its discretion for the benefit of town residents. Reduced neighborhood attractiveness, resulting in reduced property values, is usually at the top of the loss list for landfill. opponents. The Groton plan proposes to tackle this question head-on, by property tax reductions. Under the plan, property owners within one-half mile of the landfill would have their taxes reduced by fifty percent. Property between one-half mile and one mile from the landfill would have a twenty-five percent tax reduction. The loss in town property taxes would be made up by payments in lieu of taxes from the county. Ms Robinson feels that property tax reduction is still not sufficient for some folks who find a landfill in their backyard. The Groton plan therefore proposes that the county should offer a voluntary buyout option for residential property within one-half mile of the landfill. The buyout option would pay 150% of the appraised pre -landfill market value for a residential parcel. Other land associated with the residential parcel would be purchased at 100% of the appraised pre -landfill market value._ The buyout option would not include commercial property, including farms. Why a buyout price at 150% of market value? The Groton plan assumes that although the sale would be voluntary, it still would not have occurred if the - 3 - landfill had not been placed there, says Ms Robinson. These folks deserve a little extra benefit from the winners who don't have to make such a decision, Ms Robinson feels. The total annual cost of the Groton benefit -sharing plan is approximately $189,000 per year. Is this justified? "We think it is," says Ms Robinson. "It is a fair estimate of the total impact of a landfill on a town." If Groton, or any other town, must accept the site, this plan is a signal to the winners who will continue to dump their garbage 'in the landfill, while avoiding the costs of having it in their backyard, that they will have to pay for the privilege by sharing the winners' benefits with the losers, says Ms Robinsion. Losers will no longer -be "bought off" by token benefits. This is the beginning of 'a new era, says Ms Robinson, in which the winners in the landfill sweepstakes must equitably share their winnings to offset the loser's costs. - 4 - Tompkins County Landfill Siting GROTON BENEFIT -SHARING PLAN Teresa Robinson Supervisor Town of Groton With The Assistance Of Lyle S. Raymond Jr. Water Resources Institute Cornell Center for Environmental Research Cornell University, Ithaca, NY January 1987 WHY HAVE A BENEFIT —SHARING PLAN? 1. Those who must live near the landfill site should not have to bear the full cost of its presence. 2. Those who do not have to live near the landfill will continue to dump their garbage in it. 3. The perceived costs of having a landfill in the neighborhood have been clearly described by opponents. Therefore 1. Substantial benefits will be gained by keeping the landfill out of the neighborhood, while keeping the right to use it for disposal of the neighborhood's garbage. 2. These benefits should be shared with the unfortunate folks who are compelled to have the landfill in their backyard. 3. They should also be shared with the -Town where it is located, which must bear the impacts on future development potential. WHAT DOES THE BENEFIT —SHARING PLAN DO? 1. It mitigates nearby residents' fears about: 1. Water Pollution, 2. Littering, and 3. Property Values 2. It mitigates general impacts on the Town concerning: 1. Highway Maintenance Costs, 2. Operation of the Landfill, and 3. Impacts on Future Development HOW WILL THE BENEFIT -SHARING PLAN WORK? 1. A special district will be created around the landfill site. 1. The district shall extend for one mile from the outer boundary of the . landfill site property line. 2. It is estimated that in Groton this district may contain up to 30 or more homes and farms. 3. Special programs for water pollution monitoring, property tax reduction and buyout options will be applied to various portions of the special district. 2. All other benefits will apply to the Town as a whole, as specified in the Plan. THE BENEFIT-SBARING PLAN 1. Private on -site water supply testing for selected pollutants: 1. Four . times a year for an estimated ten homes and farms within one-half mile of the landfill property boundary: $10,600 per year. 2. Once- a year for an estimated 20 homes and farms between one-half mile and one mile of the landfill property boundary: $5,300 per year. 3. Installation of outside water system taps to obtain water samples without the need to enter the home: $4,500, 1st year cost only. 2. On -site well supply information survey for up to 30 'or more homes and farms within the special district: $15,000, 1st year cost only. 1. The survey shall include information on type of well and depth; age of well; well driller; types of soil and bedrock penetrated and their significance; well yield; locational characteristics, including known nearby potential pollution sources; and any other available information on the -well site and the source of the water supplying the well. 3. Ten monitoring wells, located within the special district away from the influence of homes and farms: 1. installation: $12,000, 1st year cost only. 2. Testing for selected pollutants three times a year: $7,950 per year. 3. Testing for priority pollutants, as defined by the New York State Department of Health, once a year: $25,000 per year. 4. The purpose of the monitoring wells is to provide: (1) Additional advance warning of groundwater pollution that may affect private wells, and (2) An indication of prevailing natural groundwater quality in the area, for comparison with tests results from private wells. 4. Surface Water Testing: 1. Testing once a year for selected pollutants for an estimated five streams and wetlands within two miles of the landfill property boundary: $1,325 per year. - 4 - 5. Town Landfili Inspector: $20,000 per year, part-time. 1. The town inspector shall investigate, monitor and report on any aspect of the landfill operation that is of concern to Town officials or Town residents; this shall include identification of illegal wastes being deposited in the facility. 6. Roadside Cleanup and Grooming: $20,000 per year. (Estimated labor • and equipment costs) 1. Roadside cleanup patrol within two miles of the landfill site at. least once a week. 2.. Additional roadside grooming to provide an esthetically pleasing roadside appearance. 7. Increased Highway Maintenance Costs: $45,000 per year. 1. Estimated 100% increase in maintenance costs on 10% of the Town road network. Increased cost estimate is therefore approximately 10% of the 1987 road maintenance budget for the Town of Groton, including machinery upkeep. 8. Water Supply Assistance Plan for Town Residents: $24,000 per year, beginning second year. 1. This shall be a part-time position, with office and supply support. 2. This program shall be conducted through the county Cooperative Extension office. It will assist private well owners with water supply problems, including contamination, water treatment devices and development of new water supplies. It shall also include educational assistance to town residents on water supply problems, including educational programs in the public schools. 9. Mitigation of intangible, or hidden costs to Town (principally development potential impacts): 1. First Year: $22,325. 2. Succeeding Years: $29,825. 10. Reduced property taxes: 1. Fifty percent reduction of property taxes within one-half mile of landfill site boundary: County 2. Twenty-five percent reduction of property taxes for property between one-half and one mile from the landfill site boundary: County. 3. Payments in lieu of taxes shall be made to the Town to make up for reductions in Town property tax. _ 11. Buyout option: County. 1. This shall be a voluntary program offered to residential property within one-half mile of the landfill site property boundary. Commercial property, including farms, will not be eligible. 2. Purchase price shall be at 150% of appraised pre -landfill market value for residential parcels. 3. Other land associated with a residential parcel shall be purchased at 100% of the appraised pre -landfill market value. 4. The 150% buyout price is based on the assumption that the sale, although voluntary, would not have taken place in the absence of the landfill site. SUMMARY BENEFIT -SHARING PLAN TOWN OF GGROTON (Benefits to be paid on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted) 1. Water Pollution Concerns A. Continuing Program Costs $507175 Private Well Testing, $15,900 Monitoring Well Testing, $3 2, 9 5 0 Surface Water Testing, $1,325 B. First Year Only ($ 31, 5 0 0) Private Well Taps, $4,500 Private Well Survey, $15,000 Install Monitoring Wells, $12,000 2. Other Benefits Town Inspector $207000 Roadside Cleanup $207000 Highway Maintenance $457000 Water Assistance Program $249000 Undesignated Benefits First year, ($22,325) Succeeding years $299825 3. Reduced Property Tax County 4. Buyout Option County $1891000 7 Additional Notations 1. The total benefits in this Plan are equivalent to about $2.70 per ton for 70,000 tons of garbage deposited in the the Tompkins County landfill annually. The actual benefit amounts were arrived at independently of this, however. 2. These benefits shall be adjusted at least once every three years according to the federal inflation index. 3. The benefits shall be increased if . garbage from. outside the county is accepted in the landfill. The actual amount of the increase shall be negotiated, but should not be less than the equivalent of $1.00 per ton for the out -of -county garbage. BASIS FOR, COST ESTIMATES 1. Current water testing price list by a New York State certified laboratory. 2. Water Resources Institute, Cornell Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University. 3. - Information from other areas where benefit -sharing or similar programs are being used. 4. Town of Groton highway budget for 1987. 5. Estimates of current salary levels for various types of personnel stipulated in the Plan. 6. - General assessment of costs cited for having a landfill in the neighborhood or Town, various sources. - 8 - Tompkins County Landfill Siting GROTON BENEFIT -SHARING PLAN Teresa Robinson Supervisor Town of Groton January 1987 Tompkins County Landfill Siting GROTON BENEFIT -SHARING PLAN Teresa Robinson Supervisor Town of Groton January 1987 WHY HAVE A BENEFIT -SHARING PLAN? 1. Those who must live near the landfill site should not have to bear the full cost of its presence. 2. Those who do not have to live near the landfill will continue to dump their garbage in it, however. 3. The perceived costs of having a landfill in the neighborhood have been clearly described by opponents. Therefore I. If the landfill is kept out of the neighborhood, the substantial costs associated with its presence become benefits that have been gained. 2. These benefits should be shared with the unfortunate folks who are compelled to have the landfill in their backyard. 3. They should also be shared with the Town where it is located, which must bear impacts on future development potential. _ 2 WHAT DOES THE BENEFIT -SHARING PLAN DO? 10 It mitigates nearby residents' fears about: is Water Pollution, 2. Littering, and 3. Property Values 2. It mitigates general impacts on the Town concerning: 1. Highway maintenance costs, 2. Operation of the landfill, and 3. Impacts on future development - 3 - HOW WILL THE BENEFIT -SHARING PLAN WORK? I. A special district will be created around the landfill site. 1. The district shall extend for one mile from the outer boundary of the landfill site property line. 2. It is estimated that in Groton this district may contain up to 30 homes and farms or more. 3. Special programs for water pollution monitoring, property tax reduction and buyout options will be applied to various portions of the special district. 20 All other benefits will apply to the Town as a whole, as specified in the Plan. - 4 - a WHAT ARE THE BENEFIT'S? 1. Water Pollution Monitoring: 1. Water supply testing for residents within the district. 2. A well information survey for residents within the district. 3. Establishing additional monitoring wells. 4. Water pollution testing in nearby streams and wetlands. 2. Reduced Property Values and Littering: 1. Creating a special roadside cleanup and grooming crew. 2. Reduction in property taxes near the landfill site. 3. A buyout option for residential property near the site. E rl 3. Highways and Hidden Costs to the Town: 1. Assistance with increased highway maintenance costs. 2. A Town Inspector to monitor operation of the landfill. 3. A water supply assistance program for Town residents. 4. Undesignated assistance to the Town to mitigate hidden costs. �� THE BENEFIT -SHARING PLAN 1. Private on -site water supply testing for selected pollutants: 1. Four times a year for an estimated ten homes and farms within one-half mile of the landfill property boundary: $10,600 per year. 2. Once a year for an estimated 20 homes and farms between one-half mile and one mile of the landfill property boundary: $5,300 per year. 3. Installation of outside water system taps to obtain water samples without the need to enter the home: $4,500, Ist year cost only. 2. On -site well supply information survey: $15,000, Ist year cost only. 0 1. The survey shall include information on type of -well and depth; age of well; well driller (if known); types of soil and bedrock penetrated and their significance; well yield; locational characteristics, including known nearby potential pollution sources; and any other available information on the well site and the source of the water supplying the well. - 7 - 3. Ten monitoring wells, located within the district away from the influence of homes and farms: 1. Installation: $12,000, lst year cost only. 2.. Testing for selected pollutants three times a year: $7,950 per year. 3. Testing for priority pollutants, as defined by the New York State Department of Health, once a year: $25,000 per year. 4. The purpose of the monitoring wells is to (1) provide additional advance warning of groundwater pollution that may affect private wells, and (2) provide an indication of prevailing natural groundwater quality in the area, for comparison with tests results from private wells. 4. Surface Water Testing: 1. Testing once a year for selected pollutants for an estimated five streams and wetlands within two miles of the landfill property boundary: $1,325 per year. 5. Town Landfill Inspector: $20,000 per. year, part-time. 1. The town inspector shall investigate, monitor and report on any aspect of the landfill operation that is of concern to Town officials or Town residents; this shall include identification of illegal wastes being deposited in the facility. ` 6. Roadside Cleanup and Grooming: $20,000 per year. (Estimated labor and equipment costs) 1. Roadside cleanup patrol within two miles of the landfill site at least once a week. 2. Additional roadside grooming to provide an esthetically pleasing roadside appearance. 7. Increased Highway Maintenance Costs: $45,000 per year. 1. Estimated 100% increase in maintenance costs on 10% of the Town road network. Increase cost estimate is therefore approximately 10% of the 1987 road maintenance budget for the Town of Groton, including machinery upkeep. 8. Water Supply Assistance Plan for Town Residents: $24,000 per year, beginning second year. 1. This shall be a part-time position, with office and supply support. 2. This program shall be conducted through the county Cooperative Extension office. It will assist private well owners with water supply problems, including contamination, water treatment devices and development of new water supplies. It shall also include educational assistance to town residents on water supply problems, including the public schools. - 10 - 9. Mitigation of Hidden Costs to Town: 1. First Year: $22,325. 2. Succeeding Years: $29,825. z 10. Reduced Property Taxes: 1. Fifty percent reduction of property taxes within one-half mile of landfill site boundary: County 2. Twenty-five percent reduction of property taxes for property between one-half and one mile from the landfill site boundary: County. 3. Payments in lieu of taxes shall be made to the Town to make up for reductions in Town property tax. 11. Buyout Option: County. 1. This shall be a voluntary program offered to residential property only within one-half mile of the landfill site property boundary. 2. Purchase price shall be at 150% of appraised pre -landfill market value for residential parcels. 3. Other land associated with a residential parcel shall be purchased at 100% of the appraised pre -landfill market value. 4. The 150% buyout price is based on the assumption that the sale, although voluntary, would not have taken place in the absence of the landfill site. BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATES 1. Current water testing price list by a New York State certified laboratory. 2. Cornell Center for Environmental Research. 3. Information on other areas where benefit -sharing is being used. 4. Town of Groton Highway Budget for 1987. 