Hickman County TN

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Solid Waste Committee · Meeting · Apr 1, 2024

Mon, Apr 1, 2024

Guides landfill operations, recycling, convenience centers, and collection policies for household and commercial waste across the county.

Watch the recording on YouTube

Join the Substack

Outline

This outline was generated by an LLM from a transcript and may contain errors or inaccuracies. Prefer the original recording when available.

The meeting’s main controversy was a preliminary public airing of a proposed regional landfill / industrial park project in Hickman County. Residents near the proposed site strongly objected on groundwater, tributary, traffic, noise, property-value, and river-protection grounds, repeatedly pointing to the Piney, Duck River, Taylor’s Creek, and local wells. Presenters tied the concept to long-term disposal capacity, a claimed future shortage of Middle Tennessee landfill space, elimination of the county’s $90 annual solid-waste fee, and a projected $23 million host-fee revenue stream over decades. No landfill vote occurred; committee members emphasized this was informational only and that any real path forward would require zoning, Jackson Law approval, and later state permitting with multiple public hearings.

Routine solid-waste business also included monthly tonnage and finances, notice that maintenance and lubricant lines are running short, a late-arriving value-engineered bid from Mack on the closed ECD center project that was deferred for later review, the start of a penalty amnesty period that collected $4,700 on day one, draft FY 2024–2025 budget discussion including a proposed 5% employee raise assumption, and approval of the annual progress report required by the state. Other notable threads below include the Perry County transfer arrangement profit, the county’s adoption of Jackson Law, and references to TDEC, EPA, and TVA in project and regulatory discussion.

Call to Order; Approval of Agenda; Public Comment 2:40

  • 2:47 Roll call showed all members present.
  • 3:02 Agenda approval was requested and approved by voice vote.
  • 3:26 Public comment rules were explained: speakers had 2 minutes, comments only, no committee response during that period.

Public Comments on Proposed Regional Landfill 4:16

Nearby property owners and residents 4:16

  • 4:16 A resident whose property lies directly behind the proposed regional landfill objected to pollution risks in air, water, soil, noise, and traffic, and said the site is roughly 1 mile from the Duck/Piney convergence and should not be developed as a landfill.
  • 5:23 Another resident living about 1 mile downstream said the terrain drains toward the Piney River or Taylor’s Creek through rock layers and tributaries, arguing contamination would eventually reach the river and reduce land values.
  • 6:17 A farm owner with multiple wells and livestock downstream said the county does not need a “super landfill,” citing past experience with contaminated monitoring wells at another landfill and saying the county should not invite that risk.
  • 7:41 A speaker said his family is building a new house near the site and that this project is not what nearby residents wanted.
  • 8:29 A resident who described Hickman County as the most pristine place he has seen said the county may need a landfill for its own use but questioned the proposed regional scale; he specifically asked whether waste from the planned lithium battery plant could be disposed there.
  • 9:36 Another speaker emphasized the beauty of the Piney and Duck rivers and urged the committee not to allow a landfill at that location.
  • 10:16 A resident questioned whether local roads could handle truck traffic and asked whether taxpayers would end up paying for road damage as well as pollution impacts.
  • 10:56 A final speaker said the site is surrounded by major tributaries on multiple sides and argued that runoff from the ridges and hollows would drain toward the rivers, making it a poor location.

Approval of Minutes 11:58

  • 11:58 Minutes from the previous meeting were approved after motion and second.

