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 committee’s main substantive business was routine solid-waste operations plus a lengthy, contentious informational presentation on a proposed regional landfill / industrial park concept in Hickman County. Public comments were uniformly opposed to the site discussed, focusing on risks to the Duck River, Piney River, Taylor’s Creek tributaries, groundwater, traffic, road wear, property values, and the county’s natural character. Committee members did not vote on the landfill concept; presenters described it as an early-stage proposal that would still require zoning action, a Jackson Law vote, and later state permitting and public hearings. Supporters argued the project could eliminate the county’s $90 annual solid-waste fee and produce about $23 million over 40 years, while opponents challenged the location and environmental claims.

Other notable threads included ordinary tonnage and finance reports; concern that maintenance and lubricant budget lines are running short; a late-arriving bid package tied to the ECD center that was deferred for review; $4,700 collected on the first day of a penalty-amnesty period; a draft 2024–2025 solid-waste budget including discussion of a proposed 5% raise assumption; and approval of the annual progress report required by the state. The committee also reviewed Perry County transfer-station revenue and acknowledged that meeting timing may be limiting access to current trustee revenue figures.

Call to Order; Agenda; Public Comment 2:40

  • 2:47 Roll call showed all members present.
  • 3:02 Agenda approval was moved, seconded, and approved by voice vote.
  • 3:26 Chair explained public-comment rules: speakers would have about 2 minutes each, comments had to be on the agenda, and the committee would not answer questions during that period.

Public Comments on proposed regional landfill 4:16

  • 4:16 A nearby property owner said the proposed regional landfill would place air, water, soil, noise, and traffic impacts directly behind their property; stressed its proximity to the Duck River and the confluence of the Duck and Piney; urged the county not to allow it.
  • 5:23 Another speaker living about 1 mile downstream argued the area drains through tributaries into the Piney River and Taylor’s Creek, saying groundwater and river contamination would hurt land values.
  • 6:17 A speaker identifying his farm as the county’s oldest family-owned farm said his household and livestock depend on groundwater wells downstream of the proposed site; cited experience with “super landfills” and monitoring wells and argued the county does not need that risk.
  • 7:41 A resident building a new house near the site said the landfill is not what local families want.
  • 8:22 A speaker said Hickman County is one of the most pristine places he has seen and asked whether waste from a proposed lithium battery plant could be disposed of at the site.
  • 9:36 Another resident urged the county not to put a landfill next to the Piney and Duck rivers, calling the area exceptionally beautiful.
  • 10:16 A speaker questioned whether local roads could handle landfill truck traffic and asked whether taxpayers would bear road costs in addition to pollution risk.
  • 10:56 A final commenter, familiar with the property from past hunting use, said the tract is surrounded on multiple sides by tributaries draining toward the rivers and called it a poor location.

Approval of Minutes 11:58

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

Department / Official Reports

Solid Waste Director / monthly operations 12:11

  • 12:19 Tonnage report was described as routine / normal for the month.
  • 12:37 Expenditure report showed pressure on several budget lines, especially equipment maintenance and lubricants; despite that, the department was said to be around 61% of its total budget.
  • 13:27 Revenue statement was incomplete because the meeting fell on the first of the month and the trustee’s office was unavailable; members discussed possibly shifting the meeting date so revenue reports would be more current.
  • 14:49 Perry County transfer-station report showed the county profited $3,526 for the month by transferring through its station to the Perry County arrangement.
  • 15:21 Director noted there are no April holidays affecting operations.
  • 15:38 A value-engineered bid tied to the ECD center arrived late that afternoon from Max via Daryl James; because the prior bid had expired the day before and the new material came too late for proper review, the committee agreed informally to study it and revisit it next month rather than debate it unprepared.
  • 16:37 Penalty-amnesty period began that day; the department received $4,700 in old-money collections on day one.
  • 17:12 Equipment maintenance and lubricant lines were described as “pretty much depleted,” and the director said budget amendments would likely be needed.
  • 17:20 Members confirmed the cardboard truck had been returned, and that repair had been a major bill.
  • 17:47 A draft 2024–2025 budget was provided for review ahead of next month’s submission.
  • 18:18 Members flagged lubricants as already running high this year and said the line should be increased in next year’s budget.
  • 19:07 Discussion of the capital-outlay reserve indicated much of that reserve had been used on a grant-related item, affecting the year-over-year comparison.
  • 19:42 The draft budget assumed 5% payroll raises across the board for employees, based on agreement among department heads and elected officials; the mayor said the state had given 6%, but local officials chose to request 5% generally, excluding the sheriff’s service area. Members noted that if raises rise in one place, reductions elsewhere may be needed.