5. Estimates of current salary levels for various types of personnel stipulated in the Plan. 6. General assessment of costs cited for having a landfill in the neighborhood or Town, various sources. - 12 - SUMMARY BENEFIT -SHARING PLAN TOWN OF GROTON (Annual Cost Estimates, Unless Otherwise Noted) 1. Water Pollution Concerns A. Continuing Program Costs $501,175 Private Well Testing, $15, 9 0 0 Monitoring Well Testing, $32,950 Surface Water Testing, $1,325 B. First Year Only ($31,500) Private Well Taps, $4, 5 0 0 Private Well Survey, $15,000 Install Monitoring Wells, $12,000 2. Other Benefits Town Inspector $20,000 Roadside Cleanup $20 000 Highway Maintenance $457000 Water Assistance Program $24,000 Undesignated Benefits First year, ($22,325) Succeeding years $297825 3. Reduced Property Tax County 4. Buyout Option County $1899000 _ 13 _ 3 Additional Notations 1. The total benefits in this Plan are equivalent to about $2.70 per ton for • . 70,000 tons of garbage deposited in the landfill annually. The actual benefits were arrived at independently of this, however. i 2. These benefits shall be adjusted at least once every three years according to the federal inflation index. 3. The benefits shall be increased if garbage from outside the county is accepted in the landfill. The actual amount of the increase shall be negotiated, but should not be less than the equivalent of $1.00 per ton for the out -of -county garbage. ., - - . _..,_-...._.. ._. -_ • -- -„_.,� •+s,•.� ..a.�.:.............�io...ca ... .r•s-,' +"...P .C:2 .....:.v^� ..� .,.^:--�.^ r sa-sY_c^�era,�-c-.�e�*•.. °.—. d...:�.'""`:1T::7`.r.:_°r'.$t.,.``�`:...'y�.*CF.•�^C."•C^•�'w ::rra+ms tC :z w�-rrweruwn`.•.ar.n+ci. : - - CF GRGp� y EREGTEQ t� The Tov�n- Board ; t 18 � T r� oven= of Groton_= NI�sElk L couMs'�� - 101 Conger Boulevard - - - -G roton,-N. Y; 13073 RESOLUTION .NO-. 3 =- -OPPOSITION TO LANDFILL BEING LOCATED IN THE - TOWN OF GROTON Moved by Mr. Sovocool, seconded by Mr..Cummings _ Ayes-- Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Cummings, Graham, Robinson WHEREAS a petition Eas been presented to the Town Board,- signed by over 350 residents of the Town opposing any plan by the Tompkins County Legislature to locate anew landfill dump in West Groton or anywhere else -in the Town of Groton,_= = RESOLVED, that the Town Board record its unalterable opposition to the location -of anyy'such landfill dump within the boundaries of the Town of Groton because_ of its deleterious affect on the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Groton with specific regard to increased water pollution, increased highway maintenance costs, depression of real property values and the disasterous affect it would have in future development in a Town which is already one of the most depressed Towns in the County of Tompkins, and j_ FURTHER RESOLVED that -a copy of this resolution be distributed to each member of the Tompkins County Legislature. - State of New York Count.*! of Tompkins ss ; Town of Groton I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of a resolution adopted by the Groton Town Board on the 10th day of February, 1987. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto ` • • - set my hand and affixed the seal of the Board .at Groton, . New York, this ' - 12th day of February, 1987. t�►rti �� },�� ! ►' Colleen D. Pierson, Town Clerk Town of Groton Resolution �9 12 COMPENSATION PLAN FOR HOSTING THE TOMPKI NS COUNTY LANDFILL Whereas, the municipality is opposed to hosting the landfill as expressed in Resolution # 11 of March 9, 1987; and Whereas, Tompkins County must construct a new landfill somewhere within it borders, i.e within a particular Town; and Whereas, those who live in the rest of the County will use the new site without suffering the disadvantages posed by its close proximity; and Whereas, those who must live near the landfill site should not have to bear the full cost of the disadvantages of its presence; and, Whereas, the townspeople will have fears of water pollution, littering and decreased property values; and, Whereas, the Town hosting the landfill will have many added costs to bear, i.e. increased.highway maintenance, depressed property values and future development etc; and, Whereas, there is great uncertainty of what future impacts the landfill may have on the health and safety of present and future generations of townspeople; therefore Be It Resolved that the Town Board of Danby, will seek, on behalf of the host municipality, the following concessions and compensation from the rest of Tompkins County: Concessions: 1. that the County drill and monitor frequently, a number of wells in the immediate vicinity of the landfill site. 2. that the County provide monitoring of wells periodically on a permanent basis for those residents in the Town where the ground water may be affected by the landfill. 3. that the County provide for highway maintenance and roadside cleanup of the main routes to and from the landfill site. 4. that in case ground (well) water contamination should occur,the County would provide potable water to town residents so affected. S. that the County provide for an abatement of Town taxes, especially to those residents whose property. values .are severely impacted by the presence of the landfill. 6. that the County negotiate a buyout plan for property (at a rate of 150% of 'fair market value') to compensate the owner for property value loss and to provide a buffer zone around the site. 7. that the County provide a qualified person, from the host town, to inspect the landfill site ( including what is being dumped there), to enforce regulations at the site, and to inspect roads leading to and from the site on a daily basis. Comaensation: 1. that the Town be paid a tipping fee of $2.00/tan of fill deposited at the site. One—half of which will be plated in a trust fund to help pay for future unforeseen impacts on the quality of life and property values that may be caused by the landfill. The remainder will be used to offset impacts to the Town butt caused by the presence of the landfill. Finally, the Town reserves the right to adjust these conditions every two years. March 9, 1987 a Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Committee SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT #5 Tompkins County is continuing Jts study of prospective landfill sites and options to reduce the volume of waste requiring landfilling. Phase II of the Solid Waste Management Program began this spring. This phase includes on -site investigations and environmental assessments of. candidate site areas previously identified as suitable for landfill development from the Phase I study. The volume reduction techniques of materials recycling, composting, and baling, are being evaluated in detail to determine the feasibility of their application in Tompkins County. The feasibility of operating transfer station (s) within the County to facilitate the delivery of solid waste to the disposal site is. also being examined in this phase. LANDFILL SITING STUDY On -site Landfill Investigations include the excavation of test pits, performing . resistivity surveys, and drilling test borings. With the use of a backhoe, .test pits are dug up to fifteen feet in depth. The exposed soils are sampled and observed to determine their suitability for constructing and operating a landfill. The test pits also provide information on the presence of shallow bedrock and ground water conditions which ;may impact landfill development suitability. Resistivity surveys provide a means for deeper subsurface exploration by electrical measurements taken at the surface of the earth. Electrical current is caused to flow into the ear. th through a pair of electrodes pushed into the ground surface. The resulting voltage drop produced by this current in the earth is measured across a second pair of electrodes. Since some earth materials are better conductors of electricity than others., the voltage drop will be affected differently by varying subsurface conditions. The interpretation of electrical resistivity readings allows for assessing the depth to bedrock and thickness of overlying soil layers. During the drilling program, deep soil samples are collected to verify subsurface soil types and wells are installed by which ground water elevations can be monitored. The soil samples collected are retained for laboratory analyses. Other. field and laboratory tests' give detailed information on soil properties. All of the investigations and testing assist the engineers in determining the impact of subsurface conditions on landfill development for a candidate. site. s3 A Baseline Environmental Resource Inventory of each candidate site area found to have suitable subsurface conditions is being conducted to evaluate potential impacts. Physical/chemical resources, biological resources, aesthetics, and social and economic factors are all being considered in the inventory. All aspects of possible landfill development at a site will be examined to identify any positive o_ r negative impacts which may arise, as well as measures to mitigate negative impacts. Specific public concerns as they develop from public comment are being included in this evaluation. LANDFILL IMPACT/OFFSETS 1Nl:T1ALL PROGRAM The Tompkins County Board of Representatives has recently passed Resolution Nos. 156 and 157 which attempt to lessen the hardships for impacted neighbors living near a landfill. The Resolutions address the following items: * Maintenance of Landfill Site and Approach Roads * Formation of a Citizen's Advisory Committee * Establishment of Off -site Baling of Solid Waste * Conducting an Off -site Well Monitoring Program * Commitment to Materials Recycling * Reductions to Property Value Assessment * Compensation to Impacted Land Owners * Compensation to Impacted Municipalities * Consideration of Tipping Fees Copies of Resolutions Nos. 156 and 157 are available at the following locations: Town, Village, and City Halls Tompkins County Public Library, 312 N Cayuga Street, Ithaca, NY Cooperative Extension Office, 615 Willow Avenue, Ithaca, NY Board of Representatives Office, Courthouse, 320 N Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY Following the selection of a landfill site, the County will develop a site - specific impact/offsets program. VOLUME REDUCTION STUDY The Volume Reduction Study of Phase Il in the Solid Waste Management Program focuses, on three aspects: recycling, composting, and baling. The Recycling Study includes determining the quantities of recycleable materials available in the County, evaluating alternative collection and processing techniques including source separation and front-end separation, identifying potential markets and processing needs for recoverable materials, and developing a recycling implementation plan. The Composting Study involves determining materials available for composting and evaluating various techniques. The Baling Study consists of identifying the quantities of baleable waste generated in the County, evaluating alternate baling system facilities and layouts, and determining the transportation requirements for a baling facility. Input is being received from the County's permitted waste haulers and meetings are being planned with major waste generators in the County. TRANSFER STATION EVALUATION The concept of one or more transfer stations is being investigated as part of Phase II. Potential transfer service areas, capital and operating costs for facilities, and potential environmental impacts of a transfer station are being examined. The economic analysis includes a comparison of the costs of utilizing a transfer system versus the costs for direct haul of waste to a landfill. LEACHATE TREATMENT AND COMPOSTING STUDIES Tompkins and Allegany Counties will jointly undertake a Landfill Leachate Mana ement Project partially funded by the New York State Energy Research and development Authority (NYSERDA) . The project is anticipated to take two years to complete. The objective of this project is to evaluate an innovative system that utilizes water plants to treat leachate. The County is initiating a Composting Study, also funded by NYSERDA. The project will evaluate the feasibility of composting municipal sewage sludge and yard wastes from the municipal solid waste stream. Compost utilization will be explored, including the use of the compost to produce a quick growing turf grass. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM Under the direction of the Solid Waste Management Committee, Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County is offering and is continuing to offer a session entitled "Solid Waste: What Can Be Done?" to municipalities and public service groups in the County interested in learning more about solid waste management issues. The purpose of these sessions is to provide basic information on landfilling , volume reduction, and considerations for offsetting impacts of landfill development. Municipalities and public service groups interested in scheduling such a session may contact Ann Mathews of the Cooperative Extension at 272-2292. FIVE -COUNTY WASTE -TO -ENERGY STUDY Tompkins County is meeting on a regular basis with Chemung , Schuyler, Steuben, and Tioga Counties to discuss the possible future implementation of a multi- county waste -to -energy study. A Resolution is being prepared to formally organize a committee. This project may develop into a solid waste management option for the County during the next decade. Should you need clarification on any of the items discussed, please contact the Tompkins County Planning Department at (607) 274-5360. 16 ,w' TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING BIGGS CENTER BUILDING A 1283 TRUMANSBURG ROAD ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 (607) 274-5360 Colleen Pierson Groton Town Clerk 101 Conger Boulevard Groton, ors, NY 13073 • .. pq.° u�.j.POSTAG rJUL17'87 e2 B,METEA 3342825 �c i •'yew Tip: ��'' Tompkins County Solid Taste Management Committee SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT #6 OVERVIEW OF PHASE I � J In. February, 1987, Phase I of the Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Program was completed. This phase consisted of a landfill siting and volume reduction study. The landfill siting study was completed in three steps. The first step identified areas within the entire county that did not satisfy minimum requirements for various physical land characteristics and site development factors. The second step identified areas that, while generally incompatible with landfill development, could be further considered in the event that suitable sites could not be found in the remainder of the county. The regions identified as having the highest potential for landfill development were further evaluated with respect to specific suitability factors incorporating geological; developmental, and, operational considerations associated with landfill design. A total of 23 candidate site areas were identified and rated with respect to suitability for landfill development. Phase I was completed. using available existing information.. It was recommended that the potential. of the site areas be confirmed and further explored in Phase II through on -site investigations. In the volume reduction study, several methods for reducing the volume of waste requiring landfilling were explored, including waste -to -energy systems,. materials recovery and 'recycling, composting, and baling. From a review of existing operations, economic factors, and the nature of the county, it was recommended that recycling, co -composting of sewage sludge and yard wastes, and baling technologies be further explored in Phase II. PHASE II LANDFILL SITING STUDY At the direction of the Solid Waste Management Committee, Phase II investigations were conducted on eight of the candidate site areas for which right -of —entry was secured. These -sites included DR-2, DR-3, DR-4, and DR-7 in the Town of Dryden; EN-2 and EN-3 in the Town of Enfield; and GR-2 and GR-3 in the Town of. Groton. The investigations followed. a systematic approach in that the simpler, least costly methods of investigation were accomplished first,- thereby allowing for the early termination of field work at sites where unfavorable conditions were. encountered. Investigations generally proceeded in the following order: site reconnaissance; excavation of test pits; electrical resistivity surveys; drilling of borings and ground water observation wells; laboratory analysis of soil properties; site development evaluations; environmental impact assessments; and development of ,:capital, operational, and maintenance cost estimates. -v Investigation of DR-4, EN-2, GR-2, and GR-3 stopped following completion of - the electrical resistivity surveys'because of shallow bedrock and/or shallow ground water conditions: Because of the marginally suitable depth to bedrock ._:icountered during on -site drilling, subsequent investigation of DR-3 was nct :, -?ucted. Complete investigations performed on DR-2, DR-7, and EN-3 determined each site to be suitable for landfill development. All three sites were found to have good soil conditions consisting of glacial till having relatively low permeability. Due to this low soil permeability, all three sites have shallow depths to ground water and will require a ground water control system as part of site development. Other features common to DR-2 and DR=7 are the gently sloping topography, requiring special attention to surface drainage, and good, deep depth to bedrock. All three sites are situated in a rural residential/agricultural setting. DR-7 and EN-3 have somewhat higher residential population in adjacent areas, and, therefore, would likely have .a s?lightly greater potential for noise, odor, visual, and other people -related impacts.. EN-3 would have the greatest impact on - tra f f Yc . - DR-2 and DR-7 each could be developed to handle the County's landfill needs, disposing of residual material following recycling, composting, and baling, for 