Bedtime for MOSA

The post-MOSA picture is beginning to come into focus, which is a good thing, because MOSA will cease to exist as of May 1, 2014. Yesterday, the Solid Waste and Environmental Concerns (SWEC) Committee voted to recommend two contracts, one for post-closure maintenance of the MOSA landfills, and the other for the processing of trash in Otsego County at the two transfer stations, which Otsego County will own outright.

MOSA has responsibility for three closed landfills, and post-closure agreements with the three MOSA counties (Otsego, Montgomery, Schoharie) obligates each county to continue maintaining these landfills for many years. With the dissolution of MOSA, the individual counties still have the responsibility to maintain the landfills. A request for proposals (RFP) was written, and after examining the bids, SWEC chose to recommend the Montgomery County proposal.

When MOSA ends, the northern (Cooperstown) and southern (Oneonta) transfer stations will become the property (and responsibility) of Otsego County. Another RFP was prepared for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the stations, and the transport and disposal (T&D) of the trash which passes through the stations. As the SWEC minutes indicate, Casella's bid for these processes was approved. I'm pretty sure that it didn't have anything to do with all the coffee and donuts the Casella representatives have brought to SWEC meetings over the years. As far as I could tell, they really did have by far the best proposal.

So, assuming the Administration Committee approves all this tomorrow, and sends it on to the full Board, which in turn gives its approval, starting May 1 Casella will begin operating the northern and southern transfer station and carting off the trash to one of its many landfills in the region. Otsego County will set and collect a per-ton 'tipping fee' for all trash delivered, and will pay Casella for the O&M and T&D. In the meantime, Montgomery County, using equipment formerly owned by MOSA, will maintain the three closed landfills, and will be paid a set fee for this by Schoharie County and Otsego County.

The trick will be setting the right tipping fee. It needs to be low enough to attract business (haulers in the eastern end of the county may go to the Schohairie station if our tipping fee is to high) but high enough for Otsego County to break even on this whole thing. SWEC recommended a tipping fee of $55/ton, so we'll see.

By the way, this all depends on the Home Rule legislation clearing the NY State Legislature in time, allowing us to dissolve an Authority that was, after all, established by state legislation. It's still grinding its way through, but all indications point to a timely and successful conclusion. Once again, we'll see.

Petitions Again

It's petition time again – this time, for the US Congressional race in District 19, our Congressional District. Sean Eldridge is running on the Democratic ticket, against incumbent Chris Gibson.

Each candidate has to collect a certain number of petition signatures in the District. Signing the petition doesn't commit you to vote for anyone in particular; it doesn't even signal your support. It just means that you think it's OK for that person to run. Only registered voters can sign; only registered Democrats can sign Eldridge's, and only registered Republicans can sign Gibson's (actually, Gibson is also endorsed by the Independence Party, so supporters will be circulating those petitions to registered Independence Party voters as well).

I've got some blank petition forms for Sean Eldrige. If you'd like to sign, please comment here or e-mail me. If you'd like to take a blank form and collect signatures from friends and neighbors who are registered Democrats, let me know, too. I've got the official list of all registered Democrats in County Board Districts 11 and 12.

Our goal is 100 signatures in the City of Oneonta. It's a quick and simple way to participate in democracy. Let me know! Thanks.

The Governor's Plan for Tax Relief

As a member of a County Legislature, I was asked by a representative of the Governor to endorse the tax reform plan he's included in his current budget proposal.

A summary of the proposal can be found here. It was prepared by the Bipartisan New York Tax Relief Commission, headed by former Governor Pataki. It doesn't seem complex, but it's not clear, either. Can you make heads or tails of this:

The Executive Budget provides a 2-year property tax freeze to residents in local taxing jurisdictions that agree to abide by the property tax cap in the first year.

So does the County Board freeze taxes (no increase) or act within the tax cap (in 2013 it was 1.66%)? Not sure. I think it means that the municipality must stay within the tax cap, and at the end of two years taxpayers are sent refunds for those capped increases. Got it?

In the second year, the municipality needs to stay within the cap (or freeze?) and achieve savings from sharing services with other municipalities. If the savings are enough, and the tax/freeze rules are followed, taxpayers get their refund checks, ranging from about $200 to about $800 (Otsego County properties would be closer to the $200 end).

A 'circuit breaker' provision kicks in later; the summary provides a vague “...when fully phased in...” and news reports indicate this would start in the third year. “This relief program is progressively structured to provide a greater proportion of benefits to those with the highest property tax burdens as a share of their income.” The math should be interesting, but it is an attempt at progressive tax relief.

I'd love to support a plan that sends rebate checks to taxpayers. But the problem is, many taxpayers across the state will get $0. If their municipalities have a disaster (a flood, a bridge collapse, a hurricane, a huge embezzlement, or any other unexpected expense) and can't stay within the cap, that's the end of tax relief. If the municipality can't find ways to share enough services, and create enough savings, that's the end of tax relief. In these cases, the municipalities are set up to take the fall for taxpayers not getting the kinds of checks their friends down the road are getting.

If this proposal were accompanied by some substantial reduction in unfunded mandates, it might be a better risk. If the 'circuit breaker' provision began in the first year, it might be a fairer deal. As it turns out, noone outside the executive branch seems to like this plan: the Democratic Assembly is working on an alternate plan that expands the 'circuit breaker;' the Republicans have denounced it, and schools and municipalities seem inclined to oppose it (although noone seems to be keeping score yet).

If Albany wants to provide property tax relief, then the municipalities which levy those taxes should be full partners in developing a plan that is going to be in the best interests of all the taxpayers, all over the state.

Bike Signs

I was part of an interesting conversation at the Public Works Committee meeting today. Linda Rowinski, a County Rep from the City, had asked us if we'd consider placing signs on County roads alerting drivers to the possibility of encountering bicyclists - “Share the Road with Bicyclists” or “Bike-Friendly Otsego” - that kind of thing . Linda and others (including myself) are encouraging the Tourism Board and the folks at economic development to tap into the active and growing interest in bike tourism.

The response from those who were there – the rest of the committee, and the Highway Supervisor and his deputy – was, I thought, surprising. They made the very accurate point that our roads are not wide enough to be truly bike-friendly and bike-safe, and therefore we shouldn't put the signs up, because that would encourage more bikers to ride on the narrow roads. The point was also made that having those signs up would make us liable in case of an accident – the signs had encouraged the bikers to ride on our roads, so it would be our fault if there were a crash.

I'm not sure what to think of this. I'm not a cyclist, and I've had some bad experiences with cyclists who have not been good citizens of the road. But bike tourism will be great for Otsego County.  I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that signs encouraging drivers to be alert won't magnify our liability.

It's true that our roads are narrow; it's true that by law, we must allow cyclists to use our roads; it's true that widening all the County roads would bankrupt us pretty quickly. But I'm not sure how this relates to putting up signs encouraging drivers to share the road and be alert for cyclists. There seems to be something else going on here.

Any thoughts?

Apologies for the Gap

Sorry my posts have been sparse lately. It's partly because business at the County has been somewhat routine lately, and partly because I've been off doing other things instead of writing posts: I took a road trip to San Francisco and back in January, and then in February my Aunt had a stroke and, after a week, died. But I'm back, and as the winter winds down (really... Spring is coming...) there are some things happening that I'll be writing about. As usual, please let me know what you're interested, in Comments or by e-mail.