July 8, 2009
Dear Neighbors,
At last week’s Finance Committee meeting I raised many issues concerning the bonding ordinances for the landfill. I spoke about:
- The NYS Local Finance Law allows only 20 year bonds for landfill actions, not the 25 to 30 year proposals we were given by the administration. 25 to 30 years for a landfill that will only be active for 6.5 years according to the DEC.
- The outrageous proposal to bond “professional fees” over 30 years. I asked the private attorney, who is paid in the upper 6 figures for landfill legal advice if her firm is taking its payments over 30 years, and she almost laughed out loud at my question. She looked incredulous that I even asked such a question, yet we are asked to bond her fees over 30 years!
- I pointed out that just two months ago the Common Council passed an ordinance that put in place a debt policy for Albany that specifically states that bonds can only be sold for the useful life of the project. So, if we passed bonding ordinances for 25 and 30 years, when the landfill’s “active life” is only 6.5 years, we will be in violation of our own debt policy.
- I asked why we were bonding $15 to $18 million for the habitat restoration when DEC told us to put a $10 per ton surcharge on haulers and ANSWERS members to pay for the cost so the city taxpayers wouldn't have to pay the total cost. Jennings decided that the city taxpayers should pay the whole cost – thus a hidden “tax” is going to be imposed on city taxpayers so that multi-billion dollar companies won't have to pay the surcharge. We were told that if the surcharge was put on haulers, they wouldn't dump so much in the landfill. I replied, “What’s wrong with that? Less garbage will extend the life of the landfill and we wouldn't have to borrow over $40 million six years earlier than we were supposed to under the last landfill expansion.
- I asked why, if, as Seneca Meadows told me, it cost in the mid-20’s per ton to dump at that landfill, why did the city state that it would cost the city $90 per ton to ship our trash out?
- I asked for a Full Cost Accounting (FCA) of the cost of operating the landfill as suggested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency so that we will know the actual cost of operating a landfill. FCA includes debt service, costs for alternative methods, recycling efforts, closure costs, post-closure costs, leachate management costs, long-term maintenance costs, and on and on it goes. I received NO response on this suggestion.
- I asked, if the landfill is so profitable, as Jennings leads us to believe, then why is it not able to pay for itself and force us to burden city taxpayers with over $40 million in additional debt? Of course, I received NO answer to this question.
Yet, with all of these questions/suggestions (and a few more), Sano and the Finance Committee voted to send the ordinances to the full Council with a positive recommendation to be voted on last night, July 6. There was no discussion of asking the administration for more time to look into the concerns raised by Ellis, Conti and myself. Knowing that there were not enough votes (10 are needed) to pass the bonding ordinances last night, Sano held the ordinances and told the Times Union,
“The reason for the delay is that there are people that have valid questions that deserve answers”.
Funny, last week these concerns didn't deserve a further discussion, let alone answers. Now with the actual threat that the bonding authorization would not pass, “people…deserve answers”.
My understanding is that the administration is going to amend the ordinances and make them 20 year bonds. This is still not good enough. The “active life” of the landfill expansion is 6.5 years. The bonds should have a “period of probable usefulness” no longer than the life of the landfill – 6.5 years. OK, maybe 7 years, but that’s it, no more.
Dominick Calsolaro
Common Council member – First Ward