20 years or more. EN-3 could be developed with a life of about 14 years. Although site specific characteristics would require somewhat different development procedures at each site, the difference in overall cost to develop and operate the three sites does not appear to be significant. Annual costs including facility operation and maintenance and capital amortization would be about $35 per ton of waste landfilled.. BALING AND TRANSFER The Phase II study included an evaluation of the costs and benefits associated with utilizing solid waste transfer facilities and a consideration of utilizing baling facilities for the reduction in volume of materials requiring disposal that are not recycled or composted. Transfer offers the ability to reduce vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the new landfill, thereby helping to reduce impacts on neighboring residents. Baling offers the additional benefits of reducing blowing papers, potential odors, and other adverse impacts. Transfer alternatives include part -county and full transfer,'in comparison to direct haul options. Part -county transfer options refer to those options in which the waste generated in municipalities in close proximity to the landfill is hauled directly to the landfill, while waste generated in the remaining municipalities is transported to a baling and/or transfer facility. Full transfer refers to -those options in which all of the waste, with the possible exception of large quantities of non-baleable material such as construction and demolition debris, is hauled to a centrally -located baling and/or transfer station. The costs per ton for the transfer alternatives ranged from $8.94 to $9.78 while direct haul costs range from $5.94 to $7.20 per ton. Baling alternatives include the installation of baling equipment at the site of a central transfer facility, a baling station located at the landfill site, and baling facilities located at both a part -county transfer station and the landfill. The cost for the first alternative'was found to be the least costly at $9.24 per ton. Potential locations for a baling and/or transfer facility would be in the vicinity of the City of Ithaca along the Route 13 corridor.. MATERIALS RECOVERY, RECYCLING, AND COMPOSTING Materials recovery, recycling, and composting were further evaluated in Phase II as a means for reducing the volume of waste material requiring disposal in the County. Development of the recycling plan included a compilation of waste quantities, along with demographic and geographic data. A 1987•annual total tonnage of solid waste for the County is estimated at 71,164. Demographic information for- each municipality included population, acreage, number of households, commercial and industrial acreage, and total miles of city and town roads. The feasibility of collecting recyclables set out by- homeowners at the roadside (curbside collection) was evaluated on the basis of a sufficient density of households from which'a collection truck could be kept busy with pick-up of the area. An alternative to curbside collection is unattended drop-off collection. of recyclable materials. Curbside collection currently appears feasible in the City and 'Toown of Ithaca, the Village of Cayuga Heights, the Village of Lansing, the Town of Ulysses, and the Village of Trumansburg. Municipalities indic tinpossible future curbside collection feasibility include the Town of Dryen; the Villages of Dryden and Freeville, the .Town of Groton, and the Village of Groton. Additional areas, for which unattended drop-off collection is currently the more feasible method for recovering recyclables; may *be considered for curbside collection in the future as demographics in the County change. The market survey identified markets in several states and. Canada for recyclable glass, paper, plastics, and metals. The survey also established market specifications and processing requirements, minimum quantities, anticipated market prices, and potential contract terms. Based upon the quantity of recyclables in the county and the available markets, the following items appear to be feasible for collection in the recycling plan: newspaper, corrugated cardboard, office paper, glass, and rigid plastic bottles. In order to meet market standards, some limited processing of the recyclables will be required, including baling of paper and plastic. Glass processing equipment will include a sorting line, a crusher, magnetic separators, and screening. Both the baling and glass processing operations can be located in a separate materials handling facility or incorporated into a centrally located baling and/or transfer station. Implementation of the recycling plan is recommended in three stages: Pilot, Stage I, and Stage II. The purpose of.the Pilot Stage program -is to test collection efficiencies and participation rates. Two Pilot alternatives exist: Alternate 1 involves only curbside collection of newspapers and glass from selected municipalities and Alternate 2 includes unattended drop-off collection of newspaper and glass in addition to the Alternate 1 curbside collection. The purpose of Alternate 2 is to extend recycling efforts to a greater part of the county early on in the Recycling Program. Stage I. scheduled to coincide with the opening of the recycling processing facility, includes two features: (1) curbside collection of recyclables in all those municipalities for which curbside collection is currently feasible and (2) unattended .drop-off collection of paper and glass. Stage.II, suggested for implementation 'twelve to eighteen months after implementation of Stage I., is expected to further extend curbside collection to the full list of municipalities indicating both current and possible future curbside collection feasibility. Based on expected recovery rates of 75% for newspaper, glass, and plastic from curbside collection, 20% for newspaper and glass from unattended drop- off, and 50% for commercial recyclable materials, the recyclable portion of these materials represents about 20% of the solid waste stream, at this time. The program will remain flexible to respond to market and demographic fluctuations which_ may allow for a greater recyclable percentage. The net cost of recycling, including both annual costs and expected revenues, is about $26 per ton of material recycled exclusive of the cost of transporting the materials to market. Composting was also evaluated as a means of reducing the volume of sewage sludge and leaves and yard wastes requiring landfilling. Windrow composting has a high potential for odor problems and unproven success in climates 'such as Tompkins County. In -vessel composting, while offering the greatest amcSsnt of process control, is -associated with high costs (about $91 per ton o} sludge composted) and is unable to accommodate leaves and yard wastes. Aerated static pile co -composting of leaves, yard wastes, and sewage sludge offers some degree of process control, requires less space -than windrew composting, has lowercapital and annual costs than in -vessel systems, and reduces the volume of both sludge and leaves and yard wastes requiring landfilling. Research into implementing aerated static pile composting J.,s currently being undertaken with the New York State Energy and Resear.c-b Development Authority (NYSERDA). OVERALL PHASE II SUMMARY Three prospective and sites have been identified which should be able to be permitted under the current NYSrbeoyA tment of Environmental Conservation regulations. A centrally located transfer/baling station -offers advantages that should positively influence the siting of a landfill and -enhance the overall operation of the County's solid waste management program. Recycling on a county -wide basis can reduce the quantity of material requiring landfilling by an estimated 20%. The cost of incorporating these waste management programs into an integrated system for Tompkins County is estimated at $44 per ton. Tompkins County 1' Department of Planning Biggs Building A 301 Dates Drive _ L Ithaca, NY 14850 t� (607) 274-5360 Colleen Pierson Groton Town Clerk 101 Conger Boulevard Grot or,, NY 13073 Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Committee J UPIVI I5 7988 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT.PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT #7. Tompkins. County is actively pursuing the development of a new county 'landfill, and techniques for reducing the volume of waste that will be brought -to this landfill. Phase III of the Solid Waste Management Program began in February. .This phase includes a-Hydrogeologic Investigation,.Design, and preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement .for Site DR-7,. which was.. selected by the County Board of Representatives as the preferred landfill site for the county. The. Volume Reduction portion of the program includes the development of a Central Processing'Facility .(CPF),. which will serve as a. -central transfer station. incorporating recycling and baling,.and the implementation planning for a'pilot-scale recycling program. LANDFILL SITING STUDY After selecting Site DR-7, located between Wood Road, Caswell Road, and' West Dryden Road, as the preferred landfill site. in. the county on December 7, 1987, the Tompkins County Board of Representatives authorized.O'Brien & Gere Engineers to further investigate the site's suitability as a landfill and to prepare preliminary landfill site design drawings for State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) purposes. A-' hydrogeologic investigation is being conducted to determine the landfill site geology and hydrology, and to relate these factors to regional and local hydrogeologic. patterns. The proposed field. program includes a detailed. evaluation of the site surface and subsurface conditions through geophysical surveys, test pits, soil borings, and groundwater monitoring wells. An electro-magnetic (EM) survey will be performed to provide an areal evaluation of shallow soils. Electrical .resistivity surveys will,also'be conducted, to supplement previous surveys completed during Phase II to determine the depth to bedrock areally over the site. Information obtained from the resistivity surveys will provide a vertical evaluation of soils across the entire site. Test pits will -be excavated. to verify.and correlate the EM survey data and to supplement previously,.' obtained 'shallow* subsurface. information. Additional soil. r borings and groundwater monitoring wells will be installed across the site to verify the resistivity data and further evaluate site -wide hydrogeology. Soil samples, collected during the excavation of the.test pits and the installation of the borings,. will. be analyzed in the laboratory to determine soil. characteristics.. Monitoring of installed. on -site wells . and surface waters will be conducted. ' for flow and water. quality to relate stream .flow to groundwater discharge. SCOPING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Tompkins County, as Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed.. sanitary landfill.,- has. called for the preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the State Environmental Quality -Review Act (SEAR). The .first step toward preparation of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS) for this project involved a process known as 'scoping'. Scoping is a way of identifying the questions and comments that involved agencies and interested citizens have about a particular project.. A preliminary outline of the dEIS.for Tompkins County's proposed landfill at site DR-7 in.. -Dryden was developed in January for review. by involved agencies and the public..- A meeting was held. with..representatives of the New York State Department of* Environmental Conservation. (DEC) to solicit their comments on the dEIS outline, or scope. DEC comments were incorporated- into. a revised outline, which was then. made available to the public through the information depositories for this project. A formal public scoping:meeting was held in. the NYSEG �auditoriumon February 4,. 1988 where verbal comments on the scope 'and 'content of the outline were received. Written comments about issues of concern were accepted through the month of February: The questions and comments. raised by agencies and the public. during the scoping process have been incorporated intoa revised outline which -.will -govern preparation of the dEIS. Many questions were asked.about the impacts of,the proposed landfill on ground water, surface water, property values, wildlife and vegetation,' traffic, and other issues of concern. These and other topics will be addressed in the dEIS. It .is expected that the dEIS will be made public later this spring, .and. there will be formal opportunities for public review and comment of the document, including a thirty -day. public -comment period, and a public hearing. In addition to other field studies, the dEIS will be supported by the hydrogeologic investigation report,• preliminary design drawings, and engineering report.. VOLUME.REDUCTION STUDY on December 7, 1987, the Board of 'Representatives passed .a resolution. to • implement baling, . transfer,..and . recycling..as soon -as possible in: the county. In..order.to accommodate this resolution,. O I.Br.ien & : Gere ., Engineers,:: along with .. .Recourse Systems, is evaluating several options for the... development of. a. Central • Processing . Facility (CPF) and' implementing -a.pilot scale recycling. program.. Because the CPF will house transfer, baling,:, and •recycling.. opera.tions., there. are a number of possible comb.inat•ions_ for operation and,.:. -ownership;. the.-CPF may be privately. and/or publicly... .operated and/or, -owned.*.'Potential vendors have . been contacted.. in 'order to determine their level..of interest in the project. In addition;` sites -located. 'in the Ithaca population center are 'currently being assessed as,to their suitability -- for. thepotential• .location of. the CPF. .BACK-UP .SITE TESTING The Board of Representatives determined the need to. conduct testing' of additional sites, not previously,.tested, that could potentially serve as .back-up..sh.oul.d Site DR-7 be•.found. unsuitable for landfill' development.. Available background data and - information" is being reviewed and aria. initial ..field_ a ,-. . reconnaissance ..is .being conducted .,on eight candidate •.site's.;;}Y to'. identify potential' constraints or ' restrictions -for +.. landfill development. :.These back-up sites ;'consist...: of:the.: following: CA-1, in the.. Town. of. Caroline on..South 'Road:. opposite Gulf Creek Road :. CA-2 , -in the' Town of Caroline .on • Level . G-reen Road and Goodrich Hill Road.; DR-9, in the Town of Dryden on Mineah.Road.north of Mount Pleasant Road GR-5, : in the Town of•• Groton . south. of ' Sovoc'ool Hill Road and east .of Cobb Street GR-6, in. the Town of Groton south of Buck Road •and . east of Cobb Street. LA-4., in the Town of 'Lansing west of _Snushall Road between County Line'Road and Fenner. Road .. 'SL=1, State Land. in, • the*.' Town of Danby.. west of T.ravor Road between'Hill Road and'Peter Road SL-2, State- Land in`the Town of Caroline along Central Chapel Road south of Bald.Hill School Road For those sites- not found to have. any readily' apparent limitations with respect to landfill development, a baseline environmental resource inventory will'be'conducted'. Sites without limiting ...environmental'factors will be field tested.- Field investigations , will:., be .conducted in the . sequence'.. of test it. excavations electrical q P ►`.. Y surveys, and. boring• . installations, with the undertaking of • each subsequent ..step.' dependent*upon.favorable results from the•preceding:.task.. 4t. CITIZENS ADVISORY.COMMITTEE Recognizing negative impacts that may relate to sound, sight, smell, water and air quality, traffic, business or farm loss,. property values,- and lost tax revenue upon the neighborhood .around Landfill Site DR-7, the- Board of Representatives passed Resolution No. 27 - "Creation of Citizens Advisory Committee [CAC] to -Advise on Landfill Design, Operation,. and Closure! Preparation. of a Compensation Plan; --and Environmental Impact Statement." This resolution established the CAC for the purpose of giving advise to the Solid Waste Management Committee during the planning and design phases, operation and maintenance, and after closure of the landfill at Site DR-7. ' w The -following people have been.appointed.as members of the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee: Daniel Winch ... ......- . . . -,.Corvnty of Tompkins Brian Earle .... ............Neighborhood Charles Evans..............Town of Dryden William Hayes..............Neighborhood Harry Kerr ....... Roger Lampi-la..............Town of Dryden Amari Meader.. ............ ..Neighborhood Sandra Prugh ... ........... .Neighborhood Ronald Space...............At-large Nancy Ten Kate ........0...... Neighborhood Robin Yengo................Village of Freeville The following people are ex-officio members of the committee: John Andersson.............Director of Environmental Health W. Donald Cooke ............ Cornell University Barbara Eckstrom........... Solid Waste Manager Donald Franklin ............. Director of Assessment 'Frank Liguori ..............Commissioner of Planning William Mobbs..............Commissioner of Public Works ,"j'{dq� Tompkins County (COVER ,` �� 14'88 Department of Planning �' a Qd�r Ss a Y I $ o Biggs Building A ,�., d ��, M TCR 301 Dates Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 274-5630. Colleen Pierson Groton Town Clerk 101 Conger Boulevard Groton, NY � 13073 G a Tompkins County Solid Waste- Management CommitteeLeon . ' IYIYY � IY YII I}u Y�i,Y.Y �. lil Yi I I YI�YI ..IY, .II.I II ,i� Ili I I YIYI1 I.Y I •III I I � .1 . 