Back
MINUTES OF THE
SHAFTSBURY SELECT BOARD
JULY 10, 2006
COLE HALL
SHAFTSBURY, VERMONT
Board Present:
Wynn Metcalfe, Chairman, Karen Mellinger, Cinda Morse, Bill Pennebaker,
Jim Mead (Mr. Mead
arrived at 7:10, missing the vote on warrants and minutes.)
Others Present:
Walter Hyjek, Michael Biddy, Audrey Rutheiser, Harvey Rutheiser, Matt Tuthill
(Bennington Banner), Henri Billow (Treasurer), Aaron Chrostowsky, Susan Swasta
1. Call
Meeting to Order:
Chairman Wynn Metcalfe
called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. He asked if any Board member needed to
recuse himself or herself from discussion of any agenda topic scheduled for
tonight. None did.
2. Minutes:
June 26, 2006
Minutes:
Cinda Morse made
motion to approve June 26, 2006 minutes. Bill Pennebaker seconded.
Two correction to the
minutes were requested:
On page 3, section
seven (Transfer Station Agreement), paragraph three is changed to:
Ms. Mellinger asked
about the portable toilet at the landfill. Mr. Mance will continue to provide
this service at no cost to the town.
On page 4, section
nine (Pay As You Throw), the last sentence is changed to:
A tent for the
attendant will be borrowed from SCPG until the shed is delivered.
June 26, 2006
minutes were approved as amended 4-0-0.
3.
Warrants:
The following warrant
was presented for approval:
·
AP#1 -
$ 74,974.24 (includes county tax, Myers Road culvert, transfer station
management fee)
Ms. Morse made
motion to pay the warrants. Mr. Pennebaker seconded. Motion carried 4-0-0.
4. Public
Comments:
Walter Hyjek asked why
the town budget includes $133,250 for the landfill when residents are being
charged for Pay As You Throw (PAYT). He said this constitutes double dipping
from taxpayers’ pockets. Aaron Chrostowsky and Board members explained that
this budgeted amount includes estimated income from PAYT, which will be used
for solid waste disposal. Cinda Morse noted that this had been discussed at
town meeting.
Chairman Metcalfe
announced that incident command system training for Board members and others
will be held this Thursday from 6:00 to 9:00 PM at the firehouse.
He reported that there
had been a committee meeting to plan for the upcoming street dance, which will
take place on August 26. The 1950’s themed event will feature a dance contest,
costume contest, and a DJ. The dance will start with kids’ activities at 4:00
PM and run until 10:30 PM. Church Street and part of Cleveland Avenue will be
closed, and a large tent will be available in case of rain. Publicity is being
planned. There will be another committee meeting on Thursday, July 20.
5.
Municipal Planning Grant:
Chris Williams, head
of the Shaftsbury Planning Commission discussed the municipal planning grant
awarded by the state. The $15,000 grant will be used to study abandoned lands
from gravel excavation; in order to achieve a clearer understanding of who
owns these tracts, how big they are, and what possible uses there may be for
them, and whether any zoning changes are suggested. The Planning Board feels
that these tracts have the potential to attract undesirable low end industry.
While the town plan includes a goal to reclaim the lands, nothing has ever
been done toward this end, and this study will start the process.
Mr. Williams stated
that two good bids have been received, from SVE Associates of Vermont, and
from Vincent Gutlow of Williamstown, Massachusetts. The Planning Board
concluded that the SVE bid is the better choice, even though $400 higher,
because of the firm’s wide range of specialists with expertise in many areas
and its practical understanding of Vermont land use. In accordance with town
purchasing policy, Select Board approval is required.
Ms. Morse made
motion to approve the bid of SVE Associates for the municipal planning study.
Mr. Pennebaker seconded.
Karen Mellinger
brought up a phone call she had received from a town employee regarding
possible issues involved with the use of GIS mapping in the study. Chairman
Metcalfe explained that this has to do with the fact that the town maps don’t
match up with maps produced by the GIS system. GIS is becoming the standard,
and the Bennington County Regional Commission (BCRC) recommends that towns
adopt it so that all maps are standardized. Since conversion to the GIS system
will eventually need to be done, Chairman Metcalfe suggested that GIS
specialist Jim Henderson comes in to do a presentation on it.
Mr. Williams noted
that the Planning Commission has a vacancy, and asked the Select Board to help
find a fifth member.
