{"id":421,"date":"2012-10-13T16:21:02","date_gmt":"2012-10-13T20:21:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2012\/10\/i-dont-think-it-could-get-any-easier-richard-raines-on-solid-waste-lcc-2012-10-09-lcc-2012-10-09.html"},"modified":"2012-10-13T16:21:02","modified_gmt":"2012-10-13T20:21:02","slug":"i-dont-think-it-could-get-any-easier-richard-raines-on-solid-waste-lcc-2012-10-09-lcc-2012-10-09","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2012\/10\/i-dont-think-it-could-get-any-easier-richard-raines-on-solid-waste-lcc-2012-10-09-lcc-2012-10-09.html","title":{"rendered":"“I don’t think it could get any easier” –Richard Raines on solid waste @ LCC 2012-10-09 @ LCC 2012-10-09"},"content":{"rendered":"

\nTuesday the Lowndes County Commission voted to abolish\nthe current rural waste collection centers and to contract with Veolia\nfor waste pickup like in urban areas.\nThis decision on an essentially rural matter\nwas made by three urban Commissioners without any public\nhearing on their current RFP.\n<\/p>\n

\nBefore deciding,\n\nCounty Manager Joe Pritchard gave the history of the county's\nwaste management railroad.<\/a>\nA curiously redacted history.\n<\/p>\n

\n

\n\n<\/a>\nAs y'all know, in FY 04 and 05,\noperating costs of the solid waste program was approximately\n$1.1 million increasing at a rate of approximately 10% a year.\nAs a result the at-that-time recently passed service delivery\n[…] act of General Assembly, the county and the cities of Lowndes County\nwere forced to come to an agreement on the delivery of the vasrious services.\nAs a result of that, solid waste came to be funded strictly on a user fee basis.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nI'm guessing he's referring to HB 489, the\n\nLocal government service delivery strategy agreement<\/a> of 1997.\nAs we learned from Richard Raines Monday,\n\nit's not clear HB 489 precluded a special tax district for waste disposal<\/a>\nsimilar to the special tax lighting districts the county often sets up\nfor streetlights in subdivisions.\nI've seen no indication the county ever seriously looked into that.\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nIn April and May of 2008 the county advertised and conducted a series\nof eight public meetings in which we were asked by Commission\nto gather input from the public regarding the various options that\nwere available.\nDuring those meetings it was obvious that there was not one clear\noption that was chosen by the public.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nObvious to whom?\nFor that matter,\n\n\nwhy should there be only one option?\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nIn 2009 the Commission requested a non-exclusive curbside proposal.\nAt that time Veolia was the only […] to submit bids,\nand that bid was $19.78 a month increasing to $22.01 over a five-year period.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nThat decision was voted on in former chairman Rod Casey's last year on the Commission.\nBefore that, Rod Casey told me that between the Commission and the staff\nthey knew all there was to know about waste management and there\nwas no need for any input from anyone else.\nHm, maybe they didn't know everything, considering their decision\ndidn't work.\nThat same Commission\nrejected Veolia’s bid 25 November 2008,<\/a>\npassing the waste disposal buck to the next Commission.\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nAfter much consideration, the Commission instructed us to […]\na permit card\nand we did so in 2009.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nThe incoming Commission with Ashley Paulk as the new chairman\nhad to pick up the pieces from the previous Commission's failed\ndecision.\nThe current cards are that repair plan.\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nThat card was on sale for $100 annually.\nDuring that time we have changed the number of operating hours and personnel\nto try to maintain operating level and revenue.\nUnfortunately operating costs run annually slightly over\n$400,000.\nThe revenue projections are a little bit complicated.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nThat's it? Just\n"a little bit complicated"?\nNo dollar figures?\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nJust under 5,000 residents who have purchased the cards,\nand approximately over 11,000 unincorporated residents\nwho currently contract with private callers.\nFor the current service to continue,\ncenter hours would decrease, some centers would be closed,\nand the cost of the card would increase.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nOr just increase the price of the card enough to cover the costs.\nWhat are the costs?\nHow much would that increase be?\nWe have no idea.\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nThe final point I'd like to make is that\nduring the period at the beginning of June we offered the cards for sale\nfor a six month period.\nDuring that time the purchasers were provided with an\ninformation sheet\nexplaining the history of the program,\nthe current operation challenges,\nand information explaining that the\nCommission would be seeking requests for proposals\nin order to determine a possible new path of service beginning in 2013.\nAlso an email address was provided and citizens were\nencouraged to send that information\nto county commissioners.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nWe didn't get any such information sheet when we bought a new card.\nI wonder who else didn't get it, and how many did.\n<\/p>\n

