The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSJS 2002SJS Meeting February 28, 2002 Present: Dominick Cafferillo Mary Russell Frank Liguori Dan Walker Steve Thayer Mark Varvayanis* Mary Gutenberger* Alan Cohen* Larry Fabbroni Bill Gray Cathy Valentino* Ron Denmark The meeting was called to order at 12:12PM. Cathy began the meeting by expressing concerns of being in compliance with the SJS agreement. She stated that she and Mark have met with Dominick, Steve and the auditors and have worked through some of the issues. Election of Officers Cathy begins with: Page 11 of the membership concerns who the members should be and it appears that the City is in compliance with 4 representatives (3 from the Board of Public Works and 1 from Common Council, i.e.Ed Hershey). Representing the Towns will be 4 members of their choice (1 of whom must be an elected official from the government body) which leaves us to decide among ourselves how we’re going to do that. Town of Ithaca has appointed Mary and Cathy, and Mark’s board has appointed …… and Chris Michaels. That divides things evenly between the towns and those are the newly appointed members. Cathy states we are past due with the election of new officers which is basically just the Chair. I’ve been the Chair for awhile now so I don’t know where we want to go with that if someone else wants to… ______ asked if Cathy would be willing to continue serving. Cathy says she would basically because we have put in so much time on the group of 6 and would like to see it through. _____ nominates Cathy and Mary seconds the motion. Alan mentions that although he’s not looking for it, it is traditionally rotated among the 3 partners from year to year and asks are you looking to diverge from that tradition? Cathy says no, if you want to do that, it’s fine with me. So in the rotation it would be the City’s turn to Chair the committee. Alan states that he’s not looking to Chair but was just trying to make a point. Cathy says that the other point is that hopefully we’ll be moving into the new entity in the not too distant future. Is there somebody from the City who has worked on all these things and has the background (Larry?). Larry says we’ll diverge from tradition. Cathy calls for a vote and all agree. Motion carried. Cathy is elected Chair. Reviewing the agreement and developing plan of action to come into compliance. Page 11 is ok now. Page 2 General Municipal Law on Joint Entity. We all agree that that’s what it is, that it is and has operated as a joint entity and gets a separate audit and a separate report which goes to the State so we’re in compliance with Joint Activity Municipal Law as far as the audit and reporting are concerned. Dominick and Steve concur. Cathy spoke with John ________ and the Title of Property never happened with the 3 partners being listed on the deed. This may not be a big problem if we move to the new organizational structure in a timely way. Cathy thinks it would make more sense with all of the legal work to be done, to have all 6 partners added at the same time. Larry reminds everyone that the land situation is more complicated than most____________ due to the inlet and railroad being located ______. It’s not your average __________. We were, at one point, having a survey done, and I have time now so we should probably __________. Just in the course of _________ it wasn’t a priority to __________. I have no problem now going back and saying now we need it. It would get that out of the way and the matter of changing title to whomever can wait till we do that. Cathy mentioned that this was discussed with the Group of 6 and everyone agreed that they need to go forward with this act. Larry said he didn’t get the impression of a final directive from the group of 6. Cathy asks what do the members think about that as it really needs to get started so that the deed can be transferred. Larry agrees that it needs to happen. Bill says that it should be stopped short of filing. Cathy says that because of having to add more names to the deed, she agrees that it should stop at the point of filing. Mark says that if we go through and do all of that and stop just short of filing, what are we saving…maybe $50.00. We should go ahead and have the 3 partners put on the deed and add the others later. Cathy says if it’s that inexpensive we should go ahead and do it. Larry says that a lawyer will probably do it. Mary says that the papers will change. Cathy suggests having everything done to the point of filing. By then maybe we’ll have a better handle on where we are with the Group of 6 and we can make a decision at that point and Larry may have some numbers on what it will cost to do it either way. Dan asked if there would be a need to update the abstract. Larry says yes. Dan says that could take up to 6 months so there may not be any need to worry about how many names are on it. Pre-agreement Cost Cathy assumes this was all cleared up but has no history on this. Page 6 - the City has a __________ adjustment toward a share of the capital cost of _____________right away which it has acquired __________. Larry says it is all done and we did a step one plan ______________. Cathy says ok, that’s done. Appendix II – Budget surplus and revenue shall be budgeted toward the operation of the following year This is the discussion that Cathy and Mark had with Dominick and the auditors and made it clear that that’s how we should be operating. Dominick said that if that’s how we want to proceed it can be worked out. Dominick says that because the fund balance is so large in relation to the operating budget, and we are at a point where we could potentially be taking on new members, we would distribute a portion of the fund balance back to the existing partners proportionately based on operating budget shares. We did a cash flow for 2001 and determined that $300,000 - $400,000 would be enough in a fund balance to fund the low points between when the partners pay their quarterly payments and when payroll and other payment have to be made. So unless we get other direction, we’ll prepare an analysis to show how the distribution will be done. Cathy asks if the money will come back to us? Dominick states that it will come back to the existing partners. Cathy suggest that another way to do it might be to use budget fund balance for the operating fund this year and not have the 3 partners pay in any shares. Dominick points out that this would create a very low rate…. artificially low. Well below where it is now. It’s a timing element depending on when the other entities come in. He suggested distributing the fund balance to the existing partners, then budget for 2003 based on the what the actual rate should be on a non-subsidized basis. The projection of what the fund balance is going to be after the 2001 records are frozen is $1.945M reserved and unreserved, but we used $716,000 against the 2002 budget. We’d have to do it in 2 parts – return a portion of the unreserved and then if we’re going to take the fund balance below $700,000 a second payment to be distributed once we know the results of 2002. We haven’t used the $716,000 because we have been spending less than expected and taking in more in outside revenues. Dominick said we also had suggested doing the same with capital reserve. He also noted that $400,000 is due the City because they borrowed a portion of the $600,000 to do the plant upgrade. Cathy said the engineers must be paid for what has been already agreed to for the phosphorous removal (approx. 400.000). Larry says that we need to recover expenses. Cathy talked about figuring in the other 3 potential partners concerning allocation of funds to pay for expenses and upcoming projects and reimbursement for their shares. Bill Gray noted the plant revenues. ($246,000 for treatment.) Cathy talked about Page 12 (SJS authority) – auditing the bills prior to processing payment and making timely payments to vendors. Cathy would like to review vouchers once a month. Dominick would come up with wording for the new agreement. Cathy says the Town uses a prepay system. Cathy is concerned with items over budget or out of the ordinary. She also questioned payroll credits. Larry responded with examples of someone budgeted for the WTP and working at the WWTP and offered to show Cathy the process. Cathy asked about what portion was showing up on the budget. She states the according to the agreement, page 11 says that the SJS is supposed to overseeing the operation, including the budget, and making recommendations to the Board of Public Works. They should be implemented accordingly and if they’re rejected, or not acted on within 30 days or reach an impasse, it should be reported to the Chief Physical Officer who will convene the necessary people to attempt to resolve the matter. We should me mindful of these responsibilities. We need to schedule monthly meetings on a regular basis. Cathy mentioned annual reports and monthly statements that we need to look at on a monthly basis. Cathy asked for any comments. There were none so the floor was turned over to Larry for the engineering report, which he read from the copy that he distributed to everyone when he arrived. Highlights of Larry’s Report The first item he talked about was the $5500.00 for the structural review of the Cayuga Heights Plant. Alan noted that S & W has concerns of feeling as though they’re in the middle of 2 clients and whether their objectivity might be compromised. Larry is checking other firms and has no proposal but say to expect it to be higher whoever it is. Alan explains that S & W wants to maintain their good relationship with us and also has a relationship with Cayuga Heights. Larry explains his concerns over the structural issues and what has and hasn’t been totally shared until now. Dan says he is comfortable with the report and Alan says he agrees but his concerns are on what the report doesn’t say. Alan asked Dan what was NOT covered in the report. Dan says he’s not concerned about the tank structures. Mary says that we want to see the cost and if it’s reasonable they will ok the study and Larry did what he was asked to do in getting those costs us. Alan says, in the new entity, we are still responsible for 50% of capital costs incurred, and if the tanks have to be rebuilt, that’s a significant cost. Also, we have a lot of experience with concrete and know that the internal issues can be different from what is seen externally. Dryden is not willing to pay for anymore studies, Town is only willing to pay their share for a study of the structure. Alan states that the City is looking at a 40year window, not 20 years on structural issues. Dan says that the owner of the system has not had major problems with the structure. He has only heard of deficiencies such as excessive flows and treatment failures (poor design of hydraulic systems). Dan says to put it out to the joint partners as an asset and notes that there is always a risk but joining everything is more a benefit than a risk. Cathy says that she will go to her board with the S&W - $5500.00 proposal and if the City wants to do more then go ahead. Next Larry talks about the $1.7M __________ cost. DEC application Phosphorous removal Animal Waste Project – Cornell coming up with a draft EIS Flow Meter Stations – updating equipment Preliminary report on phosphorous removal upgrade Trucked Waste fee – Ron increased fees due to rising costs of disposal. Dioxin study – Mary asked if they were testing plastics and Larry said they were testing both Staff report/cost analysis – belt press installation, chlorine analyzer, job classification study underway Mary G – longevity of plant permit. Larry says Cornell is asking for permits Bill Gray explains that he received a letter from the DEC in regards to the Chief Operator position and that it needs to be addressed at the next meeting. Cathy says it will be first on the agenda for the next meeting and she has a copy of the job description for the General Manager’s position at Bolton Point. Cathy wants to know why the DEC is concerned, and says that we need to talk about this. Alan says that the DEC issued a permit listing only the City on it. We need to put pressure on them to rectify this. Mary says that she thought they had been asked to amend this. Bill says that he was told that only one name could be put on due to a computer glitch. Alan says we need everyone’s help to fix this. Cathy says that the General Manager item is not a personal issue. It is a timing issue to make a change at the top. Bill says that he will get the SJS a job description for the Chief Operator. Next meeting scheduled for March 26, 2002 at 12:00. Future meetings tentatively scheduled for the fourth Tuesday of each month. Motion to adjourn at 1:40. Mary seconds the motion. All agree. SJS Meeting March 26, 2002 Present: Dominick Cafferillo Mary Russell* Frank Liguori Steve Thayer Mark Varvayanis* Mary Gutenberger* Larry Fabbroni Cathy Valentino* Ron Denmark Chris Michaels* Ed Hershey* The meeting began at 12:10PM with Dominick explaining a handout detailing the fund balance remaining from 2001. The difference in the unreserved balance at the beginning of 2001 and the unreserved balance at the beginning of 2002 is $481,196. We actually used this amount from the fund balance in the budget for 2001. Previously we have appropriated $500,000 - $600,000 from fund balance and using maybe $100,000 or less. Now we have the revenues adjusted down and the expenditures to the point where we’re spending what’s budgeted and taking in revenues as estimated. The fund balance between 2001 and 2002 went down to the unreserved portion of $747,204. The 2002 operating budget includes an appropriation of $602,382, which is shown in the budget options handout that was recommended by the SJS and Council agreed to. The recommendation was to reduce the rate by 10%. The distribution to the partners would only include the $747,204. We have completed a cash flow projection and concluded that our biggest cash flow drain is toward the middle of the year, in which we needed $307,000, so if we’re going to leave a fund balance that will provide us cash flow throughout the year, it’s going to have to be around $350,000-$400,000. Cathy asked why? Dominick says so that we can meet payroll and other liabilities. Cathy asks if the $626,000 unreserved balance would take care of the cash flow. Dominick says it would for 1 year but then it would be gone and we would have to ask the partners for more fund balance to provide cash flow. Dominick states that now we must decide (1) when to distribute it and (2) how much to distribute of the $747,000. We don’t want to hold the rate artificially low for 2003. Not using the fund balance to reduce the rate. We could distribute a portion of that. We are looking at distributing around $400,000 by using a percentage system. We need to work out the shares of each participating member for distribution. Dominick suggests having a working session to find everyone’s comfort levels in working out the distribution. Cathy asks if the finals for the 2001 budget are done and ready for the controllers report? Steve says April. The balance at the end of 2000 for capital reserve was $1.439M. We have isolated the amounts that had been allocated for quicker purchases and other capital programs/projects. The net balance is $1,114,392 at the beginning of 2002. Included in that amount, is the City’s portion of the capital project that the City funded through the EFC and the Town’s usage of the capital reserve. Cathy states that the Town used $245,000+. Dominick says that the City’s portion was $343,784 at the beginning of 1999 and interest has been earned for 1999, 2000, and 2001. So over a three-year term the City’s portion grew to $403,000 at the end of 2001. The net capital reserve balance is $711,000. As Steve pointed out, in 2000, three capital projects were approved. We should revisit those projects and make a determination of their status prior to the distribution of funds. These projects include: Sludge presses - $630,000; The Joint Collection Rehabilitation - 400,000; and the Interceptor Project - $516,000. Cathy asks if the interceptors would be legitimate. This needs to be revisited. Larry says that Ronnie reminded him even though we call it the sludge press, it encompassed all the capital projects for that year. So that $600,000 may be close to being used up. Dominick says that Steve and Larry will analyze the expenditures out of 407J and report back with the results. Then it’s up to the owners to decide where to put the monies left. Dominick will get with Larry to see if any of those projects were funded with grant money. Cathy asked for more detail concerning interest, etc. to analyze all the numbers through 2001. Cathy says we now have a quorum and asks if everyone is comfortable approving the February minutes, which were just received. It is decided that this be deferred to the next meeting so that they may be reviewed by everyone first. Chief Operator’s Position Cathy says that she has asked the Mayor if the review that’s being done by the State and by the CSEA would have any affect on the Chief Operator position. He said that he didn’t think so. Larry said that this study does not include the Chief Operator as it is in the executive unit. Larry says that if the General Manager’s position is established, it will be in the managerial category. Cathy says that the dilemma is that we are in the process of rewriting the agreement to include the 6 entities rather than the three current owners. We have not had a chance with that group to discuss it or reach a decision on how we want to put the governance part of it together in its final form. Mary says that the City has been discussing it internally. Cathy says that we asked the auditors to tell us what constituted the $238,810 of charge-back and they broke that out and we were shocked to see what was being charged back to the SJS. Cathy says that we need to figure out what the whole group wants to do (get the governance as close to the Bolton Point model as possible or leave it as the SJS has been traditionally)? The other thing is figuring out the cost. Cathy asked Larry if he and Bill Gray are going to meet with Paul at Bolton Point and Larry responded that Bill has been away and just returned but he is intending to go and talk with Paul so he can compare. Cathy says that Bolton Point performs a completely different function in which the administrative employees do all of the work internally from meter readings to billing, payables, customer service, managing accounts. So Cathy says that this group can’t make a decision regarding the General Manager but we can talk about the Chief Operator position. Larry says he has handed out job descriptions for General Manager, Chief Operator and his own position. Line by line, Larry’s position and the Chief Operator descriptions are comparable to the General Manager job description. The cost of involving Larry’s office is $52,000 out of the aforementioned $238,000. Dominick says that over time on these charge-backs, the City used to breakdown individual salaries and percentages of benefits. Then we went to program budgets and looked at services and programs in general in administration. But the issue is more the amount and percentage of the operating budget that merits further discussion. It’s been at 10.8% - 11.7% of the operating budget cost. We don’t keep log books to record time minute by minute. In general, government activities include reviewing the budget, approving employee contracts, dealing with grievances and other employee related issues. The amount charged back from year to year has increased by the increased cost of contracts. The breakdown isn’t a direct reflection of actual time for that year. Cathy questions the service of 8% of it. Dominick responds that it includes items purchased for the WWTF as being part of the citywide network, such as computers, internet connections, internal network. The communications of the plant are now being installed and maintained by the City’s IT department. Cathy says that those particular debt services are not things that the SJS can legally pay. The SJS has never approved these items. Dominick says that these are part of our operating costs and Cathy says there may be some legal problems with these items. Cathy also asks why the SJS is being charged for the Mayor’s office and Common Council. Dominick says that these are shown as general governmental activity. The Mayor’s office get involved in the budgetary activities, employee related activity, grievances, and negotiating process. Common Council’s involved in reviewing and improving the budget. Cathy says that the Town is involved in these things to and Dominick responds that the City and City employees are operating the plant and these are legitimate costs that relate to city employees. Cathy says these are things that at Bolton Point we wouldn’t even think of trying to charge back. Dominick asks if Bolton Point employees are union. Cathy says yes. He asks if they are Town employees. Cathy says no, they are employees of the Commission. And that’s the exact direction we think we need to go, to have this stuff separated out and run so we can clearly define what this entity is paying for and how we are paying for it. The City Chamberlain’s office does payroll so that’s a legitimate cost, and the HR area. Ed Hershey notes that the City should be compensated fairly and equitably for administering the facility, but it would cost more to micro -manage time accountability. So when the time comes to justify the cost, and you look at the specifics, it will always look silly. The bottom line is, it is not reasonable to discuss each specific charge if the total charge on the commitment of the facility looks reasonable. Dominick says that cost of running the facility is a shared expense. Mary says that the problem we have never seen these charge -backs before and we don’t know when the SJS went from attributing direct costs to this sort of percentage charge-back system. So could you show us when that happened. Dominick says that charge-backs have been part of the budget since day one. Larry states that his original point was that they will not do away with the $238,000 by getting a General Manager. Cathy says that’s one of the things they need to break out when we look at Bolton Point and the Commission and how that functions as a separate entity. So, cost-wise, we need to think about whether it makes more sense to have the new sewer entity to be a stand-alone like the Bolton Point entity. This would keep all records in one place, and can be audited monthly. Cathy also mentioned potential financial problems that the City may be facing. Larry says that the water and sewer areas are solvent in the City’s finances and Dominick says that the City is solvent as well. Cathy says that there is no comparison as to the way the SJS versus Bolton Point are operated. Bolton Point is more efficient in the way things are run and the records are kept totally separate from the Town of Ithaca. Dominick says from the City’s perspective, we pay currently 65.5% of the cost. So even with the other partners coming in, he doesn’t envision the City paying less than 60%. Many of these costs already exist, if you recreate these costs as a separate entity, the City will pay these costs plus 65% of the new costs. Cathy says it’s the same at Bolton. Cathy says she thinks the costs will be less, and Ed says this needs analysis. Cathy states that Common Council may want to know that if we’re paying more but were we collecting more than we should have. Ed says that that’s why it needs to be analyzed. Cathy asks why it wasn’t all done based on percentage. The Town of Ithaca is 60% of Bolton Point and the only charge that the Town of Ithaca charges to Bolton Point is payroll costs. Cathy says that her time as treasurer is a lot more than the Mayor’s time in SJS. That’s just part of their budget. Dominick says that the Town could charge back those costs too. Cathy says that’s true. Dominick says that doesn’t mean that it’s good business not to charge it back. Cathy says we’re not a business. Dominick says, we are. Cathy says we consider ourselves partners with 5 other entities. Dominick says that the sewer rate base is markedly different than our tax base, Cornell is 1/3 of our sewer base and our tax base is predominately tax exempt. (72% tax exempt). We have to make sure that we charge those costs appropriately to the base that should be paying for them and not let the general fund carry unreasonable portions of those costs. Larry says that for all the work that’s been done, we sit around the table and analyze the negatives and the failures. What’s the spirit? Let’s get back to the positive. Cathy agrees and says the Bolton Point Commission comes to consensus all the time and it’s a good comfort level. It feels like a real partnership and we’d like the SJS to feel the same way. Mark agrees. Ed says that he looks forward to the analysis of Bolton Point. Costs are identified for Bolton Point by presenting the Town with a contract for specific projects and the Town taking it to the Commission who says yes or no to paying the cost involved. Ed says that we have to recognize that we’re all in this together and we need to avoid these ups and downs. Ed tells Cathy to feel assured that we will live up to our commitments. Larry tells them that water and sewer has been budgeted separate from the general fund for 70 years for the very reason that they’re worried about. Cathy says but they’ve been co-mingled. Larry says that the investments have been co-mingled. Cathy says that the agreement states that the joint entity has powers of authority of its own, the public works is supposed to ratify what we’ve decided and if they can’t then the municipal heads gather to work it out. We’ve been malfunctioning on this point. Dominick says that a group like this cannot commit their Common Council or Board of Public Works in the City of Ithaca to expend anything. Cathy says they cannot commit the Town or the Town of Dryden. He says that’s right. Larry says that it should be noted that the construction phase came in $1.5M under budget and still added $.5M of goodies to basically modernize the design and then you try to reconstruct history like it was something terrible. Cathy and Mary say that’s not what they were doing at all. They feel that they are out of the loop as far as the finances are handled because the City has delegated that part of the process to the City Controllers Office. Meeting ended at 1:40PM SJS Meeting May 14, 2002 Present: Mary Russell* Mary Gutenberger* Steve Thayer Mark Varvayanis* Larry Fabbroni