| |
A.
Introduction
-
Mister
Chairman, members of the sub-committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
address you today concerning the legislation before you at this time.
-
I
currently serve Gloucester Va. as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
-
I
am here today to express my views not those of the Board
-
Though
I would like to leave with you a resolution passed by the board supporting
state Senator Billing’s legislation known as the Solid Waste Management
Act of 1999 giving the state of Virginia some control over the amount of
waste imported from out-of-state. My intent here is to show you from the
public record, what the boards attitude was concerning controls on the
import of out-of-state waste.
-
I
would also like to leave with you a resolution passed by the Gloucester
Republican Committee supporting the same legislation. Again, I hope to show
you from the public record that at least one faction of the community
supported controls on out-of-state waste. It is my opinion that the majority
of the county of Gloucester supports local and state controls on the import
of out-of-state waste but these two resolutions are the only proof from
public record I could acquire on short notice.
-
During
my time to address you here today, I would like to present some information
concerning the Mega landfill located in Gloucester County Va. I want to
include information concerning our contract with WM, some history about how
the facility came to be built, some input on how the community has been
effected by the landfill, and finally give you a brief statement on my
position concerning the legislation before this sub-committee. Before I get
started I would like to take a moment to introduce myself and give you some
incite in how I became interested in local politics.
-
I
entered local politics in 1992 over the Boards desire to build a Mega
landfill in Gloucester
-
I
was a principle leader in the fight against this facility
-
I
attended board meeting for 2 years before the contract between Gloucester
County and WM was signed and for another 4 years before being elected to the
Board. I also attended Planning Commission Meetings for 4 years prior to
serving on the board. After the contract was signed I was concerned about
where county leadership was taking the county – I sought out the planning
commission to help me with these concerns. I found that this commission and
its staff were forward thinking with only the best interest of the county in
mind.
-
My
current position on the landfill in Gloucester is to make the best out of
the contract without increase daily tonnage.
B.
Current facts about landfill
With you permission I would like to continue by
stating some facts about Gloucesters contract with WM
-
Gloucester
owns this Meg facility and has contracted with WM to operate it
-
The
facility was purchased with money donated to the county for that purpose by
WM. Around $2M.
-
The
contract states that if for any reason Gloucester terminates the contract
– the county will reimburse all money invested in the facility by WM. This
includes the $2M.
-
The
contract is for 20 years and WM has the right to renew - county cannot deny
them renewal.
-
WM
must dispose of Gloucester’s solid waste for 20 years even, if they walk
away from the facility
-
WM
is allowed to dispose of 2000 tons a day in the facility including the
tonnage from the county.
-
GC
gets $.50 a ton up to a certain tonnage then
$1.00 a ton.
-
Estimated
income for next year is $375,681 – we also get an Inspection service fee
of 56,522 (Engineer and monitoring) – and an implementation fee of
91,371(old landfill inspection)
-
Total
= $523,574
-
Primary
benefit to GC is deferred cost for county solid waste disposal
-
The
landfill should have a life of 47 years at rate of 2000 tons a day
-
The
facility occupies 500 acres and will rise to 300 feet.
-
In
the year 2000 WMs figures state that the facility brought in 519,532.72
tons.
-
In-state
tonnage was 184,094.20 tons – out-of-state tonnage was 335,438.52 tons.
64.5% of the facilities capacity used in 2000 came from out-of-state
C.
Now I would like to
address some history concerning the facility
-
The
contract was signed in 1992
-
And
the facility went into operation in 1995
-
The
decision by the board of Supervisors to bring a commercial landfill to GC
was by a vote of 4 to 3.
-
The
community showed up at BOS meetings at a rate of about 250 people for two
years to show their disfavor with the board’s position.
-
8000
names were collected on a petition against bringing such a facility to GC
and presented to the Board
-
After
the contract was signed – a movement took place to remove the 4
supervisors that voted for the contract from office on the grounds of
malfeasance. The required
number of signatures were collected to bring the issue to court.
In the case of the at-large supervisor - this amounted to 1681
signatures. The case was
dismissed due to a technicality.
-
All
four board members that supported the landfill were removed from office in
their next bid for re-election. One had been in office for 28 years and was
defeated by the first woman elected to the GC BOS a 32-year-old teacher’s
aide. Another had been on the board for 16 years and was defeated by a
margin of approximately 2 to 1. Another had been on the board for 12 years
and another for 4 years. This supervisor finished 4TH in a 4 way
race. One was defeated within one year of the contract signing and the other
3 were defeated 2 years after the signing. The citizens of GC had long
memories concerning this issue. Two board members that did not support the
landfill are still on the board - the other ran successfully for re-election
one more time and then retired – I currently fill his seat.
-
I
personally was told by a WM representative in a private conversation, that
NY solid waste would never be disposed of in GC – that this facility would
be only a regional landfill.
-
The
landfill is still a volatile issue in the county
D.
How has the landfill
effected the community
-
Landfill
has been operational since 1995.
-
Nearly
all citizens that lived on the perimeter of the landfill have sold their
homes and property to WM and moved.
-
The
community has been inconvenienced by traffic, noise, and odor.
-
There
have been a couple of engineering mistakes that have caused prolonged
problems with large volumes of escaping gas. One lasted for a period of
nearly 6 months.
-
Medical
waste has been found on the property a couple of times.
-
Erosion
has caused problems with adjoining property.
-
The
Facility manager has been successful with an extensive public relations
campaign. He is active with the chamber of commerce and has made several
donations to public service organizations. He lives in James City County. I
consider this man to be a friend. We don’t often agree on maters
concerning the facility, but have learned to work together. Sometimes coming
to an agreement and sometimes not.
E.
Statement supporting
Greenwood and Davis legislation
It is my opinion that landfills are a necessary
evil, but a threat to the environment. No engineering solution that is composed
of a man made material can last forever. A
state should only have landfill capacity that allows it to manage solid waste in
a manor that is acceptable to its citizens. Without the ability to manage the
amount of out-of-state waste brought into a state - no meaningful solid waste
disposal strategy can be developed by a state or local government. Without the
ability to develop such a strategy a state can have nothing to say about the
environmental risk that is being imposed on its citizens and natural resources
by the disposal of solid waste within its boundaries. Waste disposal companies
and counties that have become dependent - for whatever reason - on solid waste
tipping fees, will control all of this. For these reasons I support the
Greenwood Bill and the changes proposed by Rep. Davis. Giving states the ability
to set caps on the percentage of solid waste imported from out-of-state into
existing facilities is paramount to allowing states to manage solid waste in a
meaningful way.
THANK YOU
|
|
