Caving to pressure from environmental activists, the Alamance County Board of Commissioners has rescinded its initial approval and is prohibiting its county manager from investigating a public-private partnership that could create a multimillion-dollar revenue stream for the county by turning its solid-waste landfill into a regional operation. Just weeks after giving its unanimous approval, only retiring Chairman John Patterson supported County Manager David Cheek’s recommendation to pursue interest by four waste management companies in operating the Austin Quarter Landfill near Saxapahaw.
The 4-1 vote in September all but guaranteed Alamance County residents will be hit with multiple property tax rate increases over the next several years as the county struggles to fund public services supported by residents and commissioners. The policy turnabout capped a contentious period that began in August when commissioners gave Cheek’s office the go-ahead to look into regionalizing and privatizing the landfill. But when opposition surfaced, primarily from the Coalition for Environmental Responsibility & Education through Synergy, Patterson said commissioners got nervous, especially those running for re-election.
“I don’t think they realized how much vocal opposition there would be,” he said. As a result, rate increases are inevitable, Patterson said, something he tried to avoid by looking at the landfill opportunity. “We had a real gold mine there,“ he said. “I wish I knew how many millions we just passed up.”
So does Cheek, but he said it’s nothing more than speculation now that the idea is off-limits. What he does know is that the county faces a long list of expenses: student population growth, a $36 million school bond referendum on the November ballot, the construction of a $10 million jail, and a Medicaid burden that is trending up. “My motives for wanting to push this idea were purely business, financial motives to help fund government and some of the services that citizens keep demanding but yet don’t want to pay for,” he said.
Property taxes account for 50 percent of the county budget and Cheek said the tax rate is the only item the county can move up or down to significantly affect resources. The current rate is 51 cents per $100. He anticipates a 4-cent jump before fiscal 2006-2007 unless other revenue is secured.
Cheek has tried to keep the county’s property tax rate low. In fiscal 2001-2002, it was 52.5 cents per $100. The next year, it was lowered to 42 cents to keep it revenue- neutral after a property revaluation. But in fiscal 2003-2004, the rate was increased to 50 cents per $100, in part to make up for $3.5 million in local reimbursements withheld from the county by Gov. Mike Easley. Cheek anticipates the rate will jump to at least 52 cents in 2005-2006 to make debt payments on a new 240-bed jail.
If the school bond passes, it will force an additional half-cent jump, he said, pushing the rate to 52.5. Cheek projects fiscal 2006-2007 will likely see another increase of 2.5 cents for school bond expenses and correctional officers at the jail, scheduled to be completed in 2006.
Despite the commissioners’ decision, Cheek continues to look for other cash sources. For example, he hopes to lease unused beds in the new jail to other agencies.
He regrets not being able to pursue landfill options but said he understands his job is to implement board policy. That means sticking with a county-owned and county-operated facility, which employs nine and receives about 100,000 tons of trash per year.
The county generates $3.6 million in landfill revenue annually and, after expenses, nets $400,000, which goes into a fund for future costs related to closure and post-closure of the facility. Yearly operational expenses include $860,000 paid to Santek Environmental Inc, which uses its equipment and employees to compact and cover the trash.
Cheek is convinced the county could produce more profit by being creative and working with a private firm to fill the need for a regional landfill. In addition to four companies that recently expressed interest, Santek inquired in 2001 about expanding its relationship with the county, but information presented to commissioners went nowhere.
“Citizens came out of the woodwork as they did two months ago,” said Cheryl Dunson, vice president of marketing for Santek. She said the firm’s 2001 proposal would have reduced the county’s expenses by more than $11 million over 10 years and, eventually, provided as much as $4.1 million per year back to the county.
Santek would have accomplished that, Dunson said, by marketing the landfill to haulers, accepting trash from outside the county, and sharing revenues with the county. “There was a lot of misconception at the time,” she said. “The public perceived the county to be losing control of the landfill, but the county would have owned it.”
Cheek points to Sampson County as the model he used as his recent guide to Alamance County’s potential. Sampson’s regional landfill is owned and operated by Waste Industries and generates about $1.3 million per year in host fees for the county, said Susan Holder, assistant county manager.
That cash has allowed officials to pay down debt, improve community college facilities, reduce proposed property tax rate increases, provide residents free access to the landfill, and pay for regulatory costs for monitoring the landfill when it closes in 30 to 40 years. She said the county also benefits from taxes paid by Waste Industries employees and on the vehicles used by firms associated with the landfill’s operation.
Holder said there was opposition from residents in 1992 when Sampson officials signed the agreement with what was then BFI, but some were supportive once they understood the services the regional landfill would fund.
Today, the landfill is well-manicured and attracts little attention. “If you didn’t know it was a landfill, you wouldn’t know it when you drive by,” she said.
That’s the irony of the not-in-my-backyard mentality, said Chris Roof, general manager of MRR Southern, a Raleigh firm specializing in construction and demolition landfills.
“Public chaos is created because of perceptions of old town dumps. That’s not the case,” he said, noting that EPA regulations govern lined landfills.
He likens their design and safeguards to “dry entombment.” They don’t attract attention, he said, explaining that a northern Wake County landfill was established when the area was undeveloped but its neighbors now include schools and homes.
Roof experienced the NIMBY phenomenon firsthand when his company proposed a municipal solid-waste landfill to Lee County officials in the spring of 2003. Public opposition was stiff.
Accusations flew about groundwater contamination and out-of-control truck traffic. Things got so politically charged that Roof rescinded the application later that year. “It would have been an excellent opportunity,” he said.
That sentiment represents more than his opinion; the law of supply and demand is at work. The state’s annual report on solid waste management for fiscal 2002-2003 notes that while North Carolina has 41 operational municipal solid-waste landfills, much of the capacity “is not widely available due to permit conditions, franchise arrangements, political decisions, and distance.”
“We’re handcuffed by local government,” Roof said.
Donna Martinez is associate editor of Carolina Journal.