Department / Official Reports 12:11

Solid Waste Director monthly report 12:11

  • 12:19 Monthly tonnage was described as normal for the month.
  • 12:37 Expenditure review showed pressure on the equipment maintenance and lubricant budget lines; overall spending was said to be about 61% of the total budget.
  • 13:27 Revenue reporting was incomplete because the meeting fell on the first of the month and the trustee’s office was tied up, prompting discussion of moving future meeting dates when timing interferes with month-end reporting.
  • 14:49 Under the Perry County transfer arrangement, the department reported a monthly profit of $3,526 from using the transfer station for Perry County’s haul to a Class I landfill.
  • 15:30 No April holiday closures were planned.
  • 15:38 On the closed ECD center project, a value-engineered bid from Mack was received only that afternoon after the earlier bid had expired the previous day; because members had no time to review it, the matter was deferred to the next meeting rather than debated on the spot.
  • 16:37 The penalty amnesty period began that day; the department received $4,700 in old money on day one, which members noted was only the first day.
  • 17:02 Equipment condition discussion confirmed that maintenance and lubricant lines are largely depleted and likely require budget amendments; the cardboard truck had returned from repair, which was described as a major bill.
  • 17:47 A draft FY 2024–2025 budget was distributed for review ahead of next month’s submission.
  • 18:18 Members flagged lubricants as already running high this year and suggested increasing that line in the next budget.
  • 19:42 Payroll assumptions in the draft used a 5% raise across the board for employees, described as the consensus request from department heads and elected officials, except for the sheriff’s department; members noted any raise target may require offsetting cuts elsewhere.
  • 21:04 The committee reviewed the annual progress report submitted to the state through the solid waste district process. The report covers recycling percentage, landfill tonnage, staffing, and equipment.
  • 21:59 Board approval and mayoral approval were said to be required before submission.
  • 22:08 Motion to approve the annual progress report carried by roll-call vote 8–0.
  • 22:39 Motion to approve the financial reports also carried by roll-call vote 8–0.
  • 23:11 The director attached a copy of Jackson Law, which Hickman County has adopted. Members said that because of that adoption, local approval is required before the state will consider a landfill permit application.
  • 23:51 Committee discussion clarified that any new landfill, including one pursued by the county itself, would have to go through the Jackson Law process.
  • 24:17 Officials said they were still moving forward on the county’s own landfill-related planning and expected to coordinate with state or congressional offices, including staff for Sen. Marsha Blackburn or others, once their internal plan was organized.

New Business / Agenda Items 25:07

Suspension of rules to allow other commissioners to join landfill presentation 25:07

  • 25:07 The committee moved to suspend rules so any county commissioner present could sit with the committee, receive materials, and ask questions during the presentation on the proposal; approved by voice vote.
  • 26:04 The chair explained the purpose was transparency: bringing the proposal into an open, livestreamed meeting before the public and the full set of interested commissioners, rather than letting discussion happen informally or after the fact.

Background on landfill need and host-fee concept 27:35

  • 27:35 Former solid waste director Marty gave background from nearly 19 years in Hickman County and over 30 years in the trash business, saying he had pushed the landfill issue for years.
  • 28:16 He argued Middle Tennessee disposal capacity is tightening, stating Middle Point in Murfreesboro is expected to close in about 2 years, that 20 counties currently send trash there, and that the West Tennessee destination used by Hickman also has limited airspace.
  • 28:41 He said household-waste landfill capacity in Middle Tennessee is under 6 years, and if capacity shifts farther away, hauling to places like Shelby County could double or triple costs.
  • 29:14 He said the county’s solid-waste system cannot keep working financially at the current $90 annual fee, which he said has been unchanged for about 28 years while trash has long been hauled to Benton County.
  • 30:19 He argued a host-fee arrangement from a regional landfill could eliminate the $90 annual fee and create millions in county revenue.
  • 29:43 He defended modern lined landfills as fundamentally different from older dumps, saying current facilities are built with multiple liner layers and governed by post-1991 / 1992 rules.
  • 31:50 He said preliminary work already included maps of wells and houses within about a 1-mile radius and geological investigation.
  • 32:13 He noted a prior 2012 attempt at a regional landfill in the Lewis/Perry County area failed because of location and interstate issues.
  • 32:45 He framed the current proposal as a revenue opportunity with enough buffer to limit smell and noise, while emphasizing that nothing was being voted on that night.

