theSheetNews.com

Mono County Supes send landfill lease back to DWP

On Tuesday, the Mono County Board of Supervisors reviewed a one-year lease agreement with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power for the Benton Crossing Landfill … approximately six months after giving the go-ahead to sign a five-year lease agreement with the agency.

“The lease process neared completion in March 2012 when the Board approved a five-year lease and associated environmental document, but DWP subsequently identified issues and refused to sign the lease,” stated Solid Waste Supervisor Tony Dublino’s staff report.

The main issue identified by DWP back in the spring was that of a minor amount of groundwater contamination at the landfill.

“We submit groundwatering monitoring reports to the Lahontan Water Control Board on a quarterly basis,” Dublino told The Sheet. “DWP has always had the ability to review these reports, however, they just realized this condition that has been in the report for years and have now questioned it.”

Dublino stated that it should be the Lahontan Water Control Board that should dictate water quality, not DWP.

“Lahontan hasn’t taken us to task for this since the early 2000s,” Dublino said. He emphasized that the contamination was minor and was something to be expected in groundwater that has been sitting under a landfill for 30 years.

The County has been working under an expired lease for the landfill for several years. Without a new lease with DWP the County cannot acquire the Solid Waste Facility Permit it needs to be in compliance with CalRecycle.

In addition to dealing with lease and permit issues, the County eventually needs to address the deficit created every year by solid waste.

The County was $50,000 over budget in the 2011/12 fiscal year. Luckily the agency had enough in its coffers to cover the gap, but with approximately the same deficit expected in 2012/13, some long-term solutions are needed.

“We need to study the numbers,” stated Supervisor Larry Johnston at Tuesday’s Board meeting.

“But today is about short-term decisions,” Board Chair Vikki Bauer pointed out. The item on Tuesday’s agenda was to simply deal with the DWP lease and the Solid Waste Facility Permit.

“But I want long-term discussions,” Johnston said. “I am worried that every time we get a new lease from DWP we are responsible for more and more.”

Johnston would ultimately like to see the County acquire the landfill site from DWP.

“With less going to the landfill [because of recycling laws], the life of the landfill could be extended,” said Johnston. “We should acquire the site since it’s going to be ours indefinitely anyway.” He was referring to the monitoring fees the County will have to pay the state for 30 years after the landfill’s closure to ensure there are no issues.

His fellow supervisors pointed out that DWP would have to be willing to sell the property in order for Johnston’s plan to work.

“Or we could condemn it,” Johnston said, reiterating his idea from March.

The rest of the Board, however, wanted to finish up the housekeeping items and sign the lease with DWP before diving into further conversations.

“I’m concerned that DWP may not want to sell the land,” said Supervisor Hap Hazard. “We need to determine that before we have a discussion.”

The Board unanimously authorized County Administrative Officer Jim Arkens to sign the one-year lease with DWP.

As of press time the lease was being reviewed by DWP.

Bill and repeal fall flat

Last week the Board sent a letter to the California Legislature asking it to oppose Senate Bill 1148, which many close to the fishing industry, including District 3 Supervisor Elect Tim Alpers have stated will negate the positive impacts of AB 7 on hatcheries.

The bill, however, has made it to the Governor’s desk where it awaits his review and potential signature into law.

According to District 2 Supervisor Elect Fred Stump, who spoke to the Board on behalf of an ill Alpers on Tuesday, the bill would cost $30-60 million to implement.

“It is being requested that the Board now send a letter to the Governor to veto the bill based on the cost,” Stump said. “The Board should also write a letter in support of SB 505, which supports AB 7.”

Staff will draft these letters and bring them to the Board’s Sept. 11 meeting. CalTrout and Retire Senator Dave Cogdill will also attend the Sept. 11 meeting to argue both sides of the bill. CalTrout supports SB 1148, while Cogdill, who worked heavily on AB 7, is opposed.

Also last week, the State Responsibility Area fire fee repeal fell apart, according to Hazard.

“We were thrown under the bus by our representatives who eliminated the SRA fire fee repeal,” Hazard said. The repeal was proposed on Aug. 24 in the form of SB 1040, which was attached to AB 1500.

If SB 1040 had passed, it would have left an expected $85 million on the table in uncollected fees that were earmarked for CalFire. This gap would have been filled by AB 1500, which was expected to generate $1 billion in tax revenues from out-of-state corporations to fund middle class scholarships. By linking SB 1040 and AB 1500, about $90 million of those tax revenues collected from AB 1500 would reportedly have replaced the losses from the fire fee repeal.

