Hickman County TN

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

Solid Waste Committee · Meeting · May 4, 2026

Mon, May 4, 2026

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 work was financial: members reviewed current solid-waste revenues, tonnage, collections, and then spent most of the meeting confronting a projected structural deficit driven by prior hidden cash shortfalls, the likely loss of Perry County business, and Waste Management fee increases. They advanced a $14,000 budget amendment to fund court collections on delinquent accounts, and later approved sending a proposed solid-waste budget forward contingent on later passage of fee-related resolutions.

The biggest unresolved policy question was how to raise enough recurring revenue without cutting convenience-center service. Members discussed increasing the annual household solid-waste fee, possibly adding or increasing commercial/industrial charges, and whether to keep equipment reserves at 10% or return to 5% to preserve flexibility. Other notable threads included monthly receipts and disbursements, Perry County surplus revenue, class 1 vs. class 3/4 tonnage trends, recycling volumes, poor economics of plastic recycling, and billing/collections progress.

Call to Order; Approval of Agenda; Public Comment; Approval of Minutes 0:44

  • 0:44 Meeting called to order.
  • 1:23 Agenda approved by motion and voice vote.
  • 1:47 No public comment.
  • 2:29 Prior minutes approved by motion and voice vote.

Department / Official Reports

Financial report 2:54

  • 2:54 Trustee’s report showed cash receipts of $153,399.71.
  • 3:07 Disbursements were $198,617.25; explanation given that the month had three pay periods, making spending appear unusually high.
  • 3:32 Revenue report showed the solid-waste disposal fee running above budget, attributed in part to more residents paying online.
  • 4:00 Tipping-fee and commercial/industrial revenue were also reported above budget.
  • 5:12 Staff said delinquent-account follow-up had become more aggressive and that the increased revenue reflected that added effort.
  • 5:47 Motion made and seconded to approve the financials.
  • 6:04 Financials approved by roll-call vote, unanimously as called.

Perry County report 6:22

  • 6:22 The Perry County operation generated $3,823 in surplus revenue for April.
  • 6:38 Year-to-date surplus revenue from Perry County was $14,631.98.

Tonnage and recycling report 6:54

  • 6:58 Class 1 tonnage was 50 tons lower than the same month last year.
  • 7:07 Class 3/4 tonnage was reported as double the same month last year.
  • 7:15 Difference explained: class 1 waste is shipped out of county, while class 3/4 goes into the county landfill, affecting local airspace and maintenance needs.
  • 7:39 Cardboard recycled: 56.39 tons.
  • 7:45 Plastic recycled: 17.95 tons.
  • 7:50 Metal recycling was also more than double the comparable prior-year month, attributed to pulling metal from the class 4 landfill and placing scrap-metal dumpsters at two convenience centers.
  • 8:36 Members asked why glass and paper showed no sales numbers.
  • 8:49 Explanation: paper is combined with fiber/cardboard streams; glass is stockpiled, crushed, and shipped only when there is enough for a load. Staff said collected glass was not being thrown away.

