Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSJS 2001 1 SPECIAL JOINT SUBCOMMITTEEFEBRUARY 23, 2001 A regular meeting of the Special Joint Subcommittee was held on February 23, 2001, at 12:30, at the Town of Ithaca; Town Hall; Ithaca, New York PRESENT: *Mary Gutenberger, City of Ithaca *Mark Varvayanis, Town of Dryden *Cathy Valentino, Town of Ithaca *Mary Russell, Town of Ithaca *Frank Liguori, Town of Ithaca *Alan Cohen, City of Ithaca *Ed Hershey, City of Ithaca Larry Fabbroni, City of Ithaca Jay Engels, Sciarabba Walker Steve Thayer, Deputy City Controller Pat Vaughn ABSENT: *Joseph Leonardo, City of Ithaca Bill Gray, City Superintendent Gary Gleason, C.O. IAWWTF Dominick Cafferillo, City Controller There was a request for a copy of all the past non approved minutes. 2. Reorganization - Cathy thought that it was the City’s turn to have the Chair of the SJS. Alan deferred and asked Cathy if she would be willing to continue on as the Chair. Cathy is willing to continue. Cathy also mentioned that Mark is willing to take on the roll as well. Alan therefore nominated Cathy and there was a second to the nomination. All were in favor and it was carried. Larry asked if Cathy was going to set a regular meeting schedule. Cathy responded, not today, but we will. Cathy reported that the Town of Ithaca decided to ask for a separate independent audit of the SJS 1999 books by an auditor (Sciarabba Walker) different than the regular city auditor, with taking full responsibility to pay for the auditor. Jay is here today and should have a copy of the financial statement of the audit and a letter of recommendation of the audit. Cathy asked Jay to give the SJS the highlights of the audit. 2 Jay informed the SJS, that looking at the financial statements, they point out clearly there is nice cast position, healthy fund balance, nice capital reserve. Things are in good shape. As you can see it took a loss this year, (page 3) $579,025 loss in the General Fund, but on page 4 you actually budgeted for a $806,926 loss. So that isn’t bad. Jay said in that regard your revenues are right where you expect and your expenses were a little bit lower from what you expected. If you go back through the notes, they basically describes the entity in a little more detail from what you have seen in the past with the whole City of Ithaca audit. It gives you an idea of how much cash you have and were it lies, your fixed assets in a year, through the end of the year. In the back, there are bond payables laid out and how they will be paid in the next few years, page 10. Jay also mentioned that as you go back through the rest of the report you will find the standard and federal reports that must be included because it is a government entity. The other material you all have is the letter of recommendations. As we go through our audit there are things that are brought to our attention that we think should be looked at and given a litter more attention to. Cathy knew that people have just received this and may need more time to review it. She asked if anyone had any questions right now for Jay. Alan wanted to walk through a few of these. Alan thought the first one seemed self explanatory, but from an accounting perspective explain what the concern is. Jay said that it creates a lot more record keeping and possibly that the record keeping may go awry at some point. If the cash is all in one account it is easy to account for the income from that account. Cathy asked if we were, required by law, in the J fund to keep it separate from the General Fund. Jay didn’t think so, it is all within the City of Ithaca’s control. Alan asked Steve, in the absence of Dominick, we have a joint activity fund which as Alan understand it, is a separate fund. There are cases where, despite that distinct fund, there is still some commingling of some of the money’s going on. Steve said that is correct as far as cash is concerned, we get much better investment rate doing that. Steve thought that Jay could attest to the fact that all the money’s were segregated properly and distributed accordingly. Steve thought that Jay would attest to, even though he didn’t mention it, that these items are non material items and he didn’t find any material items during the audit. Alan also wondered if the funds were not commingled, we wouldn’t be able to get that same rate. Steve said it would be more difficult with a smaller amount of cash. Cathy said that was one of the problems that triggered us to have an independent audit done, because in the budget numbers we received, option 1 and option 2, the rate of return on our investments was only around 3% and she knows that Dominick does better than that. She did ask Dominick about that and thought there must be a problem with that. She does have a problem with keeping the money accounted for, clearly for