111 YI I • IIILII {�„I IL7 4111 YB LY Y. UG SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT #8' The Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Committee has explored various alternatives for the management 'of solid' wastes generated within the county. The reports entitled "'So -lid Waste Management Program - Phase I Volume Reduction Study" and I'SolidWaste Management Program - Phase II" present information on the volAme�'- r,eduction studies completed to date. The benefits of.' waste volume reduc ;a;,on were identified from the Phase .I investigations, and. baling' and;cling were among the techniques recommended for the County. The ;Phase II investigations indicated the additional benefit of incorporatir:g these two techniques at a single processing facility centrally_ located in the county. The Central. Processing Facility (CPF). will function in several. capacities: (1) as a transfer station to minimize the number of vehicles traveling to the proposed landfill site. All wastes, with the exception of large quantities ( greater than • five' cubic yards ) ' of construction and ..,demolition material and other, non-baleable materials, will be delivered to. the CPF instead of the landfill. At the CPF, materials to. be landfilled.will be consolidated and transported to the landfill on large -capacity trucks;. (2) as a balinq facility to compress non -recyclable wastes into bales, thereby physically reducing_ the volume of waste material to be landfilled and enhancing the. overall_landfill operation; and (3) as. a recyclinq facility for processing, handling,. '.and temporary storage of recyclable materials. As a main artery in the City of Ithaca, the NYS Route 13 corridor was identified in' -the-Phase II report as the most practical location for the construction - -of the ; j@PF,: �. -Eleven potential sites generally within the r ..�..�r .,:' Route 13 . �Cb`tridor we're. identified for evaluation. . From the eleven sites evaluated,:;'::the Ithaca ,'Indu•strial Park site was selected by the Tompkins •-=_yY6 County Board, of Representatives as the preferred CPF site. The City of Ithaca Common-` Council. has' also supported further 'consideration of this r..,site. The. proposed CPF site is located on Third Street Extension off NYS Route 13 in the City. of Ithaca, south. of.,,, the..: City of Ithaca Waste Water Treatment Plant and east of the Cayuga Inlet. The property is currently owned by the City of Ithaca and. is undeveloped;.: although a small portion of the site is used for the Community -Gardens, .Approximately half of 'the site is occupied by. a. New York State Electriq-•, and Gas (NYSEG) right -of.- way for overhead transmission 'lines. Other portions of the site have - been used .for-:6stockpiling -soil excavated in connection with. City construction projects. I A draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS) will be prepared .to identify and evaluate: potential environmental impacts of the solid waste management-. program,, including the proposed CPF at the_Ithaca Industrial Park Site'. The dEIS will include a description of the proposed project, discussion of alternatives, identification of possible impacts on the environment, and description.of ways that the -impacts can be reduced. A separate dEIS addressing the proposed landfill* site DR-7 has already been prepared and will -be incorporated.by reference. Specific - comments expressed by interested parties -can be' very helpful in determining the "scope" or extent of study needed to make sure that the. dEIS contains sufficient information about the project to perform an environmental review.. For this reason.• a -public scoping.meeting will be held... The purpose of this 'scoping meeting will be to receive written and oral. - comments from all interested parties regarding the scope of the dEIS. County representatives and. their consultants will be pres.ent-.to listen and record all scoping comment;. .*Copies of the -proposed scope, or outl=i.n-e, ---of- .the dEIS-are available- . €o-, review L for-- to- the r�ee r, rgr-tlat: the —__- following _.locations: ,Tompkins ,Luny Library, -Tompkins County -Cooperative'Extension Office, and the City of Ithaca City Hall. * MEETING NOTICE * Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Committee *. announces a'. * PUBLIC S.COPING MEETING * on the * draft Environmental ,Impact 'Statement - * for the Solid Waste Management Prograiri * (excluding the landfill siting evaluations) 7 : 30 p.m..., Thursday, August 25, 1988. * Women's Community Building 100 W'. Seneca Street * Ithaca, New York 14850 f,* JG * ui:.,F%it •' yr%- y G -,. Tompkins County �',i •' Department of Planning Biggs Building A "" �.� „ '' V• 301 Dates Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 274-5630 Colleen Pierson � Groton Town Clerk 101 Conger 110ulevard Grotont, hid' 13073 G I VON, 161, .A ti TOMPKINS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS BARBARA A. ECKSTROM February 1, 1996 Ms. Teresaa Robinson Town of Groton 101 Conger Blvd. Groton, NY 13073 Re: SW-96-07 Dear Teresa, SOLID WASTE DIVISION 122 Commercial Avenue Ithaca, NY 14850 Telephone (607) 273-6632 SOLID WASTE MANAGER Enclosed, please find a copy of the above -mentioned document. Please sign and return to me by February 15, 1996. I will send you a completed copy, once it has been signed on Tompkins County's behalf. Please be sure that your insurance agent fills out the attached insurance form, the instructions are on the back of the tan form. If your insurance agent has any questions at all, they should call Jackie Kippola at 274-5548 and if you have any questions, feel free to call me at 273-6632. Thank you for your assistance. S incerel , nett A. Warner Administrative Assistant Enclosures cc: T. Richardson, Recycling Supervisor 4rik #® 4w* Recycled paper 'V- TQ1�IPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OI' PUBLIC WORKS &OLID WASTE MANAf..YEMFNT DIVISION 122 COMMERCIAL AVE.,' ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 CONTRACT NO SW-96-07 AGREEMENT between Tompkins County Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Management Division, 122 Commercial Ave., Ithaca, New York, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and Town of Groton. (CONTRACTOR) 101 Conger Blvd.. Groton. NY 13073 (ADDRESS) hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor' WI-IEREAS, from time to time the County shall retain the Contractor to perform services for the County, and, WHEREAS, it is not always practical to have a new agreement signed for each service to be performed by the Contractor due to the immediate need of the County for the service to be performed. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The period covered by this agreement is from the date of January 1, 1996, and expires December 31, 1996 or when Certificate of Insurance expires, whichever is sooner. 2. The work or service to be performed or material to be supplied covered by this agreement is generally described as follows: WORK OR SERVICE: Intermunicipal agreement to Drovice Drop -off -center supervision. 3. (A) Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend Tompkins County and its officers, employees, agents and elected officials from and against any and all claims and actions brought against Tompkins County and its officers, employees, agents and elected officials for injury or death to any person or persons or damage to property arising out of the performance of this contract by the Contractor, its employees, subcontractors or agents with the exception of all actions and claims arising out of the sole negligence of Tompkins County. The Contractor shall be fully responsible for the worksite and shall indemnify and hold harmless Tompkins County from and against any and all claims for injury to persons, the performance of this contract by the Contractor, its employees, subcontractors or agents with the exception of all actions and claims arising out of the sole negligence of Tompkins County. The Contractor shall be fully responsible for the worksite and shall indemnify and hold harmless Tompkins County from and against any and all claims for injury to persons, including employees of the Contractor or any subcontractor, where such claim asserts that the injury was the result of conditions of the worksite or that Tompkins County and its officers, employees, agents and elected officials were in any way negligent in the hiring of the Contractor or any subcontractor to do the work or failure to maintain a safe worksite. The Contractor shall provide the County with a Certificate of Insurance on the Tompkins County Standard Certificate of Insurance certifying the contractor maintains the following minimum limits of insurance or as required by law, whichever is greater: 1) Workers' Compensation and New York Disability - Statutory Employer's Liability - Unlimited. If the contractor is a sole proprietor not subject to Workers' Compensation or Disability requirements, the contractor shall file a notarized statement to that effect with the County. 2) Commercial General Liability including, contractual, independent contractors, products/completed operations - Occurrence Form required. • Each Occurrence $1,000,000 • General Aggregate $2,000,000 • Products/Completed Operations Aggregate $2,000,000 • Personal and Advertising Injury $1,000,000 • Fire Damage Legal $ 50,000 • Medical Expense $ 5,000 • Coverage for the Explosions, Collapse and Underground Property Damage hazards shall be provided. • Tompkins County and its officers, employees, agents and elected officials are to be included as Additional Insureds. 3) Business Auto Coverage Liability for Owned $1,000,000 CSL or Hired, and Non -Owned Autos 250,000 per person BI/ 500,000 per accident BI 100,000 PD Split Limits All insurance shall be written with insurance carriers licensed by the State of New York Insurance Department and have a Best's rating of A XI or better. Proof of insurance shall be provided on the Tompkins County Certificate of Insurance (copy attached) including the Contract Number. The accord Certificate of Insurance or insurance company certificate may be used for proof of Workers' Compensation and Disability. All Certificates shall contain a sixty (60) day notice of cancellation, non -renewal or must be signed by a licensed agent or authorized representative of the insurance company. Broker signature is not acceptable. Certificate of Insurance shall be submitted with the agreement. 3.(B) All Certificates shall be issued in accordance with the rules and procedures of the County of Tompkins. All Certificates shall be on file with the County prior to commencement of any work or service to be performed or material to be supplied covered by this agreement. If any insurance covering this agreement is canceled or non -renewed during the term of this agreement and is not replaced as of the date of cancellation or non -renewal and a new Certificate of Insurance provided to the County, this agreement shall be terminated as of the date of said cancellation or non -renewal. All Certificates shall have this agreement number on the Certificate. 4. The Contractor shall not assign any part of this agreement to a subcontractor or other party without the express written consent of the County. All terms and conditions of this agreement shall apply to any subcontractor. 5. This agreement may not be amended or modified except in writing by the parties hereto nor may any obligations hereunder be waived orally. 6. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this agreement, the County shall have the right to terminate this agreement for any reason, with or without cause, upon ten (10) days written notice. 7. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties hereto have executed this agreement. Date COUNTY OF TOMPKINS Date A11THORIZED SIGNATURE (CONTRACTOR') PRINT NAME j Tompkins County BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES Courthouse, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 DATE: July 20, 1995 TO: Theresa Robinson, Town of Groton Supervisor FROM Beverly Livesay, Chair Governmental Affairs Committee RE: ` Collection of Solid Waste Fees on Tax Bill Meeting: July 27, 1995 at 7 p.m. in the Old Jail Conference Roorn I believe we finally have information needed for us to make a decision on this initiative in intergovernmental cooperation. You will remember that the purpose was to reduce the cost of collection this Fee and to make it more convenient for our constituents to pay it. The enclosed documents illustrate that the annual savings for our taxpayers will be $36,581 in 1996 - $8,450 in County costs, the remainder distributed among the municipalities. The up -front equipment and software and training costs will be recovered in the second year by the taxpayers and in the sixth year by the County's Solid Waste Division. We are advised that there are no legal impediments to our embarking on this cooperative effort. If we decided this is the course we wish to pursue we have the legal right to enter into contracts to accomplish it. I have enclosed: 1. Summary of the costs and benefits 2. Copies of the Law 3. A copy of the proposed contract In order to implement this for the 1996 tax collection we need answers from you in August so that equipment can be ordered in time to provide for adequate time for installation and training. We have no wish to impose a system on any of you. We must all Ggree to the to the same contract. It is for the discussion of this that I have arranged for a meeting. If you have any questions or concerns that need to be addressed, please call me at 272-2776. cc: Members, Board of Representatives David Squires, Director of Finance Jonathan Wood, Assistant County Attorney D. Eckstom, Director of Data Processing 4�� f.0 2errr/ed paper Solid Waste Annual Fee Collection on Tax Bill Summary of Cost Shifts and Benefits 1) Solid Waste Savings in annual Handling Costs: $ 36,581 2) Solid Waste Lost Penalties and Interest: 10,006 accrues to Towns' General Funds 3) Solid Waste Lost Investment Income accrues to Towns' General Funds 18,125 Net Solid Waste Annual Cost / (Savings): $ (8'Z 50) Net Town Annual Financial Benefits: $ 287131 Prorata Annual Benefit to Town General Funds Municipality Total SWAF Levy Net Benefit City of Ithaca 878,301 9,006 Caroline 74,333 762 Danby 69,247 710 Dryden 385,216 3,950 Enfield 74,666 766 Groton 137,911 1,414 Town of Ithaca 418,934 4,296 Lansing 438,716 4,498 Newfield 117,958 1,210 Ulysses 1487215 1,520 2,743,496 2.8,131 Other Benefits: o Convenience to Taxpayers - Single Bill, single payment, one envelop, one stamp,... Towns receive new computers in order to be compatible with new software. Establishes modern hardware compatibility baseline among the Towns. New and improved collection software for all Towns. Town staff will receive general computer training in addition to training in new collection system. Current mile-:"._.d of SWAF Collection Proposed Method of SWAF Collection Cumulative Cost / (Savings) Annual Overall Cost / (Savings) 120,000 100,000 - 80,000 60,000 40,000 - 20,000 - 1996 1997 (20,000) -- Comparison of Annual Effective Operating Costs 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 60,331 62,141 64,005 65,925 67,903 69,940 72,038 74,200 115,641 53,437 55,041 56,692 58,393 60,144 61,949 63,807 55,310 46,607 37,642 28,408 18,898 9,102 (988) (11,380) 55,310 (8,704) (8,965) (9,234) (9,511) (9,796) (10,090) (10,392) Annual inflation Factor: 3% SWAF ®n Tax Be➢➢ Costs -' —*--Current Method of SWAF Collection —— Proposed Method of SWAF ---- Collection '--Cumulative Cost / (Savings) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20 One -Time Costs of Integration of Solid Waste Fee onto Tax Bill One --time Costs: Town Collection System 10 Towns, Required to support SWAF Collection Changes to Tax Bill - (required to support SWAF on Tax Bill) Tax Bill Print Utility Changes (System's Fast) Tax Bill ;ormat changes, project coordination (80hrse - DP) PC Upgrades for Town - (required to Support SWAF Collection) Ten (10) 486 PC's, 8MB RAM,15" Color monitor,420MB Computer Training 10 courses: TC3 - DOS & Hard Disk Management 10 courses: Introduction to Windows Total one-time Costs: Solid Waste 33,000 22,280 1,000 1,000 63,760 FY96 Cost: $ 63,760 SWAF on Tax Bill - Detailed Costs I Savings Handling Costs 1995: Finance Dept. Support 40000 Data Processing Support 8000 Preprinted Bill Stock 2498 Microfilm 600 Invoice Preparation (Challenge) 2940 Postage 6293 Proposed 'dandling Costs 1996: Finance Dept. Support 20000 Data Processing Support 1000 Microfilm 600 Roll Section 8 Mailing 400 Additional Cost of Software Support 1750 Loss of Investment Income 60,331 23,750 Ave. Daily Bal. Interest Earning January 400,000 1,000 February 2,100,000 5,250 March 2,348,000 5,870 April 2,402,000 6,005 Total Interest Earnings: 18,125 Interest Rate (annual): 3% Intarest & Penalties (through 5i31) 103006 . based actual payments of interest and penalties through 5131195 L. UNICIPA.L LAW Art. 5-G .erm "municipal the purpose of ivn improvement hich such district pith and credit for j.11 indebtedness to ision of any munici- xtaking or the joint ,per which each of the -power by any other ,xercise, separately .hall include exten- .ary therefor. .ge project" means a Df water, the common ;e or a common drain - and F of section two -a : aggregate number- of: governing body of a to cast. : 1, § 2; L.1963, c. 15, § 1; c. 171, § 1.) Date. Section effective Feb. ursuant to L.1960, c. 102. § 2. ipal Corporations § 106 et :schools and School Districts 'owns §§ 34, 36. : z planning board. Op.State .1-334. MUNICIPAL COOPERATION § 119-0 Art. 5-G § 1.19-o. Performance of municipal cooperative activities; alter- native powers 1. In addition to any other general or special powers vested in municipol"corporations and districts for the performance of their respective functions, powers or duties on an individual, cooperative, joint or contract basis, municipal corporations and districts shall have power to enter into, amend, cancel and terminate agreements for the performance among themselves or one for the other of their respective functions, powers and duties on a cooperative or contract basis )r -for the provision of a joint service or a joint water, sewage or drainage project. Any agreement entered into hereunder shall be approved by each participating municipal corporation or district by a majority vote of the voting strength of its governing bode. Where the authority of any municipal corporation or district to perform by itself any function, power and duty or to provide by itself any facility, service, activity, project or undertaking or the financing thereof is, by any other general or special law, subject to a public hearing, a mandatory or permissive referendum, consents of governmental agencies, or other requirements applicable to the making of contracts, then its right to participate in an agreement hereunder shall be similarly conditioned. 