Annual progress report to the state 21:04

  • 21:12 Sydney Brewer of the development district explained that the annual progress report required by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation documents recycling percentage, landfill tonnage, personnel and equipment changes, and other district information.
  • 21:59 Because the report requires board approval and mayoral approval, a motion was made and seconded to approve it.
  • 22:22 Roll-call vote approved the annual progress report 8–0.

Approval of financial reports 22:39

  • 22:39 Committee approved the financial reports by motion, second, and roll-call vote.
  • 22:56 Financials passed 8–0.

Information item: Jackson Law and local approval requirement 23:11

  • 23:18 The chair attached and summarized the county’s adopted Jackson Law, explaining that for any new landfill permit application, local approval is required before the state will consider the permit.
  • 23:27 Members emphasized this is separate from zoning and applies to any landfill, including one pursued by the county itself.
  • 24:17 Asked for updates on broader landfill discussions, officials said they were continuing to move forward in planning and coordination, including work to align strategy before meeting with legislative offices and staff.

New Business / Agenda Items 25:07

Suspension of rules to let commissioners join discussion 25:07

  • 25:07 A motion was made to suspend the rules so any county commissioner present could join the committee table, receive copies, listen, and ask questions during the upcoming presentation.
  • 25:25 Motion passed by voice vote.

Informational presentation: proposed regional landfill / industrial park 26:04

  • 26:04 Chair said the proposal had first been brought to his attention about a week earlier and that he intentionally placed it before the committee in a public, livestreamed setting so commissioners and residents could hear the same information at the same time rather than learn of it later through rumors or signs.
  • 27:35 Former solid-waste director Marty outlined the background:
    • 27:43 He said he had worked in solid waste for over 30 years, including about 19-plus years running the county operation.
    • 28:16 He warned that Middle Point in Murfreesboro is expected to close in about 2 years, affecting regional disposal capacity.
    • 28:24 He said about 20 counties send trash to Middle Point and 9 counties send trash to the west-side landfill used by Hickman County.
    • 28:41 He argued there is less than 6 years of Middle Tennessee household-waste airspace left.
    • 28:50 He said if local disposal options shrink, Hickman County may have to haul toward places like Shelby County, potentially doubling or tripling disposal costs.
    • 29:14 He said the county’s solid-waste system, supported by the $90 resident fee in place for about 28 years, lacks the financial capacity to absorb those future costs.
    • 30:19 He argued host fees from a regional landfill could eliminate the $90 fee and produce major county revenue; he also stated county receivables were over $800,000.
    • 31:07 He introduced the proposal team, describing them as trusted, experienced landfill and engineering professionals, and said geological and site work had already been started.
  • 33:05 Chair stressed there was no vote on the landfill that night and that normal procedures would still involve planning and zoning, local review, and public hearings.

Developer / consultant case for the project 34:05

  • 34:29 Presenter said the group had spent 3–4 years evaluating ideas after being approached about the county’s need for a revenue stream.
  • 34:45 He focused on the county’s $90 annual solid-waste fee, asking whether it truly covers operations; committee comments indicated the budget is tight.
  • 35:54 He argued a host-fee model could eliminate the $90-plus fee and that disposal costs elsewhere are likely to rise substantially as landfill capacity tightens.
  • 36:35 He projected roughly $23 million in revenue to Hickman County over 40 years.
  • 36:50 He emphasized that Tennessee permits modern landfills, not old-style “dumps,” and said leachate is captured, tanked, and transported for treatment rather than discharged on-site.
  • 37:37 In response to a public question, he said lithium batteries could not legally be disposed of in a municipal solid-waste landfill and that doing so could trigger criminal penalties.
  • 38:16 He asserted the state would be receptive to funding road improvements tied to such a project.
  • 38:53 He challenged opponents to identify a better site close to the interstate and said the group would evaluate alternatives if offered.