the SJS’ benefit. The other thing that Cathy spoke with 3 Dominick about was the upgrade of the plant, the Town of Ithaca and Town of Dryden decided to have that paid for in cash, out of that fund balance, because it was so high and the City of Ithaca decided to bond for their share. The SJS was paying for the City’s debt, not the Towns debt. Cathy thought the other concerns were items carried over, in the books, for so many years, that should be been cleared up. Alan said that if the funds are being commingled for the purpose of getting a better rate of return, are the partners enjoying the benefits of a higher rate of return and being credited appropriately on the financial statement. Cathy agreed that is one of her concerns. Jay mentioned that when they did their testing of investment return, he didn’t come across any problems with 1999. Alan also said that even if the funds are commingled, which we have not determined whether or not they were, it would have to be clearly identified what the investment is and what the rate of return is and if that rate is being credited appropriately. Which is happening correctly, Steve said. Cathy said one of the problems over time, with the budget, we don’t have the actual numbers for the previous year are not next to the current years number so we can compare apples to apples. Because of Bolton Point, we do a totally different and separate audit of that SJS, like this one is, rather than having it be a section of the total of the city budget, which is a format she prefers because we have partners and we are going to be bringing in new partners and to be able to show them clear records of a separate audit and audit accounts is really important for us to have. We did find the problem with the debt that came to light. Another thing that could be a problem in the future, because we have this fund balance and the city’s portion of that fund balance is now greater because it left that money in there and the Town of Ithaca and Town of Dryden’s is lower, Cathy’s understanding is that there isn’t a clear paper trail for us to determine whose portion is whose. The outstandings from 1997 to/froms are a problem. Aside from this audit, she thinks how we look at the appropriations for the staff that are all the wastewat3er is clear and fine but we need to clearly establish a percentage for Larry’s time, Jose’s time, Steve’s time, other times that are part of that budget need to be shown as a percentage. Cathy understands that Jose’s is totally in this and we are getting a credit back for that and doesn’t think that is the appropriate way to do it. Alan - these questions, are these things that would be addressed in what you were referring to as a more extensive audit. What Cathy wanted to propose today, seeing the numbers like this in a totally separate audit are helpful and would be more helpful to have this continued for at least one more year. Cathy wants to propose hire Sciarabba Walker to do the audit of 2000, so we have 2 years of records to compare separately and independently as we move forward on the joint entity. Cathy made that a motion and Alan seconded it for discussion purposed. 4 Alan asked Jay if this was considered a full audit. Jay said we wouldn’t issue an opinion if it wasn’t complete. Alan asked if the outstanding question and information wasn’t for lack of access to the information, but just that the info wasn’t readily available or on paper somewhere, like the break out of fund balances and things like that. Jay said that is just something that hasn’t been done in the past, no one asked for it, he believe. It isn’t something that would hinder the process. Steve said that isn’t a problem to do, if the board wants that. Steve had a comment regarding Cathy’s proposal, he doesn’t have a problem with it, normally though we got out for professional services on this type of service and get quotes. Cathy said we don’t have to get quotes and Steve made it know that is the City’s practice and Cathy thinks that in this case the continuity is good and feels comfortable with it. Pat Vaughn said to Cathy one thing that was mentioned earlier when they met, was that there was some discrepancies with the balances forward. Were those eventually resolved? They were the balances from the statements from year x and they didn’t match with ... Jay said that wasn’t part of our audit, he thinks Cathy found those in the Annual Update Document that goes to the Controllers office in Albany. Alan asked why wasn’t that part of the audit. Cathy said it wasn’t the year the audit was being done. Ed said that it is almost March 2001, based on what he has heard, he can’t imagine an audit of 2000 would provide anything different than 1999, in terms of finding these issues in your recommendations. If all we did was to authorize the second audit, we wouldn’t really be