Solid Waste Committee · Meeting · Mar 2, 2026

Mon, Mar 2, 2026

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

Official website

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 approved the annual solid waste reporting required by the state, including the 2025 Annual Progress Report and a no-change approval for the county’s long-outdated 10-year plan while awaiting a state grant process to fund a full update. Discussion also focused on the next landfill permit expansion: staff outlined an expected **18-month** state process, a professional-services estimate of about **$60,000** before possible added testing, and the need for later county approvals under Jackson Law and other notice requirements.

Other notable threads included current-year billing collections, old unpaid solid-waste fees, delayed escalation letters after the ice storm, debris volumes from storm cleanup, a possible but apparently unlikely TDOT debris-disposal arrangement, routine financial and tonnage reports, and a proposed lien-resolution fee structure for exempt properties.

## Call to Order, Agenda, and Minutes 1:39

- 1:39 Roll call established a quorum after an initially delayed start; members present included Danny Clark, Matthew Barnhill, Dusty Jordan, Devin Pickard, Ricky Murray, and Jane Herron, with Steve Gianakos later noted as absent in the roll responses.
- 2:11 Agenda approved as submitted on motion and second, with no changes offered.
- 2:23 No public comments were made.
- 2:37 The committee noted it had not met the prior month because the ice storm disrupted schedules.
- 3:08 Minutes from the **January 5** meeting were approved after brief review, with no discussion and no opposition.

## New Business / Agenda Items

### Annual Progress Report and 10-year plan 4:02

- 4:02 South Central Development District presented the state-required annual reporting package and the county’s existing 10-year plan, which the state still requires to be approved even though many counties are operating from decades-old plans.
- 4:59 The Annual Progress Report was described as the county’s yearly compliance filing showing recycling and diversion efforts, convenience-center availability, and tonnage sent to landfill so the state can determine whether recycling goals are being met.
- 5:58 Staff said the county is still operating from a roughly **30- to 32-year-old** 10-year plan and that the state expects to open grant funding in the spring to help counties hire consultants and complete updated plans.
- 6:27 The presenter urged updating the plan because equipment, disposal practices, and landfill pressures have changed substantially, and nearby landfills are filling up or facing expansion issues.
- 7:56 The state’s new deadline for updated plans was cited as **July 1, 2028**, with legislation said to include funding and likely to pass.
- 8:10 The committee was told that, for now, approval meant two things: accepting the 2025 Annual Progress Report numbers and approving that there would be **no changes** to the current 10-year plan until the funded update process begins.
- 8:40 A motion was made and seconded to approve the progress report and related required approvals.
- 9:03 Roll-call vote approved the item unanimously among those recorded: Danny Clark, Matthew Barnhill, Dusty Jordan, Devin Pickard, Becky Bates, and Ricky Murray all voted yes.
- 9:44 Staff confirmed the county expects to update the 10-year plan in the next fiscal year; members recalled the original 10-year plan dated to **1994**, with a **2002** five-year update having followed.
- 10:13 The committee and staff thanked the South Central representative, who said she was leaving that role but expected to stay involved.

## Department / Official Reports

### Solid Waste Director financial report 10:38

- 11:00 The director presented the statement of revenues and expenditures included in the packet.
- 12:56 Members said the finances appeared to be running normally, with no major concerns raised from the monthly statements.
- 13:09 A motion and second were made to approve the financial statement.
- 13:24 Roll-call vote approved the financials unanimously among those called: Danny Clark, Matthew Barnhill, Dusty Jordan, Devin Pickard, Ricky Murray, and Becky Bates voted yes.

### Tonnage and operations reports 13:51

- 13:51 The monthly tonnage report was presented for review.
- 14:09 Members asked whether tonnage was up because of ice-storm cleanup; staff said there were more appliances such as **freezers**, but did not attribute the increase entirely to storm debris.
- 14:28 Staff clarified that storm-related tree and chip material was tracked separately from the regular tonnage report.
- 14:44 A question about whether Four Way West had doubled was answered as largely a timing issue in when loads were hauled; staff said if it stayed around **40 tons** next month, that would be more concerning.
- 15:38 Staff noted that the standard landscape/tonnage report does not break down each convenience center, but a more detailed breakdown would have shown Four Way West at about **20 tons** the prior month.
- 16:02 The Perry County summary sheet was included as another operational report, with staff noting Perry County had also been somewhat busier that month.
- 16:18 A separate report covered debris received at the high school cleanup site.
- 16:26 Staff reported **668.18 tons** of debris had been received there.
- 16:32 Staff said none of that debris would go into the landfill; it had all been burned.

### Storm debris disposal discussion and possible TDOT arrangement 17:00

- 17:00 The committee discussed a recent conversation about roadside debris cleanup and a state contractor working under TDOT.
- 17:23 TDOT’s contractor had asked what the county would charge per cubic yard to dispose of shredded tree debris at the county facility.
- 17:33 Staff said the county’s normal **$60 per ton** rate would not work well for that situation, so he instead estimated a price of **$12 per cubic yard** based on what would be needed to replace the loader and manage the material.
- 17:50 The justification for the higher cubic-yard approach was that shredded tree material cannot simply be burned; it would need to be windrowed and composted or reground and sold as mulch.
- 18:03 At **$12 per cubic yard**, the projected revenue was estimated at about **$450,000**.
- 18:21 Staff emphasized that using landfill airspace for this debris would be a poor tradeoff, comparing it to cashing out a **401(k)** at a heavy penalty, because the landfill has only about **70,000 cubic yards** of remaining space.
- 18:44 Staff said contractor truck activity suggested they had probably found another disposal location, and he indicated that was acceptable unless the county could make money on the arrangement rather than lose landfill value.
- 19:03 For scale, staff said **50,000 cubic yards** equaled about **31 acre-feet**, illustrating how large the proposed debris volume would be and how difficult it would be to stage on site.
- 19:35 Members clarified that the contractor’s initial estimate had been around **100,000 cubic yards**, though the specific figure under discussion later was **50,000 cubic yards** for the state-highway debris portion alone.
- 19:59 Staff noted that volume did not include debris already being brought in locally for burning by county road operations and others, and suggested total storm debris handled countywide would likely exceed **100,000 cubic yards**.

### Director’s report: holiday, billing collections, delinquent accounts, and lien letters 20:42

- 20:48 The director noted that Good Friday falls on **April 3**, before the next meeting.
- 21:01 Staff reviewed current-year billing and provided a breakdown in the packet.
- 21:08 The county billed **$1,040,940** for the current year.
- 21:16 Staff said **$220,485.04** remained unpaid, but noted that roughly half of that total consisted of penalties.
- 21:32 Excluding penalties, current-year unpaid principal was reported as **$110,242.52**.
- 21:41 Staff calculated that **89.41%** of this year’s bill had been resolved.
- 21:53 Members compared that to prior performance and said it was slightly better than last year, with one comment that it was about **three-quarters of a percent** better than the prior month and likely to reach **90%**.
- 22:17 Older unpaid balances were said to total roughly **three-quarters of a million dollars** accumulated over the past **32 years**.
- 22:30 Staff said escalation letters to delinquent accounts had not been mailed as planned because of the ice storm.
- 22:30 The county attorney had advised against sending those letters during the immediate storm aftermath, and staff asked whether the committee was comfortable sending them at the beginning of March instead.
- 22:46 Members agreed with the delay, saying residents had already dealt with enough hardship and did not need a “nasty letter” during the storm period.

