APPROVED

Council Members Present: Mayor Mary Hogan, Deputy Mayor Timothy Curtis, Council Member Dom Albano, Council Member Paul Broxterman, Council Member John Haverstock, Council Member Jim Ristas, Council Member Al Simon.

Mayor Mary Hogan called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. She provided an overview of the meeting agenda which would focus on the landfill closure scenario. Staff would present the impacts of closure of the landfill in 2004 followed by questions and answers by the Council members and then the general public.

The staff presentation was opened by Town Manager Leon Churchill with several points of clarification. He noted that the landfill expansion scenarios under consideration would be for bulky waste and possibly waste process residue only, not ash. He also explained that the maximum expansion proposal of 300 feet equates to approximately 110 feet above road level at the landfill. He further explained that the nature of leachate breakouts in the Farmington River area are non toxic, that the town has considered expansion as a possibility for a number of years, and that the maximum intake of refuse at the landfill would likely result in a 16% increase in truck traffic in the Day Hill Rd. area. Finally, Mr. Churchill explained the environmental and economic conditions affecting the landfill's current level of reserve funds.

Landfill Manager Irv Slike described what closure and monitoring of the landfill would involve. He also explained the impact of closure on curbside trash pickup in Windsor. Under current conditions, residents' trash pickup bills are projected to increase by up to about $115. An additional cost may result from the town operating a transfer station.

Town Engineer Tom Lenehan explained the projected traffic impacts associated with the closure scenario. The combined effect of eliminating traffic from the spot market and the addition of transfer trailer traffic would result in no noticeable change in traffic compared to current conditions.

Budget Analyst Julian Freund explained the financial impacts of closure in 2004. Based on the current level of reserves, projected revenues and expenditures, and the two town's shared responsibilities, closure would likely result in a mill rate increase of approximately one half mill. This is in addition to the increase in direct costs that residents would pay for curbside trash pickup.

Council Member Al Simon asked whether the financial analysis took into consideration the construction of a methane gas collection system as appears in the capital improvement program. Mr. Freund replied that it is included in the capital costs in the analysis.

Council Member Simon added that the closure scenario also carries with it opportunity costs. He said the town needs to acknowledge the fact that bonding for closure will force other capital projects further out into the future.

Council Member Simon noted that Bloomfield is responsible for 50% of the closure and post-closure obligations and asked whether or not the decision as to whether or not to expand is a Windsor-only decision. Mr. Churchill said that, as the general manager of the landfill, the option is primarily this town's.

Council Member Simon asked what would happen to landfill employees under a closure scenario. Mr. Churchill said the commitment he has made is that no one would lose their job as a result of the final decision.

Council Member Simon asked about the origin of the waste coming into the landfill now. Mr. Slike replied that the town is currently receiving spot market waste at a rate of about 3,500 tons per year.

Council Member Simon asked about potential liabilities associated with solid waste operations generally. Health Director Charles Petrillo replied that the risks range from aesthetic and odor litter type risks to groundwater contamination and gas migration. The town has monitored groundwater on a quarterly basis since the 1980s.

Council Member Haverstock asked about the status of the town's relationship with Bloomfield. Mr. Churchill answered that the town has maintained communications with Bloomfield. The Town of Bloomfield is primarily interested in avoiding the tax impacts of closure.

Council Member Haverstock asked if Bloomfield would have any claim to future landfill revenues. Mr. Churchill said that the current interlocal agreement does not provide for sharing of revenues after closure of the MSW landfill.

Council Member Haverstock asked whether CRRA has the right to deny Windsor participation in the mid-Conn. project. Mr. Churchill answered that legal counsel is currently examining that issue.

Deputy Mayor Curtis asked whether previous Councils indicated any direction with regard to closure dates. Mr. Churchill said that previous Councils have considered expansion to various heights including 245' and had submitted an application for expansion to the Conn. Dept. of Environmental Protection in the 1980s.

Deputy Mayor Curtis asked whether the town would purchase the ABB land even if there is no expansion. Mr. Churchill explained that the town has to acquire control of the ABB parcel in order to comply with the 1994 consent order with DEP.

