Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Salt Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elmsford discusses intermunicipal salt-shed agreement, inventory and reimbursement questions
Summary
Elmsford officials reviewed a proposed intermunicipal agreement to allow a neighboring town to load road salt from the town's salt shed, discussed inventory and reimbursement arrangements, and flagged record inconsistencies about tonnages and prior orders.
Elmsford officials reviewed a proposed intermunicipal agreement (IMA) that would allow a neighboring town to load road salt from the town’s salt shed during winter, and raised questions about inventory accounting, reimbursement for salt already purchased and operational oversight.
The proposal, described by staff at the meeting, would let the neighboring municipality bring its own operator and loader to Elmsford’s salt-shed site and load smaller trucks for neighborhoods with narrow streets. Staff said the other town would pay the electric cost for the shed, provide an operator and equipment, reimburse Elmsford for salt already purchased and handle its own future salt orders. The arrangement was described as a two-year agreement.
Town staff said the plan could save the neighboring town substantial travel and loading time by allowing trucks to reload at Elmsford rather than return to their yard. Staff also noted the arrangement would reduce the need for larger trucks to service narrow streets. Town staff identified operational risks that must be managed, including guaranteeing a loader and operator will be available when Elmsford needs the facility and ensuring inventory control and reimbursement are handled through the town’s foreman.
Meeting discussion flagged specific accounting and drafting issues in the papers provided to the board. Staff reported a discrepancy in tonnage references and related line items: one line in the draft references "345" (three hundred forty-five) tons and another line "346" (three hundred forty-six) tons; staff said one entry appears to be a typo and asked that the language be cleaned up. The staff presentation also referenced a prior commitment of "600" tons under the town’s existing contract; board members sought clarification about which tons had already been ordered, which remained on hand and which would be reimbursed by the other municipality.
Members pressed staff to clarify who would oversee day-to-day operations under the IMA. Staff said "Bridal" (name as provided in the transcript) would have management responsibility for ensuring the arrangement operates fairly for Elmsford. Board members asked that contractual language require the visiting town to have its loader on site when Elmsford operations require it and to reimburse Elmsford for salt previously purchased under Elmsford’s state contract.
No formal vote on the IMA was recorded in the transcript. Staff said the IMA had been reviewed by town counsel and by Ms. Mills (as referenced in the meeting) and that the draft would be sent to the neighboring town for their review. Staff said they would return the item to the board after the other town provides comments and paperwork is completed.
The board also directed staff to correct the tonnage and monetary references in the draft, and to confirm the reimbursement mechanics and inventory accounting before returning with a final IMA for formal action.
