Print
Comment
Rate
County's recycling effort hits snag in Huachuca City
Shar Porier/Wick Communications
When Marty Haverty was hired as Cochise County's solid waste director, he was tasked with creating a recycling program.
Though the county's campaign began slowly, it has become so successful at the urban and rural transfer stations that the need to find a facility to collect, store, sort and bale recyclables has increased, Haverty said during a special meeting with the county Board of Supervisors last Tuesday.
Haverty and the supervisors thought they had found the perfect fit for the project in the material recycling facility that was virtually abandoned by Huachuca City years ago.
The county recycling committee and the rate review board both acknowledged the county should work toward leasing the site, and a year go, negotiations began between the county and Huachuca City, Haverty explained during a general review of the subject.
"It made sense to take advantage of the existing facility," Haverty said.
They thought at the time that it would be a win-win situation. Huachuca City would gain revenue and the county would not only save precious space in the landfill but could generate a bit of revenue, too, from the sale of recyclables to at least cover the operations cost.
Initial discussions last year led Haverty to believe that the Huachuca City Town Council would be in favor of such an agreement. The county initially offered to lease the facility for $35,000 a year, to spend $50,000 to get it up and running and to hand over 5 percent of the net profits. A clause was added that if the town wanted to dissolve the lease before the county could recoup the money spent on facility preparations, the town would have to pay 125 percent of those costs.
However, the Town Council was not "forthcoming" about how much money it wanted to clinch the deal, Haverty said. The agreement seemed to flounder.
Later on, the county rescinded the offer when the economy tanked and proffered a new offer that would have allowed the county to recoup all costs prior to giving the town any money.
"We offered to give them the first $30,000 after the expenses for refurbishment have been recovered," Haverty said.
Then the town council countered, asking for $31,500 up front and 5 percent of the gross profit, he said. Huachuca City also balked at paying the county 125 percent for the efforts to bring the site back to life. The town offered to let the county take out the sum in trade for law enforcement or street maintenance.
With regulations restricting the spending of money, particularly on roads that are funded through Highway User Revenue Funds, the supervisors agreed that option was out.
County Supervisor Pat Call said he had spoken with a couple of the council members, though he did not identify them, and had gotten the message that "this is their game, their rules."
Supervisor Richard Searle said, "If Huachuca City is firm on their current position, then I'm not sure I want to go back to them with another offer."
There is another white elephant in the room - the economy. Right now, recyclables have regained some of the losses that came with the meltdown of the economy last year, Haverty emphasized.
"It could tank again and we'd be stuck with materials and a useless facility," Haverty said.
"Our job is to protect the ratepayers," Supervisor Ann English said. "We are using county funds."
The supervisors then entered executive session and closed the meeting to the public to discuss putting forth a new offer.
When they reopened the special meeting, Searle made a motion to offer a five-year contract at the rate of $31,500 a year with no profit share and if the town terminated the lease agreement, 100 percent of the cost for refurbishment would be due to the county. The supervisors reasoned that if the town wasn't willing to take risk with the county, the profit-sharing idea was dead. The supervisors also put a 30-day time limit on the proposal for a response.
"I really thought this would be a collaborative effort," Haverty said. "It's just not so."
They stressed, however, that this would be the last offer, and the county would move on to other options if Huachuca City declined again. The supervisors won't say just what those options are.
Huachuca City responds
Town Councilwoman Pat Woodruff said in a phone interview last week that she had been on the council when the initial talks began. She said the council is looking out for the residents.
"The county started with an offer that was palatable," Woodruff said. "Then they came back with another one that was not palatable. That facility is worth $60,000."
The facility was built with a bond measure, Huachuca City Clerk Ron Armstrong said in a phone interview. The bond was paid off just last year, thanks to money made on the town's landfill.
A big concern for Woodruff is the land space the county requested outside the building that would reduce the road to the landfill to just one lane. The town would have to move its public works equipment and provide a new space for maintenance on the landfill equipment. That's an investment Woodruff doesn't want to make at the expense of the residents.
"It's an inappropriate offer and would be detrimental to our town. And I have a strong feeling to protect the town. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me," Woodruff said. "We know what it's worth."
Armstrong said: "We have a long-term investment in the property. Huachuca City residents would be subsidizing the project, since we'd have to build another facility to house public works equipment." He was reluctant to discuss the matter without seeing the actual proposal the county is now offering.
Town Councilman Ken Taylor is more optimistic and is still hoping the deal can be made, though he wants a percentage of the profits added to sweeten the agreement.
"I think it's a great idea," Taylor said. "We could reduce the amount of trash going into our landfill. This facility is under-utilized."
When the town got the site up and running, officials soon found it was not paying for itself and became an expensive operation. So the council shut it down and used it for a maintenance shop for the landfill heavy equipment and public works equipment.
Now, it would cost too much to bring the facility back online for the town, Taylor said. However, he thinks the county offer is "a little bit ridiculous." He said there was a good plan in place until the attorneys got involved and suggested former Mayor George Nerhan may have caused some problems.
Taylor indicated that at one point, an offer was made to lease the facility for storage for $80,000 a year.
"I hope we can get an agreement, but it has to be fair for both sides," Taylor said.
(Shar Porier is a reporter at the Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review.)
When Marty Haverty was hired as Cochise County's solid waste director, he was tasked with creating a recycling program.
Though the county's campaign began slowly, it has become so successful at the urban and rural transfer stations that the need to find a facility to collect, store, sort and bale recyclables has increased, Haverty said during a special meeting with the county Board of Supervisors last Tuesday.