\nDid you catch the part about new public hearings related to the new RFP?\nI didn't either, because there were none.\nPritchard is citing four year old hearings under Commissioners none<\/em>\nof whom are still serving,\nas public hearings related to the RFP the current Commission just voted on.\nDoes that seem right to you?\n<\/p>\n

\nIn his\n\npresentation,<\/a>\nKevin Beals once again,\n\n<\/a>\n\nlike the previous day,<\/a>\nreferred to the good response from the "waste disposal community".\nHe said nothing about responses from the community waste disposal is\nsupposed to serve.\nThis wasn't surprising after Pritchard's monologue.\n<\/p>\n

\nCommissioner Richard Raines opined that "it's been out there in the public"\nso people had had plenty of time to respond.\nLater he said three people had contacted him about the waste management RFP.\nApparently this was since the Monday Work Session meeting,\nwhich would indicate that once people did know when a decision\nwas likely to be made, they started contacting their Commissioners.\n<\/p>\n

\nIn the meeting\n\nRaines said:<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\nI'm one of those residents that have a card,\n\n<\/a>\nI pay $100 a year for the card, but I also have curbside.\nI have a large family.\nAnd I end up paying about $30 a month for solid waste.\nAnd I'll let the other commissioners speak for themselves, but\nfor me, option D is the best option.\nIt would represent a significant savings.\nIt's curbside pickup for everything.\nBulky solid waste, residential solid waste, bulky items,\nrecycling,\nyard waste.\nI don't think it could get any easier than to have\nsomeone come to the end of your driveway and pick it up.\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nMaybe he's right; maybe everyone in the rural unincorporated areas\nof the county has a straight, paved driveway no more than 150 feet long.\n<\/p>\n

\n\n<\/a>\nNo other commissioner wanted to speak.\nRaines made a motion to accept proposal D and award it to the\nlowest bidder.\nThe Commissioners agreed to that unanimously.\nAccording to\n\nthe summary sheet,<\/a>\nthat means Veolia for $13.05 a month.\n<\/p>\n

\n$100\/year is $8.33 a month.\nSo $13.05 a month is about 56% more than the current dump site card.\nWhich leads me to wonder whether the county couldn't have\n\n<\/a>\nsimply increased the cost of the card by 56% and closed the financial gap.\nBut there's no way to know, because,\n\nas Richard Raines told Gretchen Quarterman Monday,<\/a>\nthe costs the county has been saying in public for the current\nsites include\nonly the tipping fees and not all the ancilary costs of waste disposal (dumpsters, truck maintenance, fencing repairs, etc.\n<\/p>\n

\nAccording to Commissioner Powell after the meeting adjourned,\nno one is required to buy from Veolia.\nHowever, he said the current trash deposit sites would be closed.\nHe didn't think there would be much problem with trash left beside\nthe road for more than maybe 90 days.\nI guess we'll see.\n<\/p>\n

\nSo three urban Commissioners decided on a rural issue,\nafter never discussing it openly in public, and\nwithout ever holding a public hearing on their current options.\nIt's true Commissioners Raines and Powell live outside Valdosta.\nHowever, both of them live in subdivisions just like ones inside Valdosta.\n<\/p>\n

\n<\/a>\nThese are the same Commissioners who had to have it explained to them\n\nthat putting subdivisions in an area of farmland could adversely\naffect schoolchildren, safety, and farmland<\/a>,\nand that\n\nsprawl is not fiscally prudent.<\/a>\nThey did decide\n\nto table that\nNottinghill subdivision rezoning case<\/a>,\nand the developers never came back.\nBut apparently the Commissioners didn't take to heart any differences\nbetween urban and rural areas.\n<\/p>\n

\nHere's\n\na video playlist:<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n