| |
Good morning Chairman Gillmor and members of this
subcommittee. My name is Tim Berlekamp, and I am the Director of the Recycling
Division of Mahoning County, a.k.a. Mahoning County Solid Waste Management
District. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on HR 1213 in its current
state. I would like to say that I agree in principle with this legislation but I
am concerned with some of the provisions and definitions related to the
grandfathering of current host agreements.
I would like first to describe my county’s
situation. Mahoning County is located on the Ohio-Pennsylvania border. We have
three active private sector landfills and two closed ones. The largest of the
active landfills is Carbon Limestone that is operated by BFI/Allied and is
located directly on the border between Pennsylvania and Ohio. This particular
landfill is also one of the largest in the State of Ohio and is responsible for
approximately one third of the out-of-state waste received within the state.
There currently exists a host community agreement between BFI/Allied and the
Board of Commissioners, the Recycling Division, Poland Township, the township in
which the landfill is located, and the local health department. This agreement
was first executed in June of 1990 shortly after the passage of HB 592, Ohio’s
first and only comprehensive solid waste management legislation. HB 592 was
passed June 24, 1988. I believe that you are very familiar with this
legislation, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to clarify the fact that there is
no county host agreement with the other two landfills, one of which is operated
by Waste Management and the other privately owned by Ms. Joanne Douglas and her
family.
I took my position as Director in Mahoning County
in February, 1999, so I can only comment on previous negotiations through
historical records and discussions with those present at the time. We have,
however, just recently negotiated an addendum to the original agreement allowing
a 500-ton per day increase in long haul waste. For agreement purposes, we
consider anything outside of a 150-mile radius as long haul. I need to note here
that the original agreement has been amended through negotiations four previous
times, so this addendum would make the fifth. I make this point to illustrate
the ability of concerned entities to adapt their agreements to changing
conditions. This is the power of good host community arrangements.
I have two major issues I would like to present
to this Subcommittee. The first is the strength of a good public/private sector
relationship accomplished through constructive and professional negotiations.
Mahoning County has benefited from BFI/Allied not only through the revenues
legislated by HB 592 but also by negotiated conditions allowing BFI/Allied to
receive out-of-state waste. Such benefits as water lines, a waste-water
treatment plant, road maintenance and free waste disposal to affected citizens
are just a few. We are the only county within the state of Ohio that receives
free curbside recycling and continues to enjoy a working dialog with BFI/Allied
as conditions change and needs arise. I must emphasize, however, I do not
believe that this relationship would have accrued without the anticipated
passage of HB 592, and for this reason, I believe legislation like HR 1213 is
necessary. The landfill had operated several years prior HB 592 with little or
no benefits realized by our community. The need for legislation requiring
operators and local communities to negotiate their fate is definitely required.
This issue is perhaps one where the private sector and I would disagree since
their optimum position would be no barriers to the flow of interstate waste.
During my years as a public servant, six of which were as a county commissioner,
I never remember a time when any private sector entity approached me and asked
for a negotiated relationship which would impact their operation unless it was
for a tax incentive to enhance their operation. For this reason alone, I believe
that the principle of HR 1213 is a good one.
The second issue I would like to address would be
the intent of HR 1213 to ensure local control. I feel that the bill restricts or
limits, through definitions and exceptions, the grandfathering of many good
current host agreements within the state of Ohio. An example is the definition
of "affected local government" as "(A) the public body authorized
by State law to plan for the management of municipal solid waste, a majority
of the members of which are elected officials, for the area in which a
landfill or incinerator is located or proposed to be located."
I would like to refer to my own division. In
order to have an approved plan which drives the negotiation process, a Policy
Committee made up of a County Commissioner or his/her designee, a Township
Trustee, the Mayor of the largest metropolitan area within the county or his/her
designee, the Director of the local health district, two citizen representatives
and one representative from an industrial generator must develop and write a
comprehensive solid waste plan for the division. Once that plan has been
written, it must be ratified by a unanimous vote of the Board of Commissioners,
and affirmative votes by the largest metropolitan area and at least 60% of the
population of the county represented by the townships, incorporated villages and
other cities. I believe that you would agree that this process clearly
represents the public will, but it would not meet HR 1213’s narrow definition
of "affected local government."
In summary, I would like to emphasize one major
point. Local control of solid waste issues is imperative. Another tool for
meeting such fundamental local government responsibility is flow control
authority. I urge the subcommittee to take up consideration of HR 1214 in the
near future.
I believe we have come a long way from the local
community dumps many of us can remember, including yourself, Mr. Chairman on the
banks of the Sandusky River in Old Fort, Ohio. And I believe that our private
sector partners in this effort have worked diligently to communicate and
cooperate when required. This solid waste playing field must always have two
teams and a fair set of rules to ensure the most economical, environmentally
sound and professional service to our constituents. Thank you all for your time
and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have of me.
SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS
-
Host Community
Agreements are necessary for constructive relationships between affected
areas and operators.
-
Grandfather issues
are too narrow and may nullify very good and productive agreements currently
in affect.
-
Local government
responsibility goes hand in hand with local control of solid waste,
including flow control.
|
|
