Place: St. Stephen's Parish Hall, Cayuga, Ontario at 7:05 p.m.
Present:
Dave Glenney – Chair;
Rob Gerrie – Secretary;
Paul General – Proxy for Chris Martin – Member;
Jane Glassco – Ministry of Environment;
Jason Ryan – Ministry of Environment;
Brahm Rosen – Receiver;
Doug Robertson – Conestoga- Rovers and Associates
Matters for Discussion
1. The Chair welcomed those present and asked those around the table to introduce themselves.
2. Delegation – The Chair advised that Mr. Brahm Rosen or S.F. Partners Inc., the Receiver for HNSLI was present to discuss his role and the future of the Edwards Landfill Site.
Mr. Rosen advised that he was a by training dealing with insolvency matters. On September 10th, 2007 he had been appointed as the Receiver and Manager for HNSLI because of financial difficulty.
He is responsible to all the creditors and has to report to the Court from time to time based on the receivership. He pointed out that if action is required Court approval is required. He pointed out that if there is to be a sale of the property it must be approved by the Court. He stated that reports he prepares are part of the public record which will go to Court and be placed on his company’s website. He stated that his appointment was initiated by the lender in the first instance. This lender had started the action. In pointing out his responsibility to all creditors he stated that he wants to get the site up and running to receive waste.
Brahm advised that since his appointment he has attempted to get the necessary trades on site to protect the liner. He will mobilize people while the weather still holds to complete this task. It should be completed within a few weeks. The requirements involve working with the MOE, the County and whoever they have to work with.
Mr. Rosen told those present he wants to get people on site and pay what has to be paid. In referring to specific time frames when waste was to be received he said that he could not comment on this matter at this point in time. Brahm advised that he would have further updates at the meeting of October 9th, 2007
The question was asked as to how people coming onto the site were going to be paid.
Brahm advised that money would be borrowed and that they had a commitment from a major investor.
The question was asked as to when decommissioning would be starting.
Brahm stated that he could not answer that question but advised that he would have a further update on October 9th, 2007. He advised those present that he has just been engaged for a couple of weeks.
Dave asked what was the current status of the test wells. Had CRA been paid for the work that they had done.
Brahm advised that it was his intention to deal with it.
Dave spoke about contamination on site. Also not fully aware of the aquifers. The reports on contamination results were conflicting.
Brahm advised that he was not aware of the report on water results.
Dave asked Jason if there were any results.
Jason advised that with respect to offsite wells agreements had to be reached with adjacent property owners. Once agreement is reached they are willing to move forward.
A discussion then took place on financial assurance. Either the money must be posted or an agreement must be reached with the Ministry. Financial assurance must be received prior to garbage being accepted on site.
Brahm advised that once the money is posted he may ask the Ministry to accept garbage on site within 7 to 10 days.
3. Public/News Media Comments and Questions
a) Willem Hanrath wondered if the cell could not be saved by protecting it with water rather than garbage. Water would keep the garbage out and test the liner. He suggested that water could be pumped into the cell.
Brahm advised that he would follow the advice of his engineers.
b) Tim Whittington asked if the Receiver represented C&C.
Brahm advised that the receivership only covered Haldimand Norfolk Sanitary Landfill Inc.
Tim asked if C&C were responsible.
Brahm advised that the trades had had a relationship with C&C specifically.
c) Jody Orr stated that 2 or 3 meetings ago the interpretation on financial assurance was that it must be received 30 days prior to garbage going into the site.
Jason advised that his interpretation was incorrect and that garbage could be received on site within 30 days of receiving financial assurance.
Jody asked who is accountable should something go wrong.
Brahm indicated that he was responsible and accountable. He stated that ultimately accountability lies with us.
Jody indicated that we are sitting on a toxic bomb. She pointed out that transparency has been a problem in this community.
Brahm indicated that subject to protocol information will be shared. Transparency can be interpreted differently. He stated that he is not trying to duck questions but he wants to understand the sensitivities.
d) Jim Partington asked the Receiver if he had any experience with landfill sites.
Brahm advised that he had no experience he gets his information from engineers.
e) Dave Bruce asked how much money was owing at the time of the receivership.
Brahm thought it was difficult to say because he was not aware of all the bills and he could not attest to the liabilities but he thought roughly in the neighbourhood of $10 million.
Dave Bruce asked if the business was being sold.
Brahm said his mandate was to get the landfill site open, stabilize the business operation and then set up an exit process. Could be a sale or a restructuring. If it is sold then HNSLI would be out of the picture.
f) Karen Whittington asked if the owner was in financial difficulty prior to receivership.
Brahm responded that he did not know what financial footing the owner was in prior to receivership.
g) Wendy Omvlee asked if any company had shown interest in purchasing the Edwards Landfill Site.
Brahm advised that no process was yet in place but he had received some interest.
h) Jody Orr wanted to know what was going on with the property. If action was taking place prior to a PLC meeting how would people be informed. She stated that if the property was going to be sold this would be of interest to the community.
Brahm advised that he could pass that information onto Dave Glenney. If there is a report going to Court on the nature and timing of a sales process he would have no problem in sharing that information.
i) Jim Partington asked that if the property was sold would the C. of A. start all over again.
Brahm advised that he was a lay person but expected that anyone buying the property would pick up obligations.
Jason advised that if the site is sold the C. of A. will go to the new owner. He advised that MOE has to be advised of any changes.
j) Walter Plaenksken asked if the existing conditions of the C. of A. would remain the same or could they be renegotiated.