Billing and collections enforcement 9:44

  • 9:44 Of 1,40,940 bills sent this year, 90.51% had been resolved; the figure was presented as improved collection performance.
  • 10:10 Money owed was reported at $697,833.79.
  • 10:17 That delinquent balance was said to be down $727,828 from the prior month’s comparison point as stated in the meeting transcript.
  • 10:27 Committee turned to whether to escalate some delinquent accounts into court collections.
  • 10:40 County Attorney Dan Mecklenborg said he had been asked months earlier to help staff become more aggressive with collections.
  • 10:58 Letters had been sent to more than 200 delinquent account holders, typically owing between $1,500 and $4,000.
  • 11:16 Liens had already been filed on delinquent accounts, so the county could collect if the property was sold, but members were told many properties were not selling or were changing hands without prompt recording.
  • 12:05 The warning letters told debtors to either pay, work out a payment plan with the office, or face collection action.
  • 12:18 Attorney said the county had not pursued formal collection litigation in some time, likely because the process is not cheap.
  • 12:40 After speaking with Judge Amy Puckett, he had secured three court dates dedicated to solid-waste collections, with the first in June.
  • 13:07 Plan was to start with 25–30 accounts, seeking judgments that would permit standard collection remedies such as garnishment or attachment of personal property.
  • 13:49 Early results from letters alone: about $11,000 collected in lump-sum or partial payments.
  • 14:06 About 30 people had signed payment plans at $100 per month, creating roughly $3,000 per month in expected incoming payments.
  • 14:27 Staff proposed continuing with another group of roughly 30 accounts in June, then additional groups in July and August if the committee wished.
  • 15:25 Members noted a budget amendment was needed if the committee wanted to authorize filing the first batch of cases in June.
  • 15:43 Attorney estimated court filing costs at about $117 per case, recoverable if collection succeeds.
  • 16:18 Delinquent penalties had already maxed out at $192 per account under existing resolutions, so balances were no longer growing indefinitely.
  • 16:50 Proposed budget amendment: transfer $14,000 from rental and tires/tubes to legal services.
  • 17:31 A member objected that the effort might not be directly profitable and might recover less in fees than it costs to pursue.
  • 17:58 Response from counsel: even if returns are not dramatic, the effort would send a message that the county will not let delinquencies sit for years.
  • 18:37 Counsel said costs would be kept reasonable and noted Sarah Nash would assist, because he expected to resign at the end of August.
  • 19:23 Clarified that $14,000 was not just for the first 25–30 cases, but effectively to support the broader effort through the summer, including service of process.
  • 20:07 Private process service was discussed at $90 per service through Jerry Deal; counsel said he preferred that route for reliability and said those costs were also recoverable.
  • 20:41 Committee discussion settled on using the initial filings as a test and expecting a report back before putting in more money.
  • 21:18 Motion to move the $14,000 budget amendment to the Budget Committee.
  • 21:25 Amendment advanced by roll-call vote, with all members called voting yes.

New Business / Agenda Items

Budget outlook and structural deficit 21:54

  • 21:54 Staff introduced a chart showing how money flowed through the department in 2025.
  • 22:31 The chart showed an ending fund balance $172,485 higher than the starting balance, but staff said that surplus was misleading because the 207 fund structure and project borrowing distorted cash reality.
  • 23:25 After removing loan proceeds and loan-funded project spending, staff said 2025 actually reflected a $72,000 deficit rather than a true operating gain.
  • 23:41 That deficit existed even before later cost pressures.
  • 23:50 Loss of Perry County business through bidding was projected to reduce finances by $55,000.
  • 23:59 Waste Management price increases were projected to reduce finances by another $92,000, on top of prior increases.
  • 24:18 Fuel costs were also noted as higher and likely to remain elevated.
  • 24:27 Projected cash deficit was described as about $250,000.
  • 24:35 The formal budget could show roughly $350,000 deficit exposure, though staff noted the department never spends every line fully.
  • 24:48 Staff emphasized this did not even fully fund future equipment replacement, described as a “couple hundred thousand” dollars per year in long-term liability.
  • 25:43 Staff said convenience centers account for about 172 man-hours per week.
  • 25:51 Each hour cut from convenience-center operations was estimated to save $625 annually in the budget.
  • 25:57 Each roll-off/convenience center was said to cost about $10,000.
  • 26:15 Options identified: service cuts, tipping-fee increases, annual fee increases, or some combination.

Equipment reserve and replacement planning 26:31

  • 26:39 Staff said the department currently sets aside 5% of revenue for equipment replacement.
  • 26:48 Reserve balance was estimated around $550,000 in staff’s worksheet.
  • 26:59 The replacement-liability model considered the possibility of used equipment, grant assistance, expected cost after grants, current hours/miles, annual use, and remaining service life.
  • 42:16 Later in the discussion, members clarified there was about $100,000 currently set aside in reserve from prior years, plus an expected $60,000–$80,000 more from current-year contributions.
  • 52:58 Staff showed an alternative scenario using a 10% reserve, which would set aside about $27,000 per year for future equipment.
  • 54:53 A member summarized that six pieces of equipment would likely need replacement within 10 years or less.
  • 55:23 Staff defended the replacement assumptions as realistic, citing two sets of tracks on track equipment and around 300,000 miles on trucks as key lifecycle markers.
  • 1:03:50 Members cautioned against designating too much money formally as equipment reserve, because a reserve resolution can restrict the county’s ability to use those funds for other purposes.
  • 1:04:43 Discussion leaned toward leaving the formal reserve at 5% and allowing additional undesignated surplus to accumulate for flexibility, rather than locking all extra funds into a restricted equipment-only reserve.
  • 1:05:23 Members noted any final resolution language would need redlining because a draft referenced a 10% equipment reserve.