focusing on the recommendations until 2002 before we dealt with those. Ed thought there would be some reaction to this from the Controllers office, even though, Steve has responded off the cuff. Alan asked Steve if that made sense to him, Steve said yes, we normally do a follow up to our audits and are required to. Normally, we have an exit conference as well, which has not been done, and that often clears up items on the recommendations, had we had the exit conference. Cathy said moving forward and looking at these things and sitting down with the audit we have, wouldn’t it be a smoother transition at this point to be working from this audit, to the 2000 audit with the transition from the same auditor. Steve said, to him, it doesn’t really matter who does that audit, the numbers are going to come out the way they should come out. For the record, Alan will support this motion, doing so with confidence and the City staff abilities. He is supporting this because as pointed out earlier, we are entering into a situation with 3 other partners and they are going to want comfort and clarity. As a matter of fact one of those potential partners just today in an earlier meeting, proposed incorporating into our new agreement an annual requirement for an independent audit which none of us talked about and the city folks need to talk about it before we respond to it. 5 Someone mentioned it is already in the agreement. Alan said okay. 6 Cathy asked for other comments. Larry added that he welcomes this audit, it will clear up a lot of confusion that he has heard expressed. He spoke to the person who did the audit and said this is the first audit that he has seen go on that you didn’t talk to the person who signed every voucher that went through the whole process. So, I’ll point out to you, if you didn’t understand, I’m that person that signed every voucher. He’s been through a lot of town audits and other audits and he thinks to be thoroughly complete you ought at least see the people involved in the whole process. Cathy said that to Jay, you did go to the plant. Jay said Jose took him through the plant. Cathy asked if all were in favor. There were no oppositions. Alan asked Steve, regarding the letter of recommendations, are they unreasonable or are they legitimate items to be brought forth in a letter like this. Steve said no, it’s not unreasonable and are minor items. Alan is asking because why our other auditors didn’t come up with these points prior to him seeing them. Steve said, we didn’t have an exit conference, so there is a couple of reasons for some these items. The other thing is when you do a financial report, the size of the City’s report, it is virtually impossible to find everything that goes on. You are talking about $40 million worth of activity and these items are not material, so to find them you would have to actually perform an audit of each individual fund separately. It is difficult, you don’t have the time and the resources. Alan said to following up on Ed’s point, there are 2 different things brought up, the questions in this letter and then there were additional questions that are not in the letter. Like the staff time allocation and how are we going to move forward with these. Cathy said we have to do some beginning and ending year, break the numbers down farther. The auditor can help us get some of the basic numbers. Some of the work we will have to do together, the auditors obviously can’t understand how the whole operation functions. Cathy thinks we need to ask the staff to give us some background on how much time is allocated and how they got to their numbers. Alan still wants to know how we are going to be move forward. Alan asked Cathy is she is going to provide a list of concerns, and then how are we going to follow up with that. Cathy said she will make a list and in working with Steve, Dominick and Larry, we can get that paper trail that we need to break those things out and make those corrections in the fall. All were in favor to adjourn. SPECIAL JOINT SUBCOMMITTEEAUGUST 21, 2001 A regular meeting of the Special Joint Subcommittee was held on August 21, 2001, at 12:30, at the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility; Ithaca, New York PRESENT: *Cathy Valentino, Town of Ithaca *Frank Liguori, Town of Ithaca *Mary Gutenberger, City of Ithaca Ronald Denmark, Acting Chief Operator Larry Fabbroni, City of Ithaca Steve Thayer, Deputy Controller Dominick Cafferillo, City Controller Bill Gray, City Superintendent Dan Walker, Town of Ithaca *Ed Hershey, City of Ithaca *Alan Cohen, City of Ithaca ABSENT: *Mark Varvayanis, Town of Dryden *Joseph Leonardo, City of Ithaca *Mary Russell, Town of Ithaca 1. Report on July Minutes - Frank motioned that the minutes be approved as submitted. There was a motion to approve and the minutes were seconded by Mary Gutenberger. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Review of Budget for Year 2002 - Larry stated the changes that were made to the salary line were to show as closely as possible the actual involvement. Roxie’s time was adjusted down from full time to three days. The remaining balance was put into a line for a part time lab tech. It also reflects Dominick’s noted adjustment for Terry’s salary. Dominick stated that there still was time to meet again and make adjustments to the budget. Other than the two changes it is the budget that was submitted by the department and reviewed in July. Cathy asked about voting on the Phosphorous removal. Ed Hershey was called in at Dominick’s request to form a quorum. Dominick asked to look at option #1. We didn’t include option 2 or 3 because they were work in progress. Option #1 is effectively used to balance the budget with a $500,000 appropriated fund balance. The reason for this is we are experiencing a decline in water consumption and billing base. It is not just the city, it’s the town of Ithaca as well. In 1999, City consumption was 138M. It has been dropping consistently: 1996 - 150M, 1997 - 148M, 1998 - 143M, 1999 -141M, and 2000 - 138M cubic feet. In 2000 we were having some difficulty getting an accurate reading from the user system. So we took a five year average which was 144M . In 2001 consumption is 130M. These numbers are fairly consistent. We need to get with engineers to evaluate what is causing this. One explanation is Lake source cooling from Cornell. Cornell usage is dropping dramatically because they are not using treated water for their steam systems, etc. Overall usage is also dropping. In 1997 the Town went up 73M, 1998 - 71.2M, 1999 - 70.9M, 2000 - 72.9M. This year the Town usage dropped from 51.6M to 47M, but Cornell found an error and determined that they had a bad meter. Dominick spoke to someone at Cornell Utilities about this. While the Towns internal usage was down, Cornell’s fourth quarter usage was up markedly. Cornell installed new meters and determined what the variance was and made adjustments. Even though the main portion of the Town was down, the overall usage ended up about level with last year at about 71M. The net effect is that the overall consumption is down 15 million cubic feet per year. Septage revenue is down due to lower interest rates from the financial market. The increase in budget is because we have a much higher rate increase with the 500,000 appropriated fund balance. Cathy questioned if we shouldn’t reduce other costs with less water use. Bill stated that a tremendous amount of the costs of plant operation are fixed. Metered water consumption is not directly proportional to sewer and wastewater. Cathy asked what the rates were for this year. Dominick stated that investment interest rates have dropped from 5.5 to 3.75 this year. He adjusted back $50,000. Last year $550,000 was appropriated. Fund balance is $1.9M. We are now getting to the point that we are using large appropriations. Last year we used $550,000. At some point the rate should reflect the actual expenses. The rate is 77.5 cents from 63.8 cents. This reflects a 21% increase. For the past two years the rate has been artificially low. Cathy asked for a breakdown of the fund balance to show what portion belongs to each entity. Dominick projects that the fund balance will be around $1.4M or $1.5M at year end. Capital reserve monies could be used to purchase equipment. That would save $70,000 . Cathy questioned the balance in the capital fund- $1.3M. For capital projects Dominick mentioned use revolving fund monies. Larry stated that ½ of the interest will be subsidized. Bill said to keep in mind that the 63.8 cent and 77.5 cent rates are not actual costs. They are artificially low. It was agreed that the $70,000 for equipment will be taken from capital monies. The goal is to lower the appropriated fund balance and approach a 70 cent rate. 3. Review of Phosphorous Removal Proposal - Larry recommended the design proposal that Sterns and Wheeler provided for tertiary phosphorous removal. This is separate from the global DEIS. We received money from the State Bond Act Funds of $1.4 million. Most of the preliminary design has been completed by S&W. What remains to be done in preliminary design phase is the design report to the DEC to get them to agree to the next phase of final design. SJS agreed to a plant permit back in June to go ahead as a show of good faith. In the process of accepting the permit we are at the limit of what we can achieve with chemical removal at the plant in the area of phosphorous removal. We can do some chemical addition to meet the permit most of the time. But at peak time we know that we may not be able to meet that permit based on the new level. Knowing that constraint, it is in our best interest