### Landfill expansion permit planning 23:06

- 23:12 Staff introduced a proposal from Barge to assist with obtaining the next landfill permit during the coming fiscal year.
- 23:25 The longtime consultant, Joe House, was said to be retiring in earnest, no longer maintaining insurance or licensure, and had recommended Barge while also turning over county drawings and background information.
- 24:04 Barge outlined the expected permit effort as another small expansion of about **5 to 6 acres** north of the shop building toward the landfill.
- 24:16 The estimated state process was described as about **18 months**, with roughly **12 months** of review/public-hearing time by the state and about **6 months** for engineering and fieldwork.
- 24:28 Required work would include assembling existing hydrogeologic information, evaluating groundwater and soils, and preparing design drawings based on what conditions allow.
- 25:03 The consultant said the expansion should not be especially contentious because it is an existing county demolition landfill rather than a new landfill.
- 25:09 Even so, the county is not exempt from **Jackson Law** because of a municipality, so county commission approval and public-notice steps will still be required.
- 25:21 The committee was told it would eventually need to take formal action not just to hire a designer but to affirmatively authorize the landfill expansion and state that it is consistent with the county’s solid waste plan.
- 26:07 Barge said it is handling a similar process in Putnam County and wrapping up the permit/registration process in Perry County.
- 26:17 Perry County’s effort had stretched close to **three years**, not because the technical work took that long but because local officials resisted installing required groundwater monitoring wells.
- 26:50 By contrast, this county’s expansion was described as likely to be relatively quick and straightforward if existing data proves sufficient.
- 27:03 The proposal in the packet showed a professional-services estimate of about **$60,000**.
- 27:14 Staff cautioned that the figure could change because it assumes no major additional soil studies or laboratory testing will be required.
- 27:27 The consultant clarified the proposal is hourly rather than a lump sum, so the county would benefit if the work proceeds faster than estimated.
- 28:03 Members asked whether the total could exceed **$60,000** if the existing data is unacceptable to the state; the consultant said yes, though likely modestly.
- 28:14 Possible added costs were estimated at about **$4,000 to $5,000** for another round of soil testing and about **$10,000** if a monitoring well had to be installed earlier than hoped.
- 28:33 Members also asked whether additional studies or drilling could be procured directly by the county rather than through the consultant; Barge said yes, and said it generally does not mark up such outside drilling/subconsultant costs on school work either.
- 29:10 The committee asked for clarification of the expansion area.
- 29:21 Staff and the consultant said the new fill area would be between the recycling center and the covered landfill/shop area.
- 29:32 They described the site as largely undisturbed, though part of the southern side includes fill associated with an access road.
- 30:13 Staff warned there would likely be some construction costs beyond permitting because stormwater drains would have to be rerouted and grading work done; some grading might be handled in-house.
- 31:12 Staff and the consultant broke the project into phases: first, characterize groundwater depth and soil conditions; second, design the landfill geometry and required separation between trash, soil, and water.
- 31:54 The county has already done substantial work on the ditch in the area and hopes the state will accept existing characterization data rather than require more field investigation.
- 32:23 The consultant said the existing monitoring well in the middle of the area is a major advantage because it gives groundwater depth data where needed.
- 33:07 A member asked whether the goal was to treat the feature as a wet-weather conveyance ditch rather than a stream.
- 33:14 Staff said the Army Corps had already determined it is a **ditch**, not a blue-line stream, and that determination remains valid for **five years**.
- 33:42 Staff reiterated that some stormwater drains will still have to be moved.
- 32:50 No vote was taken; the discussion was informational only at this meeting.

## Unfinished Business 34:08

### Lien resolution for exempt properties 34:25

- 34:25 A member followed up on a prior case involving clearing fees from December and said the account had previously been current until the most recent cycle.
- 34:43 Staff said a resolution had been prepared regarding liens on exempt properties.
- 35:18 The proposal discussed was to require payment of the filing cost if an exempt-property issue is not resolved by **October**.
- 35:25 The fee discussed was **$30**, meant to cover the cost of filing and later removing the lien.
- 35:33 Members said the policy would need to be publicized so property owners understand the deadline and consequences.
- 36:05 The discussion clarified that the point of the resolution was not to change the basic lien process but to recover the county’s administrative cost for both placing and releasing a lien.
- 36:36 One member objected to leaving owners to handle the release themselves after paying, saying many people would not understand that an extra trip and extra payment were needed to clear title.
- 37:07 Staff broke down the costs as about **$12** to add the lien and another **$12** to remove it, with the total rounded to **$24** or, under the proposed resolution, **$30**.
- 37:37 The committee chair asked whether members were comfortable with the resolution as written.
- 37:44 A committee member agreed to sponsor it and asked for another sponsor from the committee.
- 34:08 No final vote on the resolution appears in this meeting; discussion suggested the intent was to bring it forward in March.

## Announcements 34:08

- 34:08 The next meeting was set for the first Monday at **6:00**.
- 38:02 No additional old or new business was raised after the lien discussion.

## Adjournment 38:07

- 38:07 The committee adjourned on motion, second, and voice vote.