Jason advised that the certificate would stay as is.
k) Tim Whittington asked if there were any contracts in site for garbage pickup.
Brahm advised that he was not aware of any.
l) Richard Klement asked if HNSLI had ceased to exist.
Brahm advised that the assets, undertakings and the property still exist. It also comes with liabilities. If HNSLI goes into bankruptcy it will no longer have any assets.
m) Joe Laszlo asked with the contaminated drums on site how do you know that the ground is acceptable for taking on garbage.
Brahm advised that he was confident that the engineers had done their job.
Joe was concerned that when you dig up the drums and then dig down 20’ that liquid will be pumped into the ditch. He told those present that there was a gypsum mine with no 85’ of clay underneath. He stated that tunnels from the gypsum mine were going underneath Highway #3. Joe stated that water going from this site was going in 4 directions. His water pump is going day and night. Joe is concerned that we could have garbage forever. We will go but the garbage will stay. He was concerned about poisoning people.
Dave Glenney felt that this was a good point. The contaminated material on site is a hot spot. Previously leachate was being taken off site but who was doing it now.
Jason advised that he will continue to monitor and walk the site.
Dave asked who is taking test samples at the current time.
Jason stated that it will be the responsibility of the day to day person to carry this out.
n) Dave asked about the safety of Brooks Road past the railway track. Where there any plans to fix it.
Edward Solado, Acting Physical Services Manager for the County advised that there were a number of issues outstanding with the proponent. The road was not up to standard, monitoring wells and letters of credit.
Brahm advised that he was aware of his responsibilities and he would be contacting the County in due course.
o) Jody Orr asked who the site manager was.
Brahm advised that Romeo DeBatista was the point man on site.
Jody asked what company did Romeo work for.
Brahm advised that he did not know but he would undertake to find out.
p) Karen Whittington asked if the bottom line of the Receiver was to sell the property.
Brahm advised that if the owner gets a sale then the proceeds are distributed. Rather than sell there may be the possibility that the company will restructure. Someone could come in with the money, formulate a plan to pay these people something.
Karen asked if Frank Campbell’s estate would participate.
Brahm stated that he was told the estate has no interest in proceeding other than been bought out. The shareholders may also wish to participate but this has not yet been discussed.
q) Jim Partington asked that if the property was sold what per cent age of the dollar would be received.
Brahm told those present who knows. It depends how much interest there is in the property and what they are willing to pay. This an unknown thing at this time.
Jim asked the Receiver what his experience was.
Brahm responded that his experience is that you never get 100 cents on the dollar.
r) Tim Whittington indicated that there was a lot of money outstanding. The County was out about $35,000.00 and the trade’s people about 1.9 Million. How does C & C ( Campbell-Courtney) come into play with respect to outstanding amounts.
Brahm said lets say that C & C owes HNSLI money. If C & C has no assets then what are we chasing - either assets or big losses. If we have a legal right and there is a potential for gain then we will pursue it.
s) Anne Vallentin pointed out an opportunity for deep concerns. There is contamination on the site and contamination moving off site. It has been tracked at certain times. Understandably there is some anger and frustration here. People in our community have not been paid nor has the County. This project is going forward without tying down the extent of the contamination. She also pointed out that the site was within the six mile limit of the Haldimand Tract which Six Nations have an interest in.
t) Dave stated that before and after these new test monitoring wells are put in place there is the potential for contamination going off site.
Jason advised that the Ministry is committed to monitoring the site. There is $50,000.00 committed to that end and that stays in force. If it is not followed through then one would be in contempt of court.
Dave asked what overtures have been made to get the monitoring wells in place.
Jason advised that there are 3 properties involved. With one property there is no problem. With respect to the other two some resistance has occurred. The MOE may have to enter into negotiations and have the PLC assist.
Dave expressed concern that forcing a property owner to allow a test monitoring well on their property puts them in a difficult situation. If contamination is found then their property this could make it virtually worthless. Receiving any compensation from the proponent would be difficult if not impossible if there are no funds available. The question was asked would the Ministry compensate a property owner if his well was contaminated and the owner of the dump could not make the payment.
u) Wendy Omvlee asked what would happen if the property owner would not allow a well on their property.
Jason advised that the MOE could not order it however contamination was a top priority for him and his Ministry.
v) Rob asked when is the $50,000.00 to be paid to the Ministry.
Jane Glassco responded that there was no time limit set.
w) Jody Orr asked if the acceptance of garbage could be delayed until the site was decommissioned.
Jason advised that garbage received has no bearing on decommissioning. These are two separate issues. Any off site contamination will face the law.
x) It was Richard Klement’s contention that this was a moral, ethical and philosophical issue were common sense was required. He suggested that we get the show on the road. What about the possibility of moving the location of the monitoring wells. Let’s make it happen.
Jason indicated that alternate well locations were considered using the road allowance but there had been some resistance from the County. They wanted additional monitoring wells down gradient from the site. This would involve an agreement with the County.
Edward Solado advised that what was being said about the County was incorrect. He advised that the County is waiting for information from the company.
y) Anne Vallentin asked about the wells by the old contaminated area along. The wells were covered on the edge of the berm area.
Jason advised that two wells had been decommissioned in that area.
Eva Laszlo indicated that these wells had been removed in anticipation of decommissioning the site. The wells were covered over.
Joe Laszlo advised that they had been painted red.
z) Rob asked about fencing and security.
Brahm advised that fencing was currently being put up and security was on site.
4. Next Meeting: Tuesday, October 9th at 7:00 p.m.
with the location to be determined at a later date.
Adjournment: 8:33 p.m.
HALT ©2007