However, according to Hazard “the Howard Jarvis people [the group leading the charge to litigate the SRA fees] went to the senators and claimed they had a 100% chance of support in the courts. By challenging it in court they claimed the issue would be resolved once and for all.

“We’ve been left out,” Hazard concluded.

The Board discussed its positions on Propositions 30 and 31, which Hazard was expected to discuss in upcoming talks with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC). The Board decided to remain neutral on both propositions, but gave Hazard the flexibility to oppose Prop 31 if necessary.

With Mono County’s Benton Crossing Landfill set to close in 2023, and the Town of Mammoth Lakes in dire need of bringing its recycling numbers into compliance with CalRecycle, the stage has been set for the two agencies to work closely together.

“Recycling will reduce the amount of trash coming to the landfill,” pointed out Mono County Board of Supervisors Chair Vikki Bauer during a solid waste workshop between the Town and the County on Tuesday.

Mono County Solid Waste Superintendent Matt Carter agreed. “It doesn’t fit the economics of the landfill,” he explained. “A landfill has to receive a certain tonnage to be feasible.”

Carter stated that the tonnage should be about 50,000 annually, but currently Benton Crossing Landfill is receiving around 30,000 tons.

“The state changed it up on us,” Bauer said, referring to bills such as the new AB 341, which requires more recycling in local businesses and residents.

Trash connects the Town and the County because the County provides the landfill where Mammoth residents send their trash. In turn, the Town is the largest source of revenue for the County solid waste system due to the large amount of waste it disposes of at the Benton Crossing Landfill.

But private business, Mammoth Disposal, has offered some solutions to the Town that would allow it to break off on its own. Town Manager Dave Wilbrecht, however, does not see this as a feasible solution.

“It would be extremely problematic for the County if the Town ran its own system,” Wilbrecht told The Sheet. “And it would cause such bad feelings between the two agencies.”

Plus, Wilbrecht pointed out that many town employees, business owners, etc. live in the outlying county, not within the town limits. Whatever shift in costs transferred to the County by the Town breaking away and doing its own thing, would actually affect those who work in town.

“It’s worth it for us to put in the effort,” Wilbrecht said. “It’s better to work together as a region.”

The Town will, however, work with Mammoth Disposal in the near future to get its recycling numbers into compliance. As for any future work with Mammoth Disposal, Wilbrecht said the Town must perform its due diligence and really study and understand what the private business is offering.

One of the Mammoth Disposal options is to ship solid waste out of Mono County.

“It could costs us millions of dollars if it’s not well thought out,” Wilbrecht said of the whole scenario.

Back at the workshop on Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors was also in favor of taking things slow and really studying the best approach.

Supervisors Larry Johnston was not convinced that hauling the trash out of the County to landfills such as Lockwood, Nev. (one of the ideas under discussion), would be the best solution.

“That could quadruple present rates,” Johnston pointed out. He was in favor of studying not only other potential landfill sites, but also the possibility of purchasing Benton Crossing Landfill from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

“There is still more useful life left at Benton Crossing,” he said.

“Every option should be on the table, including partnering with the tribes and their lands,” said Supervisor Hap Hazard. “I’m concerned that the clock continues to tick on this.”

Supervisor Bauer pointed out that when the solid waste fees were reviewed and raised recently, they were not raised enough.

“We didn’t do a good job last time,” she said. She supported the consensus to put everything back on the table for discussion.

The Supervisors were in favor of creating a committee or task force to focus on the problem, but pointed out that the committee should have more weight than the task force that was used previously. Supervisor Byng Hunt suggested that it be made up of three supervisors and three Town Council members so that the decision makers would be sitting at the table.

Lisa Isaacs, a member of the former solid waste task force pointed out that someone from those previous discussions should also be on the new committee. Isaacs also expressed her concerns about shipping trash out of the area.

“We need to consider what shipping really means,” Isaacs said. “It’s not the answer to dump it [trash] off on someone else. Make sure you do your due diligence before choosing this path.”

Pat Fenton, owner of Mammoth Disposal, agreed that Isaacs’ comments were dead on.

“We don’t have much solid waste that belongs in the landfill, period,” Fenton said. “We need to capture and do something with recyclables other than send them to the landfill.”

Fenton was frustrated with the Board’s ultimate decision on Tuesday to have staff bring back recommendations on how to set up the new committee, who would be on it and when it would meet.