Alan Cohen* Cathy Valentino* Ron Denmark Ed Hershey* Joe Leonardo* The meeting began at 12:10PM with the introduction of members. The first order of business was the approval of the February and March minutes. The members did not bring their copies of the minutes and it was discovered that the copies of the March minutes handed out by Terry were preliminary and incomplete. After some discussion of the complete March minutes, Cathy called for a vote of approval. All agreed and the February and March minutes were approved. Continued discussion of Chief Operator position Next order of business was the continued discussion of the Chief Operator/General Manager position(s). Cathy asked for Larry’s input and he stated that he would start the posting process for the position of Chief Operator if everyone were comfortable with doing so at this time. Cathy asked about the future prospect of implementing a General Manager and how would that be dealt with. Larry says that as organizational decision seems necessary as two positions would be different in terms of administration and operations or one person, potentially the Chief Operator, could do both based on qualifications. Cathy asked if the position should be left as is for a little while longer as we might be getting close to some kind of agreement with the group of six. Alan says that regardless of the outcome of the General Manager discussion, he doesn’t see that impacting the Chief Operator position. Cathy says Larry says it does. Alan asked Larry how does it? Larry says you have to look at how the Chief Operator interacts with the General Manager and it seems to be up for discussion and definition. Right now the Chief Operator is part of a team. In a revised structure, the Chief Operator might have some skills and the General Manager will have other complimentary skills. We need to be sure that all needs are filled. Alan asks how that impacts the decision to fill the CO position? Larry asks if the CO is a strong operations person, businessperson, and technical person? All of the above? What aspects of that team do you fill? Cathy says there is already a specific job description for CO and agrees with Alan that we’re going to need a CO no matter what else we decide to do. So why not post for the position and get the process started. Joe says that the Chief Operator would be more technical and the General Manager would be more business. It would be odd to have it any other way. Alan says he suggests moving on and filling the position and asks if there are suggestions to do otherwise. Cathy notes that the current job description says supervises and directs the operations and maintenance of the wastewater plant. It’s true, we have the skills that we have here and other skills if we need them, and we can make some adjustments at that point. We should go ahead and fill the position with the understanding that we might be looking at a General Manager or some changes in operations down the road and we cross that bridge when we come to it. Cathy asks if all are in favor of posting the position. The motion was made and seconded. It carried unanimously in favor of posting the position of Chief Operator of the Wastewater Plant. Continued discussion of the two fund balances (Capital Project details) Steve suggests dedicating the next meeting to this discussion and asks exactly what they’re looking so he can get a clear picture of what he needs to compile so he can be prepared. Cathy says she has a list of what she needs and suggests a sub-committee meeting with Alan, Mark, Cathy, and Steve to go through the list and then bring all of it to the next meeting with the group. One item is making sure that the SJS accounting system is totally separate from the City system (budget, checking account for that budget, investments, savings accounts). Identify from the Capital Projects list what belongs to the SJS, what is between the City and the Town, or internal to one municipality. Once this is in place, we need to set up a compliance system for the SJS for approving the monthly vouchers and audits and set up a prepay system so we don’t hold up more routine monthly payments. Also set up systems for budget transfers. Alan noted that it has been brought to his attention there are some aspects of Town Law that impose different requirements on Towns than City Law. So how we’re doing something as a joint entity needs to reflect the legal requirements of both cities and towns and as we move forward, with villages too. Mary R. noted Town Law Section 118. Alan explained that this is reflected in what Cathy is bringing up now. Cathy says that once she, Alan, Mark, and Steve meet, they can dedicate the next meeting to setting up a process to comply with the legalities of all concerned. Sludge Disposal Larry says that we’re at a point where we’d like to discuss a long-term sludge disposal agreement with Auburn. He said he was unsure if the information received gave the ultimate answer of what’s coming out of the stack when it comes to dioxin. He asked if he should perform an air test from a dioxin point of view. He said there was a lot of information on metals, etc., that was well within the parameters the State sets, but didn’t see where they have specifically tested for dioxins. Mary Russell explained that the sludge incinerators are probably the smallest contributors of dioxins but that they still contribute dioxin to the environment. Larry stated that plastics are sorted out in the process by floating on top. Therefore he suggests testing as a way of gaining assurance of undetectable levels of dioxin being emitted into the air. Mary said that even it is undetectable, we’re still producing dioxin because there are still chlorine compounds being incinerated at high temperatures with organic materials. Alan asked for clarification of what was this discussion meant as far as taking sludge to Auburn. Then he asked what the alternatives were to using the Auburn incinerator. Larry stated that composting and land spreading were the most viable options. But there is a storage problem during the winter months for land spreading. Alan asked if this was landfill material too. Larry said yes, but Gary had been concerned about creating a large fish kill in upstate NY at Seneca Meadows. Larry said no one wanted to go to the land spread option 10 years ago. All the options have a different cost associated with them and Auburn seemed to be the most stable long term alternative with another municipality and they sort of invited us in as a way for them to fill up 50% of their capacity. Incinerators run better at full capacity. We have looked at composting and land filling. Land filling is a very volatile market. It’s now pretty inexpensive but it can turn around with the state closing one or two key land fills in your region and then the cost goes from $29/ton to $85/ton. Ed asked if there was an extensive environmental review done on the Auburn facility as he realized that even trace amounts of dioxin shouldn’t be produced and Cathy said yes but it didn’t really deal with dioxin. Alan said that due diligence has been done. Ed stated that just because it’s emitted in Auburn and not in Ithaca doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Cathy asked if a test would be a viable thing to do and Larry said that probably wouldn’t put the dioxin concerns to rest. Mary asked to revisit the option of composting. Larry said that he would look into it further. He said there are environmental issues and debates on composting too. Cathy suggests investigating the composting option as well. All agreed that should be done. Phosphorous Removal Design Larry handed out an updated report and explained that there have been two design review meetings so far with Stearns & Wheler in Cazenovia that have been pretty interactive. We’ve been going through the layout and Ron has participated from a preventative maintenance point of view and eventual operation and reliability of equipment we will need. The one big question we need to address with the group is the sole sourcing issue. It is definite that we will only have one manufacturer due to a cost difference of $1M with the closest competitor. It has to do with the layout. It has been discussed with the City attorney about the idea of engaging John Barney as he is more familiar with contracts. Susan has been our attorney but John is most familiar with contracts. My suggestion to the group is to engage John to lead us through the legal process relating to sole-source pre-purchasing. Alan summarizes that there is a great disparity between the two competitors and so we will sole source the equipment we need. All agreed that this makes sense. Ed asked about DEC requirements to remove the phosphorous from the south end of the lake and if that will provide more money for this project. Larry said he doesn’t know if it will make a difference. Staff Reports Larry stated that Ron has survived both the DEC and EPA audits and deserves a lot of credit for having all the information available over the past year to present during the audits. We’ve worked up, to the best of our knowledge, where we’re at on the capital projects. We’re going to resubmit the bond act this month with the changes to the DEC in Syracuse. We will essentially have the reimbursement request in the application for the work plan. Hopefully we’ll see a check by the end of summer for what’s been submitted once the work plan is approves in Albany. The Cornell animal waste project went through environmental review and the comments are being gathered and finalized. Cornell has agreed with our request to truck the material to this facility. Mary asked if we have enough storage capability for increased gas generation. Larry says we do generally, but it depends on the time of year. We utilize most of the gas throughout the year. We don’t have a gas storage vessel. The master plan is to build a separate gas storage vessel and that’s on our list of priorities. Ron is in the middle of working with our SCADA controller to put in the remote-sensing units at the flow meter stations. With the recent rain events, we all need to work on the overflow problems throughout the town and city. Projects are still on the list that we submit once per year for borrowing money for things like the phosphorous project or the interceptors or projects that weren’t funded under EFC funds. We fill out 10 sheets once a year. Some of our staff participated in the recent Water Week exhibition on The Commons and at the Farmers Market to show a little of what we do. The State has interviewed some of the employees based on the recent survey that was submitted as far as job classifications. We also have a lot of good wellness programs going on as well. Mary asked if we have received any written reports on the state audits. Ron responded by saying that the NYSDEC inspection was in March. The reports should be forthcoming from Tara. Also, on May 2 we had the EPA audit for the Industrial Pre -Treatment Program. The auditor was confused on the SJS Partnering Agreements where new limits were submitted to EPA for modification and then requested to be withdrawn. Larry said it had something to do with rules and regulations. Ron said that one item was getting the three owners named on the permit. Ron then said that the auditor questioned the control authority’s enforcement. There’s also some confusion on whether the current permitting process is adequate to receive trucked waste from out of the jurisdiction. The auditor suggested that the owners might want to look into contracts with firms that send trucked waste because we don’t have any enforcement powers through just a permitting process. Mary asked if DEC is comfortable with us servicing these firms out of the jurisdiction. Ron says as far as comfort, they’re not concerned because they know we do a good job and we have a good performance reputation. Ed says that he was questioning the ins and outs of our designation under 303d as it can’t be thrilling for any area that trades on the quality of the lake for its tourism industry to have it designated in a way that makes it sound polluted. Secondly, are we opening ourselves up to private lawsuits or other suits that could have an impact on our ability to do what we want to do. Cathy says that there is one group who will try to make some PR out of it. Cathy mentioned that she recently sat down with Ron and Terry and they were very helpful in showing her the accounting system and how things worked at the facility. She was very impressed with the staff and the work that they do here and how efficient they are. Ron said that the rest of the staff should be noted as well. Cathy said she’d like to come back again and Mary said they all should. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 12:00PM. Meeting adjourned at 1:50PM. SJS Meeting June 11, 2002 Agenda 12:00 – 12:30 Monthly audit of vouchers (Towns of Ithaca and Dryden with City of Ithaca Controller) 12:30 Approval of May 14 minutes Steve Thayer – Update regarding capital project expenditures and balances Update regarding capital project and general fund balances Ron Denmark – Operations Report Engineering Report SJS Meeting June 11, 2002 Present: Cathy Valentino Mary Gutenberger Steve Thayer Larry Fabbroni Ron Denmark Dan Walker Mary Russell Bill Gray The meeting began at 12:00 with an audit of the vouchers (paid and unpaid), with Cathy and Mary Gutenberger representing the Town of Ithaca, and Steve, Larry, and Ron representing the City of Ithaca. Cathy asked Jose Lozano to elaborate on some of the charges against the watershed project. Fund Balances Steve began by handing out monthly summary reports of revenues and expenditures for the plant. Also handed out were summaries of capital project balances and fund balances and a breakdown of each project. Cathy asked Steve if there was anything that he wanted to highlight for the group. Steve responded that on the monthly report the numbers are “to date” with the account numbers listed. This report lists all the operating activity to date. Bill Gray asked about the revenue interest earnings that were projected over a year ago. Steve said that this has been reviewed and that the projected revenues and interest have been reduced in this budget. Bill then asked if the payments received from the partners were made on a quarterly basis. Steve said this is correct. Steve noted that the Town of Ithaca had requested that their 1st Quarter payment be taken out of the fund balance. Cathy said yes but we really need to look closely at the fund balance and be careful not to run short. Steve went on to note the summary report of capital activity, which gives capital reserve balance, cash balance and authorization balance for each of the projects that are currently active. Steve pointed out that the SJS has authorized the projects through 2002. So far, most of these projects have been funded (except for the City’s piece of one of the projects) from the capital reserve so we have to determine whether we continue that or shall we bond for these projects. Also, there is a negative cash balance because we haven’t made transfers from the capital reserves. These determinations must be made rather quickly as we have expenditures ongoing and projects that need to be paid for. There is also a breakdown and allocation of the fund balance for years 2001 through 2003. Bill asked in the cash balance column where the $147,000 negative balance comes from. Steve explained that the negative amounts are only the capital projects. The total of the cash balance does not include the capital reserve. Steve then went on to summarize the information handed out on each capital project including authorizations and allocations. Larry said that the projects that are completed are listed as well as the incomplete projects. Bill asked to back up to the operation budget of the plant itself. He said that he’s not too concerned with things like gas and oil but asked Steve for comments on the insurance line in the budget. Steve said that he’s comfortable with this as it pertains to liability and those types of insurances such as worker’s compensation, health insurance, and the fact that these items are skyrocketing over time. Bill asked if these costs will change mid-year and Steve said no. Steve also stated that we are getting breaks on the utility costs. Cathy asked about possible increased revenues in regards to Cornell’s alternative plan to incineration by bringing waste to this facility. She also noted that we might be losing some revenues from the county once they finish their project. It may be as high as $144,000 per year. Larry said maybe that’s their trucking costs as it sounds a little high for what income we’re seeing. Cathy said anyway, when they get that project which they funded and agreed to do for that landfill, there’ll be fewer trucks but it’ll be heavier sludge. They’re going to cap it and put some drainage in. Larry said we are always looking for opportunity and at the same time we need to be prudent about what we invite in. Cathy asked if there are any questions and suggested that another meeting be set up soon due to the Mayor being out of town in August. ENGINEERING REPORT (summary) – Larry Fabbroni Bond Act Funding Larry reported that the bond act funding application can be resubmitted in June 2002. (See explanation in attached report) Cornell Animal Waste Before this waste can be accepted into the process at this facility, there are issues that require further refinement with Cornell for inclusion in the FEIS for the project. (See explanation in attached report) SCADA Project Six meter stations are now in transition of SCADA installation to communicate back to the City funded OPTO22 base station at the IAWWTP. (Details in attached engineering report) Cathy asked how the data was transmitted. It was explained that a signal is transmitted by radio. Dan said they were installing a repeater at Oakwood. Bill said you don’t need high quality data. Dan said you don’t need to monitor continuously. Staff is waiting an overdue report from the Town of Ithaca on I/I activities for 2001, so that the permit requirement with NYSDEC can be met. The report from the Town of Dryden has been received. Dan says it’s on his list. Other items required from the Town of Ithaca include: 1) a preference for location and placement of the flow meter taken off-line in 1999 when the Renwick Heights Pump Station was taken out of service and, 2.) A plan for metering the sewer line that has served the east shore of the lake since the late 1980’s. Phosphorous Removal Upgrade The engineer design meetings in Cazenovia continue to be productive. The DEC has dropped a small bomb on us. Jose’s data will be very important in terms of getting them to deal with reality and show that we’ve been a major partner in the non -point source problem (i.e. supporting public and community efforts, and DEC efforts). We are only asking that they stick to the .2 number that has been discussed all along until we go through the 18 month of operation to set the actual permit level as opposed to the .12 number they are proposing to publish. Mary Russell asked what the legalities might be to the request. Bill said that he understands that they don’t have a legal right and that we’re doing this voluntarily. He says that we think we can get there, but if we publish this as our goal, and we end up at .13 or .14, we still will have failed. But if we publish the .2 and we get to .11 it’s great. We operate the plant under two-thirds of what our current limit is and we think with this technology we’ll be similarly able to do that. EFC (Environmental Facilities Corporation) – Funding See attached Engineering Report. Intended Use Plan - Bill says we will stay active on this list. Sludge Disposal We have informed the City of Auburn that the SJS is not interested in pursuing a long term relationship to dispose of sludge from this facility due to concerns about dioxin. We are looking at other alternatives. See attached explanation in the Engineering report. Watershed Monitoring Jose will be giving a presentation next month. See attached engineering report. Staff Report The process for posting the position of Chief Operator has begun. A representative from each of the owners is needed for the interview committee. See attached Engineering Report. Gary Snyder, an operator with the IAWWTF will be retiring on June 28, 2002. Gary has served the City and Joint Entity for more than 30 years. Open Position – The position of Operator Trainee has been posted in anticipation of Gary’s retirement. See attached report. OPERATOR’S REPORT – Ron Denmark SJS Meeting, June 11, 2002 Emerson Transmission A new process that Emerson is implementing is covered by a categorical standard mandated by EPA, which limits discharges on certain parameters. The new MPM Category (Metal Products & Machinery) rule is due out in December of this year. With this rule, Emerson will be limited to 15-20 mg/l of oily waste. Due to a few incidental accedence’s in their present limit of 50 mg/L, a meeting was convened between myself, Eileen Heboldt of Emerson, and Foster Gray of this facility. We made her aware of this new MPM ruling earlier this year and we also indicated that something must be done about these O&G violations. Upon further review of the new MPM mandate, it has been determined that Emerson has the option of requesting the Approval Authority of the EPA to either increase the limit that they have established, or leave the present limit as is. After further discussion between Foster and Myself, we feel that there would be no impact on this facility if Emerson were to be allowed to continue to discharge their O&G at a limit of 50 mg/L. The SJS Board should also endorse this action. Mary suggested a letter of support for Emerson’s request. Note: If and when the full partnering agreement comes into effect, the new MPM rule may impact the Cayuga Heights system. Retrofitting PSTs After receiving rough pricing estimates from three (3) different vendors regarding plastic and fiberglass components for the PST Collection System, staff has determined ball-park estimates fro conversion from cast-iron chain and sprockets to plastic chain & sprockets; redwood flights to fiberglass flights. Pricing, at this point, is estimated at $54,000 per complete tank. Cathy said they will be looking for some budget changes and transfers. Monitoring Stations See attached report from Bob Peck of Fieldtech Meeting adjourned at 1:40PM. Next meeting scheduled for July SJS Meeting July 23, 2002 There was no agenda as of 7/23/02 Present: Cathy Valentino Ed Hersey Steve Thayer Larry Fabbroni Ron Denmark Dan Walker Mary Russell Bill Gray Absent: Mary Gutenberger Alan Cohen At 12:00 Cathy Valentino and Mary Russell representing the Town of Ithaca, and Steve, Larry, and Ron representing the City of Ithaca audited the vouchers. Mary asked about the Town of Caroline voucher. Larry informed her that this had to do with the watershed approach promoted by DEC & EPA. Cathy stated that she would like to have these costs accounted for separately (at least tracked separately). Larry agreed to track these costs separately. Cathy feels that the costs associated with the watershed are over and above that required of SJS. The Susan Brock voucher was questioned. Larry said that he will prepare a charge back to the municipalities for the Susan Brock and Stearns & Wheler vouchers. A Jeff’s Septic Service voucher was also questioned. The regular meeting of the SJS began at 12:30. There was no quorum so the minutes of May 14, 2002 were not approved. There was no agenda for the June meeting. Steve provided revenue and expenditure activity for the operating accounts and the reserve balance along with the Capital Projects activity year to date including June. Steve pointed out that the revenue amount agreed upon per the 2002 budget (sewer service other governments) was $1,442,000 and that the $457,000 received is the City of Ithaca’s share. Steve said that he would like to get the balance due resolved. Cathy stated that under the agreement when there is a dispute – Steve, as the chief fiscal officer is supposed to get the Mayor, the two town supervisors, and the Superintendent of the Board of Public works to convene a meeting as soon as possible to resolve the outstanding issues. Steve said that he would see that a meeting is set up. He asked if there were any questions regarding the expenditures. Steve added that how Capital Projects that have been previously approved should be funded should be part of the meeting he will set up. Should they be funded through the capital reserve or borrowed? Cathy stated that she has difficulties sorting out the capital projects with regard to the current and future projects (group of 3 and group of 6). Larry said that he would provide Cathy with a summary sheet. Larry asked Cathy for the I/I report for the DEC. Dan will provide this to Larry. Steve would like to get things taken care of as soon as possible because the 2003 Budget is in the works. Dan questioned the capital activity negative numbers. Steve stated that this was the due to the funding that needs to be addressed. The funding piece of each project has not been agreed upon. Mary questioned as to why the reserve balance could not be used. Cathy stated that the agreement basically says that the un -appropriated fund balance needs to be divided among the partners. Larry questioned how the shares would change. Cathy is in agreement with the percentages. Larry suggested that some of the undisputed monies might be used to get things moving. Cathy agreed that this might be possible. Cathy stated that the budget for 2003 O & M was going to be difficult to resolve especially due to the contractual services, administrative overhead charges, charge-backs and water resource accounting (to be kept separated). Larry has an August 1 submittal date for the City budget. Larry explained a clarification of Roxy and Ken’s “salary credit”. Larry stated that the employee time is charged to the account where they work. The budget shows the entire salary due to the uncertainty of the water plant and the water merger but only part of those positions budgeted amount is used. Steve stated that there is no credit because payroll charges were charged to the appropriate account. Cathy only wants to see the percentage of the salary normally charged as the budget figure. Larry agreed to note on the budget the percentage of these individual’s salaries that is normally charged to the WWTF. Cathy would like to see the salary broken out in more detail. Mary questioned the column headings (should be budgeted instead of actual). Larry spoke about the Phosphorous reduction