to proceed with at least half of the program that we laid out. The $1.4M that we have received will come close to funding 85% of the construction for half of the program, so in addition to the 15% local construction share, you would be committing to the total design. Larry recommends that the SJS act favorably on the proposal. He feels that it would put us in a good position with Albany for the additional monies requested in October 2000. Move now, go through design process, go to bid in the Spring of 2002. S & W has piloted many phosphorous system alternatives for Onondaga County. The US Filter Kruger if sole resourced, which reuses phosphorous tanks could reduce design costs by $50,000. What you are looking at will allow us to look at two alternatives, Kruger and IOI for a $412,000.00 cost on a not to exceed basis. Part of the proposal is actually bidding the equipment. The design needs to be finalized after you choose the method. Different alternatives involve different equipment apparatus. Bill sees focus on getting the phosphorous out, not actually a preference for a system. Dan questioned the difference of the two proposals. Larry stated that the one treatment method is not as compact (adding to structural costs). The precipitant is dealt with in slightly different ways. Cathy wants to know how much of the cost she needs to bring to her board. Dominick will provide her with that amount. Dominick will clarify the total amount that is needed. Alan said we are committed to the phosphorous removal. Cathy asked toVote on the proposal of effluent filtration phosphorous removal and for the resolution. To be put on the municipalities agenda for the September meeting. Passed Unanimously. 4. Staff Report - Larry mentioned the Chief Operator Position and it’s being filled. Cathy asked that the group of six be reminded to bring it up on their agenda. 5. Financial Report - Dominick asked to have a short meeting next week Tuesday the 28th to finalize the budget at 12:00. Cathy would like someone from the Town of Dryden, Town of Ithaca and City of Ithaca to be present. Next meeting date to be September 6, 2001. Group of six municipalities at 9:30AM in The Town of Ithaca Hall. DEIS Scoping at 7:00PM in The Town of Lansing Hall. 6. Old Business - There was no old business 7. New Business - There was no new business 8. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. 1 SPECIAL JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE MAY 2, 2001 A regular meeting of the Special Joint Subcommittee was held on May 2, 2001, at 12:30, at the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility; Ithaca, New York PRESENT: Steve Thayer, Deputy City Controller *Mark Varvayanis, Town of Dryden *Cathy Valentino, Town of Ithaca *Mary Russell, Town of Ithaca *Frank Liguori, Town of Ithaca *Ed Hershey, City of Ithaca *Alan Cohen, City of Ithaca Larry Fabbroni, City of Ithaca Dominick Cafferillo, City Controller Bill Gray, City Superintendent ABSENT: *Joseph Leonardo, City of Ithaca *Mary Gutenberger 1. Transition of SJS To New Governance of the Joint Service - Cathy said as you know, there are negotiations going on for a new sewer agreement, adding three new partners and also changes substantially the governance of the SJS, as it has been historically. The new model, that we are in agreement with, is close to the Bolton Point scenario and largely follows that model. One of the concerns, regarding the transition, is that it is difficult to get a quorum for the SJS and we are in unchartered territory as to how we are going to transition to a new government. Cathy had a couple of ideas on how to do that. One thing needed on a regular basis is, operation and engineering report, so people are kept up to speed. There could be an engineering committee that meets regularly and puts together a report for SJS to review. The other thing we need regularly, is budget reports and numbers on the budget year-to-date, to keep continuity. Cathy thinks that we need to have SJS meetings to begin as we need to and have this engineers and operations report and maybe a little verbal report on the budget, until we figure out how to transition. Cathy motioned that to have a resolution saying to set up an Operation and Engineering Meeting, Mary seconded it. We set up SJS as needed to primarily deal with finances and budgeting. Mary moved and Ed seconded. Larry added we should set up a regular meeting date. It is difficult to carry on regular operations business during AD HOC meetings with specific negotiation or task focus. 