“That meeting was very disappointing and I see it delaying things another few years,” Fenton, who was ready to go this summer with ideas at Mammoth Disposal, told The Sheet on Wednesday. “Delays will jeopardize what I will be able to do,” he said in reference to long haul equipment that is available to him now, but may not be in a year or two.

“It will cost three or four times as much [in a few years],” Fenton said. “They are still just kicking the can down the road.”

To read more about Fenton’s plan, visit www.thesheetnews.com and click on the latest issue of the Green Sheet under special publications

With much of the Mono County Solid Waste Enterprise Fund’s recent budgets based on history, the crash of the construction industry and subsequent decline in waste volume rendered revenue projections inaccurate. That set the stage for the current shortfall that, even after various unsuccessful attempts to save money, has left the SWEF running in the red about $80,000 per month.

Following weeks of intense work by the County’s Solid Waste Task Force and Town-County Liaison Committee, during the first of three public meetings Monday night in Mammoth, Solid Waste Superintendent Matt Carter outlined Mono County’s solid waste program and a preferred option that both the Board and staff hope will lead to fiscal solvency.

Between 2006 and 2008, tonnage plummeted from 47,000 to just 28,000 tons, and revenue went over the cliff with it. For 2010-2011, the SWEF is staring at a $900,000 deficit. That figure, however, includes a $1.2 million “loan” from the Mono County Board of Supervisors’ reserves last year, a bailout that isn’t meant to be annual. Assuming no changes or corrections, by 2024, the SWEF could be as much as $14 million in the hole.

Under the new plan, tipping fees to both the Town and County would go from $50/ton to $68.50/ton, and minimum gate fees would go from $1.75 to $5. In addition to a previous $1.2 million “loan” from the Board’s reserves, an additional $288,490 would be kicked in by the supervisors to offset miscellaneous administrative and legal work, as well as any state-mandated A87 billing charges. The Benton Crossing Landfill site, which takes in all the county-generated household hazardous waste, will close on all County-observed holidays. And the Walker, Bridgeport and Pumice Valley site would reduce their days of operation to 2 per week. The Benton and Chalfant sites would remain unchanged.

Privatizing solid waste in its entirety has been an idea floated several times, but Carter maintains that even if that were to be realized, the County would still be faced with the mandates [and related costs] to close landfills and transfer stations as defined by state law.

A future component, if adopted, would add an extra $9.25/ton to the tipping fee increase, bringing the total to $77.75, higher yet still well south of the $100/ton increase proposed by consultants in a 2010 report. Revenue generated by the extra $9.25/ton would be put into a separate fund, use of which would be determined later.

While Carter said the increase to $68.50/ton was designed to at least “stop the bleeding,” County Finance Director Brian Muir said the extra $9.25/ton could be used for “whatever future is decided” by the joint powers that be; one example would allow the County to purchase a parcel of land in Mammoth to develop a long-haul transfer facility, probably in association with Mammoth Disposal, which has held the transfer station operator contract with Mono County since 2001.

And any proposed increase is likely to be met with a certain amount of scrutiny. Mammoth Lakes Town Manager Marianna Marysheva-Martinez pointed to the inequity in the current system, under which Mammoth pays 56% of the cost of the County’s solid waste program, but only receives about 40% of the benefits. She also pointed out that the increased fees will mean a 10% hike to County residents, but a 17% boost to town residents. (The consultant’s proposed increase to $100/ton would have meant a 30% increase, by comparison.)

Pushback has already come from Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, which uses a lot of larger 3- and 6-cubic yard dumpsters, and is reportedly opposed to any proposed increase that takes tipping fees above $70/ton.

Marysheva-Martinez was, at the end of the meeting, receptive to the solution in general, and agreed with County staff and District 1 Supervisor Larry Johnston, who was on hand, that the future would be decided by the “joint powers” that be, including the Town. She praised the results of the Task Force and Town-County Liaison’s work, saying it will “benefit both the town and the county.”

Carter indicated any increase should be enough to continue funding operations for at least the next 3 years.

More public comment can be heard at a recently scheduled third meeting on Monday, March 28, at 6:30 p.m. in the Benton Community Center. From there, the Board will review the preferred option, along with any questions and comments from the public during its regular meeting on April 5. A public hearing and vote on the option including any final language is on the agenda for the Board’s April 19 meeting, which will be held in Mammoth Lakes.

Recent fretting over the red ink that’s stained Mono’s Solid Waste Enterprise Fund isn’t confined to just Mono county. Inyo reportedly has similar issues with its own Solid Waste program, leading to a recent survey begun earlier this year to gather public input on landfill operations, fees and options to bring it to solvency.

