Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting
October 12, 2001

ATTENDANCE

Board of Directors present were: Chairman Ebel, Clark, Frost, Hammel, Houck, Kassees, Musser, Snoke and Wood. Staff present were: Warner, Buller, Forster, Lausch, Norris, Olson, Zorbaugh and Dougherty. Also present were: Alex Henderson and Bob Frankhouser of Hartman Underhill & Brubaker; Jim Klecko, Covanta Energy; and citizens as listed on the attached sign-in sheet.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

On motion by Kassees, second by Musser and unanimous vote, the Minutes of the September 14, 2001 meeting were approved.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Cabell Kladky - 109 Chestnut Grove Road. Mrs. Kladky said she asked a question previously about the Notice for the Executive Session that was held on November 16, 2000 and was told that the meeting was advertised. When PALE's attorney asked for the advertisement, he was told that the meeting was announced at the Board Meeting the next day. Mrs. Kladky asked if someone would clarify if the meeting was advertised?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that the issue is in litigation and we are not going to respond. However, we did respond before.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky asked why most of the Board resolutions are described in the Minutes and the July 2000 Resolution was not. She asked if there was a reason, and also asked if anyone told Kay not to use a description.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner clarified by stating the Resolution was in June, not July. He also answered that no specific instructions were given to Kay.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky again asked if there was a reason why that Resolution was not described.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that he did not know.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky addressed the Board, "At the August meeting members of the public brought up a discrepancy between what your Mission Statement said on your web site and how it was stated in a hand-out at a public meeting in Manor Township. Mr. Warner said he had made some slight changes to the Mission Statement before he showed it to the public at the Manor Township meeting. How did you feel about your Executive Director changing your Mission Statement for public relation purposes?"

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel asked Mrs. Kladky if she could tell the Board what the changes were.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner stated that since he is the person under attack, he will respond, as he has on numerous occasions. He wrote the Mission Statement to say take care of all waste "in Lancaster County". In the Authority's pre-published Mission Statement, Lancaster County is not in it. It has been explained that it was used to further clarify the Mission Statement. However, it in no way said, "only from, exclusive from, forever only from", it says "Lancaster County". The insinuation is that it was changed to mislead. This organization has never mislead anyone about where the waste comes from that this Authority takes. There are large newspaper articles from 1995 and 1996 explaining the special waste that the Authority takes from out-of-county into the waste-to energy plant. There was no intention to mislead.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky said she was not asking whether Mr. Warner was trying to mislead. She was addressing the Board. She added that she has been on Boards where a word in a Mission Statement has been argued. Were you members of the Board around when that Mission Statement was developed, and did any of you take part in developing that Mission Statement? She added she has served on Boards where if an Executive Director would have gone out and mis-stated a Mission Statement it would have been a big deal. She asked if anyone addressed this with Mr. Warner.

Mr. Frost - Mr. Frost stated that he is comfortable with the explanation that Mr. Warner gave and in his ability to present information to the public. It is just Mr. Warner's effort to explain the Mission Statement to the public. He further stated that he does not read things into that information that are not there.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky asked if other Board members concurred and were they comfortable with Mr. Warner changing the Mission Statement as he presented it to the public?

Mr. Frost - Mr. Frost added that he wanted to clarify that he doesn't believe Mr. Warner changed the Mission Statement--he attempted to clarify information for the public.

Rhea Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino stated she had a question concerning Jim Warner's contract with the Waste Authority. She asked who is responsible for reviewing the performance of Mr. Warner?

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel stated that the Chairman requests comments from all members of the Board and compiles those comments.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino asked, "How frequently is this done?"

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel stated it is done once a year, usually around the first of the year.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino asked, "Who did it last year?"

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that Chairman Frost did that.

Mr. Frost - Mr. Frost responded that it was done in November or December. He was Chairman and involved every member of the Board in that review.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino noted that it is about time for another review.

Mr. Frost - Mr. Frost responded, "Absolutely, but I am not the Chairman this year.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel stated that the review will be done again this year.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino asked, "Is Mr. Warner under a contract with this Authority?"

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded no, that he serves at the will of the Board.

Mr. Frost - Mr. Frost also stated that Mr. Warner serves at the will of the Board of Directors.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel also agreed that it is his understanding also.

