| Authority Board Members/Officers |
Authority History 1985 - In this year, the Tri-County Solid Waste Study Committee was formed with representatives from Montgomery, Fulton, and Schoharie Counties. The purpose was to investigate and address solid waste management issues in the three counties. Otsego County joined the study in 1986. The primary purpose of the four county committee was to develop an integrated regional approach to municipal solid waste handling and disposal. The study examined Resource Recovery Technology (recycling), Waste Quantities, Energy and Secondary Materials Markets, Solid Waste Disposal Considerations, and Raw Waste Landfill Study. Recommendations - Move as quickly as possible to develop a Solid Waste Management Plan. Use the economic advantage of regional solutions and delegate solid waste responsibilities to the maximum extent practicable to MOSA as soon as possible. It recommended that Fulton County consider contractual or other arrangements to facilitate its inclusion in MOSA planning and operations, especially for recycling and waste-to-energy programs. Transportation needs to be developed to efficiently move waste to existing facilities, and to any future facilities, and should provide long haul capability if required for an interim solution. The waste streams from Montgomery and Schoharie Counties was pretty well defined. Otsego County flows were not known and it was felt that the historical tonnage processed at the Oneonta Transfer Station would give critical information. An educational campaign was to be developed with regard to waste reduction through the reuse of items with greater useful life or the reduction of their production. The four counties received state funding for recycling planning and education. Montgomery County acquired curbside collection trucks for collecting recyclable materials. Otsego County constructed a MRF at the Oneonta Transfer Station. This facility was to receive materials form both Montgomery and Schoharie Counties. The recyclable materials would be hauled to Oneonta on the back haul from delivering waste to the landfills that are located in Montgomery County. This enhanced the economics of the transportation system. The report called for cooperative arrangements with neighboring counties for handling recyclables. This would allow for the development of a larger MRF. Fulton County decided to go on its own to construct a landfill. The use of this facility was and still is restricted to residents of Fulton County. MOSA proceeded to take steps to site and construct a landfill. New York State regulations and policies emphasized the need for regionalization off solid waste facilities. It cited cost estimates presented in the study as strongly supporting regionalization from an economic perspective. The State Legislature created MOSA as a vehicle for implementing waste programs in most of the Tri-County Area. It indicated that the legislation imparts sufficient powers to the Authority to allow it to efficiently manage solid waste throughout its operating area. It was recommended that the Counties of Montgomery, Otsego and Schoharie delegate responsibility to the Authority for all phases of solid waste management. It further recommended that Fulton County and the Authority develop agreements for the inclusion of Fulton County recycling. It also recommended that the Authority initiate a study as soon as possible to evaluate sludge streams from the remaining counties and develop a plan for sludge disposal. A study was recommended for the handling of construction and demolition waste also. The Authority embarked on the mission recommended in the initial study. In 1994 there were about 120 full time employees for the handling of recycling collection and education, the operation of a landfill, the operation of a transportation system, and the development of a new landfill. About $ 32 million was borrowed and three new transfer stations were constructed, giving the Authority a total of five transfer station to operate. These funds were also used to develop a solid waste management plan, close two landfills formerly operated by Montgomery County, site and develop a new landfill, buy and renovate a building to be used for a headquarters, and purchase transportation and landfill equipment. The Counties accepted the fact that they were out of the waste business forever. They relinquished all activities relative to solid waste to the Authority. All this was based on the assumption that the Authority would be able to financially support its ongoing operations through the collection of tipping fees. It was anticipated that the tipping fees could continue to increase. The waste market was seen to be supportive of continued increases in tipping fees. When the Authority was formed, a shortage of disposal sites was perceived. The Authority anticipated that by building a landfill for the use of the three counties, they would be protecting the residents of the three counties from anticipated escalating tipping fees. A number of conclusions were drawn. Given the statements made in the above paragraph, some of the conclusions were based on opinion as opposed to fact or actual study. A couple of the conclusions turned out to be less than accurate due to changes that were not and possibly could not be foreseen. The conclusions raising the most issues are: --The Authority presently controls virtually all the waste generated in the Counties at its transfer stations and at the landfills. --The continued loss of the disposal space within and outside of the state reduces the options available for disposal of solid waste statewide. The Authority is well positioned to provide the most reasonable, long term disposal solution for the Counties' waste for the following reasons:
--Therefore, the Authority should retain control over the solid waste stream from the Counties for the foreseeable future. --The Authority's operating procedures, adopted from Montgomery County's 16 years of experience, provide an appropriate basis for projecting future GAT's and for establishing tipping fees. Projections of solid waste generation derived from this experience are reasonable. The waste flow in Montgomery and Schoharie Counties was fairly well known. However, as was cited in some of the documents prepared, the flow in Otsego County was never defined very well. There were no transfer stations that had operated on a weight basis in the past. This has led to ongoing, annual, debate on the calculation of the GAT. Instead of tipping fees generally rising (for private disposal) over the years, they have gone down. This is primarily due to the fact that there really never was any shortage of landfill space. It seems that a shortage was being perceived due to the fact that many of the small municipal landfills were being forced to close. The private sector landfills were not in the picture at the time and they did not come forward in a positive manner. If anything, they put forth an escalated tipping fee due to the perceived shortage. It may have been the move by many of the counties to build their own landfills that prompted the privates to lower prices and be competitive with their excess capacity. In any event by 1995, tipping fees at private landfills was lower than most municipals could operate at. This is generally accepted to be due to the "economy of scale" that the larger private landfills had developed. This may all go to show that given the opportunity again, the privates would jack the tipping fees back up. There are those who believe that public participation in the solid waste activities is necessary to keep the privates in check. Relative to recycling, the Authority did curbside collection throughout Montgomery and Schoharie Counties. This was very expensive. Much of the equipment that was used was purchased with grant money from N.Y. State. No funds had been put away for equipment replacement. Recycling is a municipal responsibility, i.e. a county, town or village responsibility. The requirement is put forth in General Municipal Law. The Authority was providing recycling services on behalf of the Counties through provisions in the Service Agreement. Most of the cost was covered by way of the tipping fee or a surcharge specific to recycling services.. In any event, when the Carbone decision was handed down, the privates had significantly reduced their tipping fees. By March 1,1995, due to the reduction of tipping fees by the private sector, haulers in Otsego County took their waste elsewhere. The haulers involved in this embargo controlled over 50% of the waste flow in Otsego County. To be competitive, the Authority had to cut the tipping fee, which means reduced spending. This led to discussions with the Counties relative to cutting all recycling activities unless they cover the costs. From the time of its inception, the Authority operated the landfills that had formerly been operated by Montgomery County. These facilities are unlined and do not meet current day regulations. The use of these facilities allowed for us to have lower rates in spite of the debt costs that the Authority had incurred. This is in contrast to the situation that would be in place if the Authority built a new state of the art landfill. The new landfills cost substantially more to construct and it has been determined that we do not have enough waste generated within our service area to have an economy of scale that will provide for a competitive rate. In late 1994, after the Carbone Decision, the Authority commissioned their engineers to do a study of the cost to construct and operate a landfill. This was done under the auspices that the Eastern Landfill was to be closed by the end of 1995. The Authority had spent considerable money on the siting and construction of a new landfill. Due to the increasingly competitive tipping fees from the private sector, the questions developed as to the viability of constructing the landfill versus transportation and disposal. In order to assure itself that the course of action it had embarked upon to permit and develop a new landfill remained prudent, and in recognition of the current pricing for disposal services in the "marketplace", MOSA undertook a review of the costs associated with continuing the development of its own landfill site, as compared to the exportation of waste to an out of service area facility. This comparison was accomplished through the issuance of a RFP. Responses were received on September 2, 1994. The Authority's engineer was ask to prepare a report titled "Economic Analysis of Disposal Costs for the Proposed MOSA Solid Waste Landfill Facility". An independent engineering firm compared the results of the two efforts. The results indicated that further development of a landfill was questionable. The Governing Board, early in 1995 discontinued the funding for any landfill development activities. In the case with the old landfills that we operated, at the end of 1995, our engineers had established that we could take in significantly more at the Eastern Landfill. We could have increased the side slopes and literally piled it higher. This would have allowed us to accumulate funding for the construction of a new landfill. We submitted the plan to the NYS DEC and they turned us down One of the factors at the time was the outside waste. We could have brought in the outside waste at a very competitive tipping fee because we had not incurred significant cost in construction. Other landfills in the area raised considerable objection to this proposal because it would take away from their flow. They argued that they had incurred the cost to build a state of the art facility and did not want competition from a non-compliant landfill. This pressure was so great that not only did DEC say we could not modify the Eastern Landfill design; they said we could not place any "out of Authority" waste in the Eastern Landfill. Additionally, they ordered that the Eastern Landfill be closed on December 31, 1996. Thus, in January 1996, we ceased the importation of outside waste. We also "bought out" the contract we had with RRS, the firm that was processing our recyclables. The contract we had with them was "put or pay". We had to deliver 800 tons of recyclables monthly or pay for any shortfall. The buyout cost the Authority approximately $1 million. In February 1996, we billed Montgomery and Otsego Counties for the GAT shortfall penalty. This resulted from Carbone Decision that took flow control away from local government. Montgomery County paid within a couple of months. However, the Authority had to bring legal action against Otsego County to collect the shortfall penalty that amounted to about $276,000. The Supreme Court and the Appellate Division, which heard the appeal to the Supreme Court decision in MOSA's favor, upheld the provisions of the Service Agreement. This is the first time the Service Agreement had been challenged. In the past when a shortfall had occurred, it had been determined that it was an Event of Forced Majeure. Late in 1995, a firm came forward and indicated that it would take over MOSA and assume responsibility for the debt. Being a public entity, this could not be pursued without giving other entities an opportunity to consider the option. To that end, the Authority issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking proposals that would provide for improving the situation through a takeover or any other scenario that might be put forth. Ten proposals were received. Some related to the handling of recyclables, some related to constructing a landfill, and some related to transportation and disposal of our waste after the Eastern Landfill was closed. Because of the time frame, the focus was placed on establishing a relationship that would provide for the handling of our waste after the closure of the Eastern Landfill (ELF) on December 31, 1996. It was felt that the long term, big picture, could be considered later. Contracts were signed for transportation of our waste to one of two landfills in western NYS. It did not take long in 1997 to see that the private hauler was not going to honor his commitment. Therefore, in March of that year, we started giving the Counties a "heads up" to the fact that we were going to have a significant shortfall at the end of the year. In early summer, the MOSA Governing Board indicated that in August it was going to raise its rate significantly to balance its budget. The rate went to $99 per ton. It was clear that little waste would flow to the Authority at that rate. The court decisions relative to the GAT shortfall penalty had established that the Counties truly and legally had a responsibility to the Authority. The Counties could either subsidize the $99 rate down to a competitive rate or pay the penalty the next year. Montgomery and Otsego County established a subsidy. Schoharie did nothing when the $99 tip fee became effective. It took a few months for Schoharie County to understand that the haulers had other alternatives. They ultimately implemented a subsidization plan of their own. In 1997, after having to close the Eastern Landfill and deciding not to pursue a new landfill, since the Authority could not finance a large project and outside waste was not acceptable to the residents of the area in which one would likely be built, the three counties and the Authority issued an RFP to examine three areas.
This was known as the Cashin/Cahill Study.
Otsego County did ultimately implement a "user fee". Neither of the other Counties would consider the fee. Otherwise, the recommendations were generally ignored. In 1998, a new RFP initiative was embarked upon. This was a follow-up on the 1996 RFP. In 1996, MOSA had to provide for handling its waste after the closure of the ELF. Thus it went with transportation and disposal. Now, it wanted to look at other options for the future. This RFP resulted in three proposals two of which related to the development of a public/private partnership in the development of a landfill. One of the proposals put forth three possible landfill sites. The firm putting forth this proposal has spent a year or more looking at developing a landfill on its own. It finally concluded that it would have difficulty relating to or overcoming planning and/or zoning restrictions in the towns. It recognized the ability of the Authority to use the power of eminent domain and also saw that the Authority was exempt from local planning and zoning restrictions. The proposals put forth clearly substantiated the fact that an economy of scale had to be developed to be successful. Therefore, it planned for the importation of outside waste. Two of the proposed sites would have accepted up to 2500 tons of waste per day. One of the sites proposed was the one that the Authority had been pursuing itself. The proposals would have clearly been able to handle the debt of the Authority, pay very hansom sums to the town in which it was to be built as well as Montgomery County in the form of "host community benefits". Of course, it would have provided for profit for the developer. After the proposals had been received and reviewed internally by the MOSA staff and Governing Board, they were distributed to the Counties. Otsego and Schoharie Counties ask the proposers to make presentations. Montgomery never sought any presentations. The Authority ask the Counties if they wanted to form a project study team to negotiate the potential terms of an agreement with the two most viable proposers. Schoharie County indicated interest. Otsego County indicated that it would not force the development of a landfill in Montgomery County if Montgomery County did not want one. Montgomery County never had a presentation and declined to give any direction as to the pursuit of a project study team. Also in 1998, the Authority issued an RFP relating to the calculation of the GAT. The responsibility to establish the GAT rests with the Authority. Although the Service Agreement specifies that the GAT may be based on the Authority's operating history, Montgomery County and the Authority Governing Board members have indicated that other available data and estimations such as that from demographic studies and recycling implementation should be considered. So as to address the concerns raised by Montgomery County, the Authority sought proposals on alternative calculation methodologies for the estimation of the GAT tonnage for each of the Participating Counties, which might or might not incorporate historical delivery data and can be shown to be statistically valid. The methodology was to include estimates for all classes of property currently existing in any of the three counties. Cashin/Cahill Joint Venture in association with Prudential Securities was the successful proposer. They developed a methodology that was based on information gathered from demographic and economic indicators of waste generation primarily from statistical reports produced by NYS Agencies. The resulting GAT calculations would have shifted more weight toward Otsego County. It also would have reduced Montgomery County's GAT below levels that they had been delivering for several years. Schoharie County's GAT would not have been significantly impacted. The methodology was rejected. The GAT continues to be calculated on historical waste flow information generated by the automated scale system used by the Authority. In February 1999, the Authority formally ended its activities toward pursuing a landfill at the chosen site in Montgomery County. It further engaged engineers and a contractor to "Decommission Site G". This meant that all the test wells on the site would be removed and the land put back to its original condition. Later in 1999, the lack of ability of the Counties to be able to agree on the future plan for MOSA, led to the introduction of the consensus building process as a possible means to arrive at common goals for the foreseeable future. |
|