capital project. The total project currently is 3.96 million. Larry estimates that it will be necessary to fund $1.18M if we receive an additional $973,500 toward the end of September. Cathy said that this will have to be bonded and would like to get the authorization to bond process moving. Larry is looking at bidding later in the fall. The engineering has been approved but the entire project still has to go through the City’s process, as it has not yet been approved as a project. Larry put the request for this capital project in to the city in the spring with the assumption that the city will be the lead agency. Timing-wise the City should be able to bond in January 2003. Cathy assumes that the Town will allow the City to take the lead but the Town has to have a public hearing and a 30-day waiting period for permissive referendum. Bonding could be separate or joint. Larry said that we are on the EFC intended use list. Cathy asked for the engineering report and project description. Larry will provide that. Larry stated that the flygt pumps are in need of replacement. Dan and Cathy would like to take these monies from the O & M (or un-appropriated fund balance) rather than capitalize them. Larry will submit the WWTP budget as a draft incorporating the changes suggested. Jose Lozano handed out some information to the members but because there was no quorum his presentation was postponed. Engineering Report Cornell Animal Waste Larry said that Cornell is doing a supplemental report with regard to the Animal Waste Handling Facility. There is a chance that they may need an industrial pretreatment permit. SCADA Project – Many of the flow meter stations are out of service due to the changeover to remote monitoring. There is still an I/I problem. The First Street project was brought up. Larry would like to have this resolved, as he would like to move forward with this interceptor as it is intimately involved in the overflows that occur. Dan said that he did not have an adequate engineering report to review with his town board and was in the process of writing one. Larry stated that three or four months ago he requested an outline of what Dan wanted because Larry had provided a cost estimate that Dan said was not sufficient. Larry requested an outline from one of Dan’s other projects. Dan stated, “Larry, you’re a professional engineer and you should know what you’re doing. You need to know what the service areas are in the City and in the Town and what the design criteria for that line are, that’s what the engineering report’s all about.” Larry stated that when it rains and the water comes off of South Hill, that’s not the issue, the engineering information would add nothing to the discussion or resolve the problem. The Town does not know how much flow is coming off that hill and there is no way that Larry can estimate it. The standard engineering approach has nothing to do with the flow problem. Dan will provide Larry with an outline of what his board needs. Bill clarified that it is not necessary to provide detailed drawings because this is not going out to bid. Dan told Bill that the town would pay for 40% of the straight pipe with no lateral connections and that his estimate was $300,000.00. Cathy stated that Dan will outline what his town board needs for Larry. There is still funding at a good rate. Sludge Disposal - Sludge disposal discussions are continuing Staff Report The City has posted the Chief Operators job Gary Snyder retired from the facility after thirty plus years of service. Ed Gottlieb has been hired as an operator trainee. The next meeting will be September 17, 2002. The meeting adjourned at 1:30. SJS Meeting September 17, 2002 There was no agenda as of 9/17/02 Present: *Cathy Valentino Deb Grantham Steve Thayer Larry Fabbroni *Mary Gutenberger *Mark Varvayanus Mary Russell *Alan Cohen At 12:00 Cathy Valentino and Mary Russell representing the Town of Ithaca, and Steve, Larry, and Mary Gutenberger representing the City of Ithaca, and Mark Varvayanus and Deb Grantham representing the Town of Dryden audited the vouchers. Cathy asked about vouchers for travel expenses and Mark asked about a voucher that listed a book that was purchased by Jose for the Watershed. Larry explained that the Watershed has generated numerous grants and has had a positive on the plant. Cathy and Mary responded that these costs should be kept separate from the actual O&M costs of the plant. Mark says if Jose is upstairs testing, he is working for the SJS. If he is attending other organizations, then he is not. Mary R says that when he is working for the SJS, they should be billed accordingly for his work. Larry said that if the voucher for Jose is rejected, he will take care of debiting the cost back to the SJS. The regular meeting of the SJS began at 12:30. Cathy began by stating that there is a quorum. Mary G stated that she would like a regularly scheduled meeting time for this committee, complete with Date, Time, Location, and Agenda provided so that all can be prepared for these meetings. It was decided that meeting times will be scheduled for the third Tuesday of each month at 12:30PM at the Wastewater Facility. Cathy asked if budget information would be available for these meetings and Steve responded that the only thing needed at this point are the consumption numbers from all three partners. Budget Report Cathy asked Steve if the memo that Bill Gray has from their meeting at City Hall will be available to her shortly. Larry said that the charges for Susan Brock and Stearns & Wheler have been broken out for the Group of 6. Mary R asked if all of Susan Brock’s charges have been paid out of O&M. Larry said yes. Deb and Mary R say that these are not O&M costs. They say that these charges should be split out and paid by the Group of 6. Cathy agrees. Alan asked how payment would be made by the Group of 6. Who should these vendors be billing? It was decided that this should be discussed with the Group of 6. Budget for the phosphorous removal project. Cathy asked if it was identified as a Capital Project yet. See Larry’s report. Larry says he wants to bring everyone up to date on the numbers for the final project. Steve explained the bonding and payback timeline. He suggested bonding as an alternative. Larry says it’s fairly easy to bond through EFC and we are on the EFC list. Cathy says they need to go to their respective boards for approval of a not to exceed amount to move ahead with this project. Steve says what we need are total costs associated with the project, sources of funding listed (bond act funds), net local share to be funded. Larry says the only confusing part will be the bond act funding (we received the 1.8M, we’ve been promised $800,000 etc.). Cathy said let’s just go with the sheets we have been relying on to this point. Larry says that the budget lines for Ken and Roxy have been changed for the 2003 budget request. Cathy asked about Jose’s salary being budgeted on the whole for the WWTP. Larry stated that Jose attends 3 meeting per year outside of the facility. Ken is an Operator, not a Lab person and Roxy does both. The Watershed items have been split out of the contractual services account. Deb G asked the meaning of contractual services and if it has to do with the wastewater plant. Larry explained that we send out samples to labs in Cortland and Syracuse for testing that we don’t do here. This is phosphorous monitoring in the south end of the lake and has everything to do with the operation of the facility. Mary and Cathy noted the Return to General Fund amount and asked for Steve to show them credits for Administrative Overhead costs for Roxy and Ken. Alan asked for additional copies of payroll reports to be distributed to the members. Cathy is asking for accounting detail of the charges. Alan clarified that Cathy wants a detailed accounting of budget and expenditures going back. She also disputes charges for the City Attorney saying that it is a conflict of interest. Larry says on page 4 of his report, S & W is making a proposal for the construction phase of the phosphorous removal project. Engineering Report Alan asked to add an item to the agenda (i.e., the 1 st St Interceptor Project). Mary asked if this was coming out of the Capital Projects fund and Steve and Larry said 403J would be the account. Cathy thanked Larry for providing all the information that was requested. Alan talked about the 1st Interceptor Project. Cathy said that after talking with Mary and Mark, they have agreed that it was ok to move forward with the stipulation that they approve the bid specs and are part of the opening bid process. Larry said that his thoughts go to the costs involved in unforeseen infrastructure issues and problems. The city deals with those problems at their own expense. A private contractor will charge and the costs will be high. Mary and Mark both agreed that this is the type of information needed for their boards to approve the project. Deb says that it would still cost money if the City did it based on extra equipment and labor costs. Alan says that if someone else came in with a low bid and these unforeseen problems came to light everyone would see firsthand what the extra costs could be. Mary asked if the City could compile a list of unexpected problems encountered in past projects to get an idea of what they might be looking at in future projects. Alan asked if this discussion could be put on the agenda for a future meeting so that it may move forward. Staff Report It was agreed by Larry, Cathy, Mark, and Mary G that interviews for Chief Operator at the plant will be conducted on Friday, Sept 20, 2002 at the IAWWTP beginning at 9:00AM. The next meeting will be October 15, 2002 The meeting adjourned at 1:40PM SJS Meeting November 6, 2002 AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes (October 2002) 2. Budget/Financial Reports 3. Legal Bills for Susan Brock 4. Stearns & Wheler contract bills 5. Operations Report (Ron Denmark) 6. Engineering Report (pertinent to IAWWTF) 7. Sludge Disposal (time permitting) SJS Meeting November 6, 2002 Present: *Cathy Valentino Deb Grantham Steve Thayer Larry Fabbroni *Mary Gutenberger *Mark Varvayanus Mary Russell *Alan Cohen 12:00 – 12:30 Audit of Vouchers 12:30 SJS Meeting Operations Report – Ron Denmark 1. Follow up with Susan Brock regarding EPA Deficiency “Legal Authority” Nothing to report at this time. 2. Follow up on PESHA inspection All items of concern have been complied with except Citation 1, Item 3 (Fit test completion). After this has been handed back to plant personnel to complete, we have contacted a vendor from Julius Craft who is certified to administer the fit test on plant personnel. Also, Citation 1, Item 6b (leakage). We had S&W inspect the leaking area which is contributing to the concern of this area. We are awaiting their recommendation. 3. Pilot Project with Retec The pilot project through Retec, which I mentioned at the October SJS meeting has changed slightly in regards to in -kind services. Retec has estimated these services at an approximate value of $52,752. Jose and I determined that we should be reimbursed for a portion of this value. So, I contacted Mark Hofferbert at Retec and bargained for a dollar value of $20,790, which is approximately half of the lab expenses projected. This would leave $31,962 as the value of in-kind services. 4. Personnel I suggested to Larry that we appoint Jeff Soule as Acting Assistant Chief Operator of the plant because of the long delay in obtaining a Chief Operator. This step would afford me the opportunity to address other impending matters, such as, pertinent equipment purchases, EPA issues, PESHA matters, Belt Press issues, etc. SJS Meeting November 6, 2002 AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes (October 2002) 2. Budget/Financial Reports 3. Legal Bills for Susan Brock 4. Stearns & Wheler contract bills 5. Operations Report (Ron Denmark) 6. Engineering Report (pertinent to IAWWTF) 7. Sludge Disposal (time permitting) SJS Meeting November 6, 2002 Present: *Cathy Valentino Deb Grantham Steve Thayer Bill Gray *Mary Gutenberger *Mark Varvayanus Mary Russell *Alan Cohen Joe Leonardo Ron Denmark Ed Hershey Dan Walker Scott Gibson Eric Whitney 12:00 – 12:30 Audit of Vouchers The meeting was called to order by Cathy Valentino at 12:30PM. Cathy asked if there were any questions or changes to the October minutes. Mary G noted that Joe Leonardo was omitted from the list of those present when, in fact, he did attend. Deb G and Mark V said that there should be more information in the minutes regarding the Retec Pilot Project discussion. It was decided that the minutes need to be revised to include discussion of Intellectual Properties and costs of this project proposal. Revision to October Minutes: Ron asked if everyone had received a copy of his report, which he handed out. He first reported on the Industrial Pre-Treatment Program with Emerson Power Transmission. Next, he reported on the trucked waste (i.e., Non-domestic wastewater) and the questions he has discussed with Susan Brock regarding the language in the Sewer Use Law. Next, he touched on the safety inspection that we had at the plant. Finally, he explained the Retec Pilot Project. He said that they were basically looking for time and in-kind services. Cathy asked what kind of information would come out of the project