Engineering / industrial-park framing 39:28

  • 39:28 Another presenter said the concept was not just a landfill but an industrial-park model centered on waste, recycling, and related industries.
  • 39:35 He described a “European model” where recycling, landfill operations, methane users, and supporting industries are clustered together to reduce transport and create synergies.
  • 40:09 He said the project’s broader goal was to attract jobs in recycling and related industries needing nearby disposal options.
  • 40:39 He argued host-fee revenue would give the county long-term non-tax-base growth.
  • 41:04 He said viable sites need roughly 1,000-plus acres so the landfill can sit in the center with large buffers.
  • 41:36 He argued the site’s location near the end of the Piney and Duck systems means it is not upstream of drinking-water intakes, while also asserting that modern post-1991 / post-1992 landfill liners have not leaked.
  • 42:26 He said plans contemplated a C&D landfill, multiple industrial pad sites, about 30 acres of solar areas in three 10-acre tracts, and a TVA generator setup using methane.
  • 43:22 He invited skeptical residents to engage because hard questions are useful in evaluating whether the concept truly benefits the county.

Commissioner questions and responses 44:01

  • 44:01 A commissioner asked whether other Middle Tennessee counties were also being seriously considered. Presenter said some had been reviewed but none fit as well.
  • 44:27 A commissioner asked for the top reasons Hickman County was the preferred site aside from Marty’s outreach.
  • 44:44 Response identified three principal attractions: interstate access, rural location, and an available workforce.
  • 45:48 A commissioner asked about truck traffic.
  • 46:13 Presenter estimated that at full build-out the landfill might receive about 240 trucks per day.
  • 46:45 Asked for references / prior work, presenters cited landfill work in Humphreys County since 2006 without state write-ups and said one member had built roughly 50 landfills statewide.
  • 47:31 Presenter listed projects including Johnson City, Memphis, Lewisburg, and others as examples of prior landfill construction experience.
  • 48:20 A commissioner asked about landfill life. Presenters said one conceptual buildout showed about 27 years for the initial municipal-solid-waste area, with another scenario extending to about 43 years.
  • 49:18 On post-closure use, presenters said sites enter a 30- to 50-year post-closure care period with money set aside for maintenance; later uses can include solar, trails, green space, golf, or similar recreational purposes.
  • 50:24 Members compared that concept to the county’s old closed landfill on Sky Drive, saying a closed municipal site ultimately resembles a grass-covered hill with vent pipes.
  • 51:30 A commissioner asked whether, if the project proceeds, the county’s own waste would come there and what fee the county would pay.
  • 51:45 Presenters said the county would pay the lowest tipping fee available to any user, based on volume contracts; the county would never pay more than the lowest market customer rate.
  • 52:25 A commissioner asked whether the completed landfill would be leased or operated by a major firm such as Waste Management; presenters indicated some similar outside operator arrangement would be expected.
  • 52:52 Questions turned to utilities for the industrial pads:
    • 52:59 Presenter said power needs would depend on tenants, perhaps around 5 kV initially.
    • 53:49 Water use was described as modest because targeted tenants were low-water users such as recycling operations or countertop manufacturers with residual material needing disposal.
    • 54:35 Presenter cited an existing 6-inch raw-water line.
    • 54:43 Sewer service would likely require a small regional system and drip-field irrigation setup.
  • 55:00 A commissioner asked whether the property owner, Tennessee Forest land / Tennessee forestland interests as heard, was being approached because the land is for sale. Presenter said yes, the tract is for sale, but supporters argued the site was chosen because it met landfill criteria, especially interstate proximity and topography, not merely availability.
  • 56:45 Presenters restated their names for the record: Dale Smith, Jason Rorrer, Marty, and Randy Drake; the company name given was Baron Hill Ventures.
  • 57:24 Chair said maps and proposal materials would likely be made public, possibly through county channels and local media.

Explanation of process and future hearings 57:47

  • 57:47 Presenter outlined the path forward if the project advances:
    • 58:02 Zoning would be required to move from agricultural / residential use to industrial use.
    • 58:19 The regional solid-waste board would also have to hear the matter officially.
    • 58:19 Because the county has Jackson Law, there would be a separate local-approval process and public hearing.
    • 58:39 Even after local approvals, the state would conduct a long technical review before issuing any draft permit.
    • 58:47 Presenters estimated a 5-year-plus process before an MSW landfill could be permitted.
    • 58:54 They said there would be another public hearing once a draft permit is issued, for at least three public-hearing opportunities in total.
  • 59:28 A commissioner reassured residents there would be multiple later opportunities for public questions and comments and urged patience through the process.
  • 1:00:26 In response to one more timing question, presenters repeated that permit issuance would take at least 5 years, while a C&D landfill could move faster because it faces fewer state hurdles.
  • 1:01:29 The county attorney explained that under state law public comments at committee meetings must occur near the beginning after agenda approval, which is why residents could not hear the presentation first and then ask questions in that same public-comment format.