The motion to
approve the SVE bid for the municipal planning study passed 5-0-0.
6.
Rutheiser Presentation:
Harvey Rutheiser
stated that there are several pieces of correspondence between Jeff Boudreau
of the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) and Trevor Mance of TAM from earlier
in the year, but that no one on the Select Board seems to know about this. The
correspondence concerns the use of crushed glass as piping bed by TAM without
the permission of the Waste Management Division. Mr. Rutheiser asked that
three letters be entered into the record. (The text of the letters is included
with these minutes as Appendices A, B, and C.)
Mr. Rutheiser asked
why no one on the Board knew about these letters, even though Jim Mead is
mentioned in one of them. Mr. Mead stated that he does not recall the
conversation referred to in the letter of February 6, 2006. He does not think
it would be in his jurisdiction to classify glass, and said that if he had
done so, then he misspoke.
Chairman Metcalfe
stated that the Board allows groups that have specific responsibilities to
deal with them, and has a hands-off policy. In this case, the Board received
the correspondence, but the state was responsible and took care of the
situation.
Mr. Rutheiser said
that he would hope that the Board would want to have some knowledge of what
was going on, and asked if Board members had seen the letters. It was unclear
whether or not Board members had seen the letters. Chairman Metcalfe and Mr.
Chrostowsky said that they had. Ms. Mellinger said that she had not. Ms. Morse
said that it was possible she had read them and concluded that the state was
handling the matter. She noted that the Board does not keep tabs on area
businesses, and that it is not part of its job to do so.
Mr. Rutheiser said he
could not understand why this matter, which was a hot issue, would not have
been considered important to discuss by the Board. Audrey Rutheiser stated
that they had asked the state to send someone down to watch the procedure
correcting the problem, which the state did with reluctance. She also noted
that ANR had been missing one of the TAM letters. She expressed concerns about
contamination of the landfill by the glass.
Mr. Pennebaker said
that he was disturbed that the state had not planned to send someone to
inspect and that it had required a citizen request. He stated that if
something like this comes up in the future the Select Board could delegate it
to a subcommittee if it was not sure it was important enough to take up.
Ms. Mellinger said
that she had not received copies of these letters and that she would have been
interested in the matter.
Ms. Rutheiser noted
that ANR is not a big operation, and has only one person covering southern
Vermont. If there is no local enforcement, she is concerned about what will
happen in the future when problems arise. Mr. Rutheiser asked the Board to
give this some thought.
7. Transfer
Station:
Mr. Chrostowsky
commented on how the new PAYT system is working out. He reported that
Treasurer Henri Billow has set up a night deposit so that the landfill
attendant, Joe Bamford, can drop off PAYT funds. Mr. Bamford submits a daily
report when he turns in the $50 cash kept on hand and the leftover stickers.
The town has been
selling close to 1000 stickers on Tuesdays and Thursdays, even more on
Saturdays. The stickers are kept in the Cole Hall vault. There has been one
cash discrepancy of $14, but this will be a matter of concern only if it
becomes a regular occurrence. Mr. Chrostowsky said that there had been lots
of activity in the town office last week, but it dying down this week. He is
planning signage for the transfer station and will send Board members a memo
on this.
Michael Biddy stated
that someone had told him that he had been required to have only one sticker
each for oversized bags. Mr. Pennebaker noted that they may have been
unusually light bags, but if not, this was probably an error. In his view, the
system was running pretty well and stickers seemed to be matching bags.
8. Landfill
Update:
Mr. Chrostowsky
reported that town attorney Rob Woolmington has looked at the landfill closure
contract and thinks that it is fairly good. He had some questions which have
been addressed.
Ms. Rutheiser had a
question concerning whether the host town agreement takes priority over the
ANR in determining whether weight slips are to be handwritten or computerized.
She said that the state permits handwritten slips. Chairman Metcalfe replied
that the host town agreement overrules the ANR.
Mr. Pennebaker had not
received a copy of the contract and wanted to have a chance to read it before
deciding. Chairman Metcalfe asked that Board members get back to Mr.
Chrostowsky with any issues right away, so that on Monday the Board will be
voting on a finalized form.