that would benefit the plant. Ron responded that he has a whole packet of information that he would make copies available to the SJS. Deb G asked if they would be installing different equipment and Ron said only on a temporary basis and small scale. Deb asked if that equipment would impact the flow and Ron said no. Mary R then commented that they are basically looking for ways to upgrade the operations and Ron said that they are looking for other types of treatment. Mary asked what the goal of the project is and Ron said marketability of which we have no interest.. Mary said that we have no interest so why are we interested. Ron responded staff knowledge and awareness as this could be implemented in the future as a treatment process. Ron said that it would require staff time within the normal duties of the workday. Larry noted that we are interested in the breakthrough technology and how fast it could deal with COD, glycol, and other things before it ever hits our process. Deb said that if they get the funding, they want to pilot here. Larry and Ron said yes. Deb said that if it’s not expensive for us to do, then we should support that because of the long-term changes in technology. Mark said that he agrees that we should support it and raised the question of attaining part ownership. Ron said that he would supply the literature to the SJS. Cathy said at this point were saying to support it. Current Meeting Cathy asked for approval of the October minutes pending the revisions discussed and all agreed. The minutes were approved. Financial Report – Steve Thayer Steve handed out the financial activity report through October noting that it is in the same format as previously disclosed. He said that he would continue to improve and give more detail as things move forward. He also handed out the budget as it currently stands through 2003, commenting that the only change includes an adjustment of revenue and fund balance bringing that down to $465,000 from $500,000. Otherwise, the overall presentation has remained the same. As an update, the City Budget must be adopted by tomorrow and the Council will be reviewing it tonight. Steve spoke with Deb Parsons regarding bank statements and she is making copies dating back to January 2002 and she also has contacted the Trust Company to have them sent directly to the Towns. Cathy asked if anyone has any comments or questions on the budget at this point other than the outstanding issues already stated in order to have the Town Boards approve the budget. She also noted that the high costs of running the lab needs to be addressed. Also the cost of taking in and taking out sludge and trucked waste needs to be looked at closer. She stated that after Jose’s presentation, she has real concerns about the amount of time spent on research and development and on the Watershed things that are not sewer plant expenses. Mark said he thought Larry stated that he could take the Watershed work right out of the lab in five minutes. Cathy said she recalled him saying that. Bill Gray said that since the SJS has outstanding issues, why don’t they put them in list form to be addressed and agreed or disagreed upon. Noting that he has probably missed the last two SJS meetings, Bill said it would be helpful to see a list of issues and know that everyone is seeing the same things, and at the same time know that these issues and questions have been or are being addressed and resolved. He also said he wanted to share some data that he has collected. Mark said that the overhead is extensive. Cathy and Deb said as far as the lab goes, the concern is that so much time is spent on Watershed and R&D rather than O&M. Mary R noted that this amounts to 37% of the lab budget, which Deb says is not totally clear because copper loading should be under O&M and he has it under R&D. Bill said that copper is part of our permit. He thinks of it as R&D because we have been hunting for the source for 10 years when it actually is part of our permit as far as operating the laboratory. Cathy said that these are things that need to be cleared up. Mary R made mention of the Vet School Project and the hours spent. Bill then said that he realizes that the SJS is now at the point where they’re doing pie graphs on the Laboratory. Everyone spoke up and said that’s not what they’re doing and Bill said he realized that the idea came out of Jose’s presentation. He said that when the plant opened the permit called for seventeen operators although he believes that the number never exceeded sixteen. He said that depending on the plant you’re in, you have a lab director. So if you look at plant staffing, it looks like there’s one person in the lab. You can’t run a lab with one person. Operators have to do laboratory work. This lab staff is separate from the people who do routine work in the plant. Cathy asked if they do routine work in the plant too? Bill said usually they don’t. He said that the SJS is aware that there is a sharing of staff (WTP). He also said he contacted DEC regarding plant staffing and they referred him to a website to compare numbers. He printed his findings and handed them out to everyone, and explained his quest to find a trend for a Type 4 Sludge Activated Plant such as this. He said the only conclusion he could draw was that the counties must list all employees whether or not they work right at the plants due to the high staffing at some of these plants listed. He said we are actually at the low end for plant staffing scale. He said he again spoke to the DEC as asked them how many employees he would expect to have at this plant and they said there are guidelines that must be met. He then went on to explain the unique capabilities of the lab staff versus just having the operators rotate through the labs. Alan also commented on why the lab is staffed the way it is. Deb noted that Bill’s memo stated fourteen employees but the list says fifteen. Bill said the plant is currently rated at 13.1 and this years and last years budget we had fourteen employees which includes the lab. One reason for dropping from fifteen to fourteen in the last five years is we no longer even have a half-time truck driver. We pay Water and Sewer to borrow a truck driver or we pay our sludge hauler directly. What was a fifteenth employee shows up as a contractual expense under sludge hauling. Cathy said the number for sludge hauling is a pretty high number. She said the amount of revenue coming in and what it’s costing us for hauling out and the employees that we have doesn’t appear to be cost effective. Bill said that this hasn’t been looked at for 5 or 6 years but it can be looked at. Cathy asked what kind of effect the stuff being brought in has on the outflow of the plant. Bill says it has a minimal effect. And we gain methane for boilers and electrical production. Deb says it would also be interesting to see what tests can be done here and what tests should be sent out and what the breakdown is. Ron explained some of this process and some of the things that are done in-house. Bill said that our lab testing is comparable to Bolton Point testing with the less expensive and less extensive testing being done in-house and the more in-depth testing being sent to outside labs. Cathy said that Bolton Point does not have a Lab Director. Mary R asked Bill to explain why the Regional Permit calls for seventeen operators. Bill said it is actually the original facilities report. The DEC reviews the report, which is based on the wastewater flows and components and municipal community commitment. So they have estimated operating budgets and estimated operating staff. Mary then clarified that the permit does not actually require a staffing level of seventeen employees. Bill concurred with that statement. They do, however, reserve the right to get involved with staffing. Cathy ended this discussion with the thought of removing the watershed items from the O&M budget and Bill restated his request for a written list of specific questions. Legal Bills for Susan Brock and Contract Bills for Stearns & Wheler Cathy began by saying that we have a memo from Larry. We got the list of charges from Susan Brock and Stearns & Wheler that the SJS has paid. Larry has provided a breakdown of what should be reimbursed by the Group of 6. When Susan Brock looked through her part, she felt uncomfortable charging back to July of 1999 because according to her minutes and the notes from the Group of 6 meetings that asking the Group of 6 to start sharing in the costs didn’t happen until around the beginning of May. Then Larry researched further to find some legitimate charges that the Group of 6 should feel comfortable with sharing in the costs. Cathy still needs to talk more with Susan regarding the S&W billings. All this is still uncertain as to a resolution and Cathy is asking for suggestions. Bill said his thought is that a large part of these bills has benefited the Group of 6. Alan says he see two things happening here: 1) Does the SJS want to get too bogged down in details? 2) Do we want to just keep writing the checks? Alan suggests presenting to the Group of 6 the idea that “If we can clearly identify work that was done on behalf of all 6 of us, and can show what that work is, then you need to decide if it’s justifiable whether or not to contribute your fair share of these costs”. Mark said that we thought that too, but Alan said in the last meeting that it needed to be discussed in the Group of 3. Which is it? Alan said he doesn’t remember saying this and Cathy said he asked her to put it on this agenda. Cathy said the Group of 6 feels they are responsible from May under the agreement. Alan asked what the issue is here: the lack of a signed contract or the lack of an agreement to pay? It sounds like in some cases it’s both and in some it’s lack of a signed contract. Alan said that the S&W bills need to be addressed with the Group of 6 and not at this meeting. Operations Report – Ron Denmark 1. Follow up with Susan Brock regarding EPA Deficiency “Legal Authority” Nothing to report at this time. 2. Follow up on PESHA inspection All items of concern have been complied with except Citation 1, Item 3 (Fit test completion). After this has been handed back to plant personnel to complete, we have contacted a vendor from Julius Craft who is certified to administer the fit test on plant personnel. Also, Citation 1, Item 6b (leakage). We had S&W inspect the leaking area which is contributing to the concern of this area. We are awaiting their recommendation. 3. Pilot Project with Retec The pilot project through Retec, which I mentioned at the October SJS meeting has changed slightly in regards to in -kind services. Retec has estimated these services at an approximate value of $52,752. Jose and I determined that we should be reimbursed for a portion of this value. So, I contacted Mark Hofferbert at Retec and bargained for a dollar value of $20,790, which is approximately half of the lab expenses projected. This would leave $31,962 as the value of in-kind services. Deb G commented that the plant stands to lose $31,962 and Retec would benefit by that amount if we take on this project. Bill explained that we would lose money only if we were taking on new work that encompassed expenses. Deb said that if this is not new work and we are operating the plant as usual at no extra cost then we would benefit. Bill asked for more information on the project. 