Leslie Osborne, 109 Oak Grove Road. Ms. Osborne read the following statement from a copy of the LCSWMA Board Meeting Minutes dated July 12, 1996:

Ebel moved that effective January 1, 1997 James Warner be elevated to the position of Executive Director and under contract for one year from January 1, 1997 to January 1, 1998. The term of the contract will be renewable for four years if his service proves to be satisfactory, as judged by the Board. That a salary increase of 10% be effective January 1, 1997 and that the position of General Manager be eliminated. Seconded by Musser.

She stated that if she calculated it correctly, Mr. Warner should be under a four-year contract which comes up this January.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded, "We never did that."

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne said, "So the only mention of your position in the Minutes, that I could find from 1992 to 2000, you didn't do?"

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that Mr. Warner has been employed as Executive Director, and the Board has been satisfied with his work, but the Board could terminate it.

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne asked why the Board said that Mr. Warner was going to be under a four-year contract if they were not going to do that, and why didn't the Board say later in the Minutes that the Board was going to forget this four-year contract?

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded, that at that time, the Board was putting Mr. Warner in a job he had not done before and they were concerned about how well he would perform. We didn't follow through with a four-year contract after feeling that he did very well the first year.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner clarified that the contract would have expired a year ago.

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne, said no, four years from 1998.

John May, 100 Fox Road. Mr. May stated, "We have heard over the past several meetings that the flow of trash to the incinerator should remain constant so that the incinerator will work efficiently in order to have the power production and the revenue to reduce your debt. I would like to know from Mr. Ebel when you anticipate that debt to be reduced and eliminated?" Mr. May also asked if the Board would discuss this subject at a public meeting. He also asked, "Where is the Authority going to go with regard to the disposal of waste in Lancaster County?"

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel asked Mr. May, "Are you asking what the Authority will do when the debt is paid?"

Mr. May - Mr. May responded, "In regard to future planning, and when you are fiscally in good shape. Have you had planning discussions for the future about how you are going to handle waste? How you are going to eliminate the importation of residual waste to the incinerator? The disposition of Lancaster County's waste is a planning issue, and the Board ought to have input to that and you ought to be discussing that right now. You are now discussing expanding the landfill in 15 years. I think you need to address where you are going to go with your Mission Statement and how you are going to deal with trash in the future when the debt is reduced. You had to do that to pay your debt. At some point you won't have to do that to pay your debt."

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that the Authority may have other debt at that point in time. It could be a major expenditure to expand the landfill or add a burner to the incinerator, if need be. The need for having reserves will never disappear, and we have to continually evaluate that as part of our total planning process.

Mr. May - Mr. May added, "A Mission Statement is a vision-do you have a vision of where you are going with this?"

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that the Authority's vision is to continue to serve Lancaster County as we have been and will in the future. Saying that we are only going to process waste in Lancaster County, that may or may not be ideal.

Mr. May - Mr. May asked, "How do you feel about that?"

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel stated, "I don't have a problem with importing residual waste from outside the county to maintain burning at full capacity to generate electricity that may be used for other parts of our total waste management program. I don't think anyone on the Board has a problem with that."

Mr. May - Mr. May asked, "Do you have discussions about that with the Board? When was the last time that happened?"

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel stated he had no idea when the last time was that the Board discussed the matter. This issue is imperative in all the discussions. It is in the presentations that Mr. Warner makes to us.

Mr. May - Mr. May said he thinks that is sad.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner stated that discussions did not begin when Mr. May started to come to meetings. We have been looking out for the future of this Authority for the last 10 - 12 years. I have explained this several meetings ago. Mr. Bare had a very good question along the same lines as yours, and we discussed the issue for 15 or 20 minutes. We discussed that if Lancaster County had an extra 80,000 tons of burnable waste, we would not have imported residual waste. But until that happens, and without the current outside Residual waste, the tipping fee would be at $100/ton. Our industry was deregulated. If we are going to follow what you desire, that is for us to handle only Lancaster County waste, we have to have competitive means to do so. The only way we can do that is to increase the number of units into our system, which enables us to make the waste-to-energy plant operate efficiently and used to the capacity that it was designed. At the Manor Township Planning Commission meeting, a chart showed a triangle getting smaller and smaller. The prediction is that in 2010, the amount of burnable waste in Lancaster County will equal the capacity of the waste-to-energy plant. We are planning and we do projections all the time. That is what the landfill issue is all about: planning for Lancaster County. The very thing we are being criticized for, you are asking us if we do. Certainly we are planning. When does our debt run out? We probably have $130 million outstanding right now. You know it is kind of like your car when you make all the payments you can drive it around for free sometimes, but eventually you need another car and may have to borrow more money. When the incinerator is paid off it will be 25 years old. Now how many more years are we going to get? I don't know. I know our contract is up with Covanta at year 20. So I know at that point the deal is going to change.