Mr. Pennebaker noted
that the contract does not mention screening of soils or the price if
screening is required. Rifenberg has suggested using soil at the edge of the
landfill, which would be cheaper for them because it is closer to transport,
but more expensive for the town because it would require screening. Rifenberg
would also get free swale material from the screening process if this material
were used. The Board should make sure the contract includes proper tradeoffs
if material needing screening is used.
Ms. Billow asked if
she should renew the certificate of deposit for landfill closure funds for
another thirty days, and Chairman Metcalfe replied that she should.
Mr. Chrostowsky said
that he has been in touch with the state concerning landfill closure grant
funds. The town will receive the funds as a reimbursement, and must file an
application for the money.
9. Other
Business:
Ms. Mellinger asked
about the ANR letter to Mr. Woolmington concerning the town’s violation of its
trash tonnage. Nothing is decided at this point, and Mr. Woolmington will
report back to the Board when the process is further along. Mr. Pennebaker
noted that whatever fine the town ends up paying will be required by the state
to be used for a supplemental environmental project. The town will need to
come up with a project.
Ms. Mellinger asked
Mr. Chrostowsky if he has been in touch with the state on the sidewalk grant,
and he said that he has not. She stated that it is time to get in touch with
the state and get the process started.
Mr. Mead reported on a
problem caused by resetting of a culvert on Cold Spring Road, which resulted
in water and gravel being dumped onto the lawn of Tom and Kathy Vachon. It
also caused a drainage line that runs under the Vachon’s lawn to become
blocked. Mr. Vachon had asked Road Foreman Ron Daniels to let him know before
the culvert work was done, but the road crew had not done so. (Mr. Daniels is
on vacation.)
Mr. Mead said that he
thinks that Timmy should go to their property and remove the gravel from their
lawn. It might be possible to clean out the drainage line by forcing water
through it. Mr. Chrostowsky will check with the fire chief about this. It
might also be possible to use a snake. Mr. Mead will talk to Timmy.
Chairman Metcalfe
stated that all Board members had received a copy of an evaluation form for
Mr. Chrostowsky. He asked them to please work on their evaluation.
Chairman Metcalfe
reported that mowing is going pretty well.
Mr. Mead observed that
the town must be saving money on calcium chloride, and Mr. Chrostowsky
confirmed that this is true.
Mr. Biddy stated that
he had been informed by Zoning Administrator Tony Zazzaro that he is required
to ask the Select Board for a copy of the Development Review Board (DRB)
meeting tape recording. Chairman Metcalfe said that there is no reason why a
copy of the tape cannot be made available to Mr. Biddy, and asked Mr.
Chrostowsky to talk with Mr. Zazzaro about making a copy of the tape.
Ms. Morse made
motion to adjourn at 8:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned
at 8:30 PM.
Respectfully
Submitted,
Susan M. Swasta
[APPENDIX A]
Waste
Management Division
103 South Main Street
West Building
Waterbury, VT 05671-0404
FAX 802-241-3296
TEL 802-241-3888
January 31, 2006
Mr. Trevor Mance
TAM, Inc.
217 Holliday Drive
Shaftsbury, VT 05262
Dear Trevor:
It has come to the
Program’s attention that you have used Processed Glass Aggregate (PGA) as pipe
bedding at your proposed North Road transfer station site, and you have
confirmed this to be the case.
Glass that has been
satisfactorily processed into a marketable, useable product is considered to
be a recycled commodity and is then not subject to the Solid waste Management
Rules. Acceptable PGA comes from glass of a known quality, is processed to a
“safe” shape, screened to remove the non-glass fraction, and is sized to
substitute for a specific type of aggregate. I have enclosed the Program’s
policy on PGA, which explains the specifications and allowed uses.
Regarding the PGA that
was used at North Road site, please respond to the following questions in
writing prior to February 15, 2006:
1. What
was the origin of the PGA?
2.
Specifically, how was the glass processed? Do you know if processed in a
glass crusher, screened, and sized?
3. What
was the quantity of PGA used?
4. How was
the PGA placed? (Around the pipe? How thick?)