2. An agreement may contain provisions relating to: a. A method or formula for equitably providing for and allocat- ing revenues and for equitably allocating and financing the capital and operating costs, including payments to reserve funds authoriz- ed by law and payments of principal and interest on obligations. Such method or formula shall be established by the participating corporations or districts on a ratio of full valuations of real proper- ty, or on the basis of the amount of services rendered or to be rendered, or benefits received or conferred or to be received or conferred, or on any other equitable basis, including the levying of taxes or assessments to pay such costs on the entire area of the corporation or district, or on a part thereof, which is benefited or which receives the service. b. The manner of employing, engaging, compensating, transfer- ring or discharging necessary personnel, subject, however, to the provisions of the civil service law where applicable; the making of employer's contributions for retirement, social security, health in- surance, workmen's compensation and other similar benefits; the approval of attendances at conventions, conferences and schools for public officials and the approval and payment of travel and other expenses incurred in the performance of official duties; the bond- s PAL HOME RULE LAW 1 Art. 1 ,ial law E city laws" are those which i GOVERTS ARTICLE 2—GENERAL POWERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS a � a single city or to less than all > of a class. Holbrook, etc., t TO ADOPT AND AMEND LOCAL LAWS; RESTRICTIONS �Iew York, N.Y.1921, 277 F. 852. 1 City Law § 2—a providing gen- � Section � 10. General powers of local governments to adopt and amend local laws. of mayoral succession applies ,ertain 11. Restrictions on the adoption of local laws. cities, but its specified s are common to the class creates and are related to the i Crass References f statute, and the section is not s a "special Iaw." Radich v. 1 Adoption of charters, see Municipal Home Rule Law § 30 et seq. -)f City of Lackawanna, 1983, 93 ? Application of article to coroner's office, see County Law § 670. 59, 462 N.Y.S.2d 928, affirmed Grants of powers to local governments, see Statute of Local Governments § 10 et d 652, 472 NT.Y.S.2d 82, 460 seq. 73' ` Home rule powers of local governments, see McKinney's Const. Art. 9, § 2. :• 167 of Laws 1895, authorizing Susquehanna river basin compact local area protection, see ECL 21-1301, § 9.4. to commence an action in the court of the state of New York Ze mayor, aldermen and com- Law Review Commentaries �f the city of New York, on a 1988 Survey of New York law: Zoning and Land Use. Terry Rice. 40 Syracuse •wing out of the erection by her L.Rev. 641 (1989). y of a market in the said city, :im,had for many years prior to �e of the act been barred by the 'f limitations, related to i hiy'�c�vr.r�:S',�s�,� 3x,�.%,% the affairs or government" of the WESTLAW Computer Assisted Legal Research ,w York and was a special city New WESTLAW supplements your legal research in many ways. WESTLAW ystal v. York, 1901, 63 allows you to �3, 71 N.Y.S. 352. - ® update your research with the most current information 141 of Laws 1896, providing gn fire insurance ® expand your library with additional resources companies u certain percentage or tax on a retrieve direct history, precedential history and parallel citations on property in Long Island with the Insta-Cite service .. corporation to be hereafter 'the For more information on using WESTLAW to supplement your research, see ,own as Trustees of the ':.remen's the WESTLAW Electronic Research Guide, which follows the Explanation. Benevolent Fund of id City,' ' fell within the desig- special city law." Exempt :iss'n v. Exempt Firemen's Be- 1898, 34 App.Div. 138, 54 ' § 10. General powers of local governments to adopt and amend local laws 1. In addition.to powers granted in the constitution, the statute of local governments or in .any other law, (i) every local government shall have power to adopt and amend local laws not inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution or not inconsistent with any general law relating to its property, affairs Or' government and, (ii) every local government, as provided in this chapter, shall have power to adopt and amend local laws not inconsistent with the Provisions of the constitution or not inconsistent with any general 4 V 31 '1 "` ••� Jici' ; ii, .,.�'..h .. .. •:Y�j{{`11te1 '^_^ ,_ _ `t'....�+�-.. .T.1 j"r---•--• •--rv.. 'r,Y': r °' ` �;'� �W.Y :a.. �`r^..t pi!•r � '.... i(?: � � ,,��`�i'K-"i vlaj_} ft 3 10 MUNICIPAL DOME RULE LAW ADOPTION OF L Art. 2 Art. 2 law, relating to the following subjects, whether or not they relate to (10) The wages the property, affairs or government of such local government, except protection, welfare to the extent that the legislature shall restrict the adoption of such a or subcontractor p local law relating to other than the property, affairs or government of (11) The protec� such local government: environment. a. A county, city, town or village: (12) The govern: (1) The powers, duties, qualifications, number, mode of selection well-being of per and removal, terms of office, compensation, hours of work, prot:ec- include but not be tion, welfare and safety of its officers and employees, except that for the regulation cities and towns shall not have such power with respect to members however, that: of the legislative body of the county in their capacities as county e exercise (a) The exercise officers. This provision shall include but not be limited to the area thereof creation or discontinuance of departments of its government and the prescription or modification of their powers and duties. (b) Except in a specifically author (2) In the case of a city, town or village, the membership and ! ness, the exercise composition of its legislative body. area thereof in a (3) The transaction of its business. �� village or villages (4) The incurring of its obligations, except that local laws relating town is regulating to financing by the issuance of evidences of indebtedness by such tion. local government shall be consistent with laws enacted by the legisla- (13) The appor ture. tion with such (3) The presentation, ascertainment, disposition and discharge of composition and claims against it. members thereof. (b) The acquisition, care, management and use of its highways, which representz individual memb roads, streets, avenues and property. this subparagraF (7) The acquisition of its transit facilities and the ownership and any other power operation thereof. only to local ge (8) The levy and administration of local taxes authorized by the thereunder. legislature and of assessments for local improvements, which in the (a.) A plan of case of county, town or village local laws relating to local non- shall comply wit property taxes shall be consistent with laws enacted by the legisla- in the order her. - Lure. (i.) The plan (9) The collection of local taxes authorized by the legislature and of voters of that to assessments for local improvements, which in the case of county, the local legisla town or village local laws shall be consistent with laws enacted by (ii.) In such the legislature. r �(9-=a) The fixing, levy, local having more th. collection and administration of gov- each representa ernment rentals, charges, rates or fees, penalties and rates of interest tion areas. Ad; thereon, liens on local property in connection therewith and charges ` shall not contai thereon. a full ratio for 10 _sip QJ. A11011eys and crediting of interest shall be controlling and shall apply to each town, notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any general, special or local law. [See main volwnze for 2] (As amended L.1992, c. 708, § 31.) Historical and Statutory Notes 1992 A.rneridniezlts. Subd. L L.1992, sions requiring collector to deposit all C. 708, § 31, eff. Nov. 28, 1992, substituted sums of money received and collected by provisions requiring collector to deposit him in or with a bank or trust company and secure all sums of money received and designated collected by him in the manner provided by the town board in the type by General Municipal Law § 10 for provi- of account specified by such board. .Notes of Decisions Postdated checks 4 check until its date before depositing; if he chooses to refuse a postdated check, he 4. Postdated checks must promptly return it to the person who A collecting officer may accept and re - tendered it. Op.State Compt. 90-36. tain as payment of taxes a postdated § 36. Collection of taxes by town clerk Notes of Decisions I. Abolishment of office of tax collec- tor Town board of a town of the second class may abolish the elected position of tax collector through enactment of a reso- lution without voter approval. Op.Atty. Gen. (Inf:) 93-28. Town board of a town of the second class may abolish the elected position of tax collector through enactment of a reso- lution without voter approval. Op.Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 93-28. A town of the second class acting in accordance with this section may abolish the elected position of tax collector by resolution; no referendum is required un- der that provision. Op.Atty.Gen. 93-28. § 37. Powers and duties of receiver of taxes and assessments I. The receiver of taxes and assessments, if the office be elective, shall hold no other elective public office. Except as otherwise provided in section twenty-five hundred six of the education law, he shall have .and possess and exercise in the manner and within the time prescribed by law all the rights, powers, authority and jurisdiction possessed and exercised by the town tax collector and the school district collectors in the town of which he is receiver of taxes and assessments and lie shall be subject to all of the duties of such officers. Except as otherwise provided in section twenty-five hundred six of the education law, and unless there has been an agreement between the town board and the school board to the contrary, it shall be the duty of such receiver of taxes and assessments to receive and collect all state, county, town and school taxes, and all assessments that may be levied or assessed in the town, and all fees thereon prescribed by law, including all other moneys provided by law to be paid to the town tax collector or school district collectors, except that the town board of a town nnay by resolution authorize Ole receiver of taxes and assessments to receive taxes for thirty days after the first day specified in the notice for the payment of such taxes, at a charge of not more than one per centum upon such taxes or without additional charge, and except that the town board of a town may by resolution authorize the 14 -) a (1/"1 L cl v'' L J G receiver of taxes and assessments to receive taxes heretofore payable to school district collectors after the expiration of such thirty day period with such fee, not more than five per centum upon such taxes, as the town board shall determine and specify in such resolution. Upon the passage of such resolu- tion, the town board shall determine and fix the fee to be collected upon such taxes. Except as otherwise provided by law, the receiver of taxes shall receive and collect all water rates, sewer rentals, permit fees and other fees and charges payable to said town. Except as otherwise provided by this section, all fees, interest or penalties collected by him upon any tax or assessment heretofore payable to the town tax collector, or school district collectors, shall belong to the town. Except as otherwise permitted by section fifteen hundred eighty-eight of the real property tax law, 'such receiver shall -enter daily in a suitable book or books a record of all moneys received by him and such book or books shall be public records and shall be open during- office hours to public,_ - inspection. Within twenty-four hours after receiving the same, he shall 1 deposit and secure all sums of money received and collected by him to the credit of the supervisor in or with a bank or trust company designated by the town board and notify the supervisor thereof, except that all school district moneys collected shall be deposited to the credit of the school district in such bank or banks as may be designated from time to time by the boards of education or trustees of the school districts, and except that after payment to the supervisor in full of all moneys payable to him pursuant to any warrant for the collection of taxes, the residue, if any, shall be deposited to the credit of the receiver of taxes and assessments, in such .banks or trust companies as have been designated by the town board in the type of account specified by 1 such board and such moneys shall be paid to the county treasurer not.later than the fifteenth day of each month following the receipt thereof, and upon expiration of such warrant the receiver shall comply with the provisions of section nine hundred forty of the real property .tax. law. In lieu of the aforesaid immediate deposit of school district moneys to the credit of the school districts, the receiver of taxes and 'assessments may deposit such school district moneys to his own credit as receiver of taxes and assessments in the same account or accounts which he uses for depositing and disbursing county tax moneys; provided that, within five days after so depositing such school district moneys, he shall make appropriate distribution thereof by depositing appropriate sums to the credit of the school district as hereinbefore provided. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the town board, by resolution, may direct the receiver of taxes and assessments to deposit and secure in the manner provided by section ten of the general municipal law, in his name as receiver of taxes and assessments, within twenty-four hours after receipt thereof, all moneys collected by him which are due to the supervisor. All such moneys so deposited shall be paid to the supervisor at such times as may be specified in such resolution', but in no event later than the fifteenth day of each month following the receipt thereof. The town board may require that any moneys deposited to the credit of the receiver pursuant to this subdivision be deposited in an interest bearing account. The interest earned on tax moneys so deposited, collected on behalf of the state, county, any school district or special district, shall belong to the taxing entit§ for which such moneys were collected unless such, entity has, by statute in the case of the state or otherwise by resolution, authorized the town to credit all or a percentage of such interest to the general fund of the town. Upon the adoption of such statute or resolution, the taxing entity shall notify, in writing, all town supervisors of the percentage of interest the town is authorized to credit to its general fund. The provisions of this subdivision regarding the deposit of moneys and crediting of interest shall be This agreement is made and entered into by the Town/City of and the County of Tompkins. The Town/City of shall collect the Annual Solid Waste Fee established by Local Law #1-1993 on behalf of the County of Tompkins. The Annual Solid Waste Fee shall be included on the Town & County tax bill as a separate item. The required collection period for tlus fee will coincide with the collection period for the tax warrant. Collection of the fee by the Town/City shall begin January 1, 1996 and continue as long as the Annual Solid Waste Fee remains in effect. In consideration of the servicd provided by the Town/City, the County of Tompkins shall provide one of the following two options to the Town/City: A) New collection software with capability to track payments for tax and fees separately and One new Windows -capable Compaq computer (486, 66 MHz, DOS/windows 3.1, 8 1VIb RAM) 420 mb disk, floppy) CVis B) New collection software with capability to track payments for tax and fees separately and One-time cash remuneration of $2,280. The Town/City shall notify the County in writing which of the two options it chooses on or before 8/25/95. The parties further agree as follows: 1. Maintenance of tax collection software will be the responsibility of the County. 