Haverty and the supervisors thought they had found the perfect fit for the project in the material recycling facility that was virtually abandoned by Huachuca City years ago.
The county recycling committee and the rate review board both acknowledged the county should work toward leasing the site, and a year go, negotiations began between the county and Huachuca City, Haverty explained during a general review of the subject.
"It made sense to take advantage of the existing facility," Haverty said.
They thought at the time that it would be a win-win situation. Huachuca City would gain revenue and the county would not only save precious space in the landfill but could generate a bit of revenue, too, from the sale of recyclables to at least cover the operations cost.
Initial discussions last year led Haverty to believe that the Huachuca City Town Council would be in favor of such an agreement. The county initially offered to lease the facility for $35,000 a year, to spend $50,000 to get it up and running and to hand over 5 percent of the net profits. A clause was added that if the town wanted to dissolve the lease before the county could recoup the money spent on facility preparations, the town would have to pay 125 percent of those costs.
However, the Town Council was not "forthcoming" about how much money it wanted to clinch the deal, Haverty said. The agreement seemed to flounder.
Later on, the county rescinded the offer when the economy tanked and proffered a new offer that would have allowed the county to recoup all costs prior to giving the town any money.
"We offered to give them the first $30,000 after the expenses for refurbishment have been recovered," Haverty said.
Then the town council countered, asking for $31,500 up front and 5 percent of the gross profit, he said. Huachuca City also balked at paying the county 125 percent for the efforts to bring the site back to life. The town offered to let the county take out the sum in trade for law enforcement or street maintenance.
With regulations restricting the spending of money, particularly on roads that are funded through Highway User Revenue Funds, the supervisors agreed that option was out.
County Supervisor Pat Call said he had spoken with a couple of the council members, though he did not identify them, and had gotten the message that "this is their game, their rules."
Supervisor Richard Searle said, "If Huachuca City is firm on their current position, then I'm not sure I want to go back to them with another offer."
There is another white elephant in the room - the economy. Right now, recyclables have regained some of the losses that came with the meltdown of the economy last year, Haverty emphasized.
"It could tank again and we'd be stuck with materials and a useless facility," Haverty said.
"Our job is to protect the ratepayers," Supervisor Ann English said. "We are using county funds."
The supervisors then entered executive session and closed the meeting to the public to discuss putting forth a new offer.
When they reopened the special meeting, Searle made a motion to offer a five-year contract at the rate of $31,500 a year with no profit share and if the town terminated the lease agreement, 100 percent of the cost for refurbishment would be due to the county. The supervisors reasoned that if the town wasn't willing to take risk with the county, the profit-sharing idea was dead. The supervisors also put a 30-day time limit on the proposal for a response.
"I really thought this would be a collaborative effort," Haverty said. "It's just not so."
They stressed, however, that this would be the last offer, and the county would move on to other options if Huachuca City declined again. The supervisors won't say just what those options are.
Huachuca City responds
Town Councilwoman Pat Woodruff said in a phone interview last week that she had been on the council when the initial talks began. She said the council is looking out for the residents.
"The county started with an offer that was palatable," Woodruff said. "Then they came back with another one that was not palatable. That facility is worth $60,000."
The facility was built with a bond measure, Huachuca City Clerk Ron Armstrong said in a phone interview. The bond was paid off just last year, thanks to money made on the town's landfill.
A big concern for Woodruff is the land space the county requested outside the building that would reduce the road to the landfill to just one lane. The town would have to move its public works equipment and provide a new space for maintenance on the landfill equipment. That's an investment Woodruff doesn't want to make at the expense of the residents.
"It's an inappropriate offer and would be detrimental to our town. And I have a strong feeling to protect the town. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me," Woodruff said. "We know what it's worth."
Armstrong said: "We have a long-term investment in the property. Huachuca City residents would be subsidizing the project, since we'd have to build another facility to house public works equipment." He was reluctant to discuss the matter without seeing the actual proposal the county is now offering.
Town Councilman Ken Taylor is more optimistic and is still hoping the deal can be made, though he wants a percentage of the profits added to sweeten the agreement.
"I think it's a great idea," Taylor said. "We could reduce the amount of trash going into our landfill. This facility is under-utilized."
When the town got the site up and running, officials soon found it was not paying for itself and became an expensive operation. So the council shut it down and used it for a maintenance shop for the landfill heavy equipment and public works equipment.
Now, it would cost too much to bring the facility back online for the town, Taylor said. However, he thinks the county offer is "a little bit ridiculous." He said there was a good plan in place until the attorneys got involved and suggested former Mayor George Nerhan may have caused some problems.
Taylor indicated that at one point, an offer was made to lease the facility for storage for $80,000 a year.
"I hope we can get an agreement, but it has to be fair for both sides," Taylor said.
(Shar Porier is a reporter at the Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review.)
 |
 |
|
| Scheme attempt at Wal-Mart leads to Tucson couple's arrest | Illegal immigrants, including children, found in refrigerated trailer |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of bensonnews-sun.com.
cdg wrote on Aug 5, 2009 11:54 AM:
However, most (government-run) recycling programs are an utter failure: They cost a great deal of money and accomplish very little of their goal, if any. More non-renewable resources are used to run the programs than are saved, if any. More precious land is used for the program than landfill space saved. And very little of the recyclable materials are actually recycled. Most of them simply end up in some sort of (mostly empty) warehouse storage, instead of the more compact landfill.
Does this mean that recycling is doomed to failure? Of course not. It only fails when the government gets involved. Recycling by private parties has been going on for years, efficiently, and gainfully. Unfortunately, government recycling efforts often outlaw private recycling and salvaging, thus showing Benevolent Big Brother's true colours. "