Mayor Trinks called the regular meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.

1. Roll Call – Present: Mayor Trinks, Deputy Mayor Curtis, Councilor Broxterman, Councilor Dean, Councilor Ellingwood, Councilor Jepsen, Councilor Mulligan Councilor Simon and Councilor Walker
   
    
2. Prayer – Councilor Dean
   
    
3. Pledge of Allegiance – Councilor Dean
   
    
4. Proclamations/Awards

1. Honoring the day of February 6, 2004 as "Wear Red for Women Day"

Councilor Dean read the proclamation honoring the day of February 6, 2004 as "Wear Red for Women Day".

5. Public Communications and Petitions

   Mr. George Yeramian, 739 Prospect Hill Road, spoke to the Council regarding the landfill. He read a letter and submitted it to the Council. The letter summarized the traffic and noise problems, odor and nuisance of the landfill. He felt that alternative scenarios should have been considered, especially the use of the landfill for Windsor or Windsor/Bloomfield only. No logical explanation has been given for signing contracts with any entity. He also requested that the trucks not use their jake brakes.
   
    

6. Report of Appointed Boards and Commissions

1. Board of Education

Ms. Linda Bagnal, Board of Education member, reported to the Council. Sage Park students won the Knowledge Master Open, an online academic competition, and placed 1^st in the State. A number of students also won awards for their artwork. Three WHS social studies teachers were chosen to participate in a two-week program at Northwestern. They piloted the Tree House Before/After School program and it is going very well. They have elected to implement the program at all elementary schools next year. The finance committee is reviewing the budget. Jeffrey Cohen from Yale will be meeting with the Board tomorrow.

Councilor Broxterman asked if the Tree House program charged parents. Ms. Bagnal confirmed this and said that it is an enterprise fund.

Deputy Mayor Curtis informed Ms. Bagnal that the budget would be finalized during the week of school vacation.
 

1. Finance Committee – None.
    
2. Town Improvements Committee – met and discussed the possibility of having a policy of naming buildings, which will be before the committee one more time before coming to the Council. They also recommended approval of grant applications to CRCOG for several road projects that will be placed on the next Council agenda.
    
3. Health and Safety – None.
    
4. Special Projects – None.
    
5. Annual Review of the Windsor Town Manager – Amelia Bliss attended the meeting held recently. There will be a full report and evaluation at the next meeting.
    
6. Joint Board of Education and Town Council Committee – None.

10. Ordinances
    None
     

11. Unfinished Business
    None.

12. New Business

1. Adopt a resolution approving Town Council vision and priorities

   The Town Council met on January 9 and 10 for its annual retreat and discussed short and long-term goals for the town. The Town Council’s issues and challenges from the fall of 1998 have been significantly achieved and there was sentiment for commitment to an updated vision and priorities.

   Deputy Mayor Curtis said that this helps the Council stay on track with its vision and goals. He asked if there will be a display. Town Manager Churchill said they are working in various ways to display the vision and priorities.

   Moved by Councilor Simon, seconded by Councilor Jepsen that the Windsor Town Council resolves to adopt the following vision and goals attached herein. "To create an exceptional quality of life that engages citizens, provides commercial and leisure amenities, promotes business and employment opportunities and unsurpassed value to all taxpayers."

   Motion Passed 9-0-0

2. Introduce proposed 2005-2010 CIP

   Mr. Peter Souza, Assistant Town Manager, summarized the proposed 2005-2010 CIP. The Capital Improvements Committee, which is charged with reviewing years two through six of the draft CIP and advising the Town Manager on possible alterations, met twice to review the proposed CIP. The Capital Improvements Committee voted unanimously to accept the documents as presented and recommended no changes to the draft FY 2005-2010 Capital Improvements Program.

   Mayor Trinks referred the Proposed 2005-2010 Capitol Improvements Plan to the Town Improvements Committee for review and subsequent recommendation to the Town Council.