## Key figures and statistics

| Figure | Type | Context / topic | Timestamp |
|---|---:|---|---|
| **2025** | Year | Annual Progress Report reporting year | 5:17 |
| **30-year-old** | Time period | Approximate age of existing 10-year plan as discussed | 5:58 |
| **32 years** | Time period | More specific age of the county’s outdated plan / years of old receivables accumulation | 7:12 |
| **July 1, 2028** | Deadline | New state due date for plan update | 7:56 |
| **1994** | Year | Original 10-year solid waste plan | 9:57 |
| **2002** | Year | Five-year update to the original plan | 10:03 |
| **40 tons** | Tonnage | Threshold mentioned for Four Way West tonnage becoming concerning if repeated next month | 15:05 |
| **20 tons** | Tonnage | Approximate prior-month Four Way West amount if broken out by convenience center | 15:43 |
| **668.18 tons** | Tonnage | Debris received at the high school site | 16:26 |
| **$60 per ton** | Rate | Normal disposal rate referenced for TDOT contractor material | 17:33 |
| **$12 per cubic yard** | Proposed rate | Tentative price quoted for shredded tree debris disposal | 17:43 |
| **$450,000** | Revenue estimate | Potential income if TDOT contractor used county site at quoted cubic-yard rate | 18:10 |
| **70,000 cubic yards** | Capacity | Remaining landfill space cited in warning against taking outside debris cheaply | 18:21 |
| **90%** | Percentage | Analogy for heavy value loss from using landfill space poorly / also target collection level discussed | 18:26 |
| **50,000 cubic yards** | Volume | Example debris volume for state-highway material under discussion | 19:03 |
| **31 acre-feet** | Volume equivalent | Scale comparison for **50,000 cubic yards** | 19:03 |
| **100,000 cubic yards** | Volume | Initial estimate members recalled for contractor debris quantity | 19:35 |
| **April 3** | Date | Good Friday holiday before next meeting | 20:48 |
| **$1,040,940** | Billing | Current-year solid waste charges billed | 21:08 |
| **$220,485.04** | Unpaid amount | Current-year unpaid total including penalties | 21:16 |
| **$110,242.52** | Unpaid principal | Current-year unpaid excluding penalties | 21:32 |
| **89.41%** | Collection rate | Portion of current-year billing resolved | 21:41 |
| **90%** | Collection target | Staff expectation for where current-year collections may finish | 22:11 |
| **$750,000** | Receivable | Approximate old unpaid balances from prior years | 22:17 |
| **18 months** | Time period | Estimated landfill permit process length | 24:16 |
| **12 months** | Time period | Approximate state review/public-hearing portion of permit process | 24:16 |
| **6 months** | Time period | Approximate engineering/fieldwork portion of permit process | 24:28 |
| **5 to 6 acres** | Area | Approximate size of proposed landfill expansion area | 24:10 |
| **3 years** | Time period | Approximate total time Perry County’s comparable permit effort stretched to | 26:39 |
| **$60,000** | Professional-services estimate | Barge proposal for landfill permit/engineering work | 27:03 |
| **$4,000 to $5,000** | Potential added cost | Possible extra soil-testing expense if state requires more data | 28:14 |
| **$10,000** | Potential added cost | Possible monitoring-well expense if required earlier | 28:22 |
| **5 years** | Time period | Validity window for Army Corps ditch determination | 33:29 |
| **October** | Deadline | Proposed cutoff for resolving exempt-property issues before fee applies | 35:18 |
| **$30** | Fee | Proposed resolution amount for exempt-property lien filing/removal cost recovery | 35:25 |
| **$12** | Filing cost | Approximate cost to add lien | 37:07 |
| **$12** | Release cost | Approximate cost to remove lien | 37:29 |
| **$24** | Combined cost | Approximate direct total of adding and removing lien | 37:15 |
| **6:00** | Meeting time | Time announced for the next meeting | 34:08 |

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

The committee approved the annual solid waste reporting required by the state, including the 2025 Annual Progress Report and a no-change approval for the county’s long-outdated 10-year plan while awaiting a state grant process to fund a full update. Discussion also focused on the next landfill permit expansion: staff outlined an expected 18-month state process, a professional-services estimate of about $60,000 before possible added testing, and the need for later county approvals under Jackson Law and other notice requirements.

Other notable threads included current-year billing collections, old unpaid solid-waste fees, delayed escalation letters after the ice storm, debris volumes from storm cleanup, a possible but apparently unlikely TDOT debris-disposal arrangement, routine financial and tonnage reports, and a proposed lien-resolution fee structure for exempt properties.

Call to Order, Agenda, and Minutes 1:39

1:39 Roll call established a quorum after an initially delayed start; members present included Danny Clark, Matthew Barnhill, Dusty Jordan, Devin Pickard, Ricky Murray, and Jane Herron, with Steve Gianakos later noted as absent in the roll responses.
2:11 Agenda approved as submitted on motion and second, with no changes offered.
2:23 No public comments were made.
2:37 The committee noted it had not met the prior month because the ice storm disrupted schedules.
3:08 Minutes from the January 5 meeting were approved after brief review, with no discussion and no opposition.

New Business / Agenda Items

Annual Progress Report and 10-year plan 4:02

4:02 South Central Development District presented the state-required annual reporting package and the county’s existing 10-year plan, which the state still requires to be approved even though many counties are operating from decades-old plans.
4:59 The Annual Progress Report was described as the county’s yearly compliance filing showing recycling and diversion efforts, convenience-center availability, and tonnage sent to landfill so the state can determine whether recycling goals are being met.
5:58 Staff said the county is still operating from a roughly 30- to 32-year-old 10-year plan and that the state expects to open grant funding in the spring to help counties hire consultants and complete updated plans.
6:27 The presenter urged updating the plan because equipment, disposal practices, and landfill pressures have changed substantially, and nearby landfills are filling up or facing expansion issues.
7:56 The state’s new deadline for updated plans was cited as July 1, 2028, with legislation said to include funding and likely to pass.
8:10 The committee was told that, for now, approval meant two things: accepting the 2025 Annual Progress Report numbers and approving that there would be no changes to the current 10-year plan until the funded update process begins.
8:40 A motion was made and seconded to approve the progress report and related required approvals.
9:03 Roll-call vote approved the item unanimously among those recorded: Danny Clark, Matthew Barnhill, Dusty Jordan, Devin Pickard, Becky Bates, and Ricky Murray all voted yes.
9:44 Staff confirmed the county expects to update the 10-year plan in the next fiscal year; members recalled the original 10-year plan dated to 1994, with a 2002 five-year update having followed.
10:13 The committee and staff thanked the South Central representative, who said she was leaving that role but expected to stay involved.

Department / Official Reports

Solid Waste Director financial report 10:38

11:00 The director presented the statement of revenues and expenditures included in the packet.
12:56 Members said the finances appeared to be running normally, with no major concerns raised from the monthly statements.
13:09 A motion and second were made to approve the financial statement.
13:24 Roll-call vote approved the financials unanimously among those called: Danny Clark, Matthew Barnhill, Dusty Jordan, Devin Pickard, Ricky Murray, and Becky Bates voted yes.

Tonnage and operations reports 13:51

13:51 The monthly tonnage report was presented for review.
14:09 Members asked whether tonnage was up because of ice-storm cleanup; staff said there were more appliances such as freezers, but did not attribute the increase entirely to storm debris.
14:28 Staff clarified that storm-related tree and chip material was tracked separately from the regular tonnage report.
14:44 A question about whether Four Way West had doubled was answered as largely a timing issue in when loads were hauled; staff said if it stayed around 40 tons next month, that would be more concerning.
15:38 Staff noted that the standard landscape/tonnage report does not break down each convenience center, but a more detailed breakdown would have shown Four Way West at about 20 tons the prior month.
16:02 The Perry County summary sheet was included as another operational report, with staff noting Perry County had also been somewhat busier that month.
16:18 A separate report covered debris received at the high school cleanup site.
16:26 Staff reported 668.18 tons of debris had been received there.
16:32 Staff said none of that debris would go into the landfill; it had all been burned.