Recycling efficiency and possible policy changes 32:01

  • 32:01 Staff raised restricting plastic recycling to improve efficiency and cut costs by several thousand dollars.
  • 32:08 Problem described: residents place nearly any plastic in collection dumpsters, but much of it has no resale market.
  • 32:37 Current process was described as inefficient: plastic is collected loose, hauled to the recycling center, dumped, sorted, and most of it discarded.
  • 32:52 Staff said about 90% of what comes in is not sellable under current market conditions.
  • 33:01 Members asked what “number two” plastic meant; staff explained the resin-code sorting issue and said milk-jug-type containers were the likely acceptable material.
  • 34:06 Proposed operational change would involve public notice, then attendants screening loads so only the acceptable plastic stream would be taken.
  • 35:01 Staff added that even marketable plastic still requires cleanup and handling.

Fee scenarios and service-cut tradeoffs 38:32

  • 38:32 Staff displayed budget scenarios comparing effects on fund balance and cash balance.
  • 39:13 Main question posed: what should next year’s solid-waste fee be?
  • 39:18 A member asked staff to model $110 for the residential solid-waste fee and $80 for the tipping fee.
  • 39:52 Staff said that scenario came very close to balance.
  • 40:01 Staff explained why fund-balance and cash-balance numbers differ: depreciation and equipment-reserve accounting affect the budget but do not represent immediate cash spending.
  • 43:27 Members also referenced a countywide request for a 4% increase for department heads and officials and asked how that would affect the proposal.
  • 44:43 Staff said Perry County’s impact and Waste Management’s higher tipping charges were happening at the same time, complicating comparisons.
  • 45:19 Waste Management’s increase was described as $3 per ton on top of the earlier increase from the previous August.
  • 46:19 Staff said one modeled option equated to about a 7.5% revenue increase.
  • 47:19 Another discussed scenario amounted to an 8% increase.
  • 47:42 Members noted one discussed structure effectively raised the household fee by $20 and also raised another fee by $20.
  • 47:59 One member cited an informal Facebook discussion with about 350 comments and said commenters were roughly 3 to 1 in favor of raising household fees rather than reducing convenience-center hours.
  • 48:46 Members asked which convenience-center day would be best to cut if service reductions became necessary, and what savings that would produce.
  • 49:23 Clarification: the $625 savings figure applied across all attended convenience centers, not the unattended landfill convenience site.
  • 49:56 An 8-hour day cut across centers was discussed as roughly $5,000 in annual savings.
  • 51:44 Staff said eliminating all convenience-center hours would save only about $17,000 in payroll, underscoring that the major savings are limited because many costs are not hourly.
  • 52:25 Staff said hour cuts save payroll, but larger route or outside-service cuts would be needed to materially affect truck and equipment costs.