Inyo County officials are open to ideas that will help them close a nearly $600,000 annual operating deficit in the Integrated Waste Management Program, which operates the county’s five landfills and four waste transfer stations. The program’s total budget for the current fiscal year 2010-11 is $2.5 million, and the shortfall is currently being covered using General Fund money, which results in funding shortages for other programs and services.

“There’s probably not a single action that will close the deficit,” said Chuck Hamilton, Deputy County Administrator and Waste Management program head. The deficit has been blamed on stricter state and federal landfill regulations that outstripped revenue generated by a portion of the county sales tax dedicated to solid waste operation, and a decline in fees paid by commercial waste haulers and individual disposal facility users. “It will most likely take a combination of fee increases and reducing the hours of operation at some disposal sites to put the program’s budget back in the black,” Hamilton said.

Basically the same options Mono County’s Solid Waste Task Force, including tipping fee adjustments and changes in levels of service, including days and hours of operation.

About the only single action that could provide full funding for the Sold Waste program would be to increase the current County Sales Tax by half a percent (0.5) to 9.25%. Such a move would, however, require voter approval. Voters approved a one-half-percent sales tax dedicated to Solid Waste in 1988. By 2002, the program was already facing deficit spending, as costs rose to comply with a complex set of state and federal regulations.

The last of three public meetings will take place in Bishop this coming Wednesday, March 16, in Bishop City Hall at 6:30 p.m. Staff will outline the current budget situation, including revenue sources and shortfalls, a summary of expenses and numerous options that would increase revenue or reduce costs.

Residents can complete the survey at www.inyocountysolidwaste.com and make additional comments or suggestions. Comments and ideas can also be mailed to Inyo County Solid Waste, 163 May St., Bishop CA 93514.

Federal and state governments have their hands full trying to avoid being eaten alive by increasing mandates for pensions and other debts, but local governments wrestle with similar debacles as well. Mono County, for instance, has recently been grappling with how to keep its rapidly submerging Solid Waste program afloat. That ship, however, may not be headed for the bottom, thanks to number crunching by the solid waste task force (SWTF) charged with plugging the leak.

Following the height of the County’s building spree in 2006, the bubble burst. Solid waste deposits into the County’s landfill from commercial and residential sectors plummeted more than 40% in just two years. Realizing the meter is running on the solid waste program, which at the moment is losing roughly $80,000 per month, Mono County’s Board of Supervisors tapped into the General Fund reserves last August and approved a $1.2 million short-term “loan” from the reserves until a “corrective plan” could be devised.

Back in 2007, with six transfer stations, a regional landfill, two smaller landfills, recycling and diversion programs, Mono Solid Waste was charging $46 per ton in tipping fees, which at the time also covered debt service on its various facilities. Currently at $50 per ton, the revenue shortfall had the County mulling a boost of more than 90% in the tonnage rate to between $96 and $100 per ton.

New figures from the task force extended the payback time to the General Fund, but will hold tipping fees somewhere south of $96 and keep the program in the black, even if just barely.

Following the Feb. 23 SWTF meeting, County Solid Waste Superintendent Matt Carter reported the group decided on two proposals to present to the Board. Each has a tipping fee increase. Option 1, however, has a reduction in days of operation at each facility, while Option 2 maintains current level of service. The alternate option in each is the A87 state charged and County-budgeted Public Works administrative costs that the group elected to present to the Board as a cost that the fund should not incur. Each option set a tipping fee relative to fund the expenses with an approximate 4% contingency, to avoid going back to the Board for another increase.

Under Option 1A, Benton would operate 1 day, Bridgeport 2 days, Benton Crossing 6 days and Chalfant 2 days, Paradise 1 day, Pumice Valley 2 days and Walker 2 days each per week. All would be closed on County-observed holidays. The tipping fee would increase to $78/ton, with a minimum gate fee of $5, but would mean $114,805 in the black at the end of the year. Option 1B includes options in 1A and a Board “contribution” to offset A87 and Public Works administrative time billed to the Solid Waste fund. The tipping fee increase would only go to $64/ton and a minimum gate fee of $5, and result in a net leftover of $104,500.

Option 2A maintains current levels of service, but in exchange, the tipping fee increases to $82/ton and a minimum gate fee of $5, and drops the left over amount to $97,174. Option 2B also seeks a Board “contribution,” but would lower the tipping fee increase to $70/ton and a minimum gate fee of $5, but yield a $129,555 overage.