3. Introduce Tax Abatement policy

   Mr. Jim Burke, Economic Development Director, gave a presentation on the Tax Abatement policy. The issues and observations were that certain large projects bypassed Windsor, slower grand list growth, a competitive disadvantage, limits of current program, and needs of existing businesses. In one case where we were bypassed, Bloomfield offered TJX a 100% abatement on real estate for two years and an 80% abatement for five years. There was a 4.13% grand list growth in 2001, 3.86% in 2002 and 1% in 2003. The competitive disadvantage is the cost of land, MDC charges, property tax incentives and incentives that help sell Board of Directors. Incentives by themselves do not make or break a project, but it brings back the ability to say there is an interest. The Economic Development Commission approved a draft of the proposed policy at its regular meeting on January 21, 2004.

   The proposed policy provides only a partial abatement (up to 50%) of the real property portion of a development project. This policy does not abate any personal property, which is likely to be significant given the types of business that are eligible. The Town would benefit immediately from taxes on 50% of the real estate and 100% of the personal property.

   Councilor Ellingwood asked how this plan fits with what other towns are doing. Mr. Burke responded that he did a survey of 15 of 29 towns that he believes we are most likely to compete with. He identified no single practice. Many towns do not have a printed policy, but refer to the state statute. Councilor Ellingwood asked if we passed the policy, would every issue still have to come to the Council. Mr. Burke confirmed this.

   Councilor Dean inquired about job requirements. Mr. Burke said that they need to show us how they recruit. There needs to be a written document committing them to market job opportunities to Windsor residents. Councilor Dean asked if we would be able to monitor the results. Mr. Burke said there would be some level of trust for them to provide the proper level of documentation. Councilor Dean asked about wages and would they present the town with a certain pay range. Mr. Burke said we would likely use the Department of Labor data on positions and pay relative to the region.

   Councilor Simon commented that in the abatement criteria, they can receive another 5% abatement. Mr. Burke said that the additional 5% would be for a subsection, which has targeted industries that are biomedical and class "A" offices.

   Councilor Walker asked about the offices for advanced medical procedures and for an elaboration. Mr. Burke said the commission is targeting offices that have a high personal property value (equipment per square foot).

   Councilor Jepsen asked what is class "A" office space. Mr. Burke said that class "A" is the highest level of offices, more cost per square foot and typically two stories or greater.

   Councilor Mulligan asked if information regarding the various classes could be provided. Mr. Burke will provide the information.

   Mr. Burke responded to the inquiry regarding the K-Mart building vacancy. In addition to the issues that were noted by the Town Manager, there is a very expensive lease on the property, which also contributes to the difficulties of selling the property.

   Mayor Trinks referred the Tax Abatement policy to the Finance Committee for review and subsequent recommendation to the Town Council.

4. Adopt resolution selecting a landfill closure option

Town Manager Churchill discussed the most immediate questions that have come up regarding the landfill.

The following is a list of landfill questions regarding closure that were asked or implied at last week’s Town Council Workshop or that we have heard at previous landfill presentations.

Why were long-term negotiations carried out with CRRA without citizen knowledge?

• The Town Council has been kept fully informed regarding discussions taking place with the CRRA.
• Discussions are strictly preliminary until the Council gives its approval to proceed in earnest.
• Information gathered in these preliminary discussions gives the Council more information on which to base its closure decisions.

Residents are fearful of CRRA.

• CRRA involvement in the Windsor landfill today is different than what was being proposed in 2001
• The CRRA would be customer of the landfill like any other hauler
• CRRA would not be running our landfill, contrary to what was discussed in 2001.

If the Hartford landfill closes before our landfill, can CRRA take over our landfill to meet their waste demands?

• OPM (Marc Ryan) has indicated that there is little chance that the state will go against local community wishes regarding waste acceptance. This has been the case since the Windsor-Bloomfield Landfill opened in 1972.
• A member of our legislative delegation can verify this information.

If we enter into an agreement with CRRA to bring our wastes to their facility, do we also become liable for problems (e.g., Enron) that they’ve encountered or will encounter?