Mr. May - Mr. May said that he wants the Board to understand that his question was not adversarial. He was just asking if the Board engaged in Mission Statement analysis and planning for the future.

Mr. Frost - Mr. Frost said the answer is yes, we do plan.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel said the answer is yes.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner said he was trying to explain.

Mr. May - Mr. May said that Mr. Warner did not have to explain because he heard Mr. Warner in the past. It was not an adversarial question when he asked the question.

Mr. Frost - Mr. Frost stated that the implication was that it was adversarial.

Mr. Lacey - Mr. Lacey said that was Mr. Frost's problem.

Donna Bare, 107 Chestnut Grove Road. Mrs. Bare stated that her house is one of the houses that the Authority will not be getting. She asked if she could get each Board Member to tell her what background or field they were in that they would feel qualify them to sit on the Board. She also asked if anyone on the Board is up for reappointment the remainder of 2001 or in 2002. She asked if Mr. Houck would start.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel stated he didn't see the benefit in doing what Mrs. Bare requested.

Mrs. Bare - Mrs. Bare said she would like to see if there is a web that the Board is weaving.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel stated that Mrs. Bare would be provided with a written response on the background of the Board Members.

Mrs. Bare - Mrs. Bare asked Mr. Warner if he was aware of another animal spill on the corner of River Road and Letort Road and if the truck was coming from the landfill?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner stated he did get a report from a manager about your complaint. He said he understood that Mrs. Bare went to our scale house and it was followed up on immediately. Barry Smith of Manor Township also was at the site. Mr. Warner was informed it was some type of very small organic animal mass and that it could have been road kill.

Mrs. Bare - Mrs. Bare responded that, "No it wasn't road kill".

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner reported that the landfill did not receive any loads that would have anything like that in the immediate time period including that day and the day before. Mr. Warner added that he also understands it was in the North bound lane of River Road where it turns. Anything North would be exiting the Landfill not coming in. We did responded immediately. The report Mr. Warner got from Barry Smith, as well as Authority staff, was that it was probably not caused by any operation coming to or delivering to the landfill.

Mrs. Bare - Mrs. Bare asked if Mr. Ebel could give a cost on the recent landfill tour, including the cost of the tent, balloons, buses, and gadgets.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel said that number is not yet available. Mr. Ebel added that based on positive comments he heard from people who took the tour, comments called into the office, comments from Supervisors in the area, and from private citizens, that it was well worth it.

Mrs. Bare - Mrs. Bare asked if she could get a copy of the cost sometime in the next month.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded he would respond to Mrs. Bare in writing.

Mrs. Bare - Mrs. Bare said it is very rude to sit at these meetings looking at the back of the heads of your employees. Is there some way the staff could be arranged to sit and face the public? She added that she feels it is done to make the public feel like they are not part of the discussion. She added any Board she has been on the Board Members all sit in a circle to face the people.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that we don't have a big enough table. The staff is seated so they don't have their backs to the Board of Directors. What we did do was offer the public the opportunity to face our Board of Directors.

Mrs. Bare - Mrs. Bare said that the public cannot see the Board over the heads of the employees.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner answered that at the same time, we have business to conduct and it is very important that our senior managers face the Board. The audience, as well as our management staff, has the ability to respond to the Board of Directors. This is their meeting which we are all participating.

Rhea Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino remarked that she was at the landfill tour and she thought it was great.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino asked when the Authority made the decision to expand and build the incinerator in Conoy Township, did you have a public meeting?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that there were many public meetings.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel added that he was not on the Board at that time, but he did read in the newspaper that there were public meetings.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino asked if there has been any motion to hold public meetings of a similar nature with regard to expansion of the landfill?

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel said he was sure there would be public meetings in the future when there is a specific plan.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino asked when did the Authority decide to hold the public meetings for the incinerator? Was it after you had a specific plan or while you were developing a preliminary plan?

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel said he could not answer that specifically because he did not remember what he read in the newspaper that long ago. He added that certainly there would have been some before and some after.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner stated there were many public meetings and hearings after they found the site.