2. Training for software will be provided by the County. This will include a group training session at County facilities and individual training at time of installation at each Town/City. The County will also provide the TC3 courses "DOS and Hard Disk Management" and "Introduction to Windows" to one (1) Town/City staff person. 3. If option A is selected, hardware will be covered by a three-year warranty after which the Town/City is responsible for maintenance. 4. Printers will not be supplied by the County. 5. No other desktop software will be provided by the County 6. Collection of all fees will be first applied toward the town warrant. After satisfaction of the town warrant, all moneys collected for taxes and fees will be due to the County. 7. All late charges collected on delinquent taxes and fees between January 31 and May 31 will be the property of the Town/City. 8. De nquent notices required to be issued by the Town/City as per RPTL Sect.987 shall include any unpaid Solid Waste Annual Fees. 9. The cost of the tax bills and postage shall be a charge against the City or Town as per RPTL Sect. 922. 10. Roll Section 8 parcels (tax exempt) will be billed for Solid Waste Annual Fee directly by the Solid Waste Department and will not be the responsibility of the Town/City to collect. This agreement is the complete agreement between the parties with regard to the collection of the Annual Solid Waste Fee. In witness whereof, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. COUNTY OF TOMNS , NEW YORK By: Title: Date: TOWN/CITY OF By: Title: Date: I r WALPOLE REM. ESTATE -� 120 Blain Street, P.O. Box 130 Groton, New York 13073 • (607) 898-3796 Robert F. Walpole - Licensed Real Estate Broker February 1, 1993 Representative Phil Shurtleff Tompkins County Board of Representatives 208 East Cortland Street Groton, New York 13073 Dear Phil: This letter is in reference to the County's proposed solid waste annual fee. This proposed fee is going to cost our business approximately $5,600.00 per year. it was my initial understanding that the recycling was not going to cost the taxpayers money. We have.instituted all of the County's policies in our business; all of our tenants, commercial and residential, are recycling. Based on my research and from what I have read of the Board's minutes, the recycling • program is losing money. At a time when businesses, both large and small, are making cuts to survive, or are going out of business, the -County should look and learn. Why should the taxpayer be penalized because the County is losing money and supporting a losing proposition? Not only are we, as property owners, going to have to pay this user's fee for our property, but we will be paying what is passed on to us by the school district. Groton Central will be paying approximately $11,000.00 in fees. By quick calculation, there will be an approximate cost of eight cents per $1,000.00 added to the tax rate for 1993-1994. 1 can interpret this only as double taxation and taxation without representation. Last week, I spoke with four prominent business owners in Groton. All four indicated that they lost money in 1992. If most business owners are forced to make cuts, why isn't our government doing the same? You cannot continue to spend and tax. I have talked with Kathy West of the County Administrator's Office and Peter Penniman regarding this fee. They have knowledge of the taxpayer's concern, but neither is looking at this fee from a business person's view. We are being stifled by local, county, state, and federal regulations. The most sensible "business" solution is for the County to get out of the recycling business. It appears to me that if we only recycled glass and turned the balance into solid waste, we just might make money. Under the local Mandatory Recycling Law, Section 11, Paragraph B reads that we are required to separate solid waste and recycle -For which economic markets exist. There -is no economic market ... why are staying in the recycle business? Sinc y, / Ro ert F. pole �. -----MANUFACTURING CONSULTANTS, LTD. 123 Groton, NY Groton13073 Gro 0 (607) 898-9563 February 4, 1993 Representative Robert I. Watros Tompkins County Board of Representatives 14 Evergreen Street Box 72 Dryden, NY 13053 Dear Mr Natros, This letter is in reference to the County's Solid [Waste Division and the 1993 Disposal Fee Projected Schedule. I work with several Waste Minimization Companies, therefore I have been aware of activities at the proposed Dryden landfill site since the late 1980's and some of the proposals put to the Board of Representatives during the past years. If I may take the liberty of thinking of the County Board as a customer, I would recommend to you that the board significantly reduce Solid Waste and Recycling cost or get -out of the business leaving it up to the individual towns. I don't expect board members to be solid waste experts, but I and other tat: payers do expect the board to weight the proposals made by experts and then take actions based on sound business practices. I haven't found this to be the case. In 1987 Earthwatch Inc personnel were involved in taking core samples from the proposed Drvden Landfill site. They realized that the site was going to be expensive and in 1991 Earthwatch and Superior Disposal Service presented a proposal to the County Board for hauling the solid waste out of the area. Earthwatch had access to EPA approved landfills and Superior Disposal had transfer stations and equipment for transposing the waste. In fart they- had been hauling waste to the landfills for some time and they offered this service for $75 per ton. The county elected to pursue their own Landfill instead. Several. million dollars later we still don't have a landfill and the county residents cost is about $145 per ton if you consider the proposed User Fee. Which brings up another subject, I have a neighbor who burns all of his solid waste in an outdoor Taylor Furnace used for heating both his house and other buildings. He takes his recyclable material to Cortland where they pay him for it. How can we justify charging this family a user fee? The County Eoard needs to take a lesson from the neighboring County of Cortland where the City of Cortland voted last evening to send their solid waste to Seneca Meadows where fees are $45 per ton as compared to $75 per ton in the county landfill. This is not a dispute between haulers and the county as we have experienced in our area but a dispute between the city and the county. Landfills cost in excess of $500,000 per acre to build and once built, the owners find that they now leave to sell space in the landfill to helm pay for its cost. It is a ver�- competitive business and I can't believe that Tompkins County or the Solid Waste Division is qualified to take on this venture. I propose to you and I am going to propose the same to anyone who will listen, that the County get out of the Solid Waste and recycling business and turn it over to the individual towns. I work throughout the Northeast and I see it working in other places, I know how they do it, and I know that it can be done here as well. I home that you and the other board members consider this carefully and do something to correct this relatively simple task (garbage disposal) that has turned into a complicated nightmare for everyone. I urge you to vote against a user fee on February 16 and table the subject until the board can figure out how to minimize its loses without increasing fees or taxes. If you and the board would like to discuss this in more detail, both Sam Doubleday from Earthwatch Inc and I would be glad to meet with you. Sincerely, Harold (Bob) Bernhardt 1993 DISPOSAL FEE PROJECTION SCHEDULE :99: '' ' '' ''' ' ':9t: { October.16, 1992 ......r....:. APPROPRIATIONS: Comptroller —Billing A1315 :01:.......:?1; Solid Waste Patrol A3110 Probation — S.W.A.P. A3140 ............ ....... DSS —Tag Subsidy A60106;33: Solid Waste —Open. A8160 Hauling & Disposal A8160 Contribution to Constr. HFund Planninq—Data Analysis A8020 0 : 0.: Bqt.&Fin.—Data Analysis A1310 :D:.............0: N'bor. Prot.Program A8989 Recycling Operat. A8163 Recy.Prod.—Buyer A1345 ;0.; 0 Debt Service V Fund :572;890. :83;354. Total Appropriations ;'Z';3(fi REVENUES: Refuse &Disposal Chargesf29) 3t*91_ State Aid nes _ Fi&Penalties .064 X :::.....:t' ) Permits ...: ` ............ Sale of Scrap & Supplies Other Reserve for non —admitted assets • Total Revenue Current Year rr nt Y a ur lus Shortfall ��,�.��:��:�:�:��9��3�2.: Sur lus S o h rtfall from m Prior Year TOTAL (Sur IusVDeficit ` 3 Y. g COMPOSTING: 1992 Projected Appr./Rev. 29,140 36,701 9,176 75,000 1,263,070 1,376,918 214,978 16,000 5)000 207,269 1,367,067 19,029 924,082 5,543,430 1993 Budget Appr./Rev. 29,925 0 0 52,000 1,164,033 2,669,890 0 0 100,000 0 1,646,450 0 946,751 6,609,049 1992-93 Percent Change 2.69% —100.00% —100.00% —30.67% —7.84% 93.90% —1-00.00% —100.00% 1900.00% —100.00% 20.44% —100.00% 2.45% 19.22% (4,938L910) _ �4,275 0 —13.44%_ (6,322) 154,744) 2347.7T°10 0 0 0.00% 0 ( (30,000) 100.00% (7,000) / 462.86% (32,132) �(39,400) (60,564), 88.48% ---0:* —100.00% _650,000_ _L4,334,364L (4,559 708 066 1,209,066 2,049,341 21904 11 87162 1 187,162� 3 36503 2 Operations A8162 0: :: 115,117 Debt Service V Fund : 0 Administrative Costs 0 Total Ap115.117 : :Revenue (115,117) (Surplus) /Shortfall —Disp.Fees 0 COMPOST 210,071 : Tons 40,000 61100 24,429 274,500 j TAG FEES (274,500) Tons 0 45,000 J ,) Disp. Prop. User Fee Tax Fee Allocation - Allocation Allocation 29,925 52,000 6231690 2,669,890 (21,000) (154,742) 3,117,833 (4,275,000) (30,000) 5401343 121,000 1,801,192 946,751 81,925 3,409,286 (154,744) (39,400 (60,564) (4,305,000) 0 (254,708) (Hate per thous. of assessed value) $0 .0236 1,187,162 t)00 a� 8 5 3,154,578 0 1 92`� I , sP r FUNAtUE RAI Lb: Rate/Ton $45.00 Per Ton Per lb. Per 35 lbs. $95.00 $0.048 $1.66I: I : P, TOMPKINS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION Bostwick Road Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 BARBARA A. ECKSTROM Telephone (607) 273-6632 SOLID WASTE MANAGER February 23, 1993 Mr. Bob Bernhardt Manufacturing Consultants, Ltd. 123 W. Groton Road Groton, NY 13073 RE: Privatization of County Solid Waste Program Dear Mr. Bernhardt: Thank you for your letter dated February 4, 1993 regarding solid waste management in Tompkins County. The County Board of Representatives has asked the Chamber of Commerce to recommend options to optimize privatization of the County solid waste management program. I would suggest that you contact Herb Brewer, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce, 904 East Shore Drive, Ithaca, phone number 273-7080, for more information on their work. Sincerely, ,l111V L Eric Lerner, Chair Solid Waste and Resource Management Committee cc: Herb Brewer, Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Scott Craver, Chamber of Commerce Solid Waste Advisory Committee Representative EL/lb �r Recycled paper Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce County Affairs Committee A Chamber of Commerce Report on Private Sector Alternatives for Solid Waste Management Prepared by the Ad -hoc Committee on Solid Waste Scott Craver, Chair Dan Collins Noel Desch Ed Haslop Mar}: Finkelstein Tom Corey Monte May Mike Thuesen Ernie Bury Sheraton Inn Ithaca NYSEG Cornell University Paracelsian Systems Gun Hill residences Corey Insurance Agency Wheaton's Sheet Metal Mastercraft Frameshop Self-employed February 1993 A Chamber of Commerce Report on Private Sector Alternatives for Solid Waste Management Introduction and Background In 1970, Tompkins county government, on behalf of the municipalities, took over the responsibility of managing the disposal of all solid waste generated in the county. Twelve open dumps operated by the municipalities were reduced first to three operating landfills, and now in 1992 the last landfill to operate in the county has closed and is being capped. The private sector continues to perform the functions of hauling and disposal , except in the City of Ithaca which has continued to provide its own pickup service. Until the implementation of a "flow control" law in 1992, hauling and disposal costs operated in a competitive open market. Tompkins County determined in 1987 that an aggressive recycling program would be an integral part of the county solid waste management program. Drop-off centers were sited in 1990, and curbside recycling began in August of 1991. The cost of the recycling programs was added to the price of the trash tag (but perceived as free by the consumer), until January of 1993. The county implemented weight -based fees in March of 1990 for municipal solid waste. Residents must buy trash tags from their haulers (from the city in the city of Ithaca). Businesses contract with waste haulers for container service and for recycling services. The waste haulers pay the county in the form of a tipping fee at the transfer station. The trash tag program has successfully reduced the volume of waste, and increased recycling. Due to the disposal costs being externalized, and there became a financial incentive apparent to the consumer for their reduction efforts. Before 1992, the economics of this system worked, due to the use of an in -county landfill. Consumers and businesses were alarmed by the rapidly escalating tipping fee (a six -fold increase in 3 years), but they had a way to control their costs by reducing their waste generation. The solid waste division did a good job in bidding out of county hauling and disposal in*1992; as the cost of $65.70 per ton is competitive with what other counties are paying at the landfill gate. There was good competition for the bids among companies in the private sector, and the cost was significantly less than what was originally projected when the tipping fee was proposed at $162/ton. Unfortunately, the costs of landfill closure, recycling, and debt service that were also covered by the tag fee made the cost uncompetitive with out -of -area landfills that were experiencing a short-term need for additional garbage revenues. Change had occurred at such a rapid pace that the only solution at that moment was to enact a flow -control law that would protect the county's revenue stream. The tipping fee for 1993 was lowered to reflect only the cost of disposal, relieving some of the pressure that could lead to illegal dumping and violation of the flow control statute. The increased demand for m.s.w. from out -of -county landfills has led to a more competitive environment. The planned DR-7 landfill proved to be cost prohibitive given the current economic markets that now exist out -of -county and the legal challenges from the residents of Dryden. A proposal to implement a solid waste management fee that would pay for recycling, the anticipated $1.2 million 1992 deficit, and landfill closure costs, energized the business community and the general public to offer assistance. The County Affairs committee sponsored a symposium in November to open a dialogue with the county with respect to the consideration of alternatives to current solid waste plans such as a shift toward.privatizatlon rather than control and capital investment. On December 29, 1992, the Tompkins County Board of Representatives requested the Chamber of Commerce to provide examples of successful solid waste privatization. This report identifies several examples of communities that have utilized a competitive, market driven approach to solving their solid waste problems. THE CHAMBER RATIONALE The central question facing the chamber committee as it prepared to respond to the county board was: What is the most env i ronment(-i 1 1 �, sound, cost-effective solid waste management plan for our Tomp�:ins County community? We recognize that the County board has been dealing with this issue, with assistance from a number of consultants, and committees representing a variety of interests within the county. Our effort is not designed to duplicate or undermine any of the good work and insightful input from those groups. Our aim is to propose a course of action that will systematically identify alternative roles for Tompkins County government in the solid waste arena. This effort would be a timely "reality check" on the components of the current solid waste plan. To assist tis in this joint effort we provide some examples of ho . this issue is, being addressed elsewhere. The Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce represents the business community (consisting of profit and not for profit organizations) in its concerns; most of which are economically based. To understand this focus, we need to state clearly what our concerns are, and why the residents of Tompkins county, along with their elected officials, need to be concerned about the needs of the business community. We are concerned today, more than ever before, about our survival. Make no mistake in thinking that this is an alarmist approach, or resembles the "boy who cried wolf". Just as municipalities are suffering from monetary woes, businesses are facing tough decisions which reflect directly on their survival. At greatest risk are manufacturing jobs, the highest paying jobs which at present represent 17% of the employment in the county. Profitability is being squeezed as never before, and companies do not