• There is a difference between a CRRA member towns with voting rights and one that is associated contractually to bring wastes but has no voting rights

• We will be careful in structuring any contractual agreement with CRRA so that our liability is minimized, particularly with CRRA’s historical liabilities.

• Our attorneys will look very carefully at any agreement that we are considering ensuring that our potential liability is minimized.

Why do we need a contract with a hauler for spot market wastes when our tipping fees are lower than CRRA’s and the wait time at our facility in optimal/minimal?

• Spot market wastes are highly variable, i.e. here today gone tomorrow.
• By contacting with haulers, we have some stability regarding incoming volumes, thus better use of staff resources and equipment.
• Contracts give us the ability to develop long-term plans since we know what we will be receiving.
• It is a better relationship with an organization with trust difficulties like the CRRA.

Do we have a contract with any hauler for spot market wastes?

• No. Authorization has not been received from the Town Council.
• Given the volatility of the spot market, it would be in our best interest to have a contract so that tonnage minimums can be set and closure plans finalized

Some residents don’t know that the landfill will not be closing in 2004. There also has to be better notice about future meetings.

• The Council’s direction in 2001 was to close when the landfill reaches its permitted elevation (212 feet).
• The previous date was an estimate. Less incoming waste coupled with revised figures on available space has extended the anticipated closure date beyond 2004.
• This information has been communicated to the Council over the past 2 ½ years and has been widely reported in the press.
• Meeting notices have been listed in the newspapers, website, and local access TV.

What are the differences between the closure numbers presented in 2001 and those presented in January of 2004 and why are there differences?

• We have more up-to-date information
• We have proceeded further on our closure process
• The time lapse in obtaining Town Council action has changed time frames
• Geomembrane costs have been added ($3.5 million)
• Post closure estimates were revised upwards based on long-term gas collection system management ($100,000).

You’re discouraging the Transfer Station option. Why and will the people have a voice in that decision?

• We have the obligation to present the Town Council with all options so that it can make an informed decision.
• I also want the Council to have the benefit of my recommendation. The Council does not have to concur with that recommendation.
• The Transfer Station option is not the most financially viable option, and it has the potential to replicate some of the nuisances currently experienced with the Landfill.
• People will continue to have voice through regular Council meetings or other meetings that the Council may choose to conduct.

While the Council can vote to close by a certain date with certain conditions, future Councils can change those dates or conditions. How can we take the landfill closure issues out of the mix for future Councils?

• The closure process is linked to decisions that the Council must make regarding landform and intake amounts.
• Once the Council makes those decisions, the landfill’s closure plan can be finalized and submitted to the DEP for review and approval. The DEP’s decision makes closure final.
• The DEP’s decision is hoped to be via an amended consent order (1994). The consent order is a legally binding document.
• Any changes made by future Councils in the closure scenarios will necessitate a revision to the closure plan which in turn will necessitate another review by the DEP.
• That being said, future Councils are free to change closure decisions, but change should prove to be very difficult.
• In addition, the farther along on the closure course we are, the more difficult it will be for them to change direction.

What is the liability facing the Town of remaining open for another 3 years?

• On-site liability of injuries, accidents, etc.
• Off-site liability that is pollution related
• groundwater contamination
• methane migration
• odors
• noise
• visual pollution
• These issues are the same that has faced the landfill since it opened

What is the potential cost of and is there a cap on this liability?

• A lower intake of 50,000 tons through 2007 results in $2.12 million total payments
• A higher intake of 110,000 tons through 2007 results in $2.41 million total payments
• Coverage is up to $1 million with deductible of $25,000
• Claims more than $1 million are covered by Town’s general liability coverage up to $10 million, the Town’s LEF would cover any claims above this amount
• More definitive estimates are not forthcoming without underwriting information.

What are the health risks associated with the odors?