Darrol Brown from Yerrington, Nev.-based D&S Waste Removal, who participated in the task force process, submitted ideas for a “third option.” Carter said the option was helpful and indicated the private sector’s willingness to be involved in finding a solution. Several questions were, however, raised by former Board of Supervisors candidate and north county contractor Tim Fesko. And Carter said the option, while well intentioned, had some problems that kept it from being part of the option package to be presented to the Board during its mid-year budget review on Thursday.

Brown’s “third option” suggested Benton Crossing crew reductions, but the state’s Environmental Health Services division said Mono already has one of the smallest staffs in the state, even for rural areas, and in short told Carter staffing “can’t go any lower.” Further proposed reductions of $118,650 in Maintenance costs (from $168,000 to just $50,000) would not reconcile with the yearly amount needed for fuel and other necessary expenses. Last year, Carter said the County spent $77,000 alone in repairs to equipment that is 10 years old, including $37,000 in dozer tracks & engine replacement costs.

Brown wanted “Professional Services” reduced to zero, but Carter said that moving environmental and other legal consultation in house isn’t realistic. He pointed out that scientific and legal specialists are not found in the Solid Waste or Public Works department and have to be contracted out of house to fulfill state mandated studies and other needs.

Lowering “A87” costs from $207,490 t0 $81,000 simply shifts the burden to the General Fund, which is counter to the Solid Waste fund’s being treated as a separate “business” line item, as opposed to classifying it under General Fund. And there are substantial fines levied by the state for poor or neglected work on items such as “Land & Improvements,” which include gas monitoring and would, Carter thinks, suffer if dropped from $75,000 to $30,000. “Transfer Out to Closure” under D&S’s option would be reduced from $67,795 to $50,000, but Carter said those numbers deal with cost projections, and again the state levies fines for not transferring enough money to accomplish a full closure.

“I agree that everyone needs to help out and do more with less,” Fesko commented. “I think that a one-day reduction in most Transfer Stations is more than acceptable. People will complain at first … trust me we used to have 7 days [in the north county], but they’ll get use to it.”

D&S’s option would have meant no loss of revenue or tipping fee increases. “In our opinion, Mono County is going to have to do what everyone else in the public and private sector has had to do in this economy: do less with more,” Brown wrote in an e-mail to Carter. “Will people have to be let go? Unfortunately, yes; however, until the economy has fully recovered and an agreement has been reached for a long-term solution to the solid waste issue, it is very unlikely that the people will approve or allow any increase.”

Carter pointed out that Inyo County is currently in a similar financial predicament keeping up with costs of running its solid waste program, which he indicated might be several hundred thousand dollars in the hole.

Last year, Solid Waste made huge cuts and didn’t pass along anything to the constituents. This year, the argument is cutting service, increasing fees or both. “We could not cut service and increase fees a lot. Seeing how other counties handle it, I’d be fine with that, but you’re not going to make all the people happy,” Carter told The Sheet. “It was really good to have process involving staff, the general public and many players, including waste haulers and environmental oversight.”

No word yet on when it might be agendized for the Board to decide which option will get the nod, but look for action on the matter sooner rather than later.

Presiding Judge Stan Eller swore in recently elected District 4 Supervisor Tim Hansen at the Board meeting on Tuesday.

County’s solid waste situation in the dumps. Fee hikes loom.

Only a few years ago, Mono County’s solid waste program was pretty much on autopilot. It had its ups and downs, but was considered fairly stable. Then, following the height of the County’s building spree in 2006, the bubble burst. Solid waste deposits into the County’s landfill from commercial and residential sectors plummeted more than 40% in just two years.

Realizing the meter is running on the solid waste program, which at the moment is losing roughly $80,000 per month, Mono County’s Board of Supervisors faced the music in the form of the results of a Countywide Solid Waste System Evaluation presented by Mark Urquhart of HDR Engineering. Reality was apparent in the results: the program is in freefall, and something has to be done, and soon, to save it from the abyss.

Fee increases appear to be the most obvious answer, but is that the only route left for supervisors to take? Board members aren’t so sure, and most want to sift through the massive amount of data compiled, hoping to get it right the first time and stem the flow of red ink.

Some history: this past August, as part of its budget process for the coming fiscal year, the Board approved a $1.2 million short-term “loan” from the General Fund reserves until a “corrective plan” can be devised. The “loan” reduced the Board’s reserves by just about half.

Back in 2007, with six transfer stations, a regional landfill, two smaller landfills, recycling and diversion programs, Mono Solid Waste was charging $46 per ton, which at the time also covered debt service on its various facilities. Now priced at $50 per ton, the revenue shortfall has the County weighing a sizable boost in the tonnage rate to between $96 and $100 per ton, an increase of more than 90% in one shot.

