June 8, 2023

Greg Ollivier

Rokosz Most: So, some contentious back-and-forth arose on the April assembly of the UCRRA board members relating to two firms who had responded to a request for proposal and the way a lot they have been ballparking to the company for his or her companies. What was the RFP for?

Greg Olivieri: The request for proposal principally stated we want some questions answered having to do with siting a landfill. The primary query is to start with, is it even possible? Is it even a actuality that we may presumably put one on this county? We don’t even know. In order that’s the start line, proper? It’s not even about discovering a web site but. It’s about let’s have a look at these choices. One possibility is likely to be placing in a landfill. One possibility is likely to be taking some outdated landfills that we’ve and cleansing them up and bringing them as much as fashionable requirements. 

RM: On the assembly, you wouldn’t share the worth quantities supplied by the 2 firms, the estimate of what they might cost, that you simply hadn’t but had a authorized opinion on it. I took it to imply, you noticed benefits to not publishing the costs that these firms got here again with since you didn’t need to lose your leverage?

GO: When there is no such thing as a extra negotiation, there is no such thing as a extra of the enterprise aspect of issues being taken care of. That shouldn’t essentially be out within the newspaper whilst you’re doing it. Then you may simply put every thing on the market in entrance of the general public and say that is precisely what we’re doing, that is precisely what our selections have been. That’s probably the most prudent technique to get the job accomplished correctly. Subsequently, if I gave something now to publish, it wouldn’t be correct as to what’s occurring anyhow. Costs can change, and we’d be deceptive the general public. For me, it’s simply not acceptable to launch it at the moment. Give us a bit bit longer to get this accomplished over the subsequent week or two. After which every thing could be launched.

RM: So it was truly the Hydroquest research that began all of the pushback and scrutiny which rated Plattekill as one of the best web site. That was already accomplished in 2019 to try to find and assess websites, was that research inadequate?

GO: It wasn’t that they did something improper. The corporate did they did precisely what they have been requested to do. 

RM: This was earlier than your time, proper? 

GO: This was earlier than I got here. Yeah.  There was employees and a few board members that felt like to search out out if there have been any places which may presumably work, possibly that might be a superb first step. However then what they bumped into was the conclusion that, this didn’t go far sufficient. There’s no approach that we may use this to find out the place to place a landfill when we’ve all these different unanswered questions. And if we launch this [report], we’re simply going to upset individuals So they only actually didn’t do something with it.

RM: So how did the report get out?

GO: It’s not an official doc. We’re not getting a replica. It’s not a public doc. We by no means even accepted this the board has taken no motion. So it by no means turned a public doc. 

However sadly it was talked about in a board assembly, which is a public assembly. In order that introduced it to gentle, after which we had a switchover of board members on the finish of the yr in December, proper? And two board members who left spoke to Invoice [Kemble] about it and provides him extra particulars on it. 

Nicely, as soon as they did that, they form of introduced it into being a public doc. 

Monetary particulars saved underneath wraps on the UCRRA

RM: So then it turned a problem.

GO: It turned extra of a problem out entrance after which it turned a scenario the place it’s like, okay, I’m higher not less than familiarize myself with the research. And on prime of that, it simply seems like we’re attempting to cover one thing which no person was actually attempting to cover. They have been simply attempting to not create this kind of concern. Proper? So it was like simply put it on the market. And, you realize, let the chips fall the place they could. So we made it public.

RM: Is there any justification for individuals being indignant about this research, that they’re saying $11,000 as spent on that was taxpayer cash?

GO: It’s not taxpayer cash. We’re not supported by the taxpayers. We generate our personal income via the flow-control regulation and tipping charges. If someone needs to be upset about $11,000 and feels it was a waste of cash, then they’re entitled to their opinion. However what they don’t notice is that $11,000 On this business shouldn’t be some huge cash for something that’s a really modest amount of cash for something.

RM: Legislator for Plattekill Kevin Roberts was fairly displeased about the entire scenario. And he was questioning out loud to me precisely why the RRA is even taking accountability for this research. He believes that the legislature ought to simply be dealing with it fully. Do you might have an opinion on that?

GO: Yeah, as a result of the legislature controls UCRRA, and we have been shaped to do that. One of many authentic causes for being shaped was to truly find and create a centralized landfill — over 30 years in the past, actually.

That by no means occurred. I’ve solely been within the county a bit over six months, however I’ve heard tales. If I needed to guess, it had so much to do with politics and cash. That’s usually what drives or kills this stuff, proper? I think about through the years there simply was not sufficient will energy to get via no matter political maneuvers wanted to be made and no matter monetary maneuvers wanted to be made to truly get it accomplished.

The submit An interview with UCRRA govt director Greg Olivieri first appeared on Hudson Valley One.