Deputy Mayor Curtis asked about how an alternative destination for Windsor MSW would be chosen under a closure scenario. Mr. Slike answered that in choosing a location, the town should take into consideration several factors including finding the most favorable cost, the most favorable contract structure and the landfill operator's track record.

Council Member Albano noted that the town had previously submitted applications for MSW vertical expansion.

Council Member Broxterman asked who runs the alternative landfills mentioned in the presentation. Mr. Slike and Public Works Director Brian Funk said that some are operated by private firms and one is operated by CRRA as a waste to energy facility.

Council Member Broxterman asked about additional costs effected by the distance to other landfills and how the construction of a transfer station affect those costs. Mr. Churchill answered that the range of costs provided covers transportation as well as pickup. The cost of operating a transfer station has not been incorporated.

Council Member Broxterman asked how the town monitors what currently goes into the landfill. Mr. Slike explained that the town uses the permitting mechanism to control which haulers are allowed in to the landfill. Landfill staff also act as a first line of defense against improper loads.

Council Member Broxterman asked whether the town has a history of contaminated wells. Mr. Petrillo answered that the leachate is contained on site and has not contaminated any wells.

Council Member Broxterman asked whether the town has a choice with respect to purchase of the ABB parcel. Mr. Churchill said that the current legal interpretation of the consent order is that the town must purchase the parcel.

Deputy Mayor Curtis asked about the projected impact on residents who currently take their trash to the landfill themselves. Mr. Churchill said that would depend on whether or not a transfer station is constructed. If a transfer station is built, those residents could continue to bring their refuse to the landfill site directly.

Council Member Broxterman inquired as to what percentage interest on bonds is assumed in the financial impact analysis. Mr. Freund replied that the historical average interest rate of 5.5% is assumed.

Mayor Hogan asked whether there are other bulky waste sites in Connecticut. Mr. Lenehan indicated that Manchester has a bulky waste landfill which is operated by the town.

Mayor Hogan asked about the steps involved in capping the landfill. Mr. Slike said that capping will require a layer of clay material topped by a layer of soil that can support vegetation.

Mayor Hogan then read a written statement by Council Member Don Trinks who could not attend the meeting.

A break in the meeting began at 8:06 p.m.

The meeting resumed at 8:23 p.m.

Mayor Hogan asked what would happen to the take-it-or-leave-it area. Mr. Slike said that the take-it-or-leave-it area will be maintained if at all possible under any scenario.

Council Member Haverstock asked whether an environmental study of the ABB parcel has been conducted. Mr. Churchill said that ABB is undergoing a permitting process with the NRC, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to certify that the property would be clean when it takes control of the property.

Council Member Haverstock inquired as to the source of existing landfill funds. Mr. Churchill explained that those are the accumulation of tip fees over time.

Council Member Haverstock asked if the half mill projection is in addition to or in lieu of the projected costs. Mr. Churchill answered that the mill increase is the cumulative result of bonding plus ongoing monitoring costs plus the loss of rent/pilot revenue.

Karen Hatcher, 7 Pheasant Run, asked why Bloomfield would not be responsible for half of the leachate collection system costs. Mr. Freund replied that the analysis assumes Bloomfield is sharing in the cost in that landfill reserves are used to finance the construction of a leachate collection system.

Mark Cybulski, 212 Harness Lane, said that at planning meetings for the Village Acres Subdivision, there were assurances given that the town would close the landfill. Mr. Petrillo explained that during the planning and zoning process for Village Acres, all information known about the landfill at that time, including the possibility of vertical expansion for municipal solid waste, were incorporated into planning documents and were raised at planning and zoning meetings.

Dana Plant, 123 Fieldstone Dr., said that when considering purchasing in Village Acres in 1986, she went to Town Hall to ask town staff and was told the landfill would close in 5 years and be converted to a golf course. She said that she was shown plans to that effect.

Steve Hawes, 444 Lantern Way, echoed the comments of Ms. Plante. He said that when considering purchasing a home in the area, he went to landfill and was told by the landfill administrator that the landfill would be closed in 7 years.