Barbara May - Ms. May asked were there any public meetings about the decision to build an incinerator before?

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded, "Yes there were."

Ms. May - Ms. May stated that the Authority made a decision to purchase the land and put a $4,000,000 down payment on it without any public participation.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that is correct.

Ms. May - Ms. May stated, "That is different from the incinerator."

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner stated that there wasn't an incinerator at the time. A lot of public input went into that situation. It was different. The Authority has a landfill and the whole public process was for the integrated system here in Lancaster.

Ms. May - Ms. May asked, "Was there any public discussion about the expansion of the landfill?"

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded there was a lot of public discussion.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky said she wanted to follow up on what has been said a number of times that the Board never signed anything saying they would never expand the landfill. I would like to start a meaningful dialogue with the Board. I do think that in 1986 this Board adopted a resolution accepting the conditions that were imposed by the Zoning Hearing Board on the condition that nobody shall challenge the Zoning Hearing Board conditions. You essentially adopted a resolution saying you accepted these conditions if no one challenged the Zoning Hearing Board ruling. I understand that not all of you were around at that time, but certainly someone should know that and it should not be said in public that you never signed anything accepting that. You know Boards do change but something you signed doesn't. I very clearly heard Mr. Warner say that the decision had been made one way or another to expand the landfill at the place you have. You made this decision without the public democratic right to be part of it in contrast to something that you had agreed in public not all that long ago.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded by saying that this is an issue that will be dealt with in litigation and no further comment will be made at this time.

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne stated that back in July 2000 the bond rating was reviewed. How often is the bond rating reviewed?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that it is up to Moody's or Standard and Poor's. It is really not something the Authority schedules.

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne asked if it was every couple of years, every five years?

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that it is always done before you go out to change your bond issue.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner agreed that if you are going to borrow money they are definitely going to review, but there is no set schedule. The review in July 2000 was only done by Standard and Poor's, not Moody's. The Authority is rated by both.

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne said at that time, you said that it had nothing to do with the purchase of the Barley land. Do you think that if they knew they would have rated you higher or lower?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner stated that he was not sure what Ms. Osborne was getting at. That might have been in a memo.

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne replied, "Yes, it is in a memo."

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner said that he did disclose that to the rating agency and that they did not look at the future possibility of the capital expenditure as any risk because we were purchasing an asset. They looked at it as the Authority was getting capacity. That was good planning and was not considered a negative.

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne said she read an article that said the Authority's ratings could go up if you have future capacity. Another said that it could be downgraded if your public doesn't want you there. At the time the public didn't know about it.

Ms. Osborne continued by asking a question about the incinerator capacity. In 1999, you by-passed somewhere over 40,000 tons of bypass waste to the landfill. The estimates for 2000 I saw were the 70,000 tons range. I only saw an estimate, I never saw a firm figure. How do you record the bypass when it comes to the landfill? Do you write from the Transfer Station, from incinerator and do you write the place of origin?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner stated that he knows the Authority never had an estimate to bypass 70,000 tons.

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne replied that ARM did. The total was 73,000.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner replied that we never said that. ARM does not do our projections. I am not sure exactly what you are looking at, but I know of no projections or plans where we would ever bypass that amount of waste.

Ms. Osborne - There were 40,000 tons in 1999.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner asked Ms. Osborne to let him finish so he could explain. First of all there is no plan to bypass 70,000 tons assuming we get the production availability from the waste-to-energy plant. That we assumed for those years. The 40,000 came because we did have a little less availability than we had hoped, and we had more waste than we had planned for. That combination means we have to bypass. We bypass typically out of the Transfer Station. When waste comes out of the Transfer Station, it will be put into the landfill as an internal transfer from the Transfer Station. The actual specific origin meaning the municipalities of Lancaster County and the type of waste is recorded in-bound to where it is originally deposited. That is on a data base at the Transfer Station.

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne stated that then we don't know what you are transferring specifically?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded yes, we absolutely do.

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne asked if any of it is residual from out of county.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded, "No, all of the waste that is transferred to the landfill or is bypassed comes from the Transfer Station."

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne asked," All of it"?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner replied that 100% of the waste and all of that waste is from Lancaster County.

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne asked if the incinerator ever gets backed up after hours and the waste has to be transferred down to the landfill?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner replied, never, that is why there is a receiving pit to store the inventory.