Storm debris disposal discussion and possible TDOT arrangement 17:00

17:00 The committee discussed a recent conversation about roadside debris cleanup and a state contractor working under TDOT.
17:23 TDOT’s contractor had asked what the county would charge per cubic yard to dispose of shredded tree debris at the county facility.
17:33 Staff said the county’s normal $60 per ton rate would not work well for that situation, so he instead estimated a price of $12 per cubic yard based on what would be needed to replace the loader and manage the material.
17:50 The justification for the higher cubic-yard approach was that shredded tree material cannot simply be burned; it would need to be windrowed and composted or reground and sold as mulch.
18:03 At $12 per cubic yard, the projected revenue was estimated at about $450,000.
18:21 Staff emphasized that using landfill airspace for this debris would be a poor tradeoff, comparing it to cashing out a 401(k) at a heavy penalty, because the landfill has only about 70,000 cubic yards of remaining space.
18:44 Staff said contractor truck activity suggested they had probably found another disposal location, and he indicated that was acceptable unless the county could make money on the arrangement rather than lose landfill value.
19:03 For scale, staff said 50,000 cubic yards equaled about 31 acre-feet, illustrating how large the proposed debris volume would be and how difficult it would be to stage on site.
19:35 Members clarified that the contractor’s initial estimate had been around 100,000 cubic yards, though the specific figure under discussion later was 50,000 cubic yards for the state-highway debris portion alone.
19:59 Staff noted that volume did not include debris already being brought in locally for burning by county road operations and others, and suggested total storm debris handled countywide would likely exceed 100,000 cubic yards.

Director’s report: holiday, billing collections, delinquent accounts, and lien letters 20:42

20:48 The director noted that Good Friday falls on April 3, before the next meeting.
21:01 Staff reviewed current-year billing and provided a breakdown in the packet.
21:08 The county billed $1,040,940 for the current year.
21:16 Staff said $220,485.04 remained unpaid, but noted that roughly half of that total consisted of penalties.
21:32 Excluding penalties, current-year unpaid principal was reported as $110,242.52.
21:41 Staff calculated that 89.41% of this year’s bill had been resolved.
21:53 Members compared that to prior performance and said it was slightly better than last year, with one comment that it was about three-quarters of a percent better than the prior month and likely to reach 90%.
22:17 Older unpaid balances were said to total roughly three-quarters of a million dollars accumulated over the past 32 years.
22:30 Staff said escalation letters to delinquent accounts had not been mailed as planned because of the ice storm.
22:30 The county attorney had advised against sending those letters during the immediate storm aftermath, and staff asked whether the committee was comfortable sending them at the beginning of March instead.
22:46 Members agreed with the delay, saying residents had already dealt with enough hardship and did not need a “nasty letter” during the storm period.

Landfill expansion permit planning 23:06

23:12 Staff introduced a proposal from Barge to assist with obtaining the next landfill permit during the coming fiscal year.
23:25 The longtime consultant, Joe House, was said to be retiring in earnest, no longer maintaining insurance or licensure, and had recommended Barge while also turning over county drawings and background information.
24:04 Barge outlined the expected permit effort as another small expansion of about 5 to 6 acres north of the shop building toward the landfill.
24:16 The estimated state process was described as about 18 months, with roughly 12 months of review/public-hearing time by the state and about 6 months for engineering and fieldwork.
24:28 Required work would include assembling existing hydrogeologic information, evaluating groundwater and soils, and preparing design drawings based on what conditions allow.
25:03 The consultant said the expansion should not be especially contentious because it is an existing county demolition landfill rather than a new landfill.
25:09 Even so, the county is not exempt from Jackson Law because of a municipality, so county commission approval and public-notice steps will still be required.
25:21 The committee was told it would eventually need to take formal action not just to hire a designer but to affirmatively authorize the landfill expansion and state that it is consistent with the county’s solid waste plan.
26:07 Barge said it is handling a similar process in Putnam County and wrapping up the permit/registration process in Perry County.
26:17 Perry County’s effort had stretched close to three years, not because the technical work took that long but because local officials resisted installing required groundwater monitoring wells.
26:50 By contrast, this county’s expansion was described as likely to be relatively quick and straightforward if existing data proves sufficient.
27:03 The proposal in the packet showed a professional-services estimate of about $60,000.
27:14 Staff cautioned that the figure could change because it assumes no major additional soil studies or laboratory testing will be required.
27:27 The consultant clarified the proposal is hourly rather than a lump sum, so the county would benefit if the work proceeds faster than estimated.
28:03 Members asked whether the total could exceed $60,000 if the existing data is unacceptable to the state; the consultant said yes, though likely modestly.
28:14 Possible added costs were estimated at about $4,000 to $5,000 for another round of soil testing and about $10,000 if a monitoring well had to be installed earlier than hoped.
28:33 Members also asked whether additional studies or drilling could be procured directly by the county rather than through the consultant; Barge said yes, and said it generally does not mark up such outside drilling/subconsultant costs on school work either.
29:10 The committee asked for clarification of the expansion area.
29:21 Staff and the consultant said the new fill area would be between the recycling center and the covered landfill/shop area.
29:32 They described the site as largely undisturbed, though part of the southern side includes fill associated with an access road.
30:13 Staff warned there would likely be some construction costs beyond permitting because stormwater drains would have to be rerouted and grading work done; some grading might be handled in-house.
31:12 Staff and the consultant broke the project into phases: first, characterize groundwater depth and soil conditions; second, design the landfill geometry and required separation between trash, soil, and water.
31:54 The county has already done substantial work on the ditch in the area and hopes the state will accept existing characterization data rather than require more field investigation.
32:23 The consultant said the existing monitoring well in the middle of the area is a major advantage because it gives groundwater depth data where needed.
33:07 A member asked whether the goal was to treat the feature as a wet-weather conveyance ditch rather than a stream.
33:14 Staff said the Army Corps had already determined it is a ditch, not a blue-line stream, and that determination remains valid for five years.
33:42 Staff reiterated that some stormwater drains will still have to be moved.
32:50 No vote was taken; the discussion was informational only at this meeting.

Unfinished Business 34:08

Lien resolution for exempt properties 34:25

34:25 A member followed up on a prior case involving clearing fees from December and said the account had previously been current until the most recent cycle.
34:43 Staff said a resolution had been prepared regarding liens on exempt properties.
35:18 The proposal discussed was to require payment of the filing cost if an exempt-property issue is not resolved by October.
35:25 The fee discussed was $30, meant to cover the cost of filing and later removing the lien.
35:33 Members said the policy would need to be publicized so property owners understand the deadline and consequences.
36:05 The discussion clarified that the point of the resolution was not to change the basic lien process but to recover the county’s administrative cost for both placing and releasing a lien.
36:36 One member objected to leaving owners to handle the release themselves after paying, saying many people would not understand that an extra trip and extra payment were needed to clear title.
37:07 Staff broke down the costs as about $12 to add the lien and another $12 to remove it, with the total rounded to $24 or, under the proposed resolution, $30.
37:37 The committee chair asked whether members were comfortable with the resolution as written.
37:44 A committee member agreed to sponsor it and asked for another sponsor from the committee.
34:08 No final vote on the resolution appears in this meeting; discussion suggested the intent was to bring it forward in March.

Announcements 34:08

34:08 The next meeting was set for the first Monday at 6:00.
38:02 No additional old or new business was raised after the lien discussion.

Adjournment 38:07

38:07 The committee adjourned on motion, second, and voice vote.