Clarence Countryman, 480 Rainbow Rd., asked how other towns dealing with the same problem. He then suggested that municipal responsibility for garbage is obsolete and that the state should perhaps take responsibility for solid waste management. He also asked if anyone had heard of legislation recently for municipalities to take responsibility of motor vehicles or the court system. He said that town by town management of solid waste is ridiculous. In response to the question about other towns, Mr. Churchill said that Manchester paid for closure of its MSW landfill by converting to bulky waste for a period of time. He further commented that the state has been active in solid waste management as evidenced by the creation of the Resource Recovery Authority.

Joe Spalluto, 456 Lantern Way, asked when the application for vertical expansion was submitted and why it was rejected. Mr. Petrillo answered that the application was submitted in 1983 or 1984. It was delayed by the DEP because the Windsor landfill was not near to reaching its capacity. DEP subsequently rejected the application because it was not accepting applications for expansion for MSW.

Mr. Spalluto posed the question of, if starting from scratch today under current regulatory requirements, would the landfill likely be approved? Mr. Slike said that an unlined landfill, like Windsor's, would not be approved if applying as a new landfill.

Darleen Klase, 79 West Street, asked whether in a scenario where a bulky waste facility is developed and CRRA were lax in operating it, would the town be liable. She further commented the town should investigate Ellington's experience with its CRRA-run transfer station. She said that bulky waste is not necessarily clean waste and that this should be taken into consideration. She also asked where bulky waste would actually go if the MSW section of the landfill is closed.

Mr. Slike said that the bulky waste could go on top of the capped MSW location, or could be placed on top of the MSW with closure only over the perimeter of the MSW.

Ms. Klase asked if there are other known landfills where this has been done. Mr. Slike cited the Town of Manchester as a bulky waste on MSW site and Montgomery County, MD as an MSW on MSW site.

Mayor Hogan referred back to Ms. Klase's previous question about liability. Mr. Churchill said that the operator of the landfill would take on some liability and that generally, the longer the life of the facility, the greater the exposure to liability. As the landowner, however, Windsor would also maintain some liability.

Mayor Hogan asked whether the originator or the hauler of refuse is liable for problems where the refuse is disposed. Mr. Churchill said that it depends on whether the destination is a landfill or resource recovery authority.

Mayor Hogan asked staff to research known contaminants at other bulky waste facilities.

Pat Hatcher, 7 Pheasant Run, asked about whether the leachate tested in wells on the landfill site are showing contamination from MSW breakdown or industrial wastes. Mr. Petrillo responded that, since the wastes were landfilled together, the contaminants could not be attributed to one or the other of MSW breakdown or industrial waste.

Mr. Hatcher asked how the town would know if CRRA will police what is dumped in the landfill. Mr. Petrillo said that controls and limitations on the types of wastes would be addressed through the negotiation process which has not begun.

Mr. Hatcher asked if testing has been done on private wells on Prospect Hill Rd. to determine if they've been contaminated, and if so, what are the results. Mr. Petrillo said that the town itself has not tested those wells, but that the wells on site in that area show no contamination.

Mr. Hatcher asked if groundwater analysis had been done to determine whether leachate could reach those wells. Mr. Petrillo answered that Fuss & O'Neill has done extensive groundwater modeling and determined that a groundwater divide prevents landfill contamination to the east of the property.

Mr. Hatcher asked whether DEP approval will be needed for any kind of expansion. Mr. Petrillo answered in the affirmative.

Charles Drake, 128 Marshall St., asked whether the projections for the cost of MSW disposal include bulky waste. He also asked for clarification on what the proposed height of the landfill would be under expansion. He then asked what would happen to the current greenwaste and composting operations at the landfill.

Mr. Churchill answered that bulky waste is not figured into the MSW disposal costs. He further clarified that expansion to 300' is equivalent to 110' from the road level.

Mr. Drake asked whether CRRA has the capacity for additional waste. Mr. Churchill said that capacity is not available at the mid-Conn. project. Mr. Slike said that composting at the landfill would likely continue under the closure or town-run bulky waste facility scenarios.

Mr. Drake added that the composting operations are capable of generating odor if not properly maintained.

Carol Bernard, 20 Ivy Lane, said that trying to hold CRRA liable for anything that goes wrong will be difficult because of their quasi-public status. She also said that if the landfill is expanded, she would like truck routes be restricted.