• Odors have been analyzed and the results are below minimum health risk levels.
• With the installation of the methane collection system, we’ve seen a decrease in the number and frequency of odor complaints.
• Plans are underway to extend the methane collections system. The potential for odors in the future are reduced if the revised landform is implemented, which gets water off the Landfill faster.
• Health risks are extremely low.
• Those air-sampling results are available for public review.
• The complaint driven air testing process can be re-instituted if desired.

What steps are we taking to address health issues that could arise from our staying open until 2007?

• We will reexamine the waste acceptance policy that we have to make sure that wastes are coming from approved sources.
• We will also examine the waste handling procedures.
• We will work with our consultant so that the latest scientific information is being applied to waste handling.
• We will conduct whatever tests are recommended to make sure that environmental/health problems are flagged addressed early.
• We will continue to work with residents so that we receive immediate feedback to changing conditions.
• We suggest the components of the proposed Closure Plan be implemented to further safeguard against environmental degradation.

What is the distinction between tested levels of contaminants and what people are experiencing or noting?

• People can note odors below levels that are detrimental to their health.
• Everyone reacts differently to odors -- what bothers one person may not bother another.
• Odors at the levels being experienced are largely an aesthetic issue.
• The air testing presents evidence that the landfill is not presenting a health risk to those who live near or work at the landfill.
• Our goal is to reduce/eliminate odors to the maximum extent possible.

If we know that the odor coming from the landfill is from bulky waste, why do we continue to accept bulky waste?

• Bulky waste is being placed outside of the landfill’s Subtitle D footprint
• No MSW can be placed in this area
• Option would be to
• place "clean fill"
• place "brush"
• There is not enough brush available to be able to close the landfill by 2007
• "Clean fill" is expensive given the amount that we would need to bring in. Substituting clean fill for bulky waste presents a $10 million cost in LEF financial performance by 2039.
• Bulky waste is readily available on spot market, and it can be effectively managed through the revised landform and gas collection system.

Is it possible for there to be a tradeoff, i.e. re-engineering the landfill configuration so that we can bring in more MSW and eliminate bulky waste coming in?

• MSW can only be deposited in the Subtitle D footprint area
• We are limited to a permitted elevation of 212 feet
• Our multi-spine design proposal tries to maximize the MSW area while maximizing the runoff potential (minimize water getting into bulky waste cell)
• The area outside of the Subtitle D area will have to be filled with something in order to meet DEP closure requirements

What will be the visual impact of the final landform? It’s hard to visualize.

• The center of the landfill is presently at 210 feet; the road at the scale house is 190 feet.
• Two feet of cover will be placed on the landfill. That will be the maximum elevation.
• Each line on the contour map is a 2 feet contour
• Please see the model of the landfill to better show the final landform

How will our final landfill contours compare with what exists at the Hartford landfill?

• The top of our landfill will be 22 feet above the road paralleling the landfill
• The Hartford landfill is three times that elevation amount.

Is it realistic to put a hard and fast date on closure if the spot market is so variable?

• By entering into a contract with haulers for spot market wastes, variability of waste amounts is greatly reduced.

In 2001, Mr. Wright offered screening possibilities for neighboring properties. I would hope that you would not lose sight of that possibility.

• Once we have a clear picture of what the closed landfill will look like, we will be placing screening in appropriate locations.
• We will commit to increasing the screening between the landfill and neighboring properties where requested.

Mr. Tom Lenehan, Town Engineer, gave a presentation about the closure process. Staff has prepared and presented three closure options to the Town Council for consideration. The closure process with the CT DEP is a fairly lengthy process, as a range of environmental and civil engineering issues must be addressed. Plans and designs to address such items as storm water management, treatment of leachate, methane gas collection and/or monitoring, and a thirty year post closure monitoring needs to be developed by staff and consulting engineers. It will then need to be reviewed and considered by the DEP. Discussions and preliminary technical reviews have taken place with the DEP staff and our consulting engineers over the past two years. It is anticipated that the final review and acceptance of a closure plan could take up to eighteen months.

