By Karen Scott
Clinton Wastewater / Estian Partners
The basic issue
Clinton has an aging wastewater treatment plant that needs ongoing upgrades to remain compliant. Nobody disputes that.
The likely cost of necessary improvements appears to be in the $3–5 million range, and there is no current emergency. The plant meets its permit limits and is in compliance, according to a statement from the plant operator at a Village meeting.
What began as a discussion about maintaining that functioning plant grew into an approximately $28.5 million regional biosolids hub involving Estian Partners co-founded by Laura Zizzo and Ksenia Koban, outside material from a 50-mile radius, private investment, grants, and a possible long-term operating agreement.
That jump in scope is what caused residents to start asking questions.
How the Estian proposal emerged
In early 2026, engineer Tim O’Hara was examining Clinton’s wastewater needs at the request of Clinton Mayor Elizabeth Tantillo and the Village Board (Richard Fuller, Joanne Gilles, Howard Schaffer and Chelsea Burns Spellman). O’Hara is often retained as the village engineer. He is not the wastewater treatment plant operator. O’Hara is listed in the Estian documents as the engineer of record, so it appears he would have an ongoing position with the Estian proposal if it were to come to fruition.
Somehow, and it is unclear exactly how, by spring discussions had expanded to include Estian Partners and a much larger regional concept.
The resulting MOU contemplated:
- an approximately $28.5 million project
- a regional biosolids hub
- outside material from within about 50 miles
- approximately $8.5 million in Estian equity
- approximately $15 million in anticipated grants
- approximately $5 million in public/SRF financing
- a contemplated 20-year agreement
- binding confidentiality and exclusivity provisions
The MOU was not proactively released to the public. Residents pressed repeatedly for information, and it became public only after significant community pressure at a village meeting where the mayor was absent and the deputy mayor proposed releasing the MOU publicly.
Even then, residents were still not given a full business plan explaining what Clinton actually needs versus what is required to create a regional hub. Mayor Tantillo continues to tell us we are misinformed, even though the only information we have was given to us in the MOU.
She is also visibly irritated with us when we ask questions at village meetings.
The transparency issue
The sewer system is managed through the Clinton Sewer Service Area, involving the Village, Town of Kirkland and Hamilton College.
The Village took the position that the CSSA was not subject to the Open Meetings Law. So, what is happening with the plant is happening behind closed doors meetings are not noticed to the public and no minutes are taken.
I requested an opinion from The New York State Committee on Open Government regarding the lack of transparency, and they issued an opinion concluding that the CSSA is a public body subject to the Open Meetings Law.
The Village attorney, William Schmitt, disagreed, in public and on the record.
That created a separate governance issue: important discussions about the future of the wastewater system were taking place while residents were still trying to determine what meetings should have been public.
The Town of Kirkland Supervisor, Garry Colarusso, has made it clear both that the Town Board has not been fully apprised of the situation and that he personally, as a resident, opposes the concept as described.
Hamilton College has remained eerily silent.
How biochar entered the picture
The Village has not publicly presented a biochar plan.
Residents began looking into biochar in part because the MOU itself refers to “recaptured value” from the waste stream.
That raised a very basic question:
What value is being recaptured, and who gets it?
Research into biosolids processing led residents to biochar. And pyrolysis. Extremely high temperature burning.
Biochar can be produced from municipal biosolids and then used in products such as concrete and other industrial materials.
That made the MOU’s reference to “recaptured value” more significant.
If Clinton becomes a regional hub, is the goal simply to treat waste, or to turn that waste into products with commercial value?
A regional model could potentially collect tipping fees for incoming material and also create products or other revenue streams from that material.
Residents still do not know what “recaptured value” means in the Clinton proposal, what products are contemplated, who would own them, or who would receive the resulting revenue.
The California connection
One of Estian’s advisors, Arun Sharma, has previous ties to Anaergia, which developed the Rialto Bioenergy Facility in Southern California.
Rialto combined food-waste processing with biosolids pyrolysis (the thermochemical decomposition of organic (carbon-based) materials at elevated temperatures (typically 300°C to 900°C) in the absence or near-absence of oxygen.), producing a high-carbon fertilizer from municipal biosolids — essentially a biochar-type product. That company later entered Chapter 11 restructuring.
Anaergia said one major problem was that the facility did not have enough feedstock coming in to generate enough revenue to cover its costs and debt service.
That makes feedstock volume an important question for Clinton.
If a large regional operation in heavily populated Southern California struggled to get enough material:
How much outside material would a Clinton regional hub need in order for its business model to work?
Why the 50-mile radius matters
Starting January 1, 2027, New York expands its Food Donation and Food Scraps Recycling Law.
Businesses and institutions generating at least one ton of wasted food per week may be required to recycle remaining food scraps if they are within 50 miles of a viable organics recycler.
In 2029, the threshold drops to half a ton per week, while the 50-mile rule remains.
That can include large food generators such as colleges, prisons and jails, restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, casinos and other businesses and institutions.
The Clinton MOU also uses a 50-mile radius.
That does not prove the two are connected.
But the overlap is worth examining, especially because regional waste businesses depend on having enough material coming in.
Existing regional capacity
Central New York is not starting from zero.
There is already substantial landfill capacity in the region, and Oneida-Herkimer already operates a food-waste processing system in Utica.
So another basic question is:
What unmet regional waste-management problem is this proposed Clinton hub actually solving?
If the answer is not simply “we have nowhere else to put this material,” then the financial and commercial logic of the regional hub becomes even more important.
The unanswered questions
Residents still want basic answers:
- If Clinton’s plant is functioning well, why move from roughly $3–5 million in upgrades to a $28.5 million regional project?
- How much of that $28.5 million is actually necessary for Clinton?
- How much outside material would need to come into the Village?
- Where would it come from?
- How many trucks would that mean?
- Who receives the tipping fees?
- What does “recaptured value” mean in the MOU?
- What products are contemplated?
- Who owns those products?
- Who receives revenue from those products or any carbon-related credits?
- What happens if expected grants, feedstock or revenue do not materialize?
- What financial or operational benefit does the Village itself receive in exchange for becoming the regional host?
The central question
Is Clinton being asked to upgrade a functioning wastewater plant, or become the center of a regional waste-processing business?
If it is the latter, residents want to understand the business model, financial benefits, risks and scale before the Village commits to it.
The concern has grown largely because those details have not been provided voluntarily. Residents have had to piece together the proposal from the MOU, FOIL records, public meetings, state records, industry research and the backgrounds of the people involved.