Committee explanation of process and limits of the meeting 33:05

  • 33:05 The chair stressed again that the committee was not voting on the landfill proposal and that any future action would follow normal public procedures through planning, zoning, and other required stages.
  • 33:36 A member had to interrupt an attempted public back-and-forth, reiterating that no additional public comment or questioning was allowed during the presentation segment.

Developer / consultant presentation on landfill and industrial park concept 34:05

Revenue, waste controls, and landfill rationale 34:05

  • 34:29 The presenters said they had studied the concept for 3 to 4 years after being approached locally and were trying to create a county revenue stream.
  • 34:45 They focused first on the current $90 annual solid-waste fee, saying it is tight now and likely to rise if disposal costs increase.
  • 36:35 A key claim was that the project could generate about $23 million for the county over 40 years through host fees.
  • 36:50 Presenters stressed the facility would be a modern regulated landfill, not an old-style open dump.
  • 37:03 They said leachate from municipal solid waste would be captured in storage tanks and hauled by tanker to treatment plants in Nashville or Memphis rather than discharged locally.
  • 37:37 In response to the public question about lithium battery waste, a presenter said lithium batteries could not legally be disposed in a municipal solid waste landfill and that doing so could trigger criminal penalties.
  • 38:16 Presenters claimed the state would likely help fund road widening or other improvements needed to support the project.
  • 38:53 One presenter said if residents had a better location in Hickman County with interstate access and suitable characteristics, the group would examine it.

Industrial park framing and co-location concept 39:28

  • 39:28 A presenter said the concept was broader than a landfill alone and should be understood as an industrial development or industrial park.
  • 39:35 He described a “European model” of co-locating recycling, landfill operations, methane use, and related industry to reduce transport and create synergies.
  • 40:09 He said the plan aimed to create multiple jobs through recycling and industries that need nearby disposal capacity.
  • 40:39 The landfill was described as the revenue engine that would support broader industrial growth and provide non-tax revenue to the county.
  • 41:04 Presenters said parcels of 1,000-plus acres with enough room to center a landfill and maintain large buffers are rare, and that sites generally need to be several counties away from a major metropolitan area.
  • 41:36 They argued the location was near the lower end of the Piney and Duck system and therefore not affecting drinking-water sources, while also stating modern lined landfills permitted after the early-1990s solid waste act had not leaked.
  • 42:26 The concept materials included a C&D landfill, industrial pad sites, and other development areas.
  • 42:50 Presenters also described roughly 3 separate tracts of about 10 acres each, or about 30 acres total, for solar uses.
  • 42:57 They said methane generated by the landfill could support a TVA generator arrangement, with power potentially sold back into the grid.

Questions from commissioners on proposal details 44:01

Why Hickman County; traffic; developer experience 44:01

  • 44:01 Commissioners asked whether neighboring counties were under serious consideration; presenters said they had looked elsewhere but none fit as well.
  • 44:27 Asked for the top reasons Hickman was preferred, the response was interstate access, rural setting, and available workforce.
  • 45:57 A commissioner asked about truck traffic; the answer was that at full build-out the site might see about 240 trucks per day, with truck types similar to current long-haul solid-waste transport.
  • 46:45 Commissioners asked for references and prior work; presenters cited landfill work in Humphreys County since 2006 and one presenter said he had built roughly 50 landfills across Tennessee, including Johnson City, Lewisburg, and Memphis-area work.

Project life, acreage, closure, and future use 48:20

  • 48:20 Commissioners asked about a slide showing a 27-year life; the response was that the initial municipal solid waste area was projected at about 27 years, while a larger build-out scenario could reach 43 years.
  • 49:02 Acreage discussion indicated an initial Class I footprint of about 250 acres and a larger possible footprint around 400 acres.
  • 49:18 Asked what happens after closure, presenters said the operator would fund 30- to 50-year post-closure care under state guidance before transition into custodial care with continuing inspections.
  • 49:49 Potential reuse after closure was described as solar farms, green space, bike trails, or similar non-intensive uses.