4. Personnel I suggested to Larry that we appoint Jeff Soule as Acting Assistant Chief Operator of the plant because of the long delay in obtaining a Chief Operator. This step would afford me the opportunity to address other impending matters, such as, pertinent equipment purchases, EPA issues, PESHA matters, Belt Press issues, etc. Larry handed out a confidential memo to the SJS members on a personnel related issue. Engineering Report Dan Walker asked about the status of the Phosphorous Project. Bill said that we’re at the point where most of the engineering has been done on the preliminary design and we like to ask to get into the final design and go ahead and do the upgrade. Dan said that Larry gave him the specs and they seem complete. The only concern he has is that they don’t have a detailed cost estimate. We have the different elements but it’s about $100,000 over budget and we’re asking for a review of the final design and why we’re over budget. There should be some response to that in the engineering report. Bill said he doesn’t have detailed knowledge of this issue. Dan said he has a document from Larry but it’s not detailed enough. Dan says he believe S&W has a much more detailed cost analysis and he’d like a copy of it. Bill said he could get that directly from Larry. Dan said he asked Larry for it and Larry said he had enough but Dan says he needs more. Bill said that’s an issue for Larry to handle. Bill said there is a contract issue with DEC. Dan said that there are differences between the original schematic in the design report and what was actually designed but we don’t have a narrative of what those differences are. Dan said he has been to a couple of meetings, although not all of them, and some things were explained verbally that he’d like to have in written form so that he can answer questions from his board as to why it’s over budget. Bill again told Dan to get with Larry on this. Dan said he has not yet seen a formal proposal on the project. Bill said his thoughts are that when the documents are ready to go, he wants to be sure that the DEC and the SJS are in agreement. Dan said he agrees but that the memo from Larry (September 27) indicates that he wanted the SJS to approve this at the October or November Town meetings and we don’t have the documents to do that. Dan said to make it clear that the Town of Ithaca is not approving any additional expenditures on this project at this point because we don’t have the data. Scott reported on the component auditing of the chemical bulk storage tanks. Ron and Scott are working on a couple of issue in regards to the tanks regarding any deficiencies. Eric reported on the primary sludge tanks. Cathy noted that they are waiting for Larry to give them an update on all Capital Project accounts. Next meeting scheduled for December 4, 2002 Meeting adjourned at 1:45PM SJS Meeting December 4, 2002 AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes (November 2002) 2. Explanation of Sewer Use Law – Susan Brock 3. Capital Project Expenditures and Fund Balances – Steve Thayer and Larry Fabbroni 4. Financial Report – Steve Thayer 5. Operations Report (Ron Denmark) 6. Engineering Report (pertinent to IAWWTF) SJS Meeting November 6, 2002 Present: Cathy Valentino Dan Walker Deb Grantham Ed Hershey Larry Fabbroni Mark Varvayanis Ron Denmark Steve Thayer Susan Brock 12:00 – 12:30 Audit of Vouchers The meeting was called to order at 12:35PM by Cathy Valentino. As there was not a quorum, the approval of the November 4th minutes was deferred to the January meeting. Explanation of Sewer Use Law Susan Brock explained the EPA’s requirements for controlling the waste that is brought into the facility by haulers that are from out of the jurisdiction of Tompkins County. She said the existing ordinance is ok legally as far as what’s actually required in the regulations in regards to permitting the generators and the haulers but the EPA is saying that they want better control on what’s actually being brought in and accountability for what’s brought in. Susan said Ron is suggesting and she agrees that it makes sense to go ahead and amend the current laws at this time to control the generators. The changes would be simple to make. The way to do it is to say that the Chief Operator is authorized to enter into a contract with the generators located outside of the jurisdiction of the treatment plant as opposed to just issuing a permit. Then we can make terms and conditions of the contract and staple a copy of the sewer use law to it to be signed and inform them that they have to comply with all of this. They then sign and say yes and it’s clear legal authority to enforce compliance of the contract and you can put in whatever you want as far as penalties. Susan said that if approved, she will draft some language, probably a paragraph or less, to add to the present ordinance giving the IAWWTF the authority to regulate the generators outside of the jurisdiction. The second issue raised by EPA involves the definition of septage not being broad enough. In most sewer ordinances septage means domestic wastewater. It doesn’t mean stuff from industries (non-domestic wastewater/unsanitary wastewater). The way it’s worded in this ordinance, it appears that it does include everything, but the EPA is confused by the definition and it makes sense to fix this at the same time that we are making the above changes for the waste generators. The definition of septage should be revised to just mean domestic wastewater and we would add a definition for non-domestic wastewater. There might be a number of places where this change occurs but they are small changes. We would first have to prepare the language, send it to EPA for approval, as it would be considered a modification to the pre-treatment program, then come back and go to each of the respective SJS boards so that modifications can be made to local laws. This is the first step of these changes being made. Cathy asked if taking in the trucked waste was worthwhile in terms of revenue and if the cost of processing it is in the best interest of this facility. Ron stated that the spreadsheet he distributed shows the actual numbers of revenue derived from trucked waste based on the previous year (2001) and the current year (2002) thru October. He said that we have not yet calculated the actual cost of processing to get a net value, but that it needs to be understood that the trucked waste is being anaerobically digested which produces an abundant supply of methane fuel which is used for co-generation purposes which provides approximately 18% of our electrical needs on a daily basis and also is used by the co-generators and the boiler system for heat utilization to heat this facility and the digester as it needs to be kept at 98 degrees. If you want the cost numbers they can be compiled and they will show that the trucked waste program is an asset to this facility. Larry estimated the net value at over $.25M. Ron said that our monthly electric bill is approximately $18,000 and with the co -generation we are saving an estimated 18% of that amount. The gas bill in winter is around $10,000 to $12,000 and would be more using natural gas instead of methane. We produce on average 50,000 to 60,000 cubic feet per day of methane for use in the plant. Cathy asked if the methane is produced only from the trucked waste or if our own waste is included. Larry and Ron explained that it is produced from the digester including the trucked waste and because of the nature of the waste some produces more gas than the normal waste we have. Ron again offered to work the numbers up and Mark said he would like to see them. Cathy then asked how Susan Brock should be directed as far as changing the sewer laws to reflect authority over the waste generators. Mark then said that he is confused over why the laws need to be changed. He thought that the Chief Operator already had the authority to enter into contracts. Susan responded that it’s not clear enough to EPA. I would be nice to show in the laws that he would have the authority to go outside the jurisdiction of this facility to inspect and sample at these sites. Mark said that these changes are being made just to give EPA something they can feel comfortable with? Susan said yes and it can’t hurt in terms of what if something goes sour with this user and enforcement measures need to be enacted. Ron said he was asked about this issue of enforcement authority by Ed Schleuter of EPA during the audit this past summer. Deb Grantham asked about the villages that bring in sludge and the testing of the product that they bring in, and why they even bring it here. Ron responded that we are providing a service to neighboring villages because they don’t have equipment or programs in place to treat on their own. Cathy said that not having a quorum, is there at least one other person present willing to give Susan the go-ahead to start making the SUL changes. Ed Hershey said he believes that the Mayor would support it and Cathy said she thinks Mary Russell would too. The consensus around the table is to tell Susan to make the changes. Larry asked if we could encumber some estimated amount of the remaining 2002 funds for this purpose rather than carry this expense over to 2003. Cathy said maybe this could be done before the end of the year. Susan said she would e-mail it to Terry to distribute. Susan mentioned that there is a contract between the County and the municipalities about the hauled waste that may be affected by any changes made. Larry said that the county is retiring a debt on a portion of the septage facility that they originally built. This debt will be retired in 2006. Cathy then questioned if the county would be paying down the rest of that debt in light of their hauling to the Freeville plant to cut their cost of hauling to this facility. Larry said they would still have to pay this debt off. Cathy asked Steve how they actually pay this debt and he replied that we get a payment from them annually. Larry said we charge them monthly for what they haul. Mark said he doesn’t think they know they’re paying a debt down. Cathy said they were saying that they would be saving between $100,000 and $140,000 per year. Ron said that would depend on rainfall events and other factors but those numbers are way off. Cathy questioned whether it’s a valuable thing for us to be doing because we’re losing one of our major hauler’s money coming down here. Susan asked if she should find the contract with the County and Cathy said if she can, then that’s fine. Cathy then told Ron to go ahead and compile the numbers to get an actual value of the trucked waste. Capital Project Expenditures and Fund Balances Larry handed out a sheet that showed the status of the projects that are still in process and stated that he and Steve have not had the time to sit down and compare notes. He did not include the projects that have been completed. This shows about $370,000 of items still in process. Cathy asked if these 3 are the only Capital Project accounts we have. Larry said at the moment, yes. He explained that CP-407J is for the year 2000 projects and CP- 408J is for the years 2001 and 2002 projects. He said that the bottom line is that there are pending items worth $370,000 and there is a balance of $380,000 in those 2 accounts. The other account noted, CP-403J, which is over budget, is the account that we paid Susan Brock and Stearns & Wheler out of. So when we resolve those pay-backs from the 6 municipalities, that account will come back into the black with billing some $50,000 for Susan and roughly $300,000 for the SEQRA and Unified Engineering Reports. That will give us the approximately $100,000 to complete our commitment to S&W on the phosphorous project which is what that line was budgeted for in the first place. Larry and Steve will go back and clarify that account. Basically all this shows is that the re is not a whole lot left. Cathy said that the $300,000 coming back in is contingent on an agreement being reached with the Group of 6. Larry said they all agreed to do the study and the SEQRA is mostly for Lansing so there shouldn’t be a problem. Cathy then questioned the line item for the sampling boat under CP-407J. She said that they had decided not to buy a boat. Larry said no, they had decided to buy a boat and actually we had a low bid. Bill Gray was trying to reduce the amount we would spend on the boat through the Sheriff’s or Fire Departments by checking into a boat that didn’t work for them but might work for our needs. So he was looking at a possible $15,000 rather than $32,000 that the bids came in at. Cathy said she was almost sure that they had taken the boat out of the budget. Larry said that the $10,000 under the 2000 budget and the $20,000 under the 2001 budget were for the boat. We actually added money in the second year for the boat. Cathy said we budgeted $30,000 for a boat? Larry said it’s for a sampling boat that won’t tip over and can go out as early in the year as possible without icing. Deb asked if this was required. Larry said it is directly connected to our permit. There’s a lot of money at stake with the lake monitoring and the phosphorous reduction. It’s not a frill. Larry explained that if the boat was needed for emergency purposes that the other departments would have access to it and that might account for 2% of the usage of it. Mark asked if dispatch even has our boat radio and how would that work. Larry said we’ve been talking to the Fire Department and that’s all under discussion. Cathy asked why can’t we just use their boat. Larry said that Bill can explain more about the boat issue as he is more knowledgeable about boats. Dan asked if they can have written goals depicting why this amount of money is needed for a boat. Larry said this has been going on for 2 years and it’s well established as a program and he will provide a written description of the project. Studying the south end of Cayuga Lake is a very important element. Mark then interrupted Larry and said that 3 months ago Larry said that he could pull the plug and get rid of all of the environmental work that the lab does within 5 minutes. He then told Larry that he was told by the SJS “Good, pull the plug”. Larry responded that he’s been studying the information and he is bringing the information back to the SJS, and he did not want to get into the ultimatums of that. Mark said he does want to get into it and it’s not an ultimatum. It’s an instruction. PULL THE PLUG. Larry said the SJS budgeted for this for the last 2 years and he really didn’t want to argue. Mark said he wasn’t arguing, you’ve been given an instruction and repeated again PULL THE PLUG. Cathy said it’s clear that they want to get this environmental stuff out and that it’s clearly not part of the O&M of the plant. Larry again told Cathy it’s part of the permit and Mark again intervened with “You’ve been given an instruction”. Cathy asked Steve about the boat. Steve said that originally the boat was in the budget for one of these Capital Projects, it went through the bid process, it came in extremely high so it wasn’t approved and it was given to Bill Gray to look into. At the same time, the Fire Department has a boat that we checked to see if they could use or purchase that boat. So we again went to bid