Closing up existing landfills isn’t a viable option for both economic and environmental reasons, and the County had been considering shutting down operations one day per week as a cost-saving measure, but that option isn’t practical and frankly yields only a pittance in savings. One option looked at is going to a Long-Haul Transfer Station (LHTS) system, which could mean a savings, bringing the cost in at $84/ton, which Urquhart acknowledged is still a substantial increase.

The question is where would it go from the LHTS? In a letter from Waste Connections, parent company of Mammoth Disposal, VP of Operations Scott Schreiber suggested that, as opposed to the Evaluation’s analysis, which called for bringing outlying area solid waste back to Mammoth, waste from Bridgeport, Walker and Benton should be transferred to an out of county landfill.

Urquhart cautioned against an out of state move, pointing out that “environmentally, it also might be better [handled in county] than other smaller landfills in other states you know little about, especially given new and more stringent air and other quality standards.”

Schreiber’s letter went on to say that the flaw in HDR’s evaluation is that “it presumes that all the waste generated in the county will stay within the County System, even if the landfill tip fees go up to an uncompetitive $100/ton. The reality is that at $100/ton, it will be less expensive to haul the waste to Nevada.” The letter asserted that the HDR evaluation didn’t answer the question, “How high could the County raise the tipping fee before it considers less expensive alternatives?”

Supervisor Hap Hazard rhetorically queried, “How do you keep tip fees lower than $100/ton? There’s no magic bullet out there.” The choices, he pointed out, are few: raise the parcel tax, raise export fees or implement other fees. Hazard said he thinks there will probably be no “big solutions,” but rather lots of little changes amounting to a cumulative solution.

He suggested exploring other methodologies and options (mandatory collection being just one) that should be put on the table for consideration. “The LHTS system [is fine], but doesn’t address the other costs, such as fees that would likely be imposed by the state, for taking solid waste outside the county,” he added.

“At Town-County Liaison meetings, this topic has come up several times. Council is now getting focused on it,” Mammoth Lakes Town Manager Rob Clark told the Board. The Town generates as much as 40-50% (or more) of the County’s solid waste business. He thinks the approach seems to be one of “full-partnership,” under the terms of which both would carry the full load, and both are fully in the loop with one another. “We’ve been focused on our own things lately, but we’re now realizing this is big news,” Clark added.

Kevin Brown from D&S Waste commented that unless the Town is willing to open up the “full partnership” to a second hauler [based] in the County, he would like to build his own transfer station, since he doesn’t have access to Mammoth. (Mammoth Disposal currently has the contract with the Town.) He added, however, that, while he’ll be charging “an amount” per ton, D&S wouldn’t need any County funds to build such a station, and is able to build one with private funding.

“If you go to a $100/ton increase, we’ll lose people. Gull Lake Lodge service,” said Brown, using one of his clients as an example, “could potentially spike from $187 to almost $500 per month. We can do this cheaper and more efficiently,” he posited, requesting the opportunity to make a presentation to the County and the Town to show exactly how that can be accomplished. “I want to find a way for us all to work together. I’m not against anyone, but I am going to protect my interests.”

Beyond a certain point, Brown opined, some independent disposal companies are likely to throw in the towel, unable to compete effectively in an overpriced marketplace. “[D&S] may not give you the best rate, but it will certainly be cheaper,” he added.

“We’re not going to go in and cut fixed costs and have any significant savings,” County Finance Director Brian Muir observed. The County, he said, goes in [the red] deeper by the month, and advocated accelerating the process. “In another six months, we’ll add another $500,000 to our problem.”

Another scenario that the County may not like are how much higher its fees may go, should the planned hike in tipping fees send much of the waste out of the county. “If that happens, how will the County fund the [program] … and make up the shortfall in the Landfill Closure and Post Closure funds?” Schreiber asked.

Ultimately, Hazard said he doesn’t think there’s going to be anyone who likes the solution. “There aren’t going to be any happy campers out there,” he concluded. Some of those campers could end up being Board members, whose political futures could end up on the trash heap, depending on how they opt to resolve the deteriorating solid waste situation.

The County will take the program as developed by HDR Consultants to experiment with some “what if” modeling. Meanwhile, Brown said he plans to roll out his concept to the Town and the Board as soon as possible in January, wanting to wait at least until incoming District 1 Supervisor Larry Johnston is seated.