relish the idea of having to move to another State or another country to survive. Companies do what they must to survive. Our hope, as business people who love this area, is to stay here and prosper. If we do, we all win. If we don't, we all lose. Preserving the jobs we have in the State of New York is not easy in the 901s. It requires a total effort and a total commitment from the business owners, the community, and our government. We cannot afford to send our economic base "south" by charging any more to do business in New York State than is absolutely necessary. This is why the business community must focus on cost (both short-term and long-term), as the criteria for a solid waste plan. SOLID WASTE AS PUBLIC POLIC`I "Rethinking Solid I-Jaste Problems and Policy Options" is the lead study published in the May 1991 issue of Policy Insight, produced by the Reason Foundation, a public policy think tank based in Santa Monica, California. A copy of the Executive summary is in the appendix of this report., and although the material is 1 1/2 years old, the document might help the board in shaping future policy decisions. A few sections of the executive summary are excerpted below: "The challenge for solid waste management policy is how to remove ... distortions to the marketplace that encourage waste and how to ensure that waste is disposed of in ways that do not pose health and environmental hazards. Five policies are central to this process: 1)implementation of volume or -::eight based refuse collection fees;2)introduction of full -cost accounting and increased privatization or corporatization of solid waste collection and disposal to facilitate the u-se of full -cost accounting; 3) elimination of product bans not based on health and safety concerns; 4)payment of compensation, or distribution of other benefits to households in proximity to solid waste facilities, and/or communities that agree to host such facilities in order to promote integrated waste management; and 5)mitigation of environmental impacts through development of disposal facility impact standards." Tompkins county, to its credit, is following many of the paths outlined above. If we did more to pursue a "host community benefit" option in siting either in -county or regional facilities, it would serve to reduce adverse community reactions to the county's program. Failing to do this in the siting process has created distortions in the economics of both the in -county landfill siting and the CPF. If the county chooses to take more control of solid waste operations, the following is an e}:ample of how the situation can become worse as excerpted from page 8 of Lynn Scarlett's summary: "...in New Jersey legislators passed in 1976 the Solid Waste Utility Control Act, which in effect treated solid waste collection and disposal as a public utility, thereby resulting in the imposition of rate regulation similar to that applied to electric utilities. Rate -setting procedures "allow only for recovering past costs," according to Neil Hamilton and Robert Wasserstrom, which has deterred private operators from investing in new facilities, including landfills. The policy has resulted in mounting disposal costs for New Jersey municipalities that now must haul garbage out of state, with disposal costs reaching over $150 per ton, compared to a nationwide average of just over $28 per ton." From page 32: <"... good public policy should move disposal operations in the opposite direction --that is, toward private landfill and incineration operations. There are both efficiency and environmental reasons for doing so. Private operators, facing competition and liability, are more likely to utilize accounting practices that incorporate full facility costs, including replacement and environmental costs, into tipping fee calculations. Moreover, as Marion Chertow points out in a report published by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and National Resource Recovery Association, potential cost savings from introducing a recycling program, for example, are "much simpler to calculate in the case where the city pays a per ton charge at a private landfill, since the whole per ton amount is saved each time a ton is diverted for recycling. In the case where the city or county owns the landfill, disposal costs may seem very low if the city is paying only labor and materials to operate it. Most of the costs are fixed, and there are few cost savings to work with to justify recycling economically." In addition, the environmental record of private operators is better than that of public operators (as noted in a study by Neil Hamilton and Robert Wasserstrom)."> In using private facilities, the county gains the advantage of freedom from the debt service, and the ability to spot market its commodity to obtain the best price. LONG-TERM DISPOSAL OPTIONS: The county has many options that it could pursue for a long-term policy for waste disposal: 1. Bid out the entire solid waste program to a private firm or operator on a term contract with specific performance clauses. Allow that private bidder to determine the best way it can operate in the Tompkins county market, building its own facility (transfer + haul, or landfill) on their preferred site, subcontracting, etc. Companies that would be interested in such an arrangement would likely include: Browning -Ferris Intl., Waste management, Superior Disposal, Taylor & Adams (current operator for Tioga and Broome County). This is a short list based upon our brief survey, certainly not an all-inclusive list. Be reasonable in the bonding requirement so as to not preclude a potential bidder from presenting a proposal. 2. Allow the private bidder to consider operating with a "Host community benefit" approach, rather than a "siting" process that most residents find hostile. Such a plan would compensate the host municipality with financial incentives that would benefit all of the residents of that municipality. 3. Allow Lucenti's/NEDCO to prepare for consideration a host -community benefit proposal for the development of the DR-7 site with no county investment. 4. Continue out of county transfer while investigating for long-term planning new technologies that will may reduce the cost of waste disposal in the foreseeable future. In addition to reduction efforts, reuse, and recycling, some examples would be: a. Anaerobic digestion :with integrated recycling. Estimates are that a 100 ton per day facility would cost $10 million in capital on a 6 acre plot with operating costs of $12 to 40 per ton. Revenue from recyclables with value and energy can cut down the operating costs. The Microgen design acts like an efficient, gentle biological carbon sieve. The by-products are natural gas (which is captured and sale able) and a rich humus, which could be contained on the site for use in a tree nursery. This system has been approved by the State of California D.E.C. and a pilot system is in use at U.C. Davis since 1990. A portion of the feasibility study is in the appendix of this report. Anaerobic digesters have none of the odor r� problems associated with Aerobic digesters". Two other companies in Belgium and France market similar systems. b. Binder modified, densified, refuse derived fuel. Converts m.s.w. into a market form, easy to transport. c. Municipal Solid Waste Combustion. New York state has 31 such plants built, under construction, or planned. Economies of scale are critical, however, with combustion, and would require a multi -county effort generating between 1,000 and 3,000 tons per day to bring the cost per ton in competition with landfilling. RECYCLING OPERATIONS Tompkins County government made a major commitment to recycling by instituting curb -side and drop-off recycling services throughout the county. This was done without telling the people what the costs would be for these programs and what alternatives (scope of items collected, frequency) were possible under the state regulation. The real -cost of the chosen recycling program is now surfacing, leaving many in the community feeling betrayed because because they now find they have no option but to pay another fee. According to a February 1991 article in Waste Age magazine by Matthew Goldman, avoided costs of recycling are often miscalculated by use of improper methodology. He notes: "System costs should be calculated on a total annual budget basis. thus, to calculate the true costs of implementing a recycling program, the total annual costs of the solid waste management system should be calculated without recycling, and then with recycling, incorporating any and all effects recycling may have on other costs (and revenues). These two annual costs can then be compared to determine the true incremental costs or savings associated with recycling. Even with a lot of assumptions, this approach provides a much more accurate picture than assembling system costs using dollars per ton costs for each component. Even taking into account those costs avoided by reducing the amount of garbage disposed of in landfills, recycling programs often fail to save money for municipalities." If recycling is deemed important for symbolic or other reasons, consumers of recycling services should pay for those programs to the extent that they result in increased solid waste management costs. It is clear from reviewing chamber survey results of our members, that what most people view as equitable is to pay for what you recycle. The recycling program costs must be externalized like the trash tag. Curbside collection is a service that has a cost for which residents should be able to decide if they want that service. New York state does not require recycling of items for which a viable post -consumer market ("economic markets") does not exist (GML Section 120-aa(2) (a), TAGM released August 24, 1992 by Norman Nosenchuck). If there is not an economic market, than it would be more appropriate to dispose those items, and collect the appropriate fee. Absent flow control on recyclables in Tompkins County, the market will inevitably continue to present itself as no greater than marginally attractive to the government. Those who generate significant amounts of marketable recyclabes will deliver those products to market and deliver to government only those recyclables which are of limited value. Therefore, a system that provides a private market in county with the government sharing the income stream will be a more attractive alternative to government. The following are some approaches that neighboring counties and other communities have taken with regard to recycling: For comparison purposes, figures listed for Tompkins county are taken from a January 12, 1993 analysis of Recycling and Waste Disposal costs presented to the Solid waste and resource management committee of the board. Population 92,000, Households 33,000. Recycling per ton costs are based upon 12,720 tons per year. Transportation : $41.65 Disposal/Marketing( 3.35) Debt service: 19.04 Administration: 6.25 Public information: 1.46 Cost per ton less 65.06 collection Collection 55.40 Total J $'12 0 4 5 per ton In an October 13, 1992 response to questions raised by Eric Lerner, solid waste division gave the following estimate for the anticipated net costs for processing recyclables in the proposed facility on Elmira Road. (also, note it is not clear what transportation costs would be): (costs are expressed per ton, per year) Amortized building costs $10.00 Amortized equipment costs 13.00 Operating costs 30.00 Est. net revenues (25.00) Net cost of Processed recyclables: $28.00 This analysis does not include transportation or collection costs. The building and equipment costs also seem to be projected very low (based upon a $2.5 to $3.5 million dollar facility when the county budget calls for $6.2 million in capital in 1993 and 1994 on top of $3.5 million already invested in the site). Debt service reflected in the county budget for 1993 is $300,000 per year, although a 20-year amortization at 7.5% as stated in the SWAMP would cost $950, 000 per year in principal and interest. This_w�quld change the net cost of processed recyclables to'.'$7:968:'``pe'r'<ton.°-1" BROOME COUNTY: Bob Taylor (Taylor & Adams) is the private operator for the materials recovery facilities in both Broome and Tioga counties (607)-724-3805. He receives $39.50 per ton for drop-off of recyclables at the Broome facility, which cost $1,300,000 to build, and services a population of 212,000 people. Saleable items generate $420,000 per year, of which the county gets 300, or $126,000,based upon 3 times the tonnage projected for Tompkins county (100 tons per day of recyclables). The net cost is $36 per ton. TIOGA COUNTY: This county has 19,000 households, and the recycling contract for the entire county for bi-we.ekly pickup is $14.25 per year per household, compared to $21.35 per household in Ithaca for bi-weekly pick-up. The MRF in Tioga county cost $100,000 to build. CHEMUNG COUNTY: According to'Taylor, Chemung County built a $5.5 million MRF. Operating costs are $1 million/yr. Recycling costs are $300/ton! ULSTER COUNTY: ;.Municipal Waste -Disposal Investments Undermined by Federal Court Rulings ' By JEFF BAILEY Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Municipalities and states could face big losses. on their garbage incinerators and other 'waste facilitiesIpllowing a trio of recent federal court r 4kp that limits governments', contrbl over Where trash is disposed. The rulings are an outgrowth of the increasingly fierce competition between the public and private sectors in the $25 billion U.S. trash hauling -and -dump busi- ness. The competition has-been intensified because — contrary to the widely held no- tion of a disposal shortage — there is a glut of dump space in many parts of the country. That has. driven disposal prices downward and made some opera- tors desperate for volume. The rulings, striking down a practice known as "flow control" under which a municipality requires all trash generated within its borders to go to certain disposal sites, could be most troublesome to com- munities that have invested .heavily in modern disposal plants. Flow control provides a monopoly, in effect, allowing governments to make long-term investments in disposal sites ensured they'll have the revenues to pay for the investment. `Can't Be Taken Lightly' Palm Beach County, Fla., for instance, through its solid waste authority, bor- rowed $420 million through a bond offering to build a big trash -to -energy plant and dump to handle its approximately 1.2 mil- lion tons of trash a year. Don Lockhart,. interim executive director of the authority, said lawyers are pouring over the recent rulings. "It can't be taken lightly." Already, Mr. Lockhart said, haulers near the county's borders "cheat" and take some trash volume to cheaper sites elsewhere. If the trash -to -energy plant doesn't take at least 624,000 tons a year, Fitcan't run at full efficiency and could have k;�oume generating enough revenue to serv- hlce the bond debt. H. Lanier Hickman Jr., chief of the olid Waste Association of North America, p�4group of mostly municipal trash officials, ptedicts "big trouble. Anarchy will reign ,°throughout the solid waste field." V-i,'. The rulings are the second big setback for states in federal courts involving the i�.waste business. The Supreme Court ruled tp last year thah9tates can't bar out-of-state ,1-frazardoug waste from licensed sites within Their borders. The court ruled that such 56ves violate the Constitution's commerce ause that protects interstate trade. �4. For the few states that have complied " V.ith federal guidelines about providing for their own hazardous waste disposal, the ruling in effect meant they'd set them- ; selves up to be dumps for neighboring states that did.nothing. Now, municipali- ties that invested to ensure long-term ' disposal capacity for their trash could have those investments undermined. The latest ruling, Feb. 18 by the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Minneapolis,' struck down a trash ordi- nance set up by two small southern Minne- sota counties that required most of their trash to go to an $8 million composting plant they built: The cost is $50 a ton. A hauler with a dump just south, in Iowa, sued, saying the ordinance restricts interstate trade and violates the Constitu- tion's commerce clause. The hauler, Waste Systems Corp., a privately held Lake Mills, Iowa, concern, has a• dump that charges just $30 a ton. Ron Roth, whose family owns Waste Systems, said the Lake Mills dump is "badly in need of volume," with 50 years' capacity at the current rate of use, and that the counties, Martin and Faribault, didn't need to build the composting plant in the first place. . Similar federal court rulings in Ala- bama and Rhode Island cases have some municipal officials worried.. A group of private haulers and dump operators, the National Solid Waste Man- agement Association, applauds the rulings and suggests municipalitieg enter' into long-term contracts with private compa- nies to assure disposal capacity.':',There are ways short of having the public sector own.and operate it," said Brune J; Parker, the group's. general counsel. A Rallying Cry But public control has been, the rallying cry of municipal trash officials in: recentyears, who feel they were overcharged in 'instances when private firms controlled the disposal' market. A series.'of successful civil and criminal price=fixing. cases against ;the; :two largest haulers, P Waste Management Inc.. and Browning Ferris Industries, Inc., furthered the distrust. Two