The recommended revised landform and increased intake rate option generates $28.6 million in revenues. This amount plus interest income on the retained earnings of the Enterprise Fund would, under present assumptions, provide sufficient funding for closure and thirty-year post-closure activities. Costs for closure activities including planning, design and construction are included in the $13.6 million closure estimates and would be funded through the Landfill Enterprise Fund.

Councilor Ellingwood commented that there is a misunderstanding as to how high the landfill area will be. It is not above the tree line. It will be 212 feet above sea level. Mr. Lenehan said that today the landfill at its highest point is currently at 210 feet.

Moved by Councilor Jepsen, seconded by Councilor Broxterman to take a five-minute recess.

Motion Passed 9-0-0

The meeting reconvened at 9:43 p.m.

Councilor Simon thinks it appropriate that we proceed tonight with a decision on when the landfill will close. He is hopeful that in the next two to four weeks we can make a decision on the other outstanding issues.

Mayor Trinks commented that the Town Attorney stated that going this way will secure that closure date. It would also get the DEP involved and could not be undone by any future Council. Town Manager Churchill said that it could not be undone easily and it would be highly unlikely to reverse any decision the Council makes tonight. Mayor Trinks said that affixing this closure date takes a major uncertainty out of it. He appreciated the discussion on final slope or grading and said that the visual presentation helps greatly. He is in favor of this motion.

Deputy Mayor Curtis thanked the Town Manager and staff for their countless hours of addressing this issue. They have been very responsive and professional.

Councilor Walker agrees with Deputy Mayor Curtis in that town staff is very responsive. We really do need to set a closure date and he is ready to move on this.

Councilor Ellingwood agrees with setting a closure date. It seems like this is the best option and the best way to move forward.

Councilor Jepsen is convinced to vote in favor of this motion. He commended the staff and Town Manager for all of their work.

Councilor Mulligan commented that this Council has received a lot of information over the past few years. He hopes that everybody listened to the Town Manager’s explanation tonight as to what this motion does not do. What it does do is put a final date on the operation of the landfill. This is the most fiscally and environmentally responsible decision.

Councilor Broxterman thanked the staff and acknowledged the fact that this has been a very open and forthcoming effort to notify residents of the issues. It is in his opinion, the most responsible and reasonable way to address this issue. He supports the motion.

Councilor Dean concurs with all of the Councilors. The Council has been very thorough and the staff has provided a lot of information. We need to think about the generations that come after us when making a decision that is fiscally and environmentally sound.

Moved by Councilor Mulligan, seconded by Councilor Broxterman to direct the Town Manager to develop a landfill closure and re-use plan for submittal to the Department of Environmental Protection utilizing the revised landform and that the Landfill cease the acceptance of municipal solid waste and bulky waste material when the permitted elevation is reached or by December 31, 2007, whichever comes first.

Motion Passed 9-0-0
 

13. Resignations and Appointments

Moved by Deputy Mayor Curtis, seconded by Councilor Walker to appoint Janet Foster as a member to the Youth Commission for a two year unexpired term to expire September 30, 2004 or until a successor is appointed.

Motion Passed 9-0-0

 

14. Minutes of Preceding Meetings

1. Minutes of the January 20, 2004 Regular Town Council Meeting

Moved by Councilor Broxterman, seconded by Councilor Jepsen to accept the minutes of the January 20, 2004 Regular Town Council Meeting. Corrections: None.

Motion Passed 9-0-0
 

15. Public Communications and Petitions

    Mr. Steve Hawes, 444 Lantern Way, feels it was very important to make the decision tonight for closure on the landfill. The residents wanted to put a finite date on closure of the landfill. As the increased intake is coming into the landfill he would like a process put in place for careful monitoring.
    
     

16. Executive Session
    None.
    
     
17. Adjournment

Moved by Councilor Broxterman, seconded by Councilor Jepsen to adjourn the Regular Town Council Meeting at 10: 05 p.m.

Motion Passed 9-0-0

Respectfully submitted,

Kristin Countryman

Clerk of the Windsor Town Council

Cc: Town Clerk

Main Library

Wilson Branch