Key figures and statistics

Figure	Type	Context / topic	Timestamp
2025	Year	Annual Progress Report reporting year	5:17
30-year-old	Time period	Approximate age of existing 10-year plan as discussed	5:58
32 years	Time period	More specific age of the county’s outdated plan / years of old receivables accumulation	7:12
July 1, 2028	Deadline	New state due date for plan update	7:56
1994	Year	Original 10-year solid waste plan	9:57
2002	Year	Five-year update to the original plan	10:03
40 tons	Tonnage	Threshold mentioned for Four Way West tonnage becoming concerning if repeated next month	15:05
20 tons	Tonnage	Approximate prior-month Four Way West amount if broken out by convenience center	15:43
668.18 tons	Tonnage	Debris received at the high school site	16:26
$60 per ton	Rate	Normal disposal rate referenced for TDOT contractor material	17:33
$12 per cubic yard	Proposed rate	Tentative price quoted for shredded tree debris disposal	17:43
$450,000	Revenue estimate	Potential income if TDOT contractor used county site at quoted cubic-yard rate	18:10
70,000 cubic yards	Capacity	Remaining landfill space cited in warning against taking outside debris cheaply	18:21
90%	Percentage	Analogy for heavy value loss from using landfill space poorly / also target collection level discussed	18:26
50,000 cubic yards	Volume	Example debris volume for state-highway material under discussion	19:03
31 acre-feet	Volume equivalent	Scale comparison for 50,000 cubic yards	19:03
100,000 cubic yards	Volume	Initial estimate members recalled for contractor debris quantity	19:35
April 3	Date	Good Friday holiday before next meeting	20:48
$1,040,940	Billing	Current-year solid waste charges billed	21:08
$220,485.04	Unpaid amount	Current-year unpaid total including penalties	21:16
$110,242.52	Unpaid principal	Current-year unpaid excluding penalties	21:32
89.41%	Collection rate	Portion of current-year billing resolved	21:41
90%	Collection target	Staff expectation for where current-year collections may finish	22:11
$750,000	Receivable	Approximate old unpaid balances from prior years	22:17
18 months	Time period	Estimated landfill permit process length	24:16
12 months	Time period	Approximate state review/public-hearing portion of permit process	24:16
6 months	Time period	Approximate engineering/fieldwork portion of permit process	24:28
5 to 6 acres	Area	Approximate size of proposed landfill expansion area	24:10
3 years	Time period	Approximate total time Perry County’s comparable permit effort stretched to	26:39
$60,000	Professional-services estimate	Barge proposal for landfill permit/engineering work	27:03
$4,000 to $5,000	Potential added cost	Possible extra soil-testing expense if state requires more data	28:14
$10,000	Potential added cost	Possible monitoring-well expense if required earlier	28:22
5 years	Time period	Validity window for Army Corps ditch determination	33:29
October	Deadline	Proposed cutoff for resolving exempt-property issues before fee applies	35:18
$30	Fee	Proposed resolution amount for exempt-property lien filing/removal cost recovery	35:25
$12	Filing cost	Approximate cost to add lien	37:07
$12	Release cost	Approximate cost to remove lien	37:29
$24	Combined cost	Approximate direct total of adding and removing lien	37:15
6:00	Meeting time	Time announced for the next meeting	34:08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihhWzcnaX_g Solid Waste Committee · Meeting · Mar 2, 2026 Mar 2, 2026 0:10 You talking to me or Matt? 0:19 I just want that dropped off on the square for us. Yeah, I just call Darene. Okay. 0:27 Know she tends to kind of Push away from it. Push away from it. 0:37 Drop my influence. That's close enough. You keep them close, you know, because if you don't 0:43 watch it, you'll have people running, you know. That's right. That's close. You want to keep them all close. And there's cameras up there. 0:50 Soon as Danny gets in here, I'll call it order because we don't have a form until he walks in. 0:56 Yeah. 1:01 Somebody wants to throw something at Matthew. 1:07 If somebody wants to throw Matthew 1:12 off, but I'm tired. 1:23 Thank you. Yes, sir. Here you go. There he is. 1:29 I'm just giving you warnings. 1:39 Christie, if you would call roll, please. Jan Harren, Danny Clark 1:44 here. Matthew Barnhill here. Steve Jonas. Dusty Gordon here. 1:50 Devin here. Ricky Becky here. 1:57 All right, we have a quorum since Danny is gracious with his presence. 2:03 U anybody got any changes, any additions, subtractions from the agenda? 2:11 I make the motion to approve it. Motion to approve the agenda as submitted and second by Mr. Barnhill. 2:23 All in favor say I. All right. Now, time for public comment. Anybody in the audience wish to speak 2:30 and get a sign up sheet out there. Hear none. We'll proceed. 2:37 Uh since we did not meet um the first Monday of last month because 2:44 of ice storm changed schedules around. Um minutes are in your packet from the 2:49 January meeting and uh 2:55 you had before you had time looking over because you just got them. But if anybody has 3:02 any changes, give you a little bit to look at them. 3:08 If not, I'll accept a motion to approve the minutes from January 5th. 3:15 Got a motion by Commissioner Picker, second by Commissioner Clark. He didn't 3:20 raise his hand, but All right. Any discussion on the January 3:29 minute hear? None. Roll call for me. I'm sorry. No. 3:36 All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? 3:47 Sorry about that. 3:56 All right. I sent y'all a text I think Saturday. 4:02 Jordan had sent us an email uh last Thursday or Friday, can't 4:08 remember which. and he sent us a 10ear plan which is required by the 4:14 state in renewal or or this body approved 4:19 annually I think I don't remember doing it that often but 4:25 I'd ask y'all if you had time take a look at it and it's in the packet and Rick Murray 4:33 just joined us I'll turn it over you explain 4:41 Yeah. I'm turn it over to South Central to talk about the APR and 4:47 the 10-year plan. Would you guys mind if I sit? 4:52 I work for South Central Development District. Um I am funded by a grant from Tekk to provide solway technical 4:59 assistance to the 13 counties in our district which includes Tikman County. So every year we have to do the annual 5:05 progress report and report basically recycling and diversion to the state so 5:10 that they can calculate if you guys are meeting your recycling goals as compared to what tonnage you send to the 5:17 landfill. They supposedly calculate that. Um this is just showing what you guys did 5:25 for the year 2025. I kind of I made him a summary sheet to put on top so you guys could kind of see everything. Um, 5:32 all we do is submit these reports um to show that you guys are in compliance pretty much with what they're asking, 5:38 that you're making the efforts to recycle and providing convenience centers and things like that to your 5:43 residents so that it's easily available for them to do so. 5:51 So, that's the APR which is in the packet. And then what y'all got in an email was the 10-year plan from 30 years 5:58 ago. um the 10-year plan, they will actually be coming out with grants this year to help 6:04 every county Yeah. a improved and new up to-ate 10-year 6:10 plan. So, that should be rolling out in the spring, I think. Um 6:15 like he said, most all the counties are still working off the 30-year-old 10-year plans. It's just been something that's kind of been put on the back 6:22 burner. So, I feel like it's important that you guys do that because times have changed and we are using new equipment 6:27 and it's just a lot different now. So, and our landfills are filling up and not 6:32 getting approved for expansions. And uh so Cedar Ridge is actually coming up for an expansion which is the one in 6:38 Lewisburg in two weeks. So, if you guys want to attend that meeting in Murray County, 6:44 Gex approving their permit. No, it has to go before the board at Marshall Murray. Oh, okay. 6:49 For their And it's an election year, you know, so that's gonna be a big deal. It's where I 6:56 don't know. I think you go take yours. Some of yours goes there. See the rich, right? 