Existing county landfill example and local comparison 50:24

  • 50:24 Members compared the concept to the county’s already-closed municipal landfill on Sky Drive near the airport, saying a closed Class I site eventually resembles a grassed-over hill with vent pipes.
  • 50:41 It was noted that MLEC is seeking more solar sites and that solar generation percentages could help utilities qualify for grants.

Tipping fees, lease model, and utilities 51:30

  • 51:30 A commissioner asked what Hickman County would pay to use the proposed landfill. The response was that the county would pay the lowest tipping fee available to any customer, with pricing tied to volume.
  • 52:25 Another question asked whether, once built, the landfill would be leased to an outside operator such as Waste Management; the answer indicated a lease/operator arrangement of that general type.
  • 52:52 Utility questions covered the industrial pads. Presenters said electric demand might be around 5 kV service for typical users, not a heavy industrial load.
  • 53:49 Water and sewer needs were described as relatively modest because likely tenants would be recycling or light industrial operations, not high-water-use manufacturing.
  • 54:43 Sewer planning might rely on a small regional system and drip irrigation field.
  • 54:35 Potential tenants mentioned included sawmills and countertop makers needing nearby C&D disposal for residual material.

Site ownership and selection 55:00

  • 55:00 Commissioners noted the property owner was Tennessee Forest Land and asked whether the development group would purchase the tract; the answer was yes, if the project proceeded.
  • 55:15 Asked whether the tract’s availability for sale was the main reason for choosing it, presenters said no; they cited interstate proximity, topography, and other suitability criteria.
  • 55:39 Marty said he had worked with the forest-land owners for over 8 years.
  • 56:24 Presenters reiterated that the proposed waste streams were household trash and C&D, not unrestricted industrial waste.

Explanation of future approval path 57:47

  • 57:47 A presenter outlined the three major approval tracks still ahead if the idea moved forward.
  • 58:02 First would be planning and zoning action to change the property from agricultural/residential use to industrial use.
  • 58:10 Second, the regional solid waste board would need to hear the matter formally.
  • 58:19 Third, because the county has adopted Jackson Law, there would have to be a separate local-approval process before state permitting could even begin.
  • 58:33 The presenter said those local steps only allow the applicant to start talking to the state and fully investigating the site.
  • 58:39 The full process was described as at least 5 years for the municipal solid waste landfill, with C&D potentially faster.
  • 58:54 Even after local steps, the state would conduct technical review and issue any draft permit only after further process, followed by another public hearing.
  • 59:28 A commissioner emphasized to residents that future hearings would allow them to ask questions and get answers directly from those promoting the project.

Announcements and procedural clarification 1:00:03

  • 1:00:03 A commissioner asked the public to remain patient and participate through the process rather than escalate tensions.
  • 1:00:18 A resident asked whether the format could be changed so the public could ask questions after hearing presentations.
  • 1:01:29 Committee members responded that state law requires public comment near the beginning of the meeting after agenda approval and does not allow committee back-and-forth during that comment period.
  • 1:01:59 Members said later meetings would occur after the public had more information and that future hearings would provide additional opportunities for questions.

Adjournment 1:02:24

  • 1:02:24 Motion to adjourn was made and seconded as the Public Safety Committee meeting was already beginning.