Steve Hawco, 433 Lantern Way, said that it appears that most of the cost associated with closure is actually loss of revenue. He asked whether, with growth in the grand list, there are not other options for maintaining revenue. Mr. Churchill explained that even with favorable grand list growth, increasing operating expenditure still outpace revenue potential.

Mr. Hawco asked why closure could not simply be incorporated into the whole portfolio of projects in the CIP.

He then asked Mr. Churchill to reiterate what the Council's directive with regard to the landfill was. Mr. Churchill explained that he was directed to investigate options available for long term use of the landfill, with particular attention to options that have no tax impact.

Mr. Hawco suggested adding social costs and town image to the criteria being used to evaluate options.

Jane Garibay, 409 Broad St., asked how the landfill will prevent the dumping of dangerous materials since it cannot inspect every bag that is received. She also asked that the benefits of closure be presented.

Mr. Slike agreed that not every bag can be inspected and explained that those are precisely the reasons for subtitle D requirements and why systems for collecting leachate are installed.

Mr. Churchill replied that the benefits to closure include reduced traffic and the minimization of liability.

Council Member Broxterman asked if the landfill were capped tomorrow, would the possibility of environmental problems down the road be eliminated. Mr. Slike said that liability would not be eliminated 100%.

Neils Schulz, 14 Lochview Dr., said that all available options have not been evaluated until the issue is approached from an investment standpoint.

Jim Mieczkowski, 115 Hilltop Rd., asked whether or not rent and pilot would be lost under any scenario. Mr. Churchill said that rent/pilot would be maintained under the other two scenarios.

Mr. Mieczkowski asked what the impact of expansion will be on property values and how that will effect the grand list.

Mr. Churchill described some research conducted on landfills in the Cleveland area that suggests property values could dip between 3% and 8%. He said that the Town Assessor's observation has been that, to date, the landfill has not had a direct impact on neighboring property values. Staff have not projected out impacts on property values as that would be speculative.

Margaret Quigley, 99 Hillcrest Rd., said that no one had yet discussed the Farmington River. She asked about test results of the water quality there. Mr. Petrillo answered that Fuss & O'Neill studies have determined that the leachate has no impact on microorganisms or fish in the area, but that it has an aesthetic impact through coloration.

Ms. Quigley requested that the tape of the meeting be made available to WIN-TV. Mr. Churchill said that it would.

Bradshaw Smith, 23 Woodland, said he was glad to hear there is no agreement yet with Bloomfield with regard to closing costs. He characterized CRRA's position on accepting Windsor MSW as blackmail. He asked why CRRA was selected as a potential operator of the facility.

Mr. Churchill said that potential operators were evaluated in terms of operational history and financial stability. He added that there are more vulnerabilities associated with private interests.

Debbie Smith, 144 Fieldstone, said that as a real estate agent, it is very difficult to do her job with the landfill as it is now, let alone if it is expanded. She added that expansion will definitely impact property values. She also said that she had seen plans for a future golf course at the landfill site.

Alan Plant, 123 Fieldstone, read from 1996 groundwater monitoring report. He asked about the metal hydroxide cell at the landfill. Mr. Petrillo explained the history of the metal hydroxide cell. The town had refused accepting some metal hydroxide sludges in the 1980s, which at the time, were not considered hazardous waste. Since the materials were not considered hazardous, the town must accept the materials, which it did. The EPA then classified metal hydroxide sludge as hazardous waste. The town stopped accepting the material at that point and closed out the cell where it had been deposited.

Mr. Plant requested that the mayor ask Fuss & O'Neill to send a representative to the next meeting. Mr. Petrillo said that he had already asked Fuss & O'Neill to be prepared to send a representative.

Joe Spalluto, Lantern Way, noted that combined impact of closure on a median value household would be about $160/year to close as combination of mill rate increase and increased curbside pick-up costs.

Allen Reed, 95 Hilltop, suggested reporting on the capacity available at alternative disposal sites. He asked whether curbside pickup would be voluntary or mandatory once the existing MSW landfill is closed. Mr. Churchill replied that that issue can not be resolved until more immediate decisions are made. Mr. Reed suggested making curbside pickup mandatory as a way of keeping costs down.

The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

- Synopsis prepared by Julian Freund, Town of Windsor