and it still came in quite high and that’s where it stands right now. Steve said that Jose currently has a boat to use and Ed Hershey said he is now confused. He asked what Mark was talking about that happened 3 months ago. Mark said that they were talking about environmental data that they don’t feel is directly attributable to the plant. Deb said that the data is not supporting O&M of the plant and we don’t think it’s useful work for the plant. Ed tried to understand Larry’s assertion that this data is needed as part of the application for all of this funding. Cathy said we already have the data and it’s already been turned in for the funding. Ed asked if there was a vote on the boat and Larry said no, but Cathy said yes, before Mark was here. It showed up on their radar screen on the budget maybe 2 or 3 years ago and we said NO. Then Jose went off and proceeded to use his own boat. It was clear that we said we did not want to buy a boat. Larry disagreed and said that they approved a boat in the budget after a lot of questioning. The only reason we have not bought a boat is because we are all sensitive about the amount of money that the bid came in at. Cathy said we need to go back and look at the minutes of the meeting on this issue. Ron asked wouldn’t the acceptance of the allocated amount of $32,000 be in the approved budget. Cathy responded, not necessarily. She said she doesn’t remember seeing it on the line item in the approved budget. Ed said that the issue of data needed or not needed should be tabled until the next meeting when hopefully there will be a quorum. Ed then asked if Jose was paid for the use of his boat. Larry said no and Cathy said well maybe we should. Ed said people should not be donating their services or equipment and we need to find out what the issues are. Cathy said let’s get the information on what kinds of testing and data are needed just for the purposes of the wastewater plant and go from there. Deb noted that the SJS said no more to the environmental watershed projects in general. Larry said he was under impression that they were speaking more to the 6 -mile creek activities than the lake and Deb and Cathy said they were talking about watershed. Cathy said these projects are important and valuable but they are not part of O&M of the plant. Cathy said to put the boat on hold at this point. Deb said that the information needed in order to evaluate whether we need more sampling is what the sampling that has been done and the data collected so far has done for the phosphorous reduction application. Larry said it also has to do with the TMDL deliberations. He said he will get as much information and segment it for the SJS. Deb asked what ELAP was in reference to a $50.00 voucher. Ron explained the organization and what it does. Mark asked if the Water Treatment Plant was paying for half of it and Ron said the WTP has its own lab at this point. Ed Hershey asked how much the percentage of The Town of Dryden’s obligation might be? Cathy said her point is that if this plant is doing a lot of the water testing work then we need to get credit for that. We shouldn’t be subsidizing the Water Plant. Larry said the information he is putting together will clarify that. Deb says that this particular voucher looks like a meeting of some sort. Ron said that is was for training on lab practices for lab certification. Financial Report Steve handed out the financial report and Cathy asked if they could be distributed to the members that were absent. Operations Report 1. Chemical Bulk Storage Tank (CBS) To maintain compliance with CBS regulations 6 NYCRR Part 595, 596, 597, 598, and 599, every 5 years the storage tanks must be inspected by certified engineers. Also, as part of this compliance, a spill prevention report is needed. Our current Spill Prevention Report, dated December 1998, does not have updated information needed for compliance. Coincidentally, our current registration through NYSDEC is due for renewal in March 2003. Because of these realizations, we have undertaken efforts to come into compliance. To accomplish these efforts, we have obtained quotes from 2 reputable firms. D&A Environmental, Inc. of 120 N Abington Rd., Clarks Summit, PA 18411 was chosen not only because of low bid but also because of their familiarity in preparing our first Spill Prevention Report. Although our renewal application for the CBS Registration Certificate now lists all on-site chemical storage tanks, the relatively new Sodium Hypochlorite storage tank, which was put into service in June 1999 was never properly inspected by a certified engineering firm. Additionally, when a change is implemented such as, which tanks are used for storing which chemicals, there must be amendments made to the Spill Prevention Report. While inspecting the Sodium Hypochlorite storage tank, it was determined that the interior of the tank wall was compromised. I have been in contact with Polyprocessing, the manufacturer of the tank, and they are scheduled to visit the site on Friday. We will talk about a possible solution to the problem of the storage tank. We are working diligently with Scott, Larry’s assistant, on the CBS compliance issues. He may have more to add on this matter. 2. Continued Discussion on the Retec Pilot Project To further explain the definition of in-kind services regarding the proposed Retec Project, I would like to take this opportunity to explain things such as Lab Work (setting up and running off samples, logging and preservation of samples, obtaining samples, etc.). During the period from obtaining samples to either analyzing and/or shipping them out for analysis, there are a myriad of approved steps that need to be accomplished. These include obtaining a properly sized sample volume, labeling the container, logging in a registry, preservation of said sample, filling out a chain of custody, etc. During this time, any additional sampling and/or analysis is accomplished within the same time frame as regular routine sampling or analyzing. Ron said that in the October meeting, the SJS had agreed to support the Retec Pilot and in the November meeting questioned the we may lose $31,000 in in-kind services due to the fact that Ron had requested that Retec reimburse the plant a portion of the grant money being used to fund the project for a portion of the value placed on in-kind services. Deb said that her concern was that we may be spending money out of pocket to do this project and if they’re getting funding for some of their time then it seems fair for us to get some of that funding too. Essentially, they’re making money on this grant because we’re kind enough to cooperate with them. So they should give us a cut of it. Deb said what Mark brought up was the patent rights because there is money to be made off of patents. And if the patents are the results of some of our contributions, give us a cut of them too. Ron explained a little of what Retec hopes to learn from this project and said that it may or may not result in intellectual properties but what this plant stands to gain from this project is experience of new technology in treatability. If an opportunity comes up to expand our horizons we like to jump on it. We have a reputation and we try to keep that reputation as high as possible. We’re renowned across the State. Retec also has in-kind services that they place a dollar value on. Mark said that he thinks that Retec themselves valued the in -kind services at $50,000. They are counting that as in-kind services in the grant that’s given out. They are getting this grant presumably because they are going to come up with some profit that can be either patented or licensed after a trade secret. Ron said possibly, but he can’t say for sure. Mark said they are not a not-for-profit organization out there doing research for the good of mankind. They’re doing this to make money and there will be some ownership of whatever comes out of this mess. Ron said that in the first packet he gave members of the SJS, there was something that explained who would have what rights to what. Ron also said as far as the clarification of the definition of in -kind services, if the SJS doesn’t think it’s a good idea, then fine. Mark said he thinks it’s a good idea to do the work, but he doesn’t see why we don’t have part owne rship of whatever intellectual property comes out. Ron said that we did get $20,000 within a 10 minute phone conversation. Mark said that should be a darn good clue that if they’re willing to give $20,000 away in 10 minutes it’s worth a lot of money to them. Larry said Ron got them to split the difference in the grant. It’s similar to what we do with Cornell and we get so much out of it as far as free consulting information. That’s what these relationships can bring to us. Mark told Larry that he’s done grants before, he’s done research before, he knows how these things work and Larry is not educating him. Larry said ok, then asked Mark to participate with us and negotiate what he wants. Cathy said her understanding on Cornell was that they didn’t make any claim to intellectual rights. Larry tried to describe the benefits of the research end of this facility. Cathy said ok but that we need to think about and be careful about when doing pilot projects like this, that if there is some patent or something to come out of it that could be very valuable, we should have something in our agreement with them that we get a share of that. Larry said Ron doesn’t feel that he has enough information for that and maybe we could contact Susan Brock and get suggestions along those lines. We’re just trying to find out what the SJS wants without getting into an argument. Deb said it makes sense that Retec is contributing $30,000 for in-kind and we’re contributing $20,000 for in-kind and we’re both getting those amounts reimbursed from the grant. She says that’s fine as long as we’re not spending any money out of pocket for this project. Also Deb says that if there is potential for intellectual property rights that could lead to revenues that could help support this plant in the future, we should be looking at contracts with that in mind and make sure we have a cut of that. She said probably Susan Brock is the best one to advise us on that. Larry said that everyone brings value to the table and if someone has been involved with these types of discussions and know what’s reasonable to ask for up front without sending them away, then that’s the kind of perspective we need. Mark mentioned Jose’s presentation on the hydraulic thickening that’s extremely valuable. It appears that nobody owns the property rights. This plant doesn’t, Cornell doesn’t. If it’s such a valuable commodity, somebody should own it and somebody should market it and somebody should make money off of it. Deb says the SJS should get at least part of that. Larry says we were paid for the time Jose spent doing that but we did not cover the intellectual property part of that. Ron again said that he recalls something in the literature that mentioned us not having any interest in the results of the project. Cathy asked if he signed anything yet. He said he signed a letter involving us in the project only after the October SJS meeting when the members agreed to support it. Deb and Cathy said to get Susan Brock to look at it. Ron asked if anyone had read the literature. Mark said yes, he remembered something about us not having an interest in the marketing, but he didn’t think it had been signed yet. Ron said the letter he signed only stated that we would be involved with the pilot project. They agreed that that wouldn’t give up our rights to anything and that Susan needs to look at it. Cathy said we need to get advise from Susan and learn how to deal with this issue for future opportunities that may come along. 3. Preliminary Values Regarding Trucked Waste Please note distributed spreadsheet comparing 2001 income realized from trucked and forecasted income for the year 2002. 4. Primary Settling Tanks Eric Whitney has been working with Ed Smith on the cost estimates and should have some final values ready for this meeting and they should be in Larry’s engineering report. Cathy asked Larry if those were already budgeted. Engineering Report Larry said the tanks were budgeted for 2003 and he is confused as to where that budget stands. That was the $200,000 that was discussed. There may be money left at the end of 2002, but the 2003 budget that was presented to the SJS showed $200,000 for the primary settling tanks and the number we have right now shows $138,000 for one half of what we need. The city has approved the budget presented to the SJS but Larry is not clear that the SJS has approved it yet. Larry asked Steve if a capital project has been set up for this. Dan asked about the detail and Larry said it starts on page 7 of the detail he handed out. As there is no quorum to approve a resolution to set up a capital project or approve the budget, it was tabled till the next meeting. Dan asked if this was coming out of the operations budget and Larry said no, it is a capital expenditure due to the fact that it is a long-term approval. Steve said at the next meeting, there needs to be a total cost to be taken to the respective boards for approval. Cathy thinks they can have the approval in January. Next meeting Scheduled for January 8, 2003 The meeting ended at 2:15PM