2 For example, Larry said budget adjustments are necessary, having to call a special meeting is difficult, something to shoot for makes regular business more routine. Cathy said, as existing, it goes to BPW anyway. Dominick said then to Common Council. Cathy said so, rather than set up a meeting, work with Dominick on how that should work. Cathy said with the budget cycle coming up we would be meeting more regularly. Dominick said soon a budget potentially managed by the new group would be and at that point it would be required to take action. Cathy said when it will affect an existing budget, line to line we don’t need to bother, other major allocations, then okay. Cathy said she would get with Dominick and look at the budget cycle. Dominick said traditionally we have been meeting late in the process even though a budget is required to be submitted for BPW by August 1, 2001. Alan added that after the budget process, is the ongoing need for the SJS to meeting is dictated by the operation and engineering concerns. What he is getting at is, making sure that we are dealing with the disagreements in that group what ever source of the disagreement is. Cathy said BPW formed the current authority, in the future. 1. Engineering representatives from all 3 partners should be involved in those discussions, empowered to make decisions, if there is a disagreement BPW should be brought in and discussed separately. Cathy doesn’t have a problem with that. Cathy said what we are looking at is some kind of continuity, Alan agreed and wanted to ensure that the city staff is charged with day-to-day responsibility. They are responsible to meet regulations and somewhat out on their own. Cathy agreed for a motion to be made to setup schedule for SJS with budget priority . Alan responded, nail it down right now, submission is August 1, how much lead time does the SJS need to work with staff? Hopefully, there will be a draft budget by mid June so the SJS can look and edit, even though the BPW can change, mid July BPW can see it, Alan can be at the June meeting. Bill said to have it mailed to everyone mid June, Cathy meeting near end of June toward July 4th. Cathy wants 2 July meetings. Cathy asked what happens. Alan said he’d talk to Pat Vaughn, Dominick said the element that takes longer is setting the rate. Dominick will try and get that information worked up. Larry brought up the fund balance being needed to protect the planned master plan, capital projects, i.e. tertiary phosphorus and grit removal. and then Dominick talked about it also. Cathy proposes that we set an SJS for June 26, Tuesday-, then July 17th, Tuesday and July 31st. (31st only if we need it.) 12:30 for all meetings. 4 2. Discuss the Outstanding Minutes - Cathy said that it is difficult for us to officially approve, so we can officially receive the minutes and have a resolution, saying these minutes are received but not officially approved due to the long time frame, but they can be used as reference but not official decisions. All were in favor. 3. Financial Report - Steve has a printout for March, take it with you and digest it. There will be a meeting on June 26th. (This meeting was later canceled due to SJS member conflicts.) 4. Operations & Engineering Reports Larry handed out the operations report. We are internally in the middle of head works loading sampling that needs to be done every 5 years. We have asked BB & L and Stearns & Wheler for proposals. We have successfully awarded the bid for the Belt Presses. We spoke with Henderson Brothers to assist the plant staff for installing the presses. This press will almost double our production capabilities. It will substantially increase our ability to handle more sludge. We also have found that our original piping for sludge, had been deteriorating prematurely. The water and sewer staff assisted the wastewater crew to repair the lines. We still have one line to repair, hard to get to, but we will be getting to that, two have been replaced. We have the draft plant permit copy in hand. We showed it to Stearns & Wheler last month, they did their own analysis and came up with 50#/day, DEC says 40#/day suggested permit be that loading permit per day in the short term. If we get the rest of the money for the tertiary phosphorus treatment we can easily achieve a higher level of treatment. It is something that, if you want to be involved, we will need to have a special meeting. If DEC doesn’t change the limits there could be funding in the next couple of months. So we might accept it for a short period of time, and add chemicals at the head end of the plant. The understanding originally was 10-13 mgd and the phosphorus loading limit wouldn’t go up or change. We are now seeing apples and oranges averages that are not based on the same criteria. Statistics are not the simplest way to put it. Mark asked how hard it would be to make the permitted number. Larry said at times very difficult even though we do a lot of chemical removal. At a point it affects the biology in aeration critical to plant performance. Bill mentioned the FeCl2 at the front end of the plant. 