Commercial and industrial fee proposal 57:01

  • 57:01 Committee narrowed discussion to two broad scenarios: a higher residential fee/tipping-fee combination and a residential-fee increase paired with a new or revised commercial charge.
  • 57:22 Members noted any fee change would require a resolution.
  • 57:44 A member said he trusted the Solid Waste Director’s analysis and believed an increase was necessary after roughly 30 years at the same level.
  • 58:44 Members said residents might better accept an annual fee around $120 if there were a monthly collection method; $120 was described as effectively $10 per month.
  • 59:12 Other funding ideas mentioned by the public included a wheel tax, though no action was taken on that concept.
  • 1:00:12 Another scenario discussed charging commercial and industrial accounts similarly to nearby counties.
  • 1:00:22 Staff said there were 728 businesses not currently charged an annual fee in the same way households are; instead, they pay when bringing trash across the scales.
  • 1:00:32 Dickson County was cited as charging industrial/commercial accounts $120 annually in addition to scale charges.
  • 1:00:45 Applying $120 to 728 businesses was estimated to generate almost $86,000.
  • 1:01:01 Members acknowledged businesses could pass those costs on to citizens, but argued such fees are not unusual.
  • 1:01:31 A draft resolution already existed for this commercial-fee approach.
  • 1:01:41 Staff estimated the commercial-fee proposal would generate about $87,000 at $120.
  • 1:02:03 Members said that additional business revenue could allow the household annual fee to be lowered to $110, reducing the increase on residents to less than $2 per month.
  • 1:02:41 A member said the $110 scenario still appeared to leave Hickman County among the lower-fee counties in the region.
  • 1:02:54 Several members voiced preference for the $110 household fee paired with a commercial/industrial annual charge, over a larger household-only increase.

Budget approval contingent on later resolutions 1:06:37

  • 1:06:37 Members debated how to move the budget forward when the fee resolutions had not yet been formally adopted.
  • 1:07:08 Concern raised that waiting on the resolutions would slow the budget process.
  • 1:07:46 Staff also warned of an operational deadline: bills must be prepared and information sent to the printer in June, so the department needs to know what it will charge.
  • 1:08:20 Members agreed the committee could at least present its proposals to the Budget Committee while acknowledging they were still pending.
  • 1:08:46 Committee turned to a vote on the solid-waste budget.
  • 1:10:08 It was clarified that, technically, the fee resolutions should be in place before final budget approval, but the budget could be advanced contingent on those resolutions passing as part of the larger county budget process.
  • 1:10:51 A motion was framed to approve the budget contingent on passage of the fee resolutions.
  • 1:11:06 Motion made and seconded.
  • 1:11:18 Budget advanced by roll-call vote, with all members called voting yes.
  • 1:11:46 Chair indicated the measure passed.

Announcements 9:23

  • 9:23 Memorial Day, Monday, May 25, noted as the upcoming holiday closure.
  • 9:37 Next meeting announced for June 1, 2026.
  • 18:53 County Attorney Dan Mecklenborg stated he expected to resign at the end of August, while helping transition work to Sarah Nash.

Adjournment 1:11:51

  • 1:11:51 Meeting moved toward adjournment without additional substantive business.