7:01 No, it doesn't. No. 7:12 you need to, especially if you're creating a new one. We're not making an update to our 10-year plan because they're given a grant in several months to hire a 7:20 consultant and go through like this big process to update it and we haven't updated it in 7:26 32 years. Yeah. Yeah. In a while. Will that happen before September? 7:33 I think if the state I think that might be the state's aim, but I don't it's been 7:40 that way you don't have to pay attention. That way you don't need to pay attention to them. That's what I was really wondering. 7:45 I don't see if the I got six more of these. Yeah, the grant comes out in spring. 7:51 They probably won't even award it until fall. Oh, okay. Yeah, that's right. 7:56 Just being realistic. The new due date is uh January July 1, 2028 is the new plan update 8:05 that's in the state legislative. It passed all the subcommittees, so it's going to pass. Yeah. Like a two-year thing. 8:10 Yeah. It's got the funding attached to it. So, so what do they need to do with with the APR right now? Right now, what you're approving is that 8:17 there will be no changes made to the 10-year plan. Um, and I gave a form for the mayor and the board chair. I don't 8:22 know if you sent that to them or not, but I have something for them to sign that we upload just so showing that they approve. And then you're just approving 8:29 his reporting on the annual progress report, which is numbers that he keeps 8:34 and we just input. So, we're seeking a motion to approve the APR. 8:40 We're seeking a motion. Daddy makes a motion to approve 8:48 the progress report. Progress board. Any second? Matthew Matthew Barney. 8:56 Do a roll call on this one. Oh, is any discussion? Any questions for anybody? 9:03 Christie, do a roll call, please. Jim Hering, Danny Clark. Yes. 9:10 Matthew Barnhill. Yes. Nakas. Dusty Jordan. Yes. 9:16 Deon Picker. Yes. Becky Bates. Yes. Ricky Murray. 9:21 Yes. Motion pass. Anybody want to change the vote? 9:26 Okay. The approval for 9:31 necessary approval has been done. And 9:36 is the next fiscal year will have to be the 10 year plan will have to be redone updated or 9:44 yeah uh this next fiscal year we'll be updating our 10ear 9:51 plan. The last time it was updated was in what 94. 9:57 The last time we did a 10ear plan was in 94 and then we've done two or three five 10:03 years. Yeah. 94 was the original 10 the 10 year plan and 2002 was the 5year update. 10:13 Anything else on that? Jordan, you need anything else on it? I just wanted to say uh Missy's leaving 10:19 South Central Development District. I want to say thank you for helping out the past couple years. 10:25 I'll be back. You would you wouldn't want to be gone and miss us that much, right? 10:32 I'll miss all my solid waste people. 10:38 All right, moving right along. Um, got the director report. 10:52 Can y'all hear me? All right. 11:00 We've got a statement of revenue and statement of expenditures 11:08 and 11:15 y'all want to read it. Usually I walk through it, you know, I 11:22 got this today. sit here together and read it and then 11:28 anybody has any questions, I'll answer them. 12:20 seem like you find a director supervisor for them. Yeah. 12:27 Got a couple. Yeah, we got a foreman. I guess what you 12:33 call responsible for paperwork and watch. 12:56 We got any questions for Jordan on financial saving? 13:02 Everything looks like it's going pretty normal, right? Yes. 13:09 Take a motion to approve the financial statement. Mr. Barillion 13:17 Commissioner Picker with a second. Any other discussion? 13:24 Roll call just got money involved. 13:29 Danny Clark. Yes. Matthew Barnhill. Yes. Steve Dusty Jordan. 13:35 Yes. Kevin, yes. Ricky Murray, yes. Vicky J. Yes. 13:44 Motion carries. Yes. 13:51 All righty. We've got our uh tonnage report. 13:56 Any 14:03 questions about the tone for uh let me know 14:09 is it up because of ice storm stuff coming in or 14:15 I think it's just I mean there's some there's more freezers 14:22 but yeah there's a lot of freezers and stuff like coming in. 14:28 Is that including you have a separate report on all the trees and chips and 14:35 all that stuff going to be burned? Yeah, there's separate port here for that. Oh, you got Okay. 14:44 Any questions on this? Did the four-way west double? 14:53 Just timing of the loads, you know. They would pick one up like the first couple days and then pick one up in the last 14:59 couple days. You know, maybe two extra loads or I was thinking about that. You don't you 15:05 don't run a truck to the four-way west like you do the the one at the east. Yeah. If it's if it's 40 tons next 15:11 month, then that would be alarming. Okay. So his law be his law will be a little bit low next month because of the 15:17 timing of when the load gets 15:29 moving on and this might help you help uh 15:38 you don't break in this landscape tun report we don't break down the convenience centers but I 15:43 was if we did, you'd see like last month the four-way we probably had 20 tons. 15:56 The one after that landscape tones report is the Perry County 16:02 summary sheet. It looks like Perry County was a little 16:08 bit busier this month as well. 16:18 This fourth tonage report is for the high school. 16:26 So, we've received 668.18 16:32 tons of debris. 16:40 None of that will go in the landfield. All that has been burnt. 16:47 You want to wait until you talk about you and what you and I talked about the 16:53 trip you. This is a good chance to talk about that. Yeah, 17:00 this would be a good opportunity to talk about that conversation. 17:05 We had a conversation the other day about all the debris being picked up on 17:12 the side or taken care of on the side of the road and T dot has got a contract 17:17 with a contract with contractor to uh do that and they've come to Jordan 17:23 see about disposing of it. Jordan is Yeah. They asked me how much it would be per cubic yard to dispose of it 17:33 at our facility. $60 a ton, you know, and uh I said that 17:38 probably won't work. And so then I talked around a little bit 17:43 and figured out how much money we needed to replace the loader and came up with $12 per cubic yard 17:50 and said tentatively this is what we would we could charge you. This and this material is shredded trees so we can't 17:56 burn it. we'd have to like wind row it and compost it or reg grind it and sell 18:03 it as mulch. And so at 12,000 or $12 per cubic yard, 18:10 the amount of money we would receive from that would be like $450,000. Spoke to them a week ago and they 18:15 haven't reached back out. 18:21 If we put our landfill has 70,000 cubic yards of space and that would be like 18:26 cashing out your 401k and paying like 90 90% in taxes, you know, so it's not a 18:32 good option at all. But I I don't I've been seeing a lot of 18:38 activity and they're their truck activity from them and I've been in on 100 going towards Fairview they have a 18:44 staging area and their piles are growing and then they'll drive by the next day and they're gone. So, I don't think they're going to bring it to us. I think 18:51 they found someplace else to take it and that would be all right unless we can make some money on it. They want to 18:58 take somebody else. We don't want to take a loss like pay 90% of them cashing 19:03 out. And for reference, 50,000 cubic yards is 30 acre or 31 acres a foot deep or one 19:10 acre 31 ft deep. That's a huge pile. It's like a big old pile. And we really 19:15 it would be very tough for us to find places to put that. It'd be everywhere. Wasn't there first when like 19:22 you you and I talked about it seemed like it was larger. If we charge $60 per ton for it, it would be like over it' be like 19:30 a,500,000. I know. With the what their estimated cubic yards, what they gave you 19:35 estimated it was going to be seemed like it was more than what you just said is 50,000 cubic yards. 