What, if any, action
that the Program requires will be contingent on the forthright information
that you provide. Please call me if you have any questions on this letter, or
call Buzz Surwilo at 241-3481 with questions regarding PGA.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bourdeau
Certification and
Compliance Section
C: Shaftsbury
Selectboard
: Barb Schwendtner,
SWMP
[APPENDIX B]
Waste Management
Division
103 South Main Street
West Building
Waterbury, VT
05671-0404
February 6, 2006
Dear Jeff,
The following letter
is a response to your letter dated January 31, 2006 in regards to the use of
glass as pipe bedding. As I discussed over the phone with you and in person
with Mr. Surwilo I contacted the program in the spring of 2005 about the use
of crushed glass as either fill or bedding material. At that time I was told
that while it cannot be considered recycled it can be classified as “diverted
waste.” This classification was discussed with Jim Mead, selectman with the
Town of Shaftsbury’s and the tonnage was recorded in the Town’s quarterly
filings with the state.
In response to your
specific questions please find the following answers:
1. What was the
origin of the PGA?
The origin of the PGA
was exclusively from the Town of Shaftsbury’s recycling center located across
the street. This glass was collected by residents dropping off there
recyclables at the town facility.
2. Specifically,
how was the glass processed? Do you know if processed in a glass crusher,
screened, and sized?
The glass comes in
from residents and is inspected by the operator of the facility to make sure
it has no tops, labels. and is clean. At that point he usually throws by hand
the bottles into a concrete bunker set up by the Town. Once a week any glass
that had broken in the collection bin would be scooped out with a skid steer
and dumped into the bunker. At that time the skid steer was used to turn the
material until it was crushed. Periodically, during the time period the glass
was collected the Town’s trucks-cavator (a 977 Cat, with an approximate weight
of 60,000 pounds) would be used to further crush and turn over the glass to
assure pulverization. When the glass was trucked out the large machine was
again used to load the material. The glass was not processed in a machine for
crushing glass and was not screened and sized.
3. What was the
quantity of PGA used?
After reviewing our
records we have a total of 83 tons of glass that was handled. However, I am
not completely sure if all of that had been used in the bedding for the
culvert we installed. If it was not all used the remainder was taken to County
Waste in Clifton Park, NY.
4. How was the PGA
placed?
The glass was placed
as a base for a culvert we installed at our yard. The approximate depth was
probably about a foot thick and a few feet wide. (I must admit I was not there
for the entire process but did give the operator his instructions). The reason
for the use of the glass is this area is prone to having rocks moving with
freeze and thaw cycles. Area contractors advised me that using a bedding of
sand or the equivalent (crushed glass) would reduce the likelihood of culvert
damage or separation of the joints in the culvert caused by heaving rocks.
I hope I have answered
your questions to the level of detail you need. If any additional information
is needed please don’t hesitate to call or write.
Best regards,
[signature]
Trevor Mance
TAM, Inc.
[APPENDIX
C} Agency of Natural Resources
Department of Environmental Conservation
Waste
Management Division
[State of Vermont
seal
103 South Main Street
and
letterhead]
West Building
Waterbury, VT 05671-0404
FAX
802-241-3296
TEL
802-241-3888
April
4, 2006
Mr. Trevor Mance
TAM, Inc.
217 Holiday Drive
Shaftsbury, VT 05262
Certified Mail: 7000 0600 0024 0869 5614
Dear Trevor:
I am responding to
your February 6, 2005 explanation of the use of crushed glass as drainage
material at the TAM, Inc., facility on North Road, Shaftsbury.
Glass is reusable and
recyclable, but it is also solid waste. In order to facilitate its safe and
environmentally benign usage as an aggregate substitute the solid Waste
Management Program developed the attached Acceptable Uses of Processed Glass
Aggregate (PGA) policy. The policy sets forth material specifications and
acceptable for properly processed glass aggregate.
PGA is prepared from
known feedstock, and is processed in a specially designed glass crusher that
results in cullet that is free of shards and sharp edges. Labels and other
contaminants are removed if necessary to adequate and specified levels. The
material is then screened, if need be, to correspond to the size
specifications in the Policy. Once suitable material is created, the Program
allows the PGA to be used in a variety of civil engineering and other
applications.
Based on your
description, the crushed glass that was used as pipe bedding at the TAM
facility was not PGA as defined in the Policy and should not have been used in
this or any other reuse application, and constitutes unauthorized disposal.
There are tremendous quantities of waste glass produced in Vermont, most of
which is recycled, but some of which is turned into proper PGA. We cannot
allow haphazard processing to occur and then allow the waste material to be
indiscriminately used in an uncontrolled fashion. Not only would it be a
future danger, it undercuts those who are legitimately reusing or recycling
glass.
Back