Key figures and statistics

Figure Type Context / topic Timestamp
$153,399.71 Revenue Cash receipts in trustee’s report 2:54
$198,617.25 Expense Monthly disbursements 3:07
3 Count Pay periods in the month, cited to explain higher disbursements 3:20
$3,823 Revenue April surplus revenue from Perry County operation 6:22
$14,631.98 Revenue Year-to-date Perry County surplus revenue 6:38
50 tons Tonnage Class 1 tonnage lower than same month last year 6:58
Double Comparison Class 3/4 tonnage versus same month last year 7:07
56.39 tons Recycling tonnage Cardboard recycled 7:39
17.95 tons Recycling tonnage Plastic recycled 7:45
2 Site count Convenience centers with scrap-metal dumpsters 8:07
May 25 Date Memorial Day holiday 9:23
June 1, 2026 Date Next meeting date 9:37
1,40,940 Billing count Bills sent this year, as stated in transcript 9:44
90.51% Percentage Bills resolved/collection resolution rate 9:55
$697,833.79 Accounts receivable Delinquent money owed 10:10
$727,828 Change Reported decline in delinquent balance from prior comparison point 10:17
200+ Count Collection letters sent to delinquent accounts 12:40
3 Court date count Dedicated solid-waste collection court dates secured 12:46
25–30 Case count Initial accounts to file for collection in June 13:07
$11,000 Collections Payments received after demand letters 13:49
30 Account count People enrolled in payment plans 14:06
$100 per month Payment plan Monthly payment amount on delinquent accounts 14:13
$3,000 per month Recurring revenue Approximate monthly collections from payment plans 14:19
$117 Court cost Approximate filing cost per collection case 15:51
$192 Penalty cap Maximum accumulated penalty per delinquent account 16:26
$14,000 Budget amendment Transfer from rental and tires/tubes to legal services 16:50
August Date Dan Mecklenborg’s expected resignation timing 18:53
$90 Service cost Private process service fee discussed 20:07
2025 Fiscal year Year used in money-flow chart 22:20
$172,485 Fund balance change Apparent increase in ending fund balance in 2025 22:31
$72,000 Deficit Operating deficit after removing loan/project distortion 23:33
$55,000 Revenue loss Estimated impact from losing Perry County business 23:50
$92,000 Cost increase Additional impact from Waste Management price increases 24:13
$250,000 Cash deficit Projected cash shortfall 24:27
$350,000 Budget exposure Rough deficit shown in formal budget projection 24:35
172 Labor hours Convenience-center man-hours per week 25:43
$625 Savings rate Annual budget savings per convenience-center hour cut 25:51
$10,000 Cost Approximate annual cost per roll-off/convenience center 25:57
5% Reserve rate Current equipment replacement set-aside rate 26:39
$550,000 Reserve balance Approximate equipment reserve in worksheet 26:48
$49.4889 Rate Current Waste Management fee as discussed 28:15
$52.8 Rate Expected upcoming Waste Management fee after increase, as stated 28:41
$65,000 Bill amount Referenced monthly bill on last page 29:26
22 Account count Industrial accounts discussed 30:22
76 Account count Commercial accounts discussed 30:22
$120 Proposed fee Commercial/industrial annual fee scenario 30:08
90% Percentage Share of plastic received that staff said is not sellable 32:52
$110 Proposed fee Residential annual solid-waste fee scenario 39:18
$80 Proposed fee Tipping-fee scenario modeled with $110 residential fee 39:18
$175,000 Fund balance Approximate fund-balance result in modeled scenario 40:01
$27,000 Cash balance / reserve effect Approximate cash result or annual equipment saving in scenario discussion 40:09
$100,000 Reserve balance Existing equipment reserve from prior years 42:16
$60,000–$80,000 Reserve addition Expected current-year contribution to reserve 42:25
4% Percentage Countywide increase request for department heads/officials 43:27
$3 per ton Cost increase Additional Waste Management increase on top of prior increase 45:19
7.5% Percentage Revenue increase under one modeled scenario 46:19
8% Percentage Increase under another scenario 47:19
$20 Fee increase Discussed household increase amount 47:42
350 Comment count Approximate Facebook responses cited by a member 47:59
3 to 1 Ratio Public preference for fee increase over convenience-center hour cuts 48:07
8 hours Time Example of one day cut across centers 49:56
$5,000 Savings Estimated annual savings from one 8-hour day cut across centers 49:56
$17,000 Payroll savings Savings if all convenience-center hours were removed 51:44
10% Reserve rate Alternative equipment-reserve scenario modeled 52:58
6 Equipment count Pieces of equipment needing replacement within 10 years or less 54:53
10 years or less Time horizon Replacement timeline for six pieces of equipment 54:53
2 Track sets Replacement-cycle assumption for track equipment 55:23
300,000 miles Mileage Replacement-cycle assumption for trucks 55:23
30 years Time span How long fees were said to have remained at prior level 58:12
$120 Proposed fee Annual household fee discussed as roughly $10/month 58:44
$10 per month Monthly equivalent Monthly framing of a $120 annual fee 58:44
728 Business count Commercial/industrial businesses discussed for annual fee 1:00:22
$120 Proposed fee Dickson County-style annual commercial/industrial fee 1:00:32
$86,000 Revenue Estimated yield from charging 728 businesses $120 1:00:45
$87,000 Revenue Estimated annual commercial-fee yield cited later in discussion 1:01:41
$110 Proposed fee Household fee under preferred mixed scenario 1:02:03
Less than $2 Monthly equivalent Claimed added monthly burden on citizens under one proposal 1:02:14
5% Reserve rate Preferred formal reserve level to preserve flexibility 1:04:43
June Operational deadline Need to send billing information to printer 1:07:46