19:41 I think you said 100,000. They an estimate of 100,000 cubic yards initially. 19:47 Maybe I just misunderstood. Yeah, it's 50,000 cubic yards. That's 31 acre feet. 19:53 That's just the state. That's the state. Yeah. What they're picking up off the state highway. 19:59 That's what they're It doesn't count what Ronald or anybody else is is bringing to the land when you're burning. So, 20:05 yeah, we we'll hit a hundred. We'll hit a hundred or more. 20:10 Yeah, but there very little left if you burn it. And if we think it's ready, I 20:15 mean, I've had something that catch fire and it burns forever. Yeah. Doesn't matter up either. 20:21 Oh, smoke. All right. 20:28 For Jordan on that. 20:42 Um, moving on to the director's report. 20:48 Good Friday is April 3rd, which is before our next meeting. So, it's on here. 20:55 And then, uh, item two is the 21:01 is our current year's billing. And I got it broken down on a report. on the next page. 21:08 Um, we build out $1,40,940 and right now 21:16 220 485,000 sorry 220,4854 21:25 hasn't been paid. That includes penalties, which half of that is penalties. And so the current year's 21:32 unpaid excluding the penalty is $110,24252. 21:41 Uh which brings us to a percentage that's been resolved from this year's 21:46 bill of 89.41%. That a little better than last. 21:53 Is that about I think I think it's a little bit better. It's uh 21:58 pretty good. 89% up about six or seven% from last year. 22:05 Yeah, it's 3/4 of% it was last month. So, 22:11 but yeah, we'll probably get to 90%. 22:17 And then the old money is uh you know 3/4 of a million dollars 22:23 from the past 32 years. Um we did not send out the escalation 22:30 letters due to the ice storm. I spoke to the lawyer. He was uncomfortable 22:36 sending them when we had planned to send them and suggested that we do at the beginning of 22:41 March. So I said, "Well, if it's the beginning of March and still talk to the board about it before." Are y'all 22:46 comfortable with us? Folks had too much bad stuff happening 22:54 nasty letter from us or semi nasty. Yeah. 23:00 Yeah. Yeah. All right. 23:06 And then the fourth thing around here is uh Jason. He's gonna I would He's 23:12 provided a proposal to help us with our getting a landfill permit 23:19 uh next fiscal year. So, 23:25 and we we had a a trusted consultant that we used for 30 years, 23:31 uh Joe House. And Joe House uh has stopped buying insurance and hasn't been 23:37 paying on his license because he's retiring. And so he's serious about he's always had he's retired, but he actually retired. And so he recommended and I 23:45 think he gave Barge a lot of our information like our our drawings and 23:51 stuff and suggested that we go with barge moving forward for our next permit. So Jason, you want to talk a 23:58 little bit about the time frame and what to expect on Yeah. So typically, you know, you guys 24:04 have been through this process before, I think, with that other small expansion. This is another, you know, like five, six acre expansion. We'll do the most we 24:10 can in in that area just north of where the the shop building is going towards the landfill. But it is about an 24:16 18-month process with the state. Uh, you know, when you break down their time frames, that's a that's an entire year 24:21 for them. They've got a review time plus public hearing times, and that's a total of a year of that time frame. And the 24:28 rest is, you know, is the six months or so that we actually need to do the actual physical work uh to basically, 24:33 you know, do the hydrogel logic um information. A lot of it's already there. So, we're going to we're going to 24:39 pull that together and then actually do the design drawings based on, you know, what's you know, how how and what we're 24:45 able to do based on groundwater and soil types that are out there to be able to move it forward. 24:51 Um these are typically, you know, fairly 24:57 innocuous as far as the state as far as the process and how you know you know the time frame this is not going to be 25:03 you know contentious there will be several preamble things that we will need to do you do have Jackson law uh 25:09 you are not exempt from Jackson law uh from if you have a municipality u and so 25:15 you will have to have that go to to county commission and go through that process in addition this board will have 25:21 to indicate that the uh that you want the landfill other than just saying we're going to, you know, pay somebody 25:27 for designing, you'll actually have to make a motion saying that you're authorizing the landfill to exist and 25:32 that it's consistent with your, you know, 10-year plan, uh, which it has been all this time since it's been 25:38 operating out there all that time frame. But we'll need that letter in order to go with the, uh, in order for TK to 25:43 review that process. So, there is some preamble work that can be done at any point in time. Uh the most contentious 25:50 one is usually the Jackson Law one because that has a lot of public notice requirements that need to need to 25:55 happen. Uh people typically, you know, come out of the woodwork to understand what it is and once they understand that 26:00 it's just a demolition landfill. It's yours and expansion. It typically, you know, goes fairly smooth. Uh in the 26:07 middle of that same process with Putinham County right now and wrapping up the FAR process with Perry County uh 26:12 on their demolition landfill. Uh theirs has taken a little bit longer because they've been a little uh stubborn in how 26:17 they want to put groundwater monitoring wells in, but that's neither here. How long did it take Perry County to 26:23 Well, we we were able to complete our our entire work process in less than in less than eight months. Uh Perry County 26:28 has been frustrated with having to do monitoring on the landfill. Uh so they've held that up for almost two 26:34 years by not putting their growing margin wells. But that is uh up to that particular county mayor and his staff as 26:39 to whether or not he wants to pay for that or not. So three years to get a permit. Yeah, they'll be right at three years because 26:44 they finally have agreed to put the wells in. So, okay. Yeah, but this should be a simple 18, you know, this one will be a very quick 26:50 and easy process. You already, you know, you already have a monitoring well in that area. It'll have to be replaced if we do shift down, but that, you know, 26:56 that can be placed into a second phase as opposed to the first phase. So, you can spread those costs out over time. 27:03 Yeah. and I've got your proposal in this 27:08 packet and it it shows a professional services fee of like $60,000. 