Adjournment 1:02:24

  • 1:02:24 Motion to adjourn was made and seconded.
  • 1:02:30 Meeting adjourned so the Public Safety Committee could begin.

Key figures and statistics

Figure Type Context / topic Timestamp
5:00 Time Scheduled meeting start referenced at call to order 2:40
2 minutes Time limit Public-comment speaking limit per person 3:26
1 mile Distance Resident said house is about one mile below proposed landfill site on river 5:23
61% Budget share Solid Waste said it had used about 61% of total budget 12:53
$3,526 Revenue / profit Monthly profit from Perry County transfer-station arrangement 14:57
$4,700 Collections First-day receipts from penalty-amnesty period 16:37
2024–2025 Fiscal year Draft budget presented for review 17:47
5% Raise assumption Proposed across-the-board employee raise in draft budget 19:42
6% Raise reference State raise level referenced by the mayor 19:42
8–0 Vote Approval of annual progress report 22:22
8–0 Vote Approval of financial reports 22:56
30 years Experience Former director’s total trash / solid-waste experience 27:43
19-plus years Tenure Time former director said he ran county solid waste 27:43
2 years Time horizon Estimated remaining time before Middle Point closure 28:16
20 counties Count Counties said to send trash to Middle Point 28:24
9 counties Count Counties said to send trash to the west-side landfill used by Hickman 28:24
less than 6 years Capacity estimate Claimed remaining Middle Tennessee household-waste airspace 28:41
$90 Fee Annual county solid-waste fee per resident 29:14
28 years Time period Length of time trash has gone to Benton County / fee structure referenced 29:14
$800,000 Receivables / amount Amount said to be outstanding in county solid-waste receivables 30:19
3–4 years Project development time Time presenters said they had studied the concept 34:29
$23 million Revenue projection Estimated host-fee revenue to county 36:35
40 years Project horizon Timeframe for the revenue projection 36:35
1,000-plus acres Land size Approximate size presenters said is needed for buffered landfill siting 41:04
30 acres Land area Solar component contemplated in the industrial-park concept 42:42
three 10-acre tracts Land division Solar tracts described in plan 42:42
240 trucks per day Traffic estimate Estimated daily truck volume at full operation 46:13
2006 Year Start of landfill work cited in Humphreys County reference 47:00
50 Count Number of landfills one presenter said he had built 47:23
27 years Facility lifespan Initial MSW-cell life estimate 48:20
43 years Facility lifespan Larger conceptual lifespan estimate 48:30
250 acres Land area Initial area figure referenced for one plan scenario 49:02
400 acres Land area Larger area figure referenced for another plan scenario 49:02
30 to 50 years Post-closure care Period presenters said sites remain in post-closure care 49:18
$25,000 Expense reference Major repair spending alluded to during later comparison to county landfill closure / context overlap 50:24
5 kV Utility estimate Approximate electric service discussed for industrial users 53:40
6-inch Utility dimension Existing raw-water line referenced for site 54:35
5-year-plus Permitting duration Estimated total permit/process timeline 58:39
3 Public hearings / opportunities Number of public-hearing opportunities presenters said residents would have 58:54

External vendors, brands, and software

Name Type Context / topic Timestamp
Max Company Late-arriving value-engineered bid on ECD center project 15:38
Daryl James Individual Sent / relayed the value-engineered bid from Max 15:38
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Company State agency requiring annual progress report submission 21:12
Baron Hill Ventures Company Company name given for landfill / industrial-park proposal team 48:12
Waste Management Company Example of major outside landfill operator that might lease / run facility 52:25
TVA Company Referenced for generator / solar interconnection and later stream-permitting context 42:57
Middle Point Brand Existing Murfreesboro landfill cited as approaching closure 28:16

Laws and policies

| Citation / name | Level | Type | Context / topic | Timestamp | |---|---|---|---| | Jackson Law | State | Law | County’s adopted local-approval requirement before state landfill permit review | 23:11 | | state law on public comments at committee meetings | State | Law | County attorney said comments must come after agenda approval, explaining meeting format | 1:01:29 | | EPA | Federal | Regulation | Referenced as involved in extensive landfill review / oversight | 1:01:05 |