Reaching a tipping point

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.