27:14 Um, and I think that is uh, you know, likely to change because the assumption 27:21 in the proposal is that we won't have to do additional studies or laboratory testing 27:27 on the soils there. Yeah, we we did make it an hourly, so it's not that's not a lump sum or anything like that. So, you know, if we're able to do the design or 27:33 other pieces, you know, quicker or faster, you guys get the benefit of that. Uh, if you know, like as Jordan 27:39 mentioned, if there's something that we come back and say, well, the existing information on the soils just isn't good enough, it's not going to be acceptable 27:44 to TK, then we'll have to you we'll have to do that that testing in order to get that in place. But right now, we're going with the assumption that the 27:51 available hydrogel like information you have on the soils and everything else out there is going to allow us to move 27:57 forward without having much new holes in the ground. Would there be additional to that? 50,000 28:03 with what you're saying. If it's not acceptable, this would be higher than that, right? It could be. Yeah. I mean, uh the key is 28:09 probably, you know, we're probably talking an additional round of bowel testing or something like that for the 28:14 surface soils with a uh with track, which you guys have. So, that's minimal. That's probably $4 or $5,000. Um if for 28:22 some reason they forced us to put the well in in advance uh as opposed to be able to use some of the other data, then 28:27 that's about a $10,000 item. You would you would be opposed to us running additional studies through our 28:33 books, right? Like like if you were to hire if you were intending to hire like 28:39 a drilling company to help us out, you would let us hire the drilling company. Absolutely. Anything to anything that we 28:44 can do to help you save money that if you've got a local, you know, somebody local and and going that route, typically on our school work, we don't 28:52 actually charge a markup on the on the subconsultants or drilling fees anyway. So, Oh, okay. 28:58 But it's anything we can do to help, happy to help. So like any questions about the 29:03 permitting process? Jason's here to provide us information on the time frame of permitting process for you to do 29:10 landfill. Is this is this the area? Like there's your 29:15 building. Is this this space finally? It's right here. Or it's just over here. It's over there. Yes. 29:21 Is that undisturbed previously or was it 29:27 Um I I'm unclear where the city was all up here, I think, by the industrial road, right? Yeah. 29:32 Old land in landfill. So the Yeah, it's it's undisturbed. There's uh we built up a road on the 29:40 side of it. So the southern 29:45 bit of it has fill, but beneath that beneath that it's Yeah. 29:53 And then the Yeah, I get the weeds, but there's some there'll be uh with this 29:59 project, there'll be more like last time we just started filling in the area 30:05 since we're tied on space and this isn't the best spot for a landfill, but we're going to make it work. Um 30:13 there'll be some constru I'm afraid there's going to be some construction costs. like at minimum we're gonna have to reroute some uh storm water drains 30:21 and um and do some grading which we may be able 30:27 to do the grading ourselves but we'll have to reroute some storm water drains 30:34 we had the FAA land you know we just dig a pit and fill in fill it in I think 30:42 how many cubic yards are you think you could get in there oh this it's uh it's 30:48 a lot more than we've got right now. So probably 30:54 3 400,000. No, you're talking about the FAA land. 30:59 You're talking about the proposed No, just the one you're doing. We'll we'll try to max it out as much as possible to get gain as much area as we 31:06 can given given the constraints of staying away from the building and and then just trying to work through that uh that drainage feature down through 31:12 there. Yeah. So I think phase one of the project would be we have to characterize the 31:20 site. So how deep is your groundwater? What kind of soil is in between 31:27 groundwater and where you're going to put trash? And once you have that information about 31:33 the area, then you begin designing your landfill, like the final grades on it, 31:39 because there's a bunch of rules about how what the soil has to be like your trash and your water. 31:46 And so phase one is characterizing the site. We're hoping, we've previously characterized this ditch before 31:54 um and we've done a lot of work on this ditch 32:00 and we're hoping that we just give them that information and they're like, "All 32:06 right, part one's done. Move on to part two." But there's a chance that they 32:11 could say, "Well, we want you to do additional work on the characterization of the ditch." 32:18 And if they do that, that's when we would have like additional testing costs. 32:23 The good news is there's there's a current well right in the middle of that. So, that helps. And then we, you know, while we have to move it 32:28 eventually uh in phase two of the of the construction process, yeah, it gives us the groundwater depth right where we 32:34 need it. So, and it is a small area. It's about five, six acres down there. So the hope is is we can, you know, 32:39 given the history and the amount of data that's already out there, we can, you know, work with Tekk to say that's 32:44 enough information to be able to do this expansion, you know, in that area. 32:50 So anyway, this is this is all just information. We're not voting on 32:56 anything or y'all aren't on anything. 33:02 Yeah, it would be Becky. It's the area between the recycling center and the covered landfill. 33:07 Okay. So, essentially, you want it to be a wet weather conveyance ditch, not a The Army Corps has determined that it's 33:14 a ditch. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. That was a big question 33:19 last and it took a lot of work because our 33:24 Anyway, they have said definitively that it is a ditch, 33:29 not a blue line. And you've got a fiveyear window from there. So that was 33:34 what last year sometimes. So you got a fiveyear window that that particular determination holds in place. 33:42 Yeah. But we do need to move some storm water drains. 33:53 Anybody got any more questions for any of the gentlemen? 34:01 Thank you. 34:08 Next meeting is the at 6 if that's all right with y'all. 34:19 We got any I mean we covered the new we don't have anybody have any old 34:25 business. I had a question. Yeah, Mr. and we look him up and clear his 34:30 fees from December. Yeah, he had paid previous um he'd been up to date until this last 34:37 time. I think there uh Christie has a 34:43 resolution. Yeah, I was going to ask you about the resolution. 34:48 Members has a resolution on the lean on the exempt properties. 35:11 And your intent is to have that for this the March, correct? 35:18 Talk about a little bit while you um This is where they have to pay the filing fee. If you don't resolve your 35:25 exempt property by october, then you got to pay 30 bucks. 35:33 We'll need to publish that'll need to be advert I mean put out so folks will publish it so 35:40 folks will know that you know that's way you know if 35:45 you really should have already done something about it but apparently several have not 35:52 from our last meeting last discussion we had a couple months ago you 36:00 told you 36:05 back there being quiet. We're going to put the lean on and this 36:10 is to put it on and take it off. Just take it off cuz it is property. 36:16 This is it. Just pays us back for putting it. Yeah. Yeah. Pays us back for putting 36:24 it on and taking it off and taking it off. for that cover taking it off too. 36:31 Right now, we send them across the hall to take it off themselves. 36:36 Well, that that's the reason I was asking. I didn't have a problem with the way that we're doing it now. We're not 36:41 going to change that. I think you need to add it more and that way you take it off, too, cuz they going 36:47 to be people ain't going to understand if they pay this then they probably ain't going to know to have to take it off. So, we take the leans off. 36:53 Yeah. just figure out we might need to tweak it just to I was in there one day somebody came in and did that and Anita said you got to 36:59 go across the the hall and they didn't have any way to pay the 11 12 $15 that a 37:07 register was going to charge it I think we could take it off for 37:13 or even if we have to have make it have more money to make somebody don't lose no money. Yeah, it' be $24 to We pay 24 37:23 to have them add it on and then we pay 12 to have them add it on and 37:29 then another 12 to take remove it. And so at $30 37:37 is everybody okay with the way this resolution is written. Um, I told Jordan I would sponsor. We 37:44 need another sponsor from this committee if possible. 38:02 All right. Got anything else? Any new business? I 38:07 think we've taken care of a motion to 38:15 second and all in favor can leave or get ready for next meeting or whatever you want to be.