5 Tertiary treatment would decrease the need for this chemical removal substantially even though it involves application of same chemicals. Larry asked Mark if he answered his question. If DEC doesn’t give us the money for the tertiary we are stuck with the interim limit forever. Larry said, it’s been 5 years to get them moving on the 13 MGD while successful there is little mis-communication between DEC staff and Mark asked if we could move ahead with tertiary phosphorus at the level funded. Larry said yes you tell me, that is just as well, that’s fine too. Alan said he preferred a non-confrontational option. Alan asked how much is the tertiary. Larry said about 3.5 million and we have committed about ½. The danger once we accept this interim limit, DEC has gotten us reduced in poundage per day so what incentive do they have to fund tertiary. Alan said it wouldn’t make a difference, Larry agreed and added that in the first place, DEC wanted to end the Lake Source Cooling debate. The danger is why would DEC bother sending another dollar here instead of down state if the problem is ended. Alan said regardless of whether we get the money or not, the thought of holding back on the 13, doesn’t make sense. SEQRA process was held up in part, complicated with expansion, and will have to be added to SEQRA process. Larry said we did a separate process on the 13 MGD, Alan said but on a legal basis some view it as possibly apart. Cathy though that was clearly excluded. Bill added we run up against force able issues, if we set out to make that case. Alan said we are talking about 2 different things. He’s focusing on the tertiary, you are talking about construction costs. Sorry, I thought you were talking about capital debt, chemical costs, operating costs. Reduced it to 3.5, is that a good use of your money? Would you be better off using the money somewhere else. Larry added or stay at the 10 heading down that road. Cathy suggested we approach this one step at a time. (Subsequently, Bill discussed this with 6 municipal groups and got direction to accept the interim permit level and that SJS would commit capital reserves to balance of tertiary costs if necessary.) Larry temp employees, question asked by Human Resources, had to act on the temp lab tech budgeted for 2080 hours per year, benefits, toward end of last year, December 2000. Asked by HR, terminate the position or establish the position. So we established a full time permanent position. So we have this permanent position now. Based on Jose’s request quite some time ago, the work load is there, and has been for 2 years. It was easy to see what would be sustained and what wouldn’t be. Cathy asked if this position is totally charged to SJS, Larry said yes, Cathy asked if all his work is just SJS, Larry said yes. Alan asked if the budget would absorb added cost. Larry said it is completely absorbed, almost all by income of trucked waste. 6 Larry stated, long range sludge disposal we are prioritizing. City of Auburn-we are asking for more detail on waste constituents. Currently we are taking out sludge to Seneca Meadows Landfill, also developing some figures on lime stabilization process, which Onond. County employs. In the end we are going to put out for bid. Mark said there is land spreading of Cornell agricultural sludge. Attitudes have changed. Larry said land spreading was too hot to handle. In 1990 SJS decided nothing politically would be done. It almost seemed if we were to land spread, it would have to be out of county. Mark mentioned it is spread several times a year, Larry would revisit it, storage in the winter is a big problem. Larry thinks he finally got Tara of DEC to understand the dilemma of accepting interceptor moneys for work already bonded through NYSEFC. Whatever money we can’t apply to completed work has to go to a dedicated fund for sewer work, as they come along. Larry took that as optimistic to fund additional sewer work. In the original 7.4 million dollars the governor gave in September 1998. We have to accept the money as that. We will shift it to other interceptor wastewater work. We might get another 1½ million but she seemed real happy with potential progress. Cathy asked how this dedicated fund would work. Dominick said if they don’t allow us to use it for other work, we would dedicate it to bond debt retirement. Most of the application will be Phase I and II. (Subsequent information from DEC clarified that Phase I Bonding could stand, projects not already bonded but completed could be reimbursed from $1.7+ committed. Balance of Bond Act monies not used for Phase I & II could be rolled over for use on additional sewer work.) Larry said finally - the efforts of the watershed, Caroline and Dryden watershed, at some point have Roxie and Jose come in 5. Old Business - 6. New Business - 7. Adjournment - Meeting adjourned at 1:40 pm.