| Commission considers landfill contract
The proposal would extend the contract five years to
June 30, 2032, and reflect a lateral expansion of 26.6 acres, a
maximum permitted elevation of 1,125 feet and maximum constructed
elevation of 1,093 feet. Santek would be responsible for phased
closure of 41.6 acres, leaving the solid waste board responsible for
closing 11.1 acres.
Santek would close an initial 14 acres no later than
the end of 2021 to reduce the board’s anticipated liability for
closure and post-closure care. A security fee increase of $1 to
$1.75 per ton and a host fee increase of 4 percent to 5.5 percent
are also considered. Hopes are to have $1.6 million remaining in the
security fee account in 2032 after deduction of funds to cover
liability for closure and post-closure care. Commissioners will have
the ability to annually review and make security fee adjustments.
While those items were brought before the county, Van
Shaver, commissioner, took issue with county mayor Rollen “Buddy”
Bradshaw’s intent to annually execute a contract of obligation with
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation in lieu of a
performance bond.
“I don’t know what host fee is, I don’t know what
security fee is, I don’t know what those are, but as long as we
are on the hook of the mayor’s signature, whoever the mayor is,
we’re on the hook to close that landfill unless they get the
bond,” Shaver said. “In my opinion, that should be the entire
negotiation. The money stuff, it doesn’t matter, but they’re
going to be responsible for closing that landfill if they’re
having to carry the bond.”
By signing, Bradshaw said in a follow-up
interview the county would cover the cost for landfill closure
if something were to happen to Santek.
“If we decided we wanted to close the landfill
the day after tomorrow, then you would have that expense that
Buddy gets to sign for every year,” Field said. “The thing to
keep in mind is that if Santek were to go away tomorrow, we
still have a landfill that somebody could operate. We wouldn’t
have to close the landfill.”
Shaver read from a document originally provided
by county attorney Bob Bowman, which notes the county entered
into a contract in lieu of performance bond with TDEC in the
early ‘90s for phase one of Matlock Bend Landfill and phases two
and four in 1997.
“Each year the TDEC contract in lieu of
performance bond is amended and signed by the county mayor
of Loudon County for the proper operation, closure and
post-closure cost of the landfill,” Shaver said. “As of
March 9, 2012, the contract obligation ... for phase one
totals $677,000. Phase two and phase four totals $7,054,000.
This contract of obligation with TDEC is binding, a binding
agreement on the county, and holds the county responsible
for all closure costs associated with the landfill.
Furthermore, this agreement allows the TDEC commissioner to
collect from any funds being dispersed from the state of
Tennessee to the county until such time the county’s
monetary obligation is met.”
Shaver considered the matter a “huge deal.”
“The board is looking at getting a price on
what the bond would cost and I would just say we’re looking
at it,” Field said, noting the issue was discussed at the
October meeting.
Another issue Shaver noted was the proposal’s
outline was based on underlying assumptions, including 641
tons of waste per day for 270 days per year, which amounts
to 173,070 tons per year.
“So it sounds to me like they’re saying,
‘If these benchmarks aren’t met, we’re not bound by the
amendments’,” Shaver said.
“I don’t take it that way,” Field said.
“They had to draw some assumptions to try to figure out
how to price this thing. ... Again, this is an outline
that we’re beginning these negotiations on.”
Hamilton noted the yearly review allows
the board to adjust accordingly.
“There will be a renegotiation in there
to say, ‘We’ll meet and we’ll decide. We didn’t meet
that so now we need to raise what you’re returning to
us,’ or whatever,” Hamilton said. “That’s all going to
be part of the contract.”
Ultimately, the stakeholders will need to
decide if a modification should go through or if they
should “ride out” the contract, which is set to last
until 2027, Littleton-Brewster said.
“So we ride the rest of this contract out
for eight years or we keep on discussing this proposal
with them, and we’re not going to discuss this for eight
years,” she said. “We are going to get something, we’re
not discussing this for eight years. We’re going to make
the decision to either ride this contract out or bring
back and see what you all say.”
Jameson favored the latter option.
“In my opinion, and I’m just one of
the group, might be the best for everybody,” Jameson
said. “Again, we on the commission, and I think I
can speak very strongly for the other commissioners,
is that we’re going to do what the stakeholders’
wishes are. So we assure you that we’re going to
keep your interests and the county’s constituents
interest in line for this.”
|
BACK
10/24/18