earlier federal court rulings upheld flow . control arrangements in Akron, Ohio, and the state of Delaware. The Delaware Solid Waste Authority in- vested $90 million in dumps. and other waste'facilities to handle the state's 800,000 tons a .year.. N.C. Vasuki, the. authority's chief, says he concentrates 'on keeping prices down and service standards,high so that haulers won't think to bolt., ¢ "We give 18 months notice of any rate increase," he said. "Trucks are in and out of our sites in eleven minutes." THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1993 AS Two Mayor Uarbage Riva s -in( -1eir roots . ras .le( . Both Make Millions Hauling the Stuff but Lose Big Bucks Recycling It By JEFF BAILEY Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Big garbage haulers, making lots of noney in what has been an unpopular )usiness traditionally, find themselves rapped in a .very popular business that hostly loses money: recycling. "It's the one thing we do that everybody likes," William D. Ruckelshaus; chairman and chief executive officer of Browning= Ferris Industries Inc., says wearily. "We'll have to make the best of it." No. 2 hauler Browning -Ferris and its larger "rival Waste Management Inc., each having invested hundreds of millions of dollars in recycling, are just beginning to eke out small profits from the process. However, losses could resume as rising volumes -of newsprint, glass and other "recyclable" commodities depress prices and as markets for recycled goods develop only slowly. Tale of Two Notions How these garbage giants came to be trapped in this business is a tale of two widely believed notions run amok: 1. Recycling is essential because dump space is growing scarce. In fact, the coun- try now has more dump space than ever because so many big new dumps have opened. The idea of a landfill crisis was popularized by the wandering barge heaped with New York state trash that in 1987 couldn't find a place to empty itself. The companies' own trade association fur- ther spread the myth, which helped push up prices their dumps charged. But it came back to haunt them as recycling mania. "The perception we're running out of landfill space .. , isn't true," Mr. Ruckels- haus contends. "But people still believe it." 2. Throwing things out is wasteful, so recycling makes inherent economic sense. Consider this an outgrowth of the nation's conservation ethic. With alumi- num cans and newsprint, it usually makes economic sense to recycle. What's more, trees are spared. and energy saved. But plastics are cheap to producewith virgin resins and an expensive and messy pain to make from used containers. Recycling glass can be profitable if the colors aren't mixed, and if it doesn't have to be trans- ported far. In all, Waste Management says, it costs Residential Recycling Programs Composition of total recovered materials by weight and recovery cost of each as a percentage of total cost. MATERIAL NET COST TO AS PERCENTAGE RECOVER AS RECOVERED OF TOTAL PERCENTAGE MATERIAL RECOVERED OF TOTAL Source: Waste Management Inc. about $175 to collect and sort an average ton of recyclables, which are then worth about $44. The difference is mostly made up by fees municipalities and other customers pay for the recycling service. On some early contracts, though, haulers them- selves assumed much of the risk that prices for recyclables would fall, and that has been costly. Despite some flawed reasoning behind it, the urge to recycle resulted in laws in more than 40 states requiring that 10% to 50% or more of trash be diverted from traditional disposal to some reuse by the year 2000. Little Choice Haulers, with big fleets of trucks, were a natural to collect the stuff. And they had little choice; in many cities, garbage col- lection and recycling are parts of the same contract. Even as recycling's poo>; profit pros- pects became apparent, the haulers were surprised. at how consumers — especially children — embraced the service. Parents and schools alike have used recycling as a hands-on way to teach youngsters about the environment. And neither Waste Man- agement nor Browning -Ferris, often vili- fled for environmental misdeeds real and Prices for Recyclable Materials Price per ton based on average of values of aluminum, steel, glass, plastics and newspaper $100 i 80 60 40 20, 1988 189 190 191 Sources: Recycling Times. Resource Integration Systems Inc. '92 imagined at their facilities, is anxious to rain on the recycling parade. "We're in a no -return position," says Bruce E. Ranck, president and chief operating officer of Browning -Ferris. "Were it not for the way we deal with our children, good arguments could be made that would ultimately prevail with adults that we've gone too far, too fast." Both companies, with their huge net- works of sorting plants and trucks, are trying to increase the volumes they handle to boost investment return. Waste Man- agement lags with less than 50% capacity being used at its 125 sorting plants; Brow- ning -Ferris says its 70 sorting plants operate at more than 70% of capacity. That accounts for the No. 2 hauler's better results. Its operating profit margin in recycling rose into the "mid -to -high single digits" during the quarter ended Dec. 31, up from slightly better than break-even for fiscal 1992, ended Sept. 30. Waste Management says its recy- cling business has improved to slightly better than break-even. Neither company will disclose actual revenue or profit. For now, Browning -Ferris's approach to recycling has worked better. Mr. Ruck- elshaus, a former Environmental Protec- tion Agency chief who joined as chairman in 1988, was enthusiastic about the growing public interest in recycling although the company wasn't initially. The Houston - based company had bought, and then sold at a loss, a waste -paper recycler in the mid-1970s. "Burned once, they were suspi- cious," Mr. Ruckelshaus says.The com- pany moved cautiously in building the business. To run recycling, Mr. Ruckelshaus opted for a veteran wastepaper broker and buyer, Robert H: Davis, rather than a hauling executive. And when the com- pany's volume became sufficiently big, Mr. Davis in turn hired six more experi- enced brokers — two of them grandsons of rag merchants — to market the recyclables Browning -Ferris collects around the na- tion. The company estimates the broker group last year added about $3.50 a ton to the price it received for materials. In what could be considered an investors round- table for trash, the brokers meet in Houston for a week every other month to compare notes on price trends and buyers. In a conference call, they then pass their views on to the company's recycling man- agers. For its part, Waste Management moved into recycling more aggressively, setting up big joint ventures with paper, can and plastics manufacturers. At its Oak Brook, Ill., headquarters, recycled products be- came the order of the day, right down to the toilet paper. Recycling chief Jane G. Witheridge, then a star of the corporate advertising campaign, had to reassure one employee that recycled toilet paper isn't made from used toilet paper. But losing money was a strain. The plastics joint venture with Waste Manage- ment's biggest overall customer, Du Pont Co., collapsed. That made Dean L. Bun- trock, Waste Management's chairman and chief executive officer, most unhappy and about a year ago he began to talk less about recycling's promise and more about its problems. Ms. Witheridge isn't in the new corpo- rate ad campaign, which begins in May. She's busy meeting customers and public officials to spread- the new recycling theme: "A Shared Responsibility," which implies Waste Management believes it has borne more than its share. 1993 DISPOSAL FEE :Y: PROJECTION SCHEDULE :9: : f97 October 16,1992 ::Adfual:- al rRev: A�apr�fRev APPROPRIATIONS: Comptroller -Billing A1315 Solid Waste Patrol A3110 Probation - S.VV.A.P. A3140 DSS Tag Subsidy A6010X. 6;i?33: Solid Waste-Oper. A8160 ::1x 3'; :::::1,t541;88 - Haulm & Disposal A8160 Contribution to Constr. HFund Planning -Data Analysis A8020 :Q: Bqt.&Fin.-Data Analysis A1310 :0:..... . .......:$: N'bor. Prot.Program A8989 1.$6;802: Recyclinq-Operat. A8163 Recy.Prod.-Buyer A1345 Debt Service V Fund Total Appropriations ::-;''27,-,310&.::::::::3,.7- 9;816.- REVENUES: ares Refuse isposal Chg :9?9)721�_ State A d Aid Fines & Penalties • , .....:(2$1 Permits ..........�$J :0:...........: Sale of Scrap & Supplies Other Reserve for non -admitted assets Total Revenue : (;+040jb42)::'::(3- ,488 48.4) Current Year (Surplus)/Shortfall ::�=;2 &}= ....:29 ;332: ............................... (Surplus)/Shortfall from Prior Year :0:....:: j33E TOTAL @ur R1qJsJDeficit, s 1992 1993 1992-93 Disp. Prop. User Projected Budget Percent Fee Tax Fee Appr./Rev. Appr./Rev. Change Allocation Allocation Allocation 29,140 29,925 2.69% 29,925 36,701 0 -100,00% 91176 0 -100.00% 75,000 52,000 -30.67% 52,000 1,263,070 11164,033 -7.84% 623,690 540,343 1,376,918 21669,890 93.90% 21669,890 214,978 0 -100.00% 16,000 0 -100.00% 5,000 100,000 1900.00% (21,000) 121,000 207,269 0 -100.00% 1,367,067 1,646,450 20.44% (154,742) 1,801,192 19,029 0 -100.00% 924,082 946.751 2.45% 946,751 5,543,430 % 6,609,049 t 19.22% 3,117,838 81,925 3,409,286 (4,938,910)_ (4,2751 _0--13.44% (6,322)_ (154,744� 2347.71% 0 0 0.00% 0 (30,000) 100.00% (7,000) (39,400) 462.86% (32,132) \(60,564),J 88.48% 650,000 `-`0' 1-100.00% (4,3K, &) (4,559,708) 1,209,066 2,049,341 ,..(21 904 11187,162 (1,187,16 3,236,503 COMPOSTING: COMPOST Operations A8162 ...... , ..'::p:: ;::::::::::: xv: 115,117 210,071 : Tons Debt Service Administrative Costs V Fund ;::.. , .. • .......: $: ::(1:.............: Q: 0 0 40,000 24,429 61100 o Total Aap:oariations 115,117 274.500 - Revenue - . ::t:: (115,117) (274,500) TAG FEES Tons (Surplus)/Shortfall-Disp.Fees- ............ :.............0. 0. 0 45,000 . _... !_s.. �- Q,t,��,,�,.��j p . '�' : �?-�t, .. o�.t.JA_ . (4,275,000) (154,744) (30,000) (39,400) (60,564) (4,305,000) 0 (254,708) , (Hate per thous. of assessed value) 11187,162 $0.0236 0 / 81,925 3,154,578 TUNAUL HAILS: Rate/Ton $45.00 Per Ton Per lb. Per 35 lbs. $95.00 $0.048. $1.66: (Use this form to file a local lax with the Secretary of State.). Text of law should be given as amended. Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use ' italics or underlining to indicate new matter. County eft?. of_ Tompkins ----------- Local Law No. __________-___ 8 ------------------- of the year 19. 22 _ A local law ---- Ma nd a t o ry- R e cy_c 1 i n4-1Aw ------------------------------------------------------------------- Qxux Tole) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________ Board_ of R_ e,Presentat_v_� ______________________________________ of the Be it enacted by the tx-e ofieSitl.d-a-dri County _ 'G of ------- -----Tompkins----------------------------------------------------------------- as follows: Section I. Short Title. This law sliall be known as the Mandatory Recycling Law. Section II. Findings. The Board of Representatives of Tompkins County finds' that: • A. Removal and reduction of certain materials from the solid waste stream will decrease the flow of solid waste'to landfills, aid in the conservation of valuable resources,., and reduce the required capacity and associated costs of existing and proposed solid waste disposal facilities. B. The New York State Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 mandates that all municipalities adopt a local. law or ordinance by September 1,.1992. requiring that solid waste which has been left for collection or which is delivered'by.-the generator of such waste to a solid waste management facility,. shall be separated into recyclable, reusable or other components for which economic markets for alternate uses exist. C.• Methods of solid waste management. emphasizing source reduction, reuse, and recycling are essential in -Tompkins County for long-term preservation of public health, economic productivity, and environmental quality. (If additional space is needed, attach pages the same size as this sheet, and number each.) DOS 239 (Rev. 7/91) `�� ' ALGhRIN RD ALGhRIN COS- -- -'-Mosher Groton' I Lans1,1111 Hawser Corners =9R�Z 'Corner IZ3 SO Fire [to. Co. flu yo Dublin G R 0 T 0 N IINSO -:2 Corners . ...... EMMENS lq�r Cobb site I bRF E Kb X ceniele f.. ■ j K.. RE 34 GOC DMAN SO!TCOOL.- Sla i HILL�l L1111 �p ZE FtD;r- no =:r. C SOVO ooL Smith a: --Z5 - 3: !R z - I Eij�f ,Ludlow Corners % L A N S I G LaOng rn Corners X VLANI HEIGHTS 00 RD 2 MILLSS sEAnLLS—RQ, 9! 3 DUG q !Fr E LANSING AD lalnll a 10"f symr 5 I W �o 5 MA I'D VALLEY pLEASAN- VALLEY 0 TOROK TEVEN- P11 asant 34ter. 1� &E�ASA tiBllson nRQ RD BUCK Corners :I: Valley fiD Ludlo e C orunce'r S yr M ,I — 'D Peruvill 3 udlowv 11 k RD ew Test, men[ ft Midway ___PRO VNterPeruvW3 PERUVILL-F - erulon RD & , 0 1 1 *,H IP&I RD South �ERS f G(ay f� I Ali Can Tery LAKEVIEW VYILSON Lansing 0 Center e Milli 110C &yy\T rpening I R T'Fal . -N, A ;it 4 S. Lansing- s4rn-erL P tat Y InIF" RoUbues Lansing Ill?hwa Town Par nslnqllar ut W Bell all, Eire Co. Lansing aill I Cl r I a owland 'Mye ?11 an C eiks Finghl.a%e Cstrand, cr 750t, t; ILESTON Marine Seqlce Tqwn a Corner te liall Fi_q I , Taug 'nock 51C - 89 0 r PLAIN Falls - \ I BONE a 'z Ashur Q V/ y I M \'flF 0 \/ OW CREEK I I Ing P.1i L;emcierI, Smith SU 0 3 1118epill N AbVVJ�yJ RD RD Portlar Me Corners CdyUg d flow Rock Sal AS AGARD RV Willo,4\Qree 1 Head PALI cnicl(EF fill) Y). F-7 RD i-A Ca jrg- W Cent it % Corner. Gully K E SHUR R RD hutch i: RDNN� tir Ilk" 46AR KR V W \�'' RD .� � x :U 0 SUN -- �e 1 1510 w6st P •r 4U[j FARAELL Z1, PATH Y,0 EN DR DIWden sonville \\N-L't R EH" zt Jac tL ON I EACH RD :0 I;x OKHAVEN DR jr RD •.hu ch EN 2 TWA TER RD BELVEDCnE RD Freev 0 rn 3PRINGUROOK CIR S. cksonville 3 H ON OR 30 Post Office -bd-L6GAb'ff='RU ,I KLIN On 5 VILLAGE PL Z 1 5 VILLAGE CIn 5 LE DR 7 WARREN D�j r .KEEL—i __ ___ \ Q \ - 1 RD FIVAT)f OR NELM!=. BURY OR CHERRY D- 00 . -fL s1vown31 Quo !r ... IERDOOM Settlem r�.'Inl U0 q kjor Dubois r� �t= Ir. � SN}!)ER R . U 9 GRANDVIEW OR to Chur:h C E le Cl no GLENWOA STORMY VIEW Etna Baptist CM!fii RD -11 BEAN HILL LA Church -V L:-Hier 0 r D z LCNW09D t2 SKY ACRES DR @COPYRIGHT 1985 ninai It ALNRONDACK ompl Ins County _Fj CORN ElGASSOCIATES Ali tort N CRIB I GROVE FIE no "I, Mu I GROVE RD 1717SET Ina IRADE 3 wool LANSING WEST 7R Etna 0 st 0 SPRING 4 LII IAA "YELL _FOR C SUNSET fi Fire Dept. 11 11ceA C112 RUN R H El Del law Road loule 13 e VIEW?R' WENT VIEW 2 CREEK NOI N4 CRRiffl a: JIt` 7 fAPPY LA P--) In 7' 4 .. FOOTE1 01 HILL I Site a ucker'Aroods a 66 0:rn! r D R Y E 0 ■ Gott :nurse Wt IPPI ay RD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A ale Police HA YTS■ CAYUGA P. Barracks 96 Renw HEIGHTS 1 7- 8 Eas- -PINE -311 BUNDY R -C65V ga-,qadhfi-- PLiASA 4T ----- - WOODS RID RD :x Rolle P EER ASANT RD Lint.' D Cemelery, Metho arn HAVEN RD I —C—'A 1[.X PLEASAI`V� Van Dorn I T H A k1b MECKLENIURG I SUNNY SLOPE f— Corner �Nk(' P---- I Varna 2 BEECHNUT TER Applegate 1:1 Station 3 IlIcKonV CT o )Cf F 4 LONE OAK RD Garner CITY 3*66 2 5 HICKORY no ITHACA Srgvp 5 SUNNY SLOPE TER CORNEi 1USR1\1 It First 0 plIst ELLIS ptch of E ilield WO ATE. East I a c:.:ii A Enfield alunteer• CIA Ok—gREEy Five Co. ENI EL CENTER /S Afi 3 rn L rL LONGVIE OR GAG r. PL D H L T 1 kAC-LES HEAD 4 2 H(WTERS LA GN .1 (D ar 1 7sViul•rGROVE 43 iDEfjn RUNIWICK 96 rnIOODLAND RD B STWICK C r GEN PG CIR Z< e" E 0 tu P En 0 Cn rn M ,--'ENF) ED LF.WK Chri, FgCC soDON Flo -4611- 0 IS t Z�-,) mo OK! Slat k B` 1 -, - SHEffffD r7:4- at I ta Grove OR RD G Y CC l��ROC) WELL RD, = NOTTI+AM - Uu AD rove rch i Beth .32 KING R R H.:Trem S S WOODWARD R SHICK -.d It. HICKOR no - ----- UrT C,,=ry itch I/.' • SIB �t MPTON rO ufvt: a es Ulhcc II.CZ — — . — aineESEMEA ry HOUSE ADOWBR 3K 6'a' I �A lery le file 22. tA-. U.DOUGLAS R cl) OOD RD J. __O -- L- phova NELSON 0: S cc E A uup, M bpi BISHOP IF Witnesses Uj K BISAO HK I L �d 13 SoIC fr (x AD RD --I-- R 0 let -HX =z = Snurct MIL L-z94;: k I EN JERSEY HILL RAIN EN A% RD mbull �orfle"14 RD 11-ts TO H .L RQ x RC 0:b Community Center o( kjo 11�\'6ALD'l BEAVER CREEK RD SHELTER D A B ---R,j%'EB1TR RD Guld CRESCE r SHELTER M .- DR VALLEY COOR, Fb TZILLER no . 2 Cemeitify Boar E J6 PPOORWILL RD W- Boor \ V:5 TABS 4 tybODTHnUSH EA-Corne .@61LOR HU MILLER -RO ttte ZaTEI Mar t NewfieldMILLER RD I CARO� 1 Ilic II tell ORTON HEIGHTSt cc -;rCc rollne SCHO Station gy HILLTOP 7 I 1HIL P RD D I qROVE 0 LU CEIjPTR Cn E (spot CHAPEr L QLSEFSKI. RD % ,SKY, �CHESTNU EER RUN Enr4UT DRter':RD 6 -98 RD L PEARL 0 L D :6 JIT PAYNE PO Sr -9UNDEPMAN Danhy SICbr N ;�k-- q1t; Llaj! Cent a Tll�- HILL HLj- ery — - q� fCOANIEL61 Co. No. Iy/ mots PC, R 11 0 Town [lull V 2 1 PINE CIRCLE Do Federated Church 2 BRIARWOOD i-A) 3 BEECH no A COVERED BRIDGI ST St LIES 401 SCHOOL 'P eZ;��RD, ox no RD LL SC 5 BANK ST ��ARD I CRESIVIE 4,� 171 WLA� I M v, White Ch r- 11�!VYA ptly h 'Build Ifill 0 0 A lal Park Cemetery L r L D`' i LA TOR'S. LA R. RD.. A' -pow ii�-rw list Bull I L TOMPKINS /��N DE I Ila: Ufqfj� Church 0 EX 'last Danb 603ART RDx ay 13ULL RD Co. \ 3 VAN '-1 a Kellogd V Pd. RD \SF:y RD Lane P Corner cl Memel ry ?A VALE OLLIE RD V15 lost RD SwTION r8o ERS TO Ij RD P 1 % �S �Z�IVER JAII MILEY OD - , `i: es �Dinb• y HILL l' ILL RD TRAI, AVE CC! d i f 0 I ni 11! 0, Is, is 10 a, syt.-V�A I -ijk 1 C) z West Dan b RD > q Hit: Siallo 0- FIUUSA- XA M . I Co. No. 2 96 ��Rd' C, WARIS cr RD outh Danb \=RD V LDING cc 7- BEECHRD/ / I xl — :b 0 PETEI? cc cc (31 .0 Wlllsey'/'Il :U Cli JOHN CHEF' . . . . . . j- 21, A V A E T�/ T E N T JSq. Sc6 flUE I lA0 x I s P N E A III, I d" 1