Key figures and statistics

Figure Type Context / topic Timestamp
5:00 Time Meeting start time referenced at call to order 2:40
2 minutes Time limit Public comment allotment per speaker 3:26
1 mile Distance Approximate distance from proposed landfill to Duck/Piney convergence, per public comment 4:49
1 mile Distance Approximate distance of downstream residence from proposed site 5:23
4 Count Number of groundwater wells on one farm downstream, per public comment 6:17
61% Budget percentage Portion of total solid-waste budget reportedly expended 12:53
$3,526 Revenue / profit Monthly profit from Perry County transfer-station arrangement 14:57
$4,700 Collections First-day collections from penalty amnesty period 16:44
2024–2025 Fiscal year Draft budget under review 17:47
5% Raise assumption Across-the-board employee raise request built into draft budget 19:42
8–0 Vote Approval of annual progress report 22:22
8–0 Vote Approval of financial reports 22:56
19 Years Marty’s years running Hickman County solid waste 27:58
30 Years Marty’s broader trash-industry experience 27:58
2 years Time horizon Claimed timeline to closure of Middle Point landfill 28:16
20 counties Count Number of counties said to send trash to Middle Point 28:24
6 years Capacity estimate Claimed remaining household-waste airspace in Middle Tennessee 28:41
$90 Annual fee Current county solid-waste fee per resident / household 29:14
28 years Time span Length of time solid-waste fee and Benton County haul arrangement were said to have existed 29:14
$800,000 Budget figure Approximate amount “out” in the solid-waste system, as described in argument for landfill revenue 30:19
7 Count Number of liner layers claimed in landfill anatomy explanation 29:52
1 mile Radius Mapping radius for nearby wells and houses already studied 31:50
2012 Year Prior Lewis/Perry regional-landfill attempt referenced 32:13
3 to 4 years Time span Length of developer team’s study of the concept 34:29
40 years Time span Revenue projection period for host-fee estimate 36:35
$23 million Revenue projection Estimated host-fee revenue to county over project life 36:35
240 trucks per day Traffic estimate Full-build daily truck volume estimate 46:13
2006 Year Start of landfill work in Humphreys County cited as experience 47:00
50 Count Approximate number of landfills one presenter said he had built 47:23
27 years Lifespan Initial MSW landfill life estimate 48:20
43 years Lifespan Larger possible landfill life estimate 48:30
250 acres Acreage Initial Class I landfill area discussed 49:02
400 acres Acreage Larger maximum MSW footprint discussed 49:02
30 to 50 years Post-closure period State-guided post-closure care period discussed 49:18
3 tracts Count Number of solar tracts in concept 42:50
10 acres Acreage Approximate size of each solar tract 42:50
30 acres Acreage Total solar acreage in concept 42:50
5 kV Utility capacity Approximate electric service discussed for industrial pads 53:40
100 personnel Capacity Rough size of small sewer system contemplated for industrial users 54:43
8 years Time span Length Marty said he had worked with Tennessee Forest Land owners 55:39
5 years Time horizon Minimum process estimate to permit MSW landfill 58:39

External vendors, brands, and software

Name Type Context / topic Timestamp
Mack Company Late-arriving value-engineered bid on closed ECD center project 15:38
TDEC Company State environmental regulator requiring annual progress report and permit compliance, as named in transcript context 21:04
Baron Hill Ventures Company Developer group presenting landfill / industrial park concept 48:12
Dale Smith Individual Presenter for developer group on landfill revenue and regulatory claims 56:53
Jason Rehrer Individual Presenter explaining industrial park concept and process 56:53
Randy Drake Individual Presenter cited for landfill construction experience 31:07
BFI Company Waste company mentioned in Marty’s career background 28:07
Waste Management Company Example operator named in discussion of future lease / operations model 52:25
TVA Company Mentioned for generator interconnection and solar / power-sale concept 42:57
MLEC Company Utility mentioned as seeking land for solar farms 50:41
EPA Company Federal involvement mentioned in landfill permitting process 1:01:11
Tennessee Forest Land Company Property owner of proposed site 55:00

Laws and policies

| Citation / name | Level | Type | Context / topic | Timestamp | |---|---|---|---| | Jackson Law | State | Law | Hickman County’s adopted local-approval requirement before state considers a landfill permit application | 23:11 | | Solid Waste Act of 1991 | State | Law | Cited in discussion of modern landfill liner and collection requirements versus older dumps | 30:01 | | state law requiring public comment after agenda approval | State | Law | Cited to explain why public comment occurred before residents heard the landfill presentation and why there was no Q&A during comment period | 1:01:29 |