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne stated, "I want it in the Minutes that they never transfer from the incinerator to the landfill. Never have."

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner added that the only thing that ever goes from the incinerator to the landfill is maybe 2/10 of 1% per year that is delivered up there and is too bulky to go through the incinerator.

Ms. Osborne - Ms. Osborne asked, "They are never backed up and lined up at the incinerator after hours?"

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner replied, "Never, no."

Rhea Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino stated that she would like to ask about well #26 again. What are your ARM consultants saying about well #26 and chloride contaminants?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner said he will defer to Brooks Norris.

Mr. Norris - Mr. Norris stated that ARM has not been asked to specifically address any particular wells at the landfills. We have continued to review the results of the ground water monitoring and there is no indication that the liner system has been breached.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino asked about the chloride mitigation line item on the previous month's payables.

Mr. Norris - Mr. Norris said that is a different project, not necessarily specifically targeting what happened with chlorides in well #26 but certainly a project that we have engaged with ARM. We have looked at items such as storm water and impacts regarding chloride.

Mike Bare, 107 Chestnut Grove Road. Regarding the recent landfill tour that took place, Mr. Barley was calling businesses and organizations trying to recruit groups to go on that tour. Did he volunteer to do that, or did someone on the Board ask him to do that? Are you aware that he did that?

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel asked, "Which Mr. Barley are you talking about?"

Mr. Bare - Mr. Bare replied, "John."

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel said that he wasn't aware of that.

Mr. Bare - Mr. Bare stated that Mr. Barley called some large construction businesses. He also called some other organizations trying to develop groups to go on the tour. He sent flyers out to construction-owned businesses asking their employees to go on the tour. Nobody here is aware of it? He did not volunteer?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner said, "No, I am not aware that we even got any sign ups from construction groups."

Mr. Bare - Mr. Bare said he didn't know that they went as a group but their employees.

Mr. Frost - Mr. Frost asked if Mr. Bare had the flyer.

Mr. Bare - Mr. Bare said he did not.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky said she leaves these meetings feeling as though the public has not been heard. Again, I would love it if there is some way that we could meet in productive dialogue. We have heard not publicly nor in the Minutes but from Board Members that you were forced to do it this way. I don't believe that you all set out to involve me or my community. I don't know how much dialogue you all have had among yourselves and I had to laugh when I saw one of the court documents that there was extensive discussion by the Board before you made the decision before you voted last year. Under public comment there was not very much public comment given.

I look at you today and other days not in the abstract, not as some Board sitting up there, but as people. People who very probably have good intentions, involved in your communities, you are not paid to be here, you are doing this as a community service. I said in the past it is never too late to do the right thing. I was surprised last February when we made an offer for compromise to the Board that was rejected out of hand, and I don't know if you ever discussed it. I certainly never heard any discussion. I was surprised that you never made any move to really talk with us and negotiate with us. And here I am not talking about money. Clearly you are not in this for the money. From the very first phone call, from the time that you set your meeting, the language you used when you offered to buy us out right up through the amount of expenditures on public relations campaigns, the legal tactics, you act as though you don't really believe that in a democracy people have a right to be heard in a decision that affects them.

What has happened here is that, like many Boards, you found an Executive Director who is personable, who is aggressive, who is competent. You looked at the bottom line and saw that he was doing a good job, and felt that the public was being well served and gradually became more and more comfortable . Any comments from any of you? We ask the Board a question and Mr. Warner answers it. We are here to communicate with the Board. This Board has lost sight of your roll as a public Authority. Maybe I am wrong and please correct me but I think that is in part how we got to this situation. It is never too late to do the right thing . We are not approachable because we are in litigation. This situation is coming down to you the Board of Directors the individual members of the Board of Directors legally and financially to stop the actions of this Authority.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel announced that this is an appropriate time for us to go on with our meeting.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky said she wanted to hear any response.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel said his first response would be to see how many of you came to the landfill facility tour or the previous incinerator tour. I know Rhea Cosentino was there.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky stated that the Board needs to understand that it is not your facility that we have a problem with.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel said that he thinks understanding exactly how all of the facilities operate is part of having good communication.

And the second question would be the waste-to-energy tour. How many of you had an opportunity to tour that facility? I would encourage you to do that whenever the next tour is held and yes, they are somewhat expensive, but we think this is important so that you can see the operation and make good judgements about the landfill.

The only other thing I can add, as we said in our litigation briefs, we believe that it was appropriate to get an option on a major property and we think that is the way they are all done, not only by our Authority, but by other Authorities as well as other county and municipal governments. I served on the Board of the Manheim Township Commissioners for a number of years, and I know we didn't go out in public to negotiate what we were going to buy. We negotiated with the private party until we got a deal The Swartz property took us 8 years to get a deal with the family and then it became a public matter. How that property will be developed will be open to public comment. How we expect to use this property. I think we are doing very much in the open as required by law and I think that it is appropriate whether required by law or not. The fact of the matter is we could not have made a deal with a major property owner any other way and so, on that degree, maybe that should conclude the comments for the day.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - Warner reported on the following:

Financials - The monthly operating revenue fell short by over $100,000. The budget was missed by a similar amount, but this is after a $720,000 contribution to the reserve obligation funds.

Legislation - Warner attended a meeting in Harrisburg on October 4 with PADEP Secretary Hess, Dave Brooman and Mary Webber of PWIA, two representatives from the Governor's office, and a staff member from Senator Piccola's office. At the meeting, the second draft of the State Waste Transportation Safety Act was reviewed. Mr. Warner gave a lengthy report on the outcome of the meeting.

Landfill Open House - Buller gave a report on the outcome of the Landfill Open House held on September 28 and 29, 2001. The Open House was attended by approximately 500 members of the public including high school, college and home-schooled students. She also mentioned that there were pictures of the event posted on the Authority's web site. The evaluations returned indicated that the attendees had a good time and learned valuable information about the Authority. It was clear the public wants to be educated about what the Authority does.

Landfill Expansion - ARM Continuing Engineering Studies - ARM Group Inc. has prepared engineering estimates to more closely evaluate the feasibility of future landfilling over top of the old Creswell Landfill. Additional specific engineering studies will be required to determine the validity of this design concept. The studies needed are expected to require 14 to 16 months to complete. Of importance to note is that this study will not be confined to any one alternative, but rather will continue the development of additional alternatives for future landfill capacity. Given the importance of this work, staff believes it prudent to engage the services of a "peer review" firm which, like ARM, has expertise in the implementation of landfill overfill design and construction technologies.

After discussion and on motion by Frost, second by Snoke and unanimous vote, the Board authorized ARM Group Inc. to proceed with continuing the engineering studies of the Creswell Landfill overfill alternatives for a fee estimated at $275,000. Furthermore, the Board approved Staff to proceed with assembly and distribution of a Request for Proposals relative to peer review of these concepts.

FINANCE DEPARTMENT - Olson reported on the following:

• LCSWMA Preliminary Results Actual vs. Budget - All Programs for the Month ended September 30, 2001.
  
  
• LCSWMA Accounts Receivable Report and Past Due Detail Analysis as of September 30, 2001.
  
  
• Approval of Disbursements - On motion by Frost, second by Musser and unanimous vote, the Summary of Disbursements for September 2001 in the total amount of $3,287,510.95 was unanimously approved.
  
  
• Appointment of Audit Committee - Chairman Ebel appointed Barbara Hammel, John Kassees and John Musser to serve on the Audit Committee.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT - Lausch reported on the following:

• Summary Tonnage Report - During September, total revenue tons received were 42,323 or 3.68% less tons that budgeted. Despite the shortfall in total system revenue tons, the Resource Recovery Facility received 30,290 total tons, which was 2.44% more tons than budgeted for the month. Revenue tons to the Landfill were 11,949, or 16.54% less tons than budgeted. Total system tons year-to-date are 435,694. The forecast for the end of the year is 563,900 tons, which is 4,400 more tons than budgeted.
  
  
• Solid Residual Waste - No new Waste Service Agreements were entered into in September. However, work is ongoing to renew three Agreements valued in excess of $250,000 that expire by the end of this year.
  
  
• Liquid Residual Waste - Liquid Treatment Plant deliveries for the month were 474,453 gallons. Revenues were $19,300, or $25,336 below budget, as the revenue shortfall continues.
  
  
• Recycling - Manheim, Millersville, Marietta, and Terre Hill all opened bids in September for refuse/recycling contracts. The four boroughs received pricing ranging from $49.80/unit to $65.76/unit, which were increases of 7% to 29%. The same types of pricing are expected when Mount Joy and New Holland Boroughs open bids in October. These prices are for the cost of collection; the municipalities are paying for disposal.

Forty-one (41) Act 101, Section 904 Performance Grant applications were prepared and submitted to DEP.

This fall PennDOT will again be coordinating the Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful litter collection program in Lancaster County on October 18. The Authority will again waive the tip fees for roadside litter collected under this program.

OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT - Zorbaugh reported on the following:

• Administrative - Administrative - Work was completed on the 2002 Preliminary Budget for all facilities and programs along with the Five-Year Forecast of expenses. Capital Equipment and Project budgets were also prepared for 2002 and the next five years.
  
  
• Landfill - Bob Eshbach was promoted to the position of Landfill Manager. Bob had held the title of Assistant Manager for the last seven years.

A PaDEP site inspection occurred on September 25. This is the 65^th consecutive month without a notice of violation.

• Transfer Station - The vacant position of Night Shift Driver was filled at the end of September.
  
  
• Household Hazardous Waste - The new disposal contractor, CycleChem Inc., will make its first pick up in October.
  
  
• Safety - There were no notable accidents to report at any of the facilities in September.

RRF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT - Forster reported on the following:

• Site Operations - Electric revenues for September were $976,694, or $15,694 ahead of budget. The only turbine downtime occurred on September 25^th when it was taken out-of-service for 48 minutes to fix the level instrumentation on the condenser.

The fall boiler outages started in September, as Units #1 and #2 were taken offline, in succession, during the last ten days of the month. Covanta hopes to complete each outage within five days, instead of the usual 7 - 8 days, since scaffolding will not have to be set up in the boilers. Scaffolding is normally erected in the furnace, and in the second and third boiler passes, to give welders access to the tubes so they can apply a protective layer of Inconel steel over thinned tubes. However, minimal welding needs to be done, since the furnace tubes in each of the units are nearly totally covered with Inconel. Consequently, no scaffolding is needed. Covanta will still be able to do spot checks of furnace tube thicknesses, and Inconel will be applied, where needed.

A total of 32,748 tons of waste tons of waste was delivered to the facility in September.

• Regulatory Activities - The 3^rd quarter ash sampling was performed at the facility. Preliminary results continue to show the ash to be non-hazardous.

Other Activities - The first meeting of the Authority's Transportation Compliance Group met to address issues raised earlier this year by DEP when they conducted "Operation Clean Sweep". The group's task is to develop, and then implement, a Transportation Compliance Plan.

TECHNICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT - Norris reported on the following:

• Capital Project Administration - The Phase 2 Capping Project continues with Grace Industries completing the screening and placing of "below cap" soils, installing the complete landfill gas system, and beginning geosynthetic placement, including the cap liner.

The Request for Proposals were distributed to four firms regarding the landfill gas test which is to be completed at the conclusion of the capping project. Staff will be presenting the Board with a recommendation to engage one of these firms at the November meeting.

The Radioactivity Monitoring Action Plan was submitted to DEP and was determined to be "administratively complete". The technical review process will now begin. Procurement documents will be prepared relative to the purchase of two monitoring systems, one for the Resource Recovery Facility and the other at the Frey Farm Landfill.

• 1299 Renovations - Award Professional Services Agreement for Architectural Services - Responses were received for the Request for Proposals from possible consultants regarding the building improvements at the 1299 office. After discussion and on motion by Snoke, second by Hammel and unanimous vote, the Board approved entering into a Professional Services Agreement with Murphy and Dittenhafer for the architect's services required for the 1299 Building Renovation Project in an amount estimated not to exceed $20,000.
  
  
• Appoint Ad-Hoc Construction Committee - Chairman Ebel appointed Snoke, Kassees and himself to serve on the Ad-Hoc Construction Committee for the 1299 Building Renovation Project.

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The CAC did not meet.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

After a brief recess, the Board of Directors went into Executive Session at 9:40 A.M. to receive an update on the ongoing litigation and to discuss real estate matters.

OTHER BUSINESS

The Executive Session adjourned at 10:45 A.M.

There was no further business to come before the Board.

Chairman Ebel announced there would be a Budget Workshop Meeting at 11:00 A.M.

ADJOURNMENT

On motion by Wood , second by Kassees and unanimous vote, the Board meeting adjourned at 10:45